The Courage to Win

When our President first committed to invade Iraq in 2001 I wish he'd had the courage to prepare. He could have started a draft to create a military force as large as his ambitions. He could have raised the taxes to pay for the series of wars that he continues to unveil. But he's never had the courage to win. He claims this war is as important as WWII's fight against fascism, but continues to treat it as a guaranteed win.

US war games showed that we'd need over 400,000 troops to properly occupy a country as big as Iraq and protect it from outside infiltration.

Instead of raising taxes, as any sane nation at war does, he cut taxes on the richest and feigned surprise when we have annual budget deficits.

If Bush had taken these actions there's no guarantee we would have succeeded, but we would have had a decent chance. Instead he keeps our troops there without a victory strategy. If Bush isn't serious about winning there then we need to figure out how to get out.

Retired Green Beret Colonel W. Patrick Lang says that it would take at least a year and a half to train the hundreds of thousands of troops we need in Iraq. "Would any or all of these measures change the ultimate result? They might if the US persisted long enough. How long? Another 5 to 10 years probably would be my guess." I can't think of a single Republican politician with the courage to propose this.

On a more pessimistic note, Marine Corp Gazette contributor and Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism William S. Lind has this to say:

The fact that Washington is seriously considering sending more American troops to Iraq illustrates a common phenomenon in war. As the certainty of defeat looms ever more clearly, the scrabbling about for a miracle cure, a deus ex machina, becomes ever more desperate - and more silly. Cavalry charges, Zeppelins, V-2 missiles, kamikazes, the list is endless. In the end, someone finally has to face facts and admit defeat. The sooner someone in Washington is willing to do that, the sooner the troops we already have in Iraq will come home – alive.

Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld is the writer of The Transformation of War, "among the most important treatises on military theory ever written". He is widely studied for his insights into asymmetric warfare, such as Israel's early fights against huge armies and their later fights against small rabbles. He says figure out how to leave Iraq now, and plan carefully.

What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what cost....A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.

I honestly would support any honest plan for victory in Iraq. But we've never been shown one. That being the case, I'd like to see an honest plan to get our troops back safely without starting World War III.

Back from Ohio

Had a great time in Ohio. Thanks to everyone who said hi!

At some point I need to put up a gallery of the great art that kids give to me. I got a pile in South Bend when I talked at the public library. That'll have to wait till later.

But for now, here's a drawing of "Nearsight" that J. gave me in Cleveland!

Memes I like

Newly minted junky

I've been laid up with a throat infection all week. That's what I get for hanging out in that cesspool of disease, Chuck E. Cheese. For you overseas readers, imagine an American pizza place crossed with a windowless casino. It's the Las Vegas model applied to kids' food. No natural light, chips/tokens instead of cash, flashing lights, sugar water, and a weird credit system for winning cheap crap. Allow in a ravening horde of tots leaking infected mucous and stir. That said, Lisa and I both had fun.

Has anyone else noticed that Cheese is really a rat, not a mouse?

Despite the headaches and runny nose I've been able to work this week, but not as hard or as long as I normally do. But for the first time in my life I've tried Sudafed. Not the wimpy Sudafed PE (as my friend Andy says, Placebo Edition), but the hardcore stuff they make methamphetamine from.

I went from being too tired and sore to brush my teeth and turned into a crazy working machine. I'm afraid I'll get addicted to this crap.

I definitely don't want to be snot nosed and tired when I get to Columbus for the Mid Ohio Con. Of course, I don't want to be high on pre-crystal meth either. And then there's Thanksgiving the day before.

This'll be my first post since the election, so just some quick political observations.

The GOP specialized in legislation that attracted political donations and divided Democrat from Republican. So passing budgets was hard for them, but giving tax cuts to oil companies or declarations of support for Bush's policies were easy. Ideally they wanted 100% of Republicans to vote for a bill and almost all Democrats to vote against it.

This means that lots of easy low hanging fruit will be enacted by the Democrats. All the stuff that isn't divisive. Taking away tax cuts from oil companies. Implementing the 9/11 Report recommendations. And actually passing a budget.

Don't expect them to push bills on controversial subjects. There will be no laws for or against gay marriage.

This is a politically perilous time for the GOP. Support for Democratic House candidates increased in almost every demographic group by +2 to +7 points. That includes voters in the South and white evangelicals. Everyone is sick of the GOP. Of course, the Republicans made special efforts to alienate Latinos.

Voters in 2008 might vote for Republicans if they see signs of change. But that isn't going to happen. They're keeping the old blood (welcome back, Trent Lott!) and swerving hard right.

Republican moderates got savaged this election. Without moderates nothing will restrain the extremists. This was underway for years all ready, and it will get more extreme now. You can see it in how folks like McCain and Giuliani try to make nice to the religious right. Read the article, but keep this in mind. Giuliani has described himself by saying “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.” And McCain once said, "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." Neither one of them sees a future in the GOP without pretending to be a social conservative.

If the GOP can't pull off a turnaround by 2008 they'll be in no shape to fight larger demographic shifts. Despite naming Mel Martinez as RNC chair, they've lost the Latino vote for a generation. You can't threaten to deport someone's (illegal immigrant) grandmother and not expect them to take it personally. But worse for the GOP than that, they've lost 20-30 year old voters, who will continue to vote Democrat:

The theory behind it, I guess, is that the political climate when you're age 20 affects your party preference for your entire life. The hypothesis would go something like this: popular presidents produce a swing among 20-year-olds to their own party, and unpopular ones produce a swing in the other direction.

....Of course, what's really most remarkable about the chart is the fantastic shift toward the Democrats in the 20-30 age group. The delta among this cohort between Democrats and Republicans is about +15 in the Democrats' favor, a bigger number than even the Vietnam/Watergate generation. It looks to me like the Christian right's social neanderthalism is causing the Republican Party to lose a generation forever.

Halp!

From some folks who know how to tell a joke properly.