WHAT WE NEED IS A WAR

The not so secret saying among Vietnam vets during the aftermath of Vietnam and our shabby treatment was, "What we need is a war." To vets this meant that with war comes attention to the vet. This is exactly what we are seeing now with the emphasis by the Congress on veteran treatment. If the Vietnam vet has any legacy, it has to be that Americans who care never want to see the present day vet treated as badly as we were.

As most of us search for anything positive about Iraq, I think I might have found something. The thought was given me by this doc I was with in Vietnam. He said something like, "What most people don't realize is that those of us who served in Vietnam and came back and made a life for ourselves in medicine are usually 10 times better and more experienced docs than those who didn't have Vietnam". Why? Mainly it's the experience. Just think about it as my bud went on to say, "had we been in the states in an emergency room or going through some sort of specialty training, we would have seen the normal sorts of medical difficulties. In Vietnam, we saw everything and had to do things that we'd never have gotten a chance to see or do as civilians. I discovered that I was so far more advanced than other medical types when I returned. Where they might see two or three cases a day of a particular trauma, I would be involved in 25."

THINK IRAQ. Based on my friend's comment, imagine what we are and will be seeing from our present war. For one thing, a flood of wounded GIs, those who would probably have died on the battlefield but now because of technology and new techniques and the ability to get to wounded soldiers almost immediately, many are saved that would have otherwise died. And, this doesn't even account for the traumatic psychological wounds that will inevitably result.

The "bean counters" are already tallying up what it's going to cost. For us vets, we "get it" better than most. Think of this. After Vietnam, vets had to fight for every single thing: many dying before their claims could even be processed. It was shameful and like all wars, when Vietnam was over, the mantra was, "let's shrink the military and send the soldiers home and forget about them."

Already Congress has appropriated over 6 billion for vets benefits and claims. It appears like we have at least learned a few things.

There's great lessons in all of this. When a country goes to war, they don't think about the aftermath. We've learned that for many combat soldiers, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) occurs long after the combat is over. I've seen many of my buddies, now 40 plus years after Vietnam, who still suffer the traumas of war and many of them are still dealing with it on their own. WHY? Well, there are lots of reasons, mainly among Vietnam vets, the feelings of old about how much a hassle in trying to get anything out of VA. VA has changed for the better, however, but still, the future for Iraqi vets is NOW and we must prepare. Us vets are watching.

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING?

When the Bush team mentioned that our debacle in Iraq might well be another Korea, it was all I could do to keep from losing my breakfast. I have resisted saying that our Leader is out to lunch, honestly, but where he gets such notions is beyond me. And, I can't figure that others who should know better about history don't jump up and say, "Are you kidding me?" It is not about staying in Iraq that is even plausible, it is in thinking that we could replicate what happened in Korea to Iraq. This must drive athopologists crazy. Imagine trying to compare the Koreans to Iraqis.

Korea is homogeneous

Simply this means that the people are culturally mostly the same. For God's sake, they only have about five or six surnames, Kim, Lee, Hwong, Yu, a few others. Their very nature is based in Confucianism which is mostly a philosophy. In Confucianism, it is mostly three common things: authority over subject, father is over the son, the husband is over the wife. Have you ever wondered how someone like Kim, Il Jong has been able to subjugate the people of North Korea. In many ways, it is in their nature. King over subject.

South Korea or called by its official name, Republic of Korea, is a fascinating country. They are Buddhist, even though the largest Christian Church in the world is in Seoul. However, even Christianity is practiced with a Confucian/Buddhist flavor. South Korea has a great sense of country and regardless of all else practiced, at their core, they are very much alike with a national identity.

This is very simplified but basically right on. Iraq is a tribal country, plain and simple. Loyalty is to the tribe. They will never get past this if we stay there a thousand years. To even suggest that we can keep or maintain soldiers in that country indefinitely is about as stupid as anything I am yet to hear.

South Korea would not even exist today had not we come to their rescue in 1950. How much this plays a part in our still being there eludes me even. I have advocated for some time that it is pretty foolish to keep the level of soldiers in Korea that we have. The ROK has the absolute best ground army in the world, spare none. They are extremely well trained, disciplined, and they are very much a homogeneous force--they are Koreans. Consequently, keeping a Division (20,000 or so troops) on the DMZ is to me, simply not very bright.

WHAT HAPPENED TO REALITY

The powers that be have long ago, to be precise, over 4 years ago let go of a realistic view of what is going on in Iraq and what the prospects are. As we've often said, they seem to exist in parallel universes. And, the mere mention of a model as in a Korean standoff has to come from somebody on too much of the weed. It is the only explanation I can see.

THE NATIONAL GUARD OR HOME GUARD

Recently, Lawrence Kolb proposed that because of how we have depleted the National Guard, we should develop a Home Guard in addition. I surely don't doubt that we need something. However, the fact that the Guard has been used as it has is pretty shameful. I'm not sure of the history of how the Guards and Reserves were used in other wars but from what I know, it appears that they were never intended to supplement the active forces. It is one of the great myths or crimes of how we have treated the military in the past by reducing it to numbers that made performing its mission almost impossible. Plus, as a nation we have visited upon the Guard and Reserves a terrible injustice. They didnot sign up for Iraq or war in general. For most, they wanted to serve, nice to be a uniformed patriot and said affectionately, a weekend warrior. And yet, the young Guardsman from the cornfields of Iowa who didn't sign up for war has been thrust into it and it is wrong. When I was in the Reserves back in the dark ages, a weekend drill meant a little training, some great bonding, a possible escape from normal family duties. It was a good patriotic feeling.

Where I would probably see it a little different from Mr. Korb is in creating another quasi military force to fill in for the Guard. My view would be to restore the Guard to the position it was designed to be. Let's not accept the idea that the Guard is always going to be needed for our wars. Instead of a Home Guard, what about some type of National Service modeled on the military draft. I have advocated this for at least the last 12 years or so. Talk about a voice crying in the wilderness. But, it would work, phased in over a ten or so years and giving kids from 18-26 a choice of where to serve: the miliary would be only one of many: Peace Corp, Teach America, Americorp, any non profit with a program or youngsters could design their own. It can't be viewed as forced volunteerism but giving Americans a chance to give back for the great privilege of being an American.

I don't have much faith in the present administration to have any concept of "new or different ideas" from Mr. Korb or anybody for that matter. Some speech writer probably wrote in something like "freedom corps" or "civilian reserve corp" mentioned by the President but like so many things that matter with this present administration, there is no real teeth. Politics has so bogged down the process of tackling real problems of which this is merely one.

My idea is restore the Guard to its numbers in the States and let them do what they are designed to do. No more fighting misadventures overseas. Increase the size of the active Army where they can do the job if need be anywhere in the world. Beef up the elite forces like the 82d Airborne, Delta Force, Green Berets, Special Operations of all services; have a conventional force that can be deployed if in fact we face a "big" war where ground forces truly face each other and not in the sense of an urban guerrilla war created by us.

We have some good thinkers in our country and Lawrence Kolb is one of them. Unfortunately, his ideas make too much sense and consequently, they will usually be headed to the "round" file.

SOLDIER HEROES PROBABLY ARE RELUCTANT HEROES

When we look at editorial Memorial Day comments, what do they say? Something like, "Memorial Day represents one day of national awareness and reverence, honoring those Americans who died while defending our Nation and its values. While we should honor these heroes every day for the profound contribution they have made to securing our Nation's freedom, we should honor them especially on Memorial Day."

WHAT DOES THIS REALLY SAY? What is the "core" message? YOUNG AMERICANS DIED IN THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM AND WE SHOULD HONOR THEM. Let's get real here: young Americans dying in Iraq hardly qualifies for securing our freedom at home. The vast majority of Americans think about the day's baseball scores more than the sacrifices of these young soldier heroes who paid the ultimate price. Still, it is not a bad thing to set aside a day to remember them. It is the absolute least we can do.

SHAMLESS

My Mom would often say, "have they no shame?" This is the way I feel about a couple of things I've read recently: one on John Edwards who loves to call himself the poor man's bud; the one who is going to eliminate poverty in America. The guy who is the son of a textile mill worker. OK.

He charged University of California at Davis, $55,000 for a speech on get this: poverty. How do they live with themselves? I mean, the guy gets $400 haircuts and lives in a house with a basketball and squash court, I hear, not to mention that it is the biggest house in Chatham country as any North Carolinian will tell you. Let's don't even mention the fact that he got $500,000 from a hedge fund, which is typically open to only a limited range of investors, mainly the wealthy. Mr. "I just want to help the poor" here is a little hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Edwards, of course, is not alone. This whole speech fee thing is irritating to me. St. Ronald Reagan was given a mil by the Japanese for a speech, Bill Clinton regularly gets a hundred thousand, and then there's Rudy Giuliani who was about to be run out of town before 9-11 and was recently given a $100,000 for a speech at Oklahoma State University plus $47,000 for a private jet.

I must say too that Institutions of Lower Learning who are parties to paying this sort of money for speeches must start their days with stupid pills. I don't get it.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR

A slender, black-haired girl is dragged in a headlock through a braying mob of men. Within seconds, she is on the ground in a fetal position, covering her head with her arms in a futile attempt to defend off a shower of stones.

Someone slams a concrete block into the back of her head. A river of blood oozes from beneath her long, tangled hair. The girl stops moving, but the rocks keep coming as well as the victorious shouts of the men delivering them.

Her crime? The 17 year old Iraqi female's crime was to love a boy from another religion. For her uncle and cousins, that was reason enough to stone her to death.

