To say that the war and interpretation of it has to be incredibly confusing is an understatement of many a day. There are zealots on the margins with most of us in the middle attempting to sort it out. And, to attempt to be objective is a gargantuan task. Here's a good example, I am in an email group of highly educated and committed retired military types. It is as though we are living in different galaxies.
Sometime ago, I realized that there's a philosophy with many: do not confuse me with facts, I have my mind made up. I don't think this is true of me. I would be so thrilled if I could find one thing about our involvement in Iraq that is not messed up. When I hear the talking heads on TV, I am amazed: it is as though they simply don't face any sort of facts. Is the surge working? "Well", would be their answer. "We have made progress in Baghdad, people are not killing each other as much." Yet, the facts can be: 300 Iraqis and five soldiers killed today in Iraq. Their mantra: Facts should not interfere with their views.
WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE?
On the PBS's Newshour, which attempts to take an objective stance, I think, there's some guy whose group is spending 15 mil for ads showing how successful Iraq has been. Totally ignoring any facts. To him, they simply don't exist. And, the MoveOn.Org. guy, not a good spokesperson in my estimation, he counters. I admit that I come down more on the side of MoveOn.Org--no one except someone who is on anotehr planet cannot see that we have had botched war strategy from the beginning. Simply, however, what are people who care and trying to be informed, to believe?
A senator goes to Iraq, Republican type, comes back and says we need to start withdrawing 5000 troops by the end of the year: some general in Iraq immediately counters his view by saying how disastrous to pull out.
I CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE BECAUSE I THINK
The pro Iraqi war guy uses words like cut and run, defeat. Next comes a talking head, from the New Republic. He injects how we screwed up Vietnam by leaving. Nobody points out that our leaving was not disastrous nor did the so called, "domino" theory happen. Today, Vietnam is a peaceful country--every tourist describes the modern Vietnam in glowing terms. (To me, it doesn't speak well of news organizations to have some thirty something so called commentator who spouts off, knowing little and surely with no skin in the game on Vietnam or Iraq. Of course, in my view, can't compare Vietnam as a country and Iraq at all--Ho was a nationalist mainly. His goal always was to unite the country. Iraq is complicated by 2000 years of strife, with violence among the sects in a way of life which is not going to end).
Here is my prediction, knowing that my track record is dismal: I am the guy who said Kerrey was going to beat Bush. Most Americans who care and not all do, remember Vietnam: they are not going to put up with us staying in Iraq forever which we'd have to do to win and then I don't think we could do it, short of 2000 years.
All of the politicians and news types keep talking about September as if it was the Second Coming with General Petreous--what in the world is he going to tell us that we don't already know. Nothing but more confusion.
THE BEST ARTICLE I'VE SEEN ON IRAQ
The best thing that I've seen in ages is an article in last Sunday's NY Times by get this: 1 Sp4, 4E5s, 2 SSGs (thes are all soldiers and this is the kind of war we have: guys watching YouTube, emailing, etc., constantly--another example of this war, we have 75 bases in Iraq; one of them has a PX (post exchange) where a GI can buy a wide screen high definition TV. This is a war where we should have zapped Saddam and been out of there in 6 months).
These guys who wrote the article are in the 82d Airborne Division, all finishing 15 month tours. I'd love to see the rest of their career (meaning will they have to pay for penning this article) but I think we are in such a different era with the volunteer Army, not good or bad, just different.
This article is a litany of how we've screwed up in Iraq, simple facts. And, the confusing thing is that it is as though these guys have written this in a vacuum, as far as I can see--like so much else about Iraq, their comments are totally ignored. Here is just one paragraph from the article, "in short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse--namely the widespread use of lethal and brutal force." This is a great article, not because I agree with it but because it effectively spells out what the situation is. Not the denial that we are constantly hearing.
I agree with John Edwards about this: it really doesn't make any difference what Democrat is elected president, he/she will get us out of Iraq at some point. Ron Paul is the only Republican who would do the same and we know what chance he has.
I loved the way these soldiers ended this article, makes me proud, even as I am amazed that they've written it, "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see the mission through." Instead of Congress listening to Generals, these are the guys they should be talking too.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
NOT MANY HEROES AROUND
Every once in a while a movie shows up that sticks with you even when in a sense, you already know the outcome: the demise of bigtime tobacco. (I find it pretty hard to put the bad mouth on tobacco since I was raised on a tobacco farm). The flip side of the coin is that I've never smoked. So...this movie is not so much about tobacco as it is about a crisis of conscience which envelops one man: Jeffrey Wigand.
I remember following all of it on Sixty Minutes. Like so many things in life, few of us who care knew all the machinations going on inside Sixty Minutes concerning a program of how tobacco executives lied and how Wigard had evidence of the lying, especially his company, Brown and Williamson.
What we discovered is that big tobacco also had big money. And, money rules especially where truth is involved.
