The View from Right Field

How Can You Get Killed In Iraq If You Are Not There?

The United States has set a limit on the number of troops it will send to Iraq.  The present cap is 3,870.  Except that is not accurate.  There are more troops in Iraq than that.  It’s just that the Pentagon won’t admit it – or even tell us how many troops are there.  For example, the military spokesman in Baghdad who wasn’t allowed to say how many troops we have in Iraq isn’t even there himself – or at least he isn’t counted in the 3,870 cap.

The only reason we found out that the 3,870 troop cap isn’t real – and that there are more troops than that in Iraq – was that somebody who wasn’t in Iraq (i.e., wasn’t counted toward the troop cap) was killed last week in an ISIS rocket attack on the fire base he was at.  A question:  Since he wasn’t in Iraq, I wonder if he was getting combat pay when ISIS killed him – in combat – in Iraq.¹

Goodbye, Berlin

Berlin.  My favorite city.  But I think it may be time to say goodbye.  The first time we went to Berlin was May of 1979.  The West Germans were trying Ostpolitik, but the Cold War was still on.  The Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan by the end of the year, and Poland would impose martial law two years later.

We were on a three-week driving trip of Germany – or should I say, Germanys.  In addition to Munich, Heidelberg, and the Rhine, we wanted to see the Luther sites, like Wittenberg and Eisenach, so we had to go into East Germany.  But first, we went to Berlin.  In West Berlin (or Westberlin, as the East Germans called it), we went to the Wall and looked at the Brandenburg Gate on the other side.

Claiming “Credit”. Getting “Blame”.

Terrorists of all varieties like to claim “credit” for their attacks. ISIS is claiming credit for the attacks in Brussels this morning.  I understand they want to claim credit, but why do we have to use their terminology?  Instead saying this group or that claims credit for an attack, why can’t we say that they are “claiming blame” or, even better, “accepting responsibility”.  It’s our words.  We don’t have to use their phrasing.  We can say what we want to.  And I think “claiming blame” or “accepting responsibility” is a better description of what they did and what we should call it.  Plus, if it ticks them off a little that they are getting “blame” instead of “credit,” all the better.

Donald Trump on NATO and Ukraine: Completely Uninformed.

I had thought my post on Sunday would be the last thing I would have to write about why I won’t be voting for Donald Trump for president.  I was wrong.  I read an article about Mr. Trump’s meeting with the editorial board of The Washington Post yesterday morning.  Then I read the transcript – because I couldn’t believe what I read in the article.  But it was true.

Sometimes in transcripts, things are a little jumbled and muddled.  However, the substance of what Mr. Trump was saying, or rather the lack of substance, was very clear.

Poor Kids in Louisiana Getting Kicked in the Bayou

Louisiana’s new governor, Democrat John Bel Edwards, is trying to cut back on school choice.  Instead of low-income parents with children in schools rated C, D, or F getting a scholarship under the Louisiana Scholarship Program to send their children to private or parochial schools, Governor Edwards wants to cover only low-income children in D and F-rated schools.  Governor Edwards also wants to make it harder to start public charter schools.  (Not surprisingly, Governor Edwards got a lot of support from the teachers unions in last year’s election.)

School choice opponents cite a recent study that shows Louisiana voucher students did worse academically than those who remained in public schools.  In its editorial criticizing the proposed changes, The Wall Street Journal cites a different report that shows the opposite, which shows the problem with relying on these kinds of numbers to prove your point on school choice: you can always find some study that supports your view.

Why I Will Not Support Donald Trump Even Though I Think Hillary Clinton Would Be a Terrible President

I think I have probably made it clear what I think of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate – and president.  Among other things, see “I Have Too Much Respect for My Country and Myself to Vote for Donald Trump” and “25 Years Later, Will 2016 See a Repeat of ‘Vote for the Crook: It’s Important’?”

But what if you believe that Hillary Clinton would be an absolutely terrible president?  What do you do if you think she is going to be another four years of Barack Obama – or even more so?  What if you have a belief in the Constitution and an understanding of the proper role of government in (and over) our lives that is very different from hers?  Isn’t even the risk of Donald Trump better than that?  How could he be worse?

25 Years Later, Will 2016 See a Repeat of “Vote for the Crook: It’s Important”?

In 1991, Edwin Edwards was running for a fourth term as governor of Louisiana.  He had previously been elected governor in 1971 and 1975.  He was constitutionally barred from running for a third consecutive term in 1979, but he ran and won again in 1983.  In 1985, however, he was indicted for bribery, etc.  The first trial resulted in a hung jury; he was acquitted in a second trial.  In 1987, he lost his bid for a fourth term.  Apparently, even Louisiana has limits.

Still, in 1991, he was back again.  Louisiana has an unusual election system.  Everybody runs in the same race.  If you get 50%, you win.  If nobody gets 50%, the top two have a run-off.  In 1991, Edwin Edwards lucked out.  While he only got 34% of the vote in the first round, David Duke (the man whose name Donald Trump couldn’t clearly hear) came in second with 32%.  Bumper stickers soon appeared that read: “Vote for the Crook: It’s Important”.  The people of Louisiana did, and Edwin Edwards won with 61% of the vote.  When asked before the election what he had to do to win, Governor Edwards said, “Stay alive.”¹

“The Obama Doctrine”: President Obama Is Irritated, Frustrated, and Annoyed.

Once again, I am back to Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the April issue of The Atlantic: “The Obama Doctrine.” 

One thing that comes through loud and clear in the article is how often President Obama says, or Mr. Goldberg notices, he is frustrated, annoyed, irritated, or impatient with people who don’t agree with him.  You get the feeling that President Obama really has a problem understanding how people can disagree with him.  For example:

• “The president did not understand how ‘Don’t do stupid shit’ could be considered a controversial slogan.  Ben Rhodes recalls that ‘the questions we were asking in the White House were “Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus?  Who is pro-stupid shit?”’”

How President Obama Can Make His Trip to Cuba a Success – For the Cuban People

President Obama is going to Cuba next week.  One of the big questions is whether he will get to meet with real human rights activists.  Last week, The Washington Post said that if he couldn’t, he should skip the Tampa Bay Rays baseball game and cancel his trip.

As I often do on questions regarding Cuba, I decided to see what Yoani Sanchez, Cuban activist and blogger (at Generation Y), had to say on the question.  It’s easy for Americans to say we should take all kinds of principled stands, but what about the little people in Cuba?  How would what we do affect them?

“The Obama Doctrine”: Why President Obama Won’t Call It “Islamic Terrorism”

As I mentioned on Saturday, The Atlantic has published a lengthy article by Jeffrey Goldberg in its April issue on “The Obama Doctrine.”  Not only is the article definitely worth reading, there is a lot to comment on.

When it comes to terrorism, one of the things President Obama, and his administration, may be most famous for is refusing to call it “Islamic terrorism.”  When Nidal Hassan killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009, while yelling “Allahhu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic), the Administration said it was “workplace violence”.  It took an act of Congress to get Purple Hearts for those who were shot or wounded and to get benefits to their families.