Sixty Minutes Review

If I were president, what I could do is have some aide listening to Sixty Minutes every Sunday so I could jump on what they exposed. One story was homeless dumping by hospitals. No denials because they had a video of it. Very sad. And, the hospitals owned up. One was Kaiser and I immediately thought, "they should cut back their advertising budget." They have two commercials that I love: one has this guy who is older, dancing, doing the splits. Wow. Some theme like, Live life. The other is another guy trying to lose weight, the comercial takes him through what he needs to do: well done, theme is "Be your own project."

The commercials for Kaiser didn't look too swift as a video showed an older demented woman wandering around in a hospital gown on Skid Row. First time I've heard that term, Skid Row, mentioned in some time. Sad to the max. In American with all our plenty, how we still have people living on the streets is beyond me. Could you imagine what we could do about this problem if we didn't have to fund the war in Iraq. I realize, of course, that it is not as simple as I would like. Homelessness is no simple process from any direction and having done volunteer work with homeless Vietnam vets, I can tell you for a fact that it is more than putting a roof over someone's head.

At least a third of those who are called homeless are mentally ill as was the woman in the program on Sixty Minutes. No excuses to dump her but an example of the entrenched problem. They did send her away with a diaper, thank you very much. Many are on the streets because they want to be there: addicted, into drugs of various sorts and their existence has become a lifestyle. And, then there's a small percentage that we could actually help if we were a mind too as my Mom says.

A Second unbelievable investigative report from Sixty Minutes had to do with the Coast Guard. They have spent millions on upgrading the fleet. A total waste as the ships they built were not even sea worthy. Get this: they were told by all kinds of experts that they wanted to do was the wrong way to go--lenghten ships they already had. The Coast Guard, whoever they were, told the whistleblowers, shut up. What was fascinating about the story was that nobody seemed to be accountable. And, get this: they would not even allow congressmen to check things out or talk to those who were responsible. What is this? Talk about if I were a Congressman, I would be lightening flashing mad. The Congress can not make them do anything but they have the purse strings and if they are willing to use them, someone in the Coast Guard will listen. An aside is the same thing that we are seeing now in the debate over Iraq: controlling the purse strings, want to make a difference in Iraq? Close the checkbook.

Regardless, the taxpayer always pays. Is anybody listening?

IF YOU WANT ME TO SING

I can't blog because I have to go out and fight. This GI blogged an entire book while he was in Iraq. Won a prize of $10,000; the military has now banned blogging on their computers: good idea, they are suppose to be fighting a war.

The "girlfriends" discussed the latest stuff about the Pope, convinced I'm down on the Catholics: not true but things like the Pope's pronouncements do set me off a bit. Pope calls on drug dealers to quit kidnapping citizens, oh yeah, like they are going to pay attention. He also put the badmouth on contraception and abortion. What he didn't say was that the lack of birth control forced poor folks to have large families, contributing to massive poverty in counties like Brazil, where they have the largest population of Catholics in the world. Someone who should know told me recently, "in countries where women are in control of their reproductive rights, the level of affluence is raised substantially." No, I am not down on the Catholics, just ignorance. My perspective. Also, Pope Benedict urged bishops to mold a new generation of Roman Catholic leaders in politics to reverse the church's declining influence. If I'm not mistaken, I think they've already tried that.

When I was a pastor just starting out, we had a guy in our church who could hardly sing but always said, "If you want me to sing, asked me, if you don't, don't asked me." OK. It is a little like John Travolta being ticked off because a documentarian called Scientology a cult. Dud! What would he like to call it? Scientology, like all cults, is built around a person literally cutting themselves off from their family. The guy doing the documentary calls it brainwashing and? I liked this: supposedly, at one point in the filming, the documentarian lost his cool and had a shouting match with a Scientologist. Later on, he apologized and said, "It was my seventh day with Scientologists and I defy anyone to spend that long with them and not feel brainwashed." IF YOU WANT ME TO SING, ASK ME. IF YOU DON'T, DON'T ASK ME.tt

VIETNAM AND IRAQ

Daily, I'm reading or hearing someone talk about how Iraq is related to Vietnam and by extension, how in the hell can we extract ourselves from the Iraqi quagmire. I don't think withdrawing in wholesale scale is it. Remember the idea, "we are like a gambler at the table who can't quit the game." That's it!

I do agree with Stanley A. Karnow who wrote "Vietnam: A History." It was one of the first books I read about Vietnam, years after I had put the literal war behind me. Karnow says of Iraq: it is "unwinnable;" Dud! What I do like about his present day thinking is the idea of partitioning of Iraq: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. And, he wants to set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal and begin phased withdrawals immediately. I think so.

What has basically happened in the Iraq war is what always happens in war: the planning goes to hell in a handbasket. Knowing the military as I do, the planning was down to a ghat's hair. And, if it had worked out, then we would have been "hunky dory" as my Mom would say. But, in war, it never works out as we plan. In Vietnam, LBJ started out as belligerent: we'll show those little guys running around in black pajamas. We know what happened.

In Iraq, we can't prevail because we face a dogged adversary every bit as determined as those little guys in black pajamas in Vietnam. In Vietnam, they were prepared to take unlimited losses to the point that you could never break their morale no matter how many we killed. In the end, politics tripped us up and we got out.

I've never gone along with the idea they beat us. They out patienced us. And, for my two cents, the powers that be never figured out that our mix of troops was wrong. The moment we introduced conventional forces into Vietnam, it was the beginning of the end. Conventional soldiers proved themselves more than adequate for the job. However, the drawback was simply the "conventional." The military was prepared to stand and fight. The enemy in Vietnam did not stand and fight. They fought and hid.

We could have salvaged Vietnam in my view had we gone back to the original tactical view of using the Special Forces (Green Berets) to continue to take the fight to the enemy. We had the firepower, the strategy. The thinking at the highest level was like a booby trap ready to be sprung. We tried to fight a conventional war with an unconventional enemy. If we had moved the conventional forces out, started a phased withdrawal and just kept doggedly struggling, I think Ho Chi Minh would have sued for peace and we'd have been at a standoff.

Would this have been better. The 64,000 question! The gigantic difference in Iraq and Vietnam is the fact that in Iraq, the enemy has no regard for life--their own or their countrymen/women and what we seem to refuse to deal with is a religious fanaticism centered in tribalism. In Vietnam, the enemy, based in Ho, had one goal: unify Vietnam." They were "nationalist" goals. In Iraq, the one consistent goal of the enemery is "kill Americans" and therein, we have to figure out a way to "quit the table."

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK

A few weeks ago, my granddaughter and I were crossing the street in San Fran near where I live. Suddenly her eyes grew wide. She didn't say a word but there in full burka was a rather large woman. I should have used the moment to discuss differences, diversity, and tolerance but I could not bring myself to do it. WHY? Well, I am struggling in the same way that I think many Americas are struggling. When 7 men are arrested for wanting to kill as many Americans as possible at Fort Dix, what do we think? Not that they were a bunch of right wing Christians or Jews or Buddhists. We immediately think radical Muslims if there is such a thing. And, most of the time, we are right.

THE WAR ON TERROR

What the Fort Dix incident says to us is that the terrorism hatched in Muslim minds is indeed a war. The suspects include three brothers, ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, living illegally in the United States and working at a roofing business. The others are legal residents. All six were described as being in their 20s.

And, this is pretty much a "homegrown" plot. Young men enjoying the benefits of a free society succumbing to an ideology which to Americans is simply insane. And, of course, now their families are affected in ways that we have no way of comprehending. All we know are the news reports: one whose family owned a pizzeria and of all things named Family Pizza. One terrorist was intimately acquainted with Fort Dix because of his pizza deliveries.

Even with the gross mismanagement of our involvement in Iraq, we see terrorism there on a daily basis: killing of Americans and innocent civilians, all based on a religious belief from the Koran which says "kill Americans."

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK???????????????

WEST POINT

One constant and mostly friendly debate over the years has been the question of whether West Point, the Army's military academy, is in fact a University or a training school for soldiers. Regardless, West Point, is a much sought after appointment. By all measures, only one in a dozen gets admitted. They never have such great athletic teams because they are cadets first and those who aspire for big lucrative athletic futures don't go to West Point or any of the Service academies. After graduation, the cadets, now young Lieutenants, face a 4 year commitment to the military.

Iraq has not been kind to West Pointers or "ring knockers" as they are often called. 53 dead in Iraq or Afghanistan, a higher percentage of West Pointers than in any other war in recent history. This includes Emily Perez, a 2005 graduate who was the first minority female command sergeant in the West Point's history. She was killed in Iraq last September at 23. Well Done, be thou at peace, is inscribed on the Final Roll Call, a listing the website of the Academy's Association of Graduates maintains. WELL DONE INDEED!

VICTIM OR SAVAGE

Recently, I talked with a documentary film maker at the San Francisco Film festival. She has quite the view of the media at large. She says that the media only wants to support the soldier when he/she can be seen either as a victim or a savage. At first I didn't see it but as I've watched the papers for this trend, the NY Times and other media like TV, there is something to what she says. A good example is a story in a recent NY Times Magazine about female soldiers; based on the story, all are sexually harassed and raped.

The Director went on to postulate about Vietnam, "if Vietnam became notorious as a war that combined violence and sex, with Southeast Asian brothels being the destination of choice for soldiers on temporary leave from the war, the sexual politics of the Iraq war are, as of yet, unclear." Maybe the director is on to something.

COMPARISONS OF VIETNAM AND IRAQ

The scenes from Forest Gump, surrounding Vietnam, are some of the best ever. The movie depicts how absurd war is under any circumstance but more dramatically, the human loss. What is really going to be an ongoing fascination to those of us who care is that once the Iraqi quagmire is over, if ever, will be the comparisons to Vietnam.

Because Iraq is truly our first saturated media war, aligned with all the commo technology, i. e., emails, text messaging, etc., it is going to be an overexposed war time experience to a weary public. My prediction. This is already happening. There are not less than four or five documentaries, soldiers' diaries, etc. presently on TV or HBO or at various film festivals. The various offerings depict Iraq or Afghanistan. In face, one was shot completely on a "cell phone." It is called, Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me It Would Become This Bad In Afghanistan. It is only the beginning.

Think about it: GIs have all this instant commo, they are calling, emailing wives, girlfriends, Moms and Dads every single day. Sometimes, they communicate more from Iraq than they did when they were home. Reporters are embedded with them--the media is right there recording and processing everything.

Some general said recently, a National Guard type, who was returning to his college where he was something like the dean, "there's no comparison in Vietnam and Iraq. In Iraq I was shot at occasionally; in Vietnam, I was shot at every day." This is somewhat capsulized as the practical--the philosophical likenesses and differences are much broader, of course. And, most of those documentaries, books and movies are yet to come. The war in Iraq will end one of these days and the comparisons to Vietnam will be a part of the aftermath.

TIDBITS

SERIAL KILLERS. I'm always fascinated or appalled may be the best term in talking about those whose moral compass has seemingly gone south. Is there any pattern of behavior to those who commit awful atrocities like Virginia Tech. What do we know: alienation, bullied, hearing voices. If we could have had a profile of the Virginia Tech killer could the tragedy have been prevented. No, not really, just as 9-11 probably could not. And, as we keep trying to make sense out of the overwhelming sense of loss, we can do a few things. One of them is change the laws about guns. Under anybody's definition who thinks, the laws are way to lax. What does someone like Cho need with an automatic 9mm glock; give me a break. What does a hunter need an AK47 for? And, we need to get this out of politics. I'm surely not a gun control nut but being smart and a zeolot are not one and the same. Come on!

IRAQ. Then there's always Iraq. Iraqi civilians are caught in the crosshairs of a civil war. Seeing a couple of families profiled, the inevitable question: were they better under Saddam. Since I'm the one asking the question, my answer. Absolutely. We are going to be haunted by Iraq for a long time just as we are about Vietnam. The vast difference is that Vietnam nowhere knew the violence visited upon innocent civilians. In Vietnam, eventually, we were two armies opposing each other on the battle field. The farmers were still growing their rice and South Vietnam was still functioning. In Iraq nothing is functioning. A country with enormous oil reserves and lines for as many as 3 days is more the rule than the exception. What is wrong with this picture?

RANGERS

There is simply no military unit that has the pride and esprit of Army Rangers. I cannot tell you the numbers of Rangers that I've met who are simply cut from a different cloth. Pat Tillman and his buddies of the 75th Rangers were all special.

Now, with yet another investigation, Army Rangers speak about what happened. They acknowledged the true story would have been devastating for the 75th Regiment. What they really meant is that it will bring shame on the Rangers and nothing could be worse.

Ranger training includes weeks of deprivation, surviving, living in the most extreme conditions. Most fail. I don't know the exact percentages but I would say, close to 80% don't make it. When it's over, the soldier is forever changed. His only reward is a tab, a Ranger Tab worn on his left shoulder in his dress uniform or a pen signifying he's a Ranger. And, so a Ranger doesn't dare bring shame upon other Rangers.

One of Pat Tillman's fellow Rangers said, "I mean, it's horrible that Pat was dead. Absolutely horrible. But it hurts even more to know that it was one of our own guys that did it. We just, we didn't want to get anything, you know, bad said about the Regiment or anything like that. That was my guess to what the whole thing was about. We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened."

So, there you have; cover up. Not really to this soldier. Just a bunch of Rangers who didn't want to bring disgrace on fellow Rangers. Unfortunately, modern wartime, often fought in the media, has obfuscated honorable motives. My suspicion is that Pat Tillman would be the last wanting this investigation to continue. Noway would he want to take a chance on smudging the reputation of his beloved Rangers.

One soldier's opinion and I will not speak of this again.

Leonitus and Themistocles

These are two of my neighbors. Just kidding. Greek guys for sure. Anyway, one Sunday afternoon my niece and I are hanging out and decide to take in the movie, 300. I had read a review and thought that it sounded good. Unschooled in Greek mythology, we lasted about thirty minutes. The movie reminded me of some of those comic book movies that many like. Plus, the movie was peopled with young teenagers, this should have told us something.

When I got time, I learned a little about the main characters of the movie. This three hundred Greek force met the Persians by the thousands. The Greeks were schooled in tactics and devoured the Persians as they came at the Greeks in a carefully created section--a small opening. Leonitus was quite the warrior and looked the part: brave, straightforward and self sacrificing. All the qualities of a good leader. However, his earlier arrogance caused him to make a fatal mistake: he rejected help from a less than perfect warrior who eventually was responsible for helping the Persians defeat the Greeks by showing them a secret passage.

Eventually, the Greeks triumphed over the Persians but it was not Leonitus but another Greek, much less idealistic. In fact, he was downright the opposite of the great warrior, Leonitus. But, he was a super tactician and was not above manipulating intelligence to give him the favored result. Heard this before. He talked the Greeks who desperately needed a victory after the terrible defeat at Thermopylae. Themistocles gave it to them when he maneuvered the Personas into a battle on unfriendly waters with their heavy and slow Greek warships. Theo, as I like to call him, was not above stretching the truth as he lied to the Persian King.

There's a couple of real lessons here: stay out of war if you are not threatened. We get that. But, the most important lesson is to elect a leader who is much more Theo than Leo. Looking the part may play well on TV and has been an anathama to us for the last several years. The best don't make it to the top and we are all the poorer for it.

IRAQ--THE MESS

**It took me a long time to come to a conclusion about Iraq. I would not have thought that it would become this complicated. I should have paid more attention to the book, THE ARAB MIND. It is difficult for me to believe the decisions that this administration have made. I became aware fairly quickly that Rumsfelt wasn’t the man, however, I am somewhat amazed that the leadership of the military seems to be so political…going along with the whole mess.

I have a tremendously difficult time believing that those who are suppose to be very much aware of Arab history, their thinking (State Dept. Personnel, military intelligence whoever) have either been totally marginalized or they didn’t have it right.

Father, Vietnam Vet, and retired military


RESPONSE

What an awful war, an urban guerilla war. I will have to be honest, I don't know a single thing about Iraq that I don't consider a colossal mess. I will never forget a guy I served with at Forscom (Forces Command in Atlanta) who had been an advisor to the Israeli Army. He was one of the smartest guys I ever met, a Rhodes scholar, academy graduate, earned a PhD on his own. He told me once that what he discovered after spending years in the Middle East is that all the people there deserved each other. I think of his comments when I think of someone like your young commander son. Here he is and sees it all: actually came up with a plan to keep the Iraqis from killing each other--he sees the mistrust, the politics of it all. With soldiers, it is different, they kind of see what is in front of them. They do what they are told but for your son, I surmise, and many like him, it becomes an intuitive dilemma. Do the job the best you can, protect your soldiers and get the hell out as soon as you can. Now, of course, the "get out" has been extended. Another part of the mess.


I don't mean to be a downer but so feel for your son and those like him. I relate to it as when I was in Vietnam. I didn't know my ass from a hole in the ground but I had been there about three months when I realized, "this is crazy and stupid, I'm figuring this out but this BS about giving these people freedom is idiocy." I look at Iraq and think that Vietnam was not in the same galaxy when compared to Iraq in terms of idiocy.

**Correspondence from a friend whose son is in Iraq. Name withheld for reasons of security.

EVERYBODY'S GOT A DREAM

I saw this fascinating movie (DVD) last night, kind of predictable but real too: called Dreamland. I watched it as I often do, one eye on it and another working on my computer. Dreamland was the name of a trailer park and housed the saddest of society, mostly what we would call lowlifes. Not to emotionally maim everybody who lives in a trailer park but the stereotype from whence comes the name, "trailer trash." Obviously, I'm not too PC, but don't call us Don Imus. What struck a ready difference were mainly 3 very tattered teenagers. And, yet, they all, in their own way, had a "spark."

This whole "spark" thing fascinates me. I've read about it before--some youngster who has the worst life situation imaginable and yet he/she has the "spark," the ability to rise above it. A recent example is memoir of Hersi Ali in her book, Infidel. She has the "spark." In Dreamland, one was dying with some disease, although she was beautiful and had an enormous imagination; another really intelligent, and a the third character with great ambition.

Movies, of course, as we know, can make anything happen they want too--they're called, "writers." But, the movie featured every social problem almost that we see: the father of one whose wife had died and he would not venture outside, mostly sat in his mobile home and drank. Another couple, wife, a former famous singer, who had developed stage fright.

John Corbett of Northern Exposure fame (Northern Exposure was a TV program several years ago that took place in Alaska) was the only known actor. In Northern Exposure, Corbett played a disk jockey who was laid back, hippish, smooth, and danced with the stars. Audrey, the protagonist who, eventually witnesses her father getting his life together and her best friend (the sick one) getting a grip on life--all of this not devoid of drama. And, her friend boy who became her boyfriend and followed through on his ambition to be a college basketball player. She was not going to college although accepted to U. of AZ, (Dreamland was in New Mexico). She's not going and then it all comes together and she decides to follow her dream. Besides, she's a poet.

Lots of nuances in the movie. And, although maybe one of those movies that went straight to DVD. I liked it.I like movies that somehow ties it all together in the end and folks are relatively happy. My only criticism and its minor is that I wish the movie had developed the characters of the singer and her boyfriend a little more. Much redemption in this movie. 2 parachutes.

JUSTICE EQUALS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE

The recent news conference by the North Carolina Attorney General and by the Duke Lacrosse team should saddened and wake us all up about justice in this country. Millions of dollars on their defense to now be totally cleared and to now have the Attorney General say, they were innocent. One of them said something very profound, yet so simple and true: something like, "Could you imagine what would have happened to us had we not had resources and been able to fight this." And then he went on to say, it happens in America all the time.

Examples abound. I have a good friend whose son has just been offered 6-10 years in prison. I'm not totally sure that I have all the facts straight but the significant ones I do. The son has not been a paragon of morality. In some ways, a typical young early twenties type. Mostly his transgressions have been wrapped around drugs. And, trust me on this, drugs are much more pervasive in our society than the average person is anywhere close to believing. I see parents all the time who don't have a clue as to what their children are involved in. On a recent PBS program called Addiction, it spelled it out. And, on the music video program, MTV, which was quite unusual, they showed a history of drug use from the sixties. I was amazed at how little it has changed--more sophisticated now and more pervasive.

So, my friend's son is all into the drug culture. Enter some teenagers to a party, the murky world of drugs and sex and from it ensued a correspondence between my friend's son and the girls. Alas, suddenly we are talking teenagers. Parents get involved. My friend's son and others are caught in the web. An overzealous prosecutor and police detective ignore the facts: the girl in question relatively exonerates my friend's son, they've never met or at least she doesn't remember him at the party. Enter lawyers, money spent, plea bargains and now a young 25 year old who has only relative guilt is about to become a victim of a criminal justice system run amuck. Think Duke Lacrosse team. Was the Lacrosse team innocent? Not totally as they did have a party and strippers showed. Is my friend's son totally innocent. No. Unfortunately, he does not have the money that the Duke Lacrosse team's parents have and so what will happen. Probably jail for him and a ruined life.

WHO IS TO BLAME? Well, many but for sure, one that rarely takes the heat and I don't understand: the judge. What do we have judges for? Are they so bound by rules that they can't use any common sense? In the case of the Duke Lacrosse players, it became evident early on that there was scant evidence and what there was was tainted. But, it went on and on and then entered politics. In the case of my friend, there's guilt in all directions but it is not easily determined. Where is the judge? Is there no common sense? Alcohol and drugs--what do we expect? Wake up and smell the roses.

Heaven help us. God bless America.

IMUS

Imus is a self serving celebrity a-hole who thought that he has a license to say anything he wanted; he's in the same category as Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh. What fascinates me more than Imus, Limbaugh or Stern is who listens to these people. The fact that a guy like the VP just appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show is more appalling than anything else. Those who appear on their shows give them legitimacy.

What is fascinating to me, however, as we are several days down the road on Imus is the almost complete desertion of his so called friends. I don't know who they are but obviously, they must be many, based on appearing on his show. What he said was terrible but blacks say it about themselves and to each other all the time. TV shows like The Wire are every other word or worse than anything Imus might have ever said.

I am the last one to take up for Imus but come on, here is some bigtime hypocrisy. Think these two guys: Jessie Jackson who fathered a child by another woman not his wife and will show up at the sign of any camera. And, then there's Al Sharpton of Tawana Brawley fame. (Tawana Brawley received national attention when she was 15 years old for her claim that she was raped by six white men, some of them police officers. The alleged incident became a media sensation, championed by Al Sharpton who was making a bid to replace Jessie. There were no indictments in an investigation by a grand jury, who cited a lack of evidence, concluding she had not been abducted, assaulted, raped or sodomized). At least Al can be entertaining. We give Jackson and Sharpton a free pass and skewer Imus. I don't think so.

My bigger lament well past Imus is that talking about him is taking away from real issues that we have in the country, mainly the war unless of course, the Imus saga fits right into the denial of most of the country that the war is our number one priority.

SWIFTBOAT VETS REVISITED

When the Prez used his authority for recess appointments to appoint the guy who kept the Swiftboat Vets afloat, he really was again asserting that "not serving" wins more points than serving. I am still amazed that the Swiftboat Vets have never admitted they were used by the guy the President has appointed to be an Ambassador to war torn Belgium. Now Iraq, I would have felt a little better about.

It would be interesting to know 4 years down the road and Iraq a mess, what the Swiftboat Vets think. Would Kerry have led us down the primrose path. Silence.

And, then to read that the VP was on the Rush Limbaugh program has to be about humiliating. Does anybody listen to that guy anymore? How he is not in jail is way beyond me. Most anybody else as the Oxycontin King would be out of here. Not Limbaugh--the VP showed up with his same old sad song: cut and run. What planet is this guy on?

ENTERTAINING VIETNAM

Entertaining Vietnam. A really terrific documentary. I see lots of documentaries and this is as good as most and better than most. And, it is such a compelling subject, things/issues I never thought about. There are stories within the video that are adventures themselves. For instance, I felt really bad about one of the entertainers who was killed by friendly fire. You must watch the interview to "get it." The interview of one of the band members who witnessed the event, was mesmerising. Basically, a soldier who had gone "over the top" and, meant to kill another soldier, missed and killed the entertainer. What a story! Sad.

This documentary deserves wide coverage. Vietnam vets will love it. It should have a national/international audience. Also, in viewing the video, I was struck by the lack of support the entertainers got from the military. This was awful. Apparently the entertainers don't feel this way but I do. Some commander should have been making sure these valuable military assets were protected, transported and anything else needed. We let them down. It is obvious to me that the entertainers' commitment to the troops in bringing them a portion of home deserves recognition. And, this documentary gives a measure of recognition to them. For this, I say, HooAhhhhhhhh!!

I love the way the film maker has put the video together, right to the point of the running credits. A great job. And, thanks more than I can possibly convey for the interest and bringing a portion of home to the Vietnam warrior and also for putting together this video. We are now in a war that is Vietnam revisited. It is Iraqnam. Caring Americans need to see Entertaining Vietnam to understand the psyche of how history repeats itself. Entertaining Vietnam would make a great addition to a college course and I'm personally passing it along to a college Prof. friend. I hope others will do the same.

AYAAN HIRST ALI--A GIFT

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Ayaan Hirst Ali on the Bill Maher show. What is this I thought. Already a bigtime fan as I had been following her remarkable career as a member of Parliament in Holland. In fact, I elevated her to hero status by putting her picture beside my computer screen along with another female hero, Joya of Afghanistan. On Maher's show, she held her own: no, she was much better than the other two guests, a California Congressman who loved to talk and an actor. On the show, she "got" America better than the vast majority of Americans. A terrific point she made which I am inadequate to convey but it was something like: "what the Western world must say to Islam. We want to be tolerant but simply say, 'there are some aspects to Islam that are incompatible to Western society and we cannot and do not accept it.' "

I had seen her on Sixty Minutes months before and was truly impressed. Her bravery was evident in so many ways. And, now she had written her memoir, Infidel. I immediately rushed out and bought it.

I see it as one of the most influential books I've read. Having just published a memoir of my Vietnam days, I grasped what a memoir was suppose to be. First of all, it is the writer's recollections of what happened years ago, a life's story. And, often it is painful and difficult to write about as the author is always questioning the veracity of what's written. At least I did.

Once I started reading Hirsi Ali's book, I could not put it down and read it completely in three settings. I marked significant passages and have by word of mouth promoted it bigtime. It it powerful reading. The basic thesis of the book is a cry for women's equality in Islam. Finally, she simply determines it can't happen in Islam if one follows the teachings of the Koran, i. e., woman should obey their husbands. Women are worth half a man. Infidels should be killed. This doesn't come out of some islamaphobe. It's there in the Koran.

Infidel details Ali's move to various countries as a child and the description of her life growing up. To an American, it is horrendous. To her, it is the way it is suppose to be. I love to read to learn: this book does it for you. First of all, I learned about tribes in Somali. About the only thing I knew was "Black Hawk Down." She describes life for her as refugee in Ethiopia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia. Always, it is with clan, a full cast of family and extended family and family drama.

This book is also one of attempted reconciliation with a father and other family members; decisions made in the moment, ill advised marriage, the process of "becoming" who she is. Always questioning, thinking, attempting to figure it out. And, always the sense of inferiority in a male dominated culture. Ali has the "spark" amidst the chaos.

I think the description of female circumcism drove home how utterly perverse is such thinking in a culture. And, so impossible to understand. A 5 year old mutilated: all little girls mutilated for a misguided religious belief that to Western minds is simply inconceivable.

She details her thinking in finally leaving this culture and fleeing to Holland. Here we are educated on the process of gaining refugee status and then citizenship. All is not without pain. And, what Ali presents is the dilemma of the Western world as they deal with a Muslim culture mired in the Middle Ages. Here we have Holland with its elevated concept of multiculturalism--tolerance and yet hypocrisy.

The denial in her adopted country of what needs to happen in dealing with Muslim communities is all to pervasive. Her book simply spells it out: we let them live in their enclaves, go to their own schools and literally accepts their blind adherance to Islam which is simply incompatible to the Western world. What it reminds me of is "the old Southern idea, of separate but equal." In the south it was racism, in Holland and Western countries, it appears more denial. Ali forced her new country to confront it. They didn't like it.

For many Americans, Holland has seemed to be the epitome of a liberal and open democracy but when the chips were down, they didn't measure up. It wasn't Ali's assertions. To this reader, it was just obvious. Circumstances appeared to simply converge where Holland didn't step up to the plate. It all culminated in a sense with the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I remember it well from news reports and now to hear Ali tell about it is mesmerizing. It is fanaticism revealed. I would like to have known Theo. From her description, he was off the charts, living life large. I think he would have been more at home in San Francisco than in Holland. Ali's description of him, the making of the movie, Submission, made me desperately want to see the movie. Her treatment by the Dutch during this time under the guise of protection leaves me cold. Isolating her surely looked like giving a nod to terrorists and fanatics to me. Once you do that, they've won.

Ali tells it like it is; she talked about the utter ignorance of Islamists in talking about a religion of peace and tolerance, not the slightest bit violent. "These were fairy tales , nothing to do with the real world I knew," she said.

I don't want this review to be a book and so I must end it. Read this book. It is not one that preaches intolerance, rather just fact. I came away with a couple of thoughts that have stayed with me. What is it about this remarkable woman that produced the "spark." Surrounded by family, clan, tribe, still somehow or another she "got it." I find this awe inspiring. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a gift to America. We must honor and cherish her. And, above all, we must protect her and make sure she can go about her business while at the same time, not being cowed by our enemies. I don't know her thinking in coming to America but it makes me proud that we're a country where she can. Every caring American needs to read this book. God bless her and God bless America.

HEROES

Recently, I was discussing with one of my buddies the fact that an expression we often hear when describing Iraq soldiers is heroes. My friend, a Vietnam vet, says noway. They are to be admired, doing their duties, praised but hero is not the proper term. There are some who do extraordinary things in the course of doing their jobs which is fighting. A soldier at war is doing his job when he goes on patrol, when he lays down fire, when he searches out the enemy, even when he puts his life on the line by being "present for duty." However, in the course of events, when he goes above and beyond the call of duty, takes out a machine gun nest, rescues a wounded soldier in the line of fire, does extraordinary things jeopardizing his own life. He/she is a hero. But, for the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq as in Vietnam or any war, they are simply doing their duty and for that, we are appreciative and deserve all the accolades we can heap upon them.

Now, here is a hero without any doubt. Billy Walkabout--decorated Vietnam vet. Billy Walkabout, a native American (Cherokee), whose heroism in Vietnam made him possibly the most decorated soldier of that sorry war. Sergeant Walkabout was an 18 year old Army Ranger, often going on long range reconnaisanced patrols when he and 12 other soldiers found themselves behind enemy lines. It was 1968, just south of Hue. They ended up in the enemy's battalion area and came under withering fire for hours, during which Sergeant Walkabout was seriously wounded. Most of the others were killed. Sergeant Walkabout returned fire, helped his comrades and litrally carried injured soldiers back and forth to Medivacs (medical evacuation helicopters).

Sergeant Walkabout died recently at 57. One of his medals was the Distinguished Service Cross, probably an interim medal for the Medal of Honor. (Most of the time when someone gets the DSC, it started out as a recommendation for the Medal of Honor but because of paperwork snafus, bureaucratic, whatever, it doesn't happen. This is probably the reason that we see the Medal of Honor awarded sometimes years and years after an act of heroism took place). Someone gets behind it and stays with it. Doesn't look like anybody stayed with Billy's. But here are his other medals, purple heart, 5 silver stars (3d highest award for bravery)5 Bronze stars. Not too shabby!

Like so many Vietnam vets, exposure to agent Orange, took its toll on Billy--he was on a kidney transplant waiting list while undergoing dialysis three times a week.

His 23 months in Vietnam once caused him to say, "War is not hell, it is worse." By his own admission, Sergeant Walkabout had failed marriages, thoughts of suicide and years of self isolation. He went years six years once and never spoke to another person. Obviously suffering from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), Vietnam finally got him.

SCREWING UP A TWO CAR FUNERAL PROCESSION

This is a good NC expression and one that aptly applies to our misadventures in Iraq. Truly, to me, it is as though a gaggle of bureaucrats, meaning the powers that be said before we got involved in Iraq, "OK, how can we f... this up?" Well, on every hand, they have. No use for me to count the ways but one that is dear to my heart is one that surfaced last night on Sixty Minutes. The story had to do with how we have treated those who have helped us. In this case, the Iraqis who threw in with us immediately after the invasion. Based on "the clan" in this case, the Insurgents, mainly Sunnis targeted this group of people for their crime. And, their crime: helping the Americans. So, who do these people look too when they realize they are in danger and their families are in danger. They look to the Americans. They come knocking and guess what: we ain't home. It is shameful.

VIETNAM REVISITED

For years, a sizable number of Vietnam veterans (I surely don't speak for all Vietnam veterans) have felt a collective guilt because we ran off and left the people. The feeling of despair in watching the helicopters on the American Embassy roof has stayed with us all our lives. In fact, several of us formed a "non profit" to try to give back to the Vietnamese something to assuage our guilt. It was only a token, building a school in Vietnam. But, we could take pride in what the country did for those Vietnamese who did get out. At least, the "powers that be" then stepped up to the plate and resettled over 130,000 Vietnamese in a few months. And, who can forget the baby lift. Over the years, it has made me proud. And, according to the Sixty Minutes Program, at first there seemed to be opposition but then as Americans who cared saw those poor Vietnamese refugees getting off the plane, the opposition melted. America gave it a shot then of doing what we could.

NOW, nata, nothing: those Iraqis who have risked hteir lives to help us, we have squandered the good will by doing nothing. Nobody is home. Now, the people who were in the decision making positions, Colin Powell and Condi, guess what, not home. And, why, well, they want to blame it on 9-11. There has to come a point when we realize that everything can't be blamed on 9-11; potholes aren't filled, 9-11; traffic is a mess, 9-11; the stock market up/down, 9-11; houses are selling/not selling, 9-11; stop lights not working, 9-11, Walter Reed, a mess, 9-11; gas prices out of sight, 9-11; toilets overflowing, 9-11; illegal aliens, 9-11; good/bad weather, 9-11; commute, good/bad, 9-11; spying on citizens, 9-11; not accepting Iraqi refugees who helped us, 9-11. Get the picture?

What is so sad is that it takes the news media to point out the obvious. Lord help us.

LEAP

BOOK REVIEW


Started reading an interesting book, Leap; at first didn't think I'd like it as it is about Baby Boomers and getting older and where do they go from here. My experience thus far in articles I've read about that elusive class of aging boomers is that they are pretty selfish and narcissistic.

I had actually read an article about this author; Sara Davidson. She's a good writer and obviously has an "in" with publishers, etc. even though she "poor mouths" lots about her profession. She has crafted the book in a way which is very interesting. However, understanding the book business makes me realize much of what she has said rings true even if there is a whining aspect to it. Amazingly, her level of experience is enormous but she has fought the same struggles according to her (which I doubt) that most writers do; hooking editors, publishers, whoever might be interested in your project. Obviously, there's much we don't know but she's not reticent in detailing her trials and tribulations. She's written 4 other books, the only one I've perused is Loose Change. Also, lots of TV writing, magazine stuff and has made a good living from it.

Her book reminds me a little of Gail Sheehy's Passages of Seventies fame. She interviewed boomers and gleaned their views of what life holds for them as they age. I did smile a bit as some of her subjects hit a provocative note. She interviewed such notables as Hanoi Jane, Carly Simon, Tom Hayden: all enlightening but the best stuff came from the non celebrity interviews. And, I didn't read any interviews with "poor" folks.

According to her, years ago she wrote Loose Change and made quite the splash but since then, nothing has worked out as she might have wanted: two marriages, etc. However, she is the living example of what baby boomers face and how they deal with it. And, the good news about most of her interviewees is that many of them have indeed changed course as they've needed too. For instance, Carly Simon, one of my favorite artists, had breast cancer, etc.; nothing had panned out and then she did this CD of Sixties hits and it went off the charts.

The theme of LEAP at least as I see the book is "change" and something I've always believed: change is the secret in everything. All can change but guess what: most don't.

I recommend the book as it does cause one to think. As books go, my personal taste run different. I'm reading Aleen Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel. To compare, may be apples and oranges but can hardly help it. Leap is trite, American upper class angst. Infidel is in your face, street wise and survival and so relevant. LEAP is so what. I did like the "sex" part, however.

PRETTY PATHETIC

With the Oscars lasting for 4 hours and millions of words spoken and self congratulatory BS all over the place, plus 1 billion watching worldwide, only one guy said anyting about being at war, "Thank you to my father and all the brave and honorable men and women in uniform who in a time of crisis have all made that decision."

Alan Robert Murray, who won best sound editor for Letters From Iwo Jima.

NOTABLES

COl Thell Fisher--decorated Marine who fought in WWII, Korea, and two tours in Vietnam recently died. Now, we are talking about a Marine here. According to his son, the good Colonel avoided going to unit reunions because most of the people who attended were "in the rear with the gear" during the actual battles. Sempi Fi

THE CONGRESS CONCURRENT RESOLUTION IS SYMBOLIC AND MEANS ZIP

Congress is doing some important things like the nonbinding resolution opposing the Prez on the surge, who said, "its not as if the world stops when the Congress does their duty. I already know what the debate is."

After the nonbinding concurrent, what if, maybe, shoulda, coulda, woulda, Resolution, Congress went on to pay tribute to the Miss America pageant, a fraternity that my old college will be happy about, Sigma Alpha Epsilon ; then they gave a nod to the Boy Scout Jamboree and then the National Horticultural Therapy Week, whatever that is. I loved this one, a resolution that supported naming a Missouri courthouse after Rush Limbaugh's grandfather. They also wanted Harriet Tubman to get a pension for her work as a nurse during hte Civil War. And, a biggie resolution had to do with who actually composed the lyrics to Yankee Doodle Dandy.

The political theater, however, was best summed up by an editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, "In Washington, Congress continues to talk. In Baghdad, U. S. soldiers continue to die.

POLITICIZING THE MILITARY

Of all the really sorry things that have come out of the Iraq fiasco so far, politicizing the military is one of the worst. There has always been a certain amount of this. I don't think we've seen the level of it as we now do. In books like Fiasco, it is ever so forcefully pointed out, exactly, how the Administration (old SecDef especially) chose leaders who would say what they wanted them to say--mainly the rosy picture of Iraq.

In fact, in a recent unusual stance for a member of Congress, John McCain voted against General Casey, former top General in Iraq, as the Chief of Staff of the Army because he said Casey had to bear responsibility for the rosy pictures he gave of what was happening. Exactly.

The media plays into the politicizing of the military so we can't totally blame the top military types. Headlines sell newspapers. Casey is quoted "the troops will be home by Christmas" as a headline and relates little to the truth or reality. (My view has always been: let's get the generals off TV, let civilians speak for them. Having these generals before the public constantly compromises who they are. Am I a voice crying in the wilderness. I think so).

We can't deny that those like Casey painted a picture that was vastly different from what we saw.

It is hard to know what all of this means other than bemoaning this mixing of politics and war strategy. For instance, I hear nothing but good stuff about the new commander, Petraeus, and I think it is relatively true. He has earned his stripes in many ways but let's face it, he is not a miracle worker and in my estimation, it really may be too late for Iraq or at least what we would hope to accomplish. However, here is how someone like Petraeus is politicized. The President in griping about the recent wimpy non binding resolution said something like, "this may be the first time in history that the Congress has said to its field commander, we don't support you and don't think the strategy you have chosen will work."

First of all, we don't know if Petraeus chose this strategy: the so called, "surge." It doesn't seem to make sense with all the rhetoric I've been reading about him. He is the godfather of counterinsurgency, meaning that he wrote the manual. (He really didn't write it but some of his minions did but he had to put his stamp of approval on it). Also, it is his background. So, why would a General who is a Special Forces type, believing in the Bible of counterinsurgency--working with the people, being somewhat clandestine, in the background, not looking like soldiers: why would he agree to use conventional soldiers even in greater numbers in a city when he knows that it goes against the counterinsurgency model? The president, his commander in Chief, has gone on record as saying that this is the new general's strategy, "surge." See what I mean: politicizing the military.

To me, another example of how we have messed up in fighting this war on every turn.

So, what is my suggestion of how to avoid this politicization: let's get the generals off TV, let civilians speak for them. Having these generals before the public constantly compromises who they are.

Am I a voice crying in the wilderness. I think so. And, the discouraging thing to me as an armchair cowboy strategist is that it appears that I am the only one in America who getss it.

LOVE MAKES US CRAZY

Or at least, it surely seems too. Since everybody has weighed in on astronaut Lisa Nowak who went crazy for love, I figured I might as well. By this time, unless somebody has been in a secluded spaceship to the moon, they know about this poor woman. Formerly, we would never have said "poor woman": astronaut, mother of three, high achiever in every way, something like an astrophysicist.

She apparently either gets involved or fantasizes about/with this other astronaut, not her husband mind you--she travels 900 or so miles, confronts another woman with a BB gun, mace, one or two other lethal tools. What seems to have fascinated the public is that she wears a diaper to travel the distance so she'll not have to stop. She gets apprehended and the unbelievable story unfolds.

TRUTH STRANGER THAN FICTION. You better believe it. Not long ago, I saw this documentary, Crazy Love. Get this, this seemingly normal man becomes obsessed with a woman he is dating. He either gets scared she is going bye bye or he's hearing voices, something. He hires some thugs to throw lye into her eyes, permanently blinding her. Talk about true love, this is the best. The guy goes to prison but when he gets out, the woman he blinded marries him. God bless America.

Here's what I think: you can put all the psychobabble on it you want; unloved as kids, abused, never hugged, whatever, it simply doesn't wash. There are scores who've suffered all this stuff and they turn out OK. So, what is it? I think that on rare occasions, those like Lisa Novak momentarily go crazy, they lose their mind and their ability to think; and, like something as radical as suicide, once having lived the insanity, it can't be taken back. What would make a great story and be so very compassionate, if these folks could somehow rewind those crazy moments of their lives as though they never happened. So very sad but a good idea for a movie. Somebody has probably already made one.

WHAT IS THIS??????????????

THE GAV. The San Fran Mayor keeps trying to do the right thing and yet,the media and some self serving pols are all over him like white on rice. It is, however, politics. Now, he wants to pay the husband of the woman he bedded until the husband gets a job. How noble is this? Gav is a renaissance man. I'm serious. Tell me any other celeb who would do such a thing?

And, of course, the Mayor is going into rehab for an alcohol problem. What makes it a little suspect although I believe he is sincere, is that it seems to be a pattern. A politician falls from grace and then it is the "devil made me do it." Foley of the legislative "pages" scandal who sent dirty messages to teenagers, is the come to mind example. He owns up after being confronted but then it is the alcohol that made him do it. I don't doubt it. In our society many things can be attributed to bad judgment with alcohol. I once gave away my wonderful Karman Ghia when I had only two beers. I'm serious. With a clear head, I would never have done it.

I think the confessions of most politicians and public persons are sincere but it is not going to get a politician off the hook, necessarily. Alcohol is part of our culture and that is the root problem that ought to be addressed. In Gav's case, I think he probably made a mistake by owning up. Had he called me, I would have told him, "don't do it." The media will be all over it. Let us not forget: the media is rarely interested in the "truth" only a story. They are necessary but feeding them the "alcohol problem" merely exacerbated the previous discretion more. My opinion.

Is the Gav an alcoholic? Based on what I've read, no. Does he have a drinking problem. Yes. He should have called me. When I was a young minister in training, I went though an internship at a mental hospital. Most of my time was on the alcoholic ward. These were hard core cases who had done criminal activities, totally been crazy and threatened or harmed someone under the influence of the demon alcohol, as my Dad called it. I listened to their stories. The alcoholics lied to me, took my money, adinfinitum but I learned. I still remember many of the tales: one that sticks out is that this guy whose daughter, 9, mind you was killed in an accident. He sneaks into the funeral home and steals her little black Mary Jane shoes off her feet to pawn for liquor. True story? I don't know but representative of what an alcoholic will do.

Alcoholism is a disease: for a drink, alcoholics will sacrifice their dignity, families, anything. The paper says Gavin has quit drinking. Good! Reinforces the idea that he has a drinking problem and is gettting it under control. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. The good news is that he is going to a really good rehab program from all I read. DeLancy Street. These people don't deal with psychobabble and excuses. And, it will be good for the Mayor. He'll be in "groups" of derelicts, street people, felons, riff rapt, low lifes, liars, cheats, the scum of the earth. Where better to learn to serve the people than associating with all of the above, mainly because of alcohol. With a person of faith, it is a concept of redemption: the drunkard becomes sober. The low life gets himself/herself together. Liars tell the truth, cheats become honest. See what I mean? This experience can only help him and so let's back the f... off and give him a chance. He'll come out ahead. He's a good mayor, done a great job and the people will give him another term. Go Gav!!!!!!!!!!!!

F......UP A TWO CAR FUNERAL POSSESSION

Anybody who watched Paul Bremer recently before a senate committee and doesn't simply put his/her head in his hands and figuratively cry is way beyond me. Obviously someone who screwed up as much as Bremer in Iraq is not going to admit it. We are into hindsight, of course, but what hindsight does is only reflect the lack of planning in going to war anyway.

Bremer said, "I've made mistakes." Well, Dud! Descriptions of loading 18 wheelers with pallets of cash, weighing tons didn't seem to even phase Bremer. He said something like, "Iraq was a country in chaos and a cash culture and we were trying to survive and look after the people." Oh, so you just hand out hundred dollar bills to the elite of Baghdad. The poor surely didn't get the bucks. Bremer says all of this with a straight face. Looking after the people: what people were those?

No accountability for all this cash. The IG who sat next to him contradicted him with the idea that he didn't have a clue where all that money went. I can remember reading about soldiers at some supply point in Iraq or maybe they were contractors playing foodball with bound up stacks of hundred dollar bills.What enrages me as an American taxpayer is that when I think of the working poor, the homeless and needy in our country who are trying to survive and we are giving out stacks of American taxpayers' money like it is a monopoly game. And, to make it worse, it probably went to the least deserving and worse still into the hands of possible terrorists. We simply don't know.

You have got to be kidding me! Here it is two years down the road and we have come out from under the ether. I am appalled and Americans who care should be too. Most who have any real interest in what has happened in Iraq commonly acknowledge that disbanding the Iraqi Army and purging the Baathists from the government was simply stupid. The thing I remember is reading about Bremer screaming, "I don't want to hear anything about Vietnam." Oh yeah, doesn't want to hear that Iraq has become Iraqnam. Guess what? Bremer got his "freedom" medal given by the Prez and would be off scot free were it not for the new Congress.

Bremer's admissions is but one more example of how Iraq has morphed into one disaster after another. And, we are still debating doing more of the same. If there has ever been a case for post Vietnam, this may be it. When we departed the scene in Vietnam, who knew what would happen. Some things were not pretty but our staying there would have only postponed the inevitable. As we have seen, Vietnam not only survived but has prospered and has even become our trading partner. We should be so lucky in Iraq. Let's hope with new leadership we are truly heading for a new strategy and it ain't surge.

IN MEMORIUM

Two recent deaths have caused me a moment of pause: two very different persons. Dale Noyd and Milly Ivins.

Dale Noyd singularly objected to the Vietnam war and it kind of personified his life. He was the only member of his class to be given a "Regular" (in his days, most commissioned officers received "Reserve" commissions) commission of his ROTC class at Washington State. He just missed the Korean war and it looked like a promising military career was ahead, once having received a medal for landing a badly damaged nuclear armed F-100 fighter at an English airfield. He even taught at the Air Force Academy. Then what should appear but Vietnam on the horizon. He couldn't bring himself to be involved, based on what he viewed from the beginning as an illegal war. Talk about a prophet. Eventually, he was court martialed, served a year in jail and drummed out of the service. Sad. He's probably smiling today remembering the two certificates he kept on his wall: his commendation for heroism and his dishonorable discharge.

Molly Ivins. I always liked her, her irreverent style and of late, vociferous objection to the Iraq war. How I always interpreted her was not so much objection to the war but the stupidity in how it was/is managed. I can surely identify with that: it simply gets worse and when you think it can't get any more out of control, it does. Molly got it. Her last column, which she maybe knew to be her last, said it all: "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them of of there."

A LETTER TO THE SPEAKER

Dear Madam Speaker, as one of your constituents, I want to affirm you for going to Iraq to see for yourself what a collosal mess we're in. You are right on in your assessment. Training is a key and in my view should come via the Special Operations (Green Berets) soldiers who are trained themselves to do exactly what you have suggested. In my view, we should immediately begin a phased withdrawal of conventional soldiers out of Iraq. Iraq is Iraqnam because when we introduced conventional soldiers into that sorry war, it was lost.

I don't want to take up your valuable time by giving you anymore of my views and would only say that we are where we are and have to figure it out. More troops, regardless of what we call them, is idiocy at this point. All we are doing is putting more Americans at risk. It will not work. All along I have been proclaiming that we simply cannot win in Iraq whether we call the enemy insurgents, terrorists, or the Iraqi government in the form of militias. You cannot beat people who will blow themselves up and kill their own families and countrymen indiscriminately. Ideology aside, it simply cannot be done.

I don't know exactly how to say this gently because I cannot tell you how much I admire you: however, one thing that I personally think that Democrats have to keep in mind, we did not change the Congress for it to be business as usual. Increasing the minimum wage and many other programs are good and useful but getting us out of Iraq in one way or antoher is what we want. At the State of the Union meeting, to be honest, I was a little put out with all the kissing and hugging and bowing and scraping. I respect the presidency but let us not forget that we are exactly where we are because the "decider" and his minions simply decided wrong and over 3000 young Americans and no telling how many others will never get a chance to live out their lives in our great country. They have paid the ultimate price for his "deciding."

A last thing: for at least the last 10-12 years, I have been pushing Universal Service and actually wrote the enclosed Memoir to help me sell the idea. Universal Service's time has come. I could list all sorts of reasons that Democrats need a platform that goes back to JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Based on the scores of people that I constantly buttonhole, I almost never run into anybody who doesn't say Universal Service is a good idea. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is not embraced wholeheartedly by the Congress. The draft will not fly. (I actually wrote Congressman Rangel with my ideas and why the draft won't work) but giving youngsters a chance and a choice of how they give their service will. I hope you'll think about it. God bless you richly.

Soldiers put their lives on the line everyday

Dad, did you hear that Nancy Polosi is going to Iraq?

Yes, I read it in the paper this morning. Wow, hope she is careful, Iraq is not exactly the sort of place that Americans want to be these days.

Dad, think about this: soldiers are out there everyday, risking their lives. I don't think Nancy Pelosi is worth more than those brave Americans, do you?
**Daughter talking to her father

**daugher is "hardcore" Democrat and symbolically a Bush hater but like most Americans regardless of views, respect and understand that the soldier is just doing his job. She is also a big supporter of the Speaker of the House.

THE MILITARY AND A FREE PASS

I think much of where we are today in Iraq has to be laid at the feet of the military. By in large, they have had a free pass. We support the troops as they are just doing their jobs. But, what about the higher ups, mainly those at the top. Without a doubt, they have been pawns of the powers that be. Maintaining personal integrity for a commander is incredibly tricky. For General Officers at the top, especially, as they are political animals themselves. Does anyone think they got where they are in the system by bucking it. I don't think so! And, it is natural for military people to salute and drive on. To our discredit often, it is, "yes sir, yes sir three bags full."

Recently, I met a young Lieutenant and discussed extensively with him Iraq. He was a bachelor and had been there already. It was a frank and honest dialogue and I was impressed with his knowledge, commitment, and openness. After our conversation, I reflected on it: I was over the edge in not wanting to appear that I did not support him. Most Americans are the same way. We can't take a chance on denigrating the troops. Vietnam taught us that. I think the country has a collective guilt--they treated soldiers so badly after Vietnam, that "all" military is given a pass. At least on the surface. Soldiers are simply doing their jobs. When I asked the young Lieutenant, "do you and your soldiers worry that the vast majority of Americans don't support the war?" He said, "to be honest, we don't talk about it and just do our jobs."

IRAQNAM REVISISTED

IRAQNAM REVISITED

How in the world did we get to this point? The decisions of stupidity are legion, nothing new: not enough troops, disbanding the Iraqi Army, a strategy of "whack a mole" which has been abysmal. As I heard last week that some young Captain in Iraq said, "Our strategy is to send a few soldiers out in a hum V to get shot at or blown up." Now that's a strategy.

And, we continue to present rosy reports, Casey, the head guy in Iraq, who is retiring, echoed it again. "By the summer of 08, troops might be leaving. What is going on with this? I think he was relieved anyway in a bit of strategy even if we don't know what it is--make a few changes to make it look like we're doing something and see what happens.

THE DECISIONS AREN'T OURS TO MAKE

What amazes me is that we continue to act like we can arbitrarily make decisions. HELLO! Does anybody remember that Iraq has a duly elected government. The Premier is being called upon to get tough. Oh yeah, this will work; get tough with the very guy who is the driver behind him being in office. You have got to be kidding me. Get this, there are no less than 23 militias in Iraq and the Premier is going to disband them. PLEASE! GIVE ME A BREAK!

OUR LEADER HAS SPOKEN


The President has said we have three options: (1)do what we are doing, (2) cut a chogie (NC expression for get the hell out) out of Iraq, or (3)the surge. No, we have four and here is the plan that will work.

SPECIAL FORCES

Plan to stay in Iraq as long as it takes or somewhere close, 50-75,000 Special Forces soldiers who can fight the militias or keep the people from killing each other and train those who honestly might be willing to be trained. Simplistic. No, what people in Congress or even the military don't want to admit is that the Special Forces are trained for this sort of mission--a guerrilla war and they love it.

What we learned from Vietnam has totally escaped us and the military "brass" has to take a hit for this: leave guerrilla fighting to the Special Forces. The main Army should concentrate on big wars like WW II, to be fought for survival. Us Vietnam vets know the scenario. Vietnam began its eventual decline when we introduced conventional soldiers: young soldiers who are just bodies, trained as best we could but reluctant at best. We did a good job, carried the fight to the enemy but at the end of the day, we couldn't win it. In Iraq, conventional soldiers, as good as they are, are not going to win it either.

FANATICISM

We cannot beat fanatics, those who kill themselves, their families, their countrymen. We cannot beat young Arab men who have joined the fight because they have no future, no prospects and they are imbued with a religious fanaticism that reasonable people simply cannot fathom, i. e., 73 virgins waiting for them in paradise. Fantasy in a normal male is a powerful thing and in a sexually repressed male like these kids in the militias in Iraq, it is multiplied by the scores.

A TIME TABLE

So, how long will it take to get us to the point we can do this? Six months to a year, conventional soldiers can be out of Iraq and the Special Forces can be in place. What's happened to us in Iraq and Baghdad in particular is that we have given over the streets to the thugs, meaning the militias. They are unimpressed with our bravado, great equipment and fire power. They know they have us by the gonads. They are tribalists and we are trying to win their hearts and minds. Forget it! We can win the hearts and minds of a few civilians but for those taking the fight to us, we cannot.

We have got to get over ourselves. The militias/insurgents/terrorists are salvages. When I read the accounts of the killing of innocent Iraqis, I am amazed at what they will do to the poor civilians: students, kids. They don't care and are brutal to the max.

We slow this down by a highly trained force of Special Forces soldiers who understand counter insurgency and can take the fight to the enemy while keeping a low profile in training the Iraqis and winning some confidence of the people. This is a strategy and will work--two years. kt

JACK IS BACK FOR SURE

Our hero, Jack Bauer, of 24 has returned. And, Jack is in his best form. He is slightly aging but just as philosophical in getting the job done. It is fast pace and then more. My blood pressure goes up substantially during an episode. In fact, once I had to switch to something else to catch my breath. And, I constantly have to tell myself this is TV.

It is TV but 24 makes the mind go flying as well as the bodies on the show. It is terrorism at its worst. And, with the exception of the final victory, the "bad guys" are usually always winning. And, guess what they are: dark skinned and most likely have names like, "Ahmed." Well, we weren't attacked in 2001 by boys from Alabama, and to say that 24 does not add to ethnic harmony is somewhat a given. We did have Timothy McVey but we can say that in the final analysis, he spared all of us and chose to be out of here.

Here's what 24 does for me. It is a passing thought that maybe there is some element of truth what the zealots are saying about Iraq and Afghanistan: fight them over there or fight them here. No, I'm not backing up about Iraq but always want to be objective which us "drugstore cowboys" can afford to be: the thought is a "what if?" We have to admit that we have not been attacked since 9-11. For the entire TV program, 24 spells out the fact that an attack is eminent. It is chillingly realistic.

Should all Americans watch it? I think so or as much as they can take. There's something strangely compelling about thinking about the "what ifs" of terrorism. We have the evidence of its existence and possibilities: Spanish train blow-up, British subway, foiled airliner plots to name a few. And, those were not a TV show.

None of this glazes over the debacle of Iraq and had we fought that war with foresight and clarity, we might be in a different spot now. And, it is not going away. My suggestion is that the "powers that be" need to give an adjunct job to the writers of 24. Mostly what I think they could do is show us how to combat those who want to destroy our way of life and help us to go on with it. At the very least, we need to keep Jack Bauer handy. God bless us.

A REAL HERO

Today, we hear lots about heroes in connection to soldiers in Iraq. And, in a sense, it is good. It trivializes it a bit because all soldiers are not heroes just by the nature of being soldiers. They are doing their jobs, it is what they have chosen. Being in a war zone does, in some measure automatically qualifies a person as a hero. I believe it. But, like in all situations, there is a degree of danger, of sacrifice, and even of commitment.

Without a long definition of hero, let's say there truly surfaces on occasion someone who does something so sacrificially that hero is truly applicable. The soldier who risks his own safety to take care of his fellow soldiers, a soldier who without thinking places himself in danger--God forbid, jumps on a granade; a soldier who in the course of fighting stands in the "breach" so to speak and dukes it out with the enemy. To call someone who does this in war, a hero, is not a hard thing to do: they are heroes.

But, there's another type of person who fits in a different category. Soldiers are at war, it is the environment. What about the person going about his daily business and suddenly is hit with a situation. Take for example Wesley Autrey, the father of two children who, while standing on a NY City subway platform, jumps onto the tracks and saves a person who has fallen. What made him do it? Is he a hero? What! We can psychobabble all we want too but without a doubt, we are talking hero. Was it his Navy training, some sort of inner wired system that make him different. I don't know but he's a hero.

Wesley's individual sermonette to us has to be, "would we do as Wesley did, without thinking? Are we inner directed enough?" Let's apply the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan? A man has been beaten by robbers. Jesus tells the story to teach a lesson. Those who happened on the man crossed to the other side, even the religious types. Finally a Good Samaritan in Jesus story stops, helps and figuratively calls 911 and gets him looked after. Good story. However, to make it applicable to us, what about this? We happen by the man when he is being assauted by the robbers. What would we do? Wesley Autrey would jump in and help. Would we? God bless Wesley, his selfless act inspires me.

THE SURGE

This sounds a little like some TV show but the severity and stupidity of it means that we wish it were a TV show. I can hardly believe that I am the only one in America who gets this: in Iraq, we are not in charge. Now I don't know some of the operational issues that might be involved but this is not like we are "calling the shots" and can made decisions about what we are going to do or not do. In case people have forgotten and apparently many have, Iraq has a democratically elected government for better or worse. Listening to the pundits, you would think that all we have to do is make a decision and execute it.

WANT AN EXAMPLE

One word: Saddam. From various reports, we know there was a big dispute in giving over Saddam to be executed. In the final analysis, the elected government made the decision. The Ambassador and General Casey (both were on vacation or something) had no real say in what happened. But, at some level, the Americans made the decision to turn him over to the Iraqis, i. e., the government. From reports, we learn that Saddam thought almost to the end that the Americans would save him, Chalk up one more "sorry about that" for trusting the Americans at crunch time. Think Vietnam and all those Vietnamese left behind when we abandoned them to the Communists. Had it been up to me: noway would I have turned him over. Not that we need to have sympathy for Saddam but again, the issue is that we are not calling the shots. We have to get this in our heads.

The difficulties of our present position in Iraq are so enormous that it is hard to single out two or three and zero in on them. Putting more soldiers in Baghdad won't hack it. Americans, myself included, love to fix things and in this case, politics wants to fix an impossible situation. Thus, we are getting ready for the Powers that be to present a new strategy in Iraq. I hear you.

Interjecting politics into an impossible scenario, I see the dilemma of the Democrats. And, I confess that I am thinking on this. How can they fulfill the very reason that they have assumed the majority: squaring away the Iraqi morase and yet come across as also supporting the soldier? It is tricky.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

What I think we must reiterate over and over; in order for soldiers to be effective, they have to believe in their cause by in large. And, there is no doubt from everything I read that they do in fact, believe in what they are doing. They are surely doing their jobs. However, I still get emails, purportedly from soldiers touting the good and the difference we're making. I have no doubt to them, it is true. Recently someone sent me an email with a laundry lists of all the good things. I didn't verify it as I don't believe it totally anyway. There are still diehards who think we are winning in Iraq or if we stay long enough, we can win. These may be the same people who believe there was no holocaust or followers of ego maniac Pat Robertson. Who knows! Simply, we cannot win. We cannot defeat fanatics who will kill themselves, their family, their countrymen. Consequently, we cannot fix Iraq.

TAKING THE BROAD VIEW

Americans must take the broad view. I would compare it to responsible parents dealing with their children. Children don't often know what is best for them. They see pretty much what is in front of them. Therefore, parents have to do the right thing for their futures, their possibilities. This may involve decisions that are not popular with them, may OCCASIONALLY deepen the parental/child divide but the parent has to be the parent. This analogy seems to me to be appropriate to Iraq. We support the soldier, his sacrifice, his commitment and the fact that he/she is a professional, doing the job. But, a broader view must be taken.

SAYING I'M SORRY

As I've listened and read the various pundits and followed my news junkie addiction, I can't tell you the number of times I've read about someone saying I'm sorry. Mel Gibson, Michael Richardson, various others. What is this? Well, what can you do when you've messed up but say, I'm sorry. It is, in a sense, the human condition: screwing up. As far as apologies go, if someone messes up, better they say they're sorry than not--their screw-ups don't vanish with the "I'm sorry" but still , they've done what they can. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

A MALE CHAUVANIST THING

Recently in a Newsweek column by Anne Quinlen, I thought she put a little different spin on it. Not totally to my liking because let's face it, us male types somehow are a little or a lot turned off as writers refer to the gender, etc., in most everything. In her case, she had the audacity to say there's a type of masculinity, machismo American style that has to do with saying I'm sorry. I smiled as she is more right than wrong. It is probably in the same part of our midget brain as asking for directions.

PUBLIC "I'm Sorry"

The apologies I'd like to hear are the pols, however. Just once I'd like to hear a politician say, I screwed up. The closest I've heard lately came from Gordon Smith, who at the Senate’s lame-duck session, suddenly rose to give one of the most passionate and surprising speeches about the war in Iraq. For a Republican who had originally voted for the war, the "I'm sorry" words spoken by the Senator, were pretty dramatic. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

I AM NOT GOING TO ADMIT I MESSED UP

People in public life or private for that matter rarely say I'm sorry. Most aren't. Do you think the Office Depot guy who just resigned and will get millions in his golden parachute is in the least sorry that he is hurting the company. I don't think so. You better believe Presidents or countries don't apologize. I did read recently that some newspapers apologized for century's ago discriminating and other foibles. Better late than never, I guess.

Husbands probably say we're sorry more than most any of the species. Quinlan in her article dissects apologies and intimates that politicians are reluctant maybe because from then on out, they would be subjected to pundits, newspaper columnists and radio and TV screamers--bloggers. Even Smith was excoriated for being 4 years late or wanting to pass the buck to the President.

WHY NOT APOLOGIZE

If someone wants to question one's motives, there are plenty of venues to do it. What Quinlen seems to be implying is that pollutions and presidents don't apologize for political reasons, not that they might not believe they are wrong. Since we can't know their private thoughts, then we simply don't know why they are reluctant. We have history. I still feel badly that Bill didn't apologize to Monica.

I like what Samantha Power said in her book, A problem From Hell: America and The Age of Genocide (what a title?) "Whether regarding the Vietnam war, America's cold war assassinations, or our misguided former alliance with Saddam Hussein, American officials kept their eyes fixed on the future. They rarely admit responsibility for failure, for costly meddling or for large scale human suffering. They resist debate--internally or publicly--on how good intentions went astray. And they most certainly don't apologize to those harmed." And, who can forget Robert McNamara's words, I was wrong, terribly wrong. Thanks if a tad too late.

APOLOGIZING IS NOT A DREADED DISEASE

Quindlen quotes author, Deborah Tannen, who says an apology has four parts: (1)admitting fault, (2)showing remorse, (3)acknowledging damage and (4)indicating how it will be repaired. I'm wondering if Ms. Tannen shouldn't apologize for borrowing this concept from Alcoholics Anonymous.

I think saying "I'm sorry" is good for you and most of the time when you screw up, it will help the situation if you just say, I f..... up. When I was in the Army and the commander would summon me for what I knew to be an ass chewing, before he could administer it, I would say, "sir, I f..... up." More than likely it would take the wind out of his sails--he would say, go and sin no more.

We've screwed up in Iraq. I'm not sure establishing blame is going to help us much. But, maybe there is some machismo thing that says until we admit our screw-up, we are stymied in our efforts. However, based on our recent election, we now have a new congress elected mostly on the basis of admitting our screw ups in Iraq. Why can't we say this: We screwed up, we admit it and here is my plan for moving out. We're sorry but there's nothing else we can do. Out of here.

PRACTICING PLURALISM

In our Republic, we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are governed by the very wealthy. Our new speaker of the House of Representatives is probably the weathiest member of Congress or one of them for sure. Is this bad? I don't know. What we hope is that in our very peculiar type of American pluralism, weathy means that pluralism is a cornerstone of governing. Plainly put, this means basically that in a land of various minorities, the majority insures that there rights are preserved. In our case, the poor or those who cannot or do not have a voice. This is very tricky in a country of 300 million citizens, not to mention all sorts of other groups who may not even be citizens but who have a stake, i. e., illegal immigrants.

To be honest, I think we are doing pretty good. But, I'm not sure that overall, it is good for us to have only the rich govern us. For someone who has never known the pain of hunger or the discrimination of race, can they truly look out for their interests?