This movie, The Insider, was totally ignored at the box office but this is not so unusual. What makes this really different is that the movie making people loved it: seven nominations for Oscars. I don't particularly like Russell Crow, my problem: his private life often overshadows his acting ability. Not his fault but mine. Anyway, the movie highlights the producer of Sixty Minutes, Lowell Bergman, who is a hero: in fact, Al Pacino, plays a great part. Often he sounds just like Lieutenant Frank Slade in Scent of a woman. The real life Wigard has to be a hero too: lost his family, profession. Christopher Plummer who played Mike Wallace had his moments. Good movie and in light of so many anti heroes in today's world, kind of nice to see one stand up. 2 parachutes
I remember following all of it on Sixty Minutes. Like so many things in life, few of us who care knew all the machinations going on inside Sixty Minutes concerning a program of how tobacco executives lied and how Wigard had evidence of the lying, especially his company, Brown and Williamson.
What we discovered is that big tobacco also had big money. And, money rules especially where truth is involved.
This movie, The Insider, was totally ignored at the box office but this is not so unusual. What makes this really different is that the movie making people loved it: seven nominations for Oscars. I don't particularly like Russell Crow, my problem: his private life often overshadows his acting ability. Not his fault but mine. Anyway, the movie highlights the producer of Sixty Minutes, Lowell Bergman, who is a hero: in fact, Al Pacino, plays a great part. Often he sounds just like Lieutenant Frank Slade in Scent of a woman. The real life Wigard has to be a hero too: lost his family, profession. Christopher Plummer who played Mike Wallace had his moments. Good movie and in light of so many anti heroes in today's world, kind of nice to see one stand up. 2 parachutes
Monday, July 30, 2007
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
I like Frank Rich, one of my favorite writers and I agree with most everything he says. But, Frank, on your usual theme of bashing the President for his stupidness over Iraq, taking on General Petraeus is a fast train to nowhere. The President doesn't read your column. Don't feel bad, he simply doesn't listen to anyone who differs from his views, regardless. For the time being, his attention is focused on General Petrateus. I don't know the general but I do know many who know him. They say he's a good and capable leader. I don't doubt it but he's a general and he's answering to the commander in chief who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.
Because we have so few Americans who have any military experience, most don't understand how a general is made, who they are, a thousand and one things. A general, is a politician, plain and simple or, he probably wouldn't be a general. I am always amused when I see the military generals with all those chest full of medals and glistening stars come before congressional hearings. Their politician inquisitors are questioning other politicians who just happen to be in the military.
The generals have a mentality. It is a "can do" approach to the mission. And, they don't sit around cogitating their navels on the what ifs: it is get the job done. It is a mentality. And, let's face it, what would we expect the good general to say come September about Iraq. "We are in a mess, the "surge" has failed. Saddam has joined other would be martyrs, the Iraqis have a constitution, we are out of here. God bless them." Give me a break!
HOW DOES ONE GET TO BE A GENERAL??????
How does one get to be a general? It is not because of his good looks or winning personality although these might help. He plays the games, especially as he gets close to the prize, a star. Somewhere along the way he acquires a sponsor, someone of a higher rank who has been this route before and is now a sponsor for a potential general officer. And, it is not out of the realm of possibility for an officer (Colonel) to be selected because of politics. Many have been "presidential aids" or similar sorts of things, i. e., served at embassies.
The "would be" general gets all his "tickets" punched. He goes to the right schools, i. e., Command and General Staff College (for potential commanders) and the War College or some similar school (to think over the heavier issues). Probably, along the way, the military sends him to a civilian school for a Masters degree and on occasion, a PhD--all at tax payer expense, mind you. And, he has the right military jobs, i. e. command posts, serving on a "joint" staff with all the Services. In most cases, he is a "ring knocker",(Academy graduate-West Point, Annapolis, AF Academy). When they are eligible, based on length of service, all of the above, they come before a promotion board. It is as secretive as getting into a Masonic order. It is playing politics as much as any Congressman/woman and we would do well to understand as these men have our kids lives in their hands in a place like Iraq.
Most generals would not be where they are if they weren't terribly ambitious. My experience is that the best officers in the military never get to the top for lots of reasons. Mostly, they tire of the games and sacrifices and opt for the civilian world. Our celebrity worshiping culture bears some fault in how we see our generals. Our media makes them into celebrities; for some, they get more face time than Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears. Much of what they say publicly is scripted and they have no more control over what happens in Iraq than those of us sitting out here in the hinterlands listening to them.
And, sadly,the generals have not helped us in Iraq; perpetrating a rosy picture that only makes it worse and delays the hard decisions. We have screwed up bigtime in Iraq and any truly honest general would say the same. Some have--a few have resigned but under this president, it really makes no difference.
My prediction is that General Petraeus will say that we have made progress, we are turning the corner. He'll use Anbar Province as an example and will not share that he and the Iraqi premier have almost come to blows over it. Petraeus has armed the Sunni Sheik's who have switched sides. Now, Maliki threatens to do the same with the Shiite militants. He has even threatened to have Petraeus relieved as if he could. Still, hardly a way to run a war.
And, the truth is that he believes it. And, he might be right if we stay there for years. We can't and won't is my hope.
Because we have so few Americans who have any military experience, most don't understand how a general is made, who they are, a thousand and one things. A general, is a politician, plain and simple or, he probably wouldn't be a general. I am always amused when I see the military generals with all those chest full of medals and glistening stars come before congressional hearings. Their politician inquisitors are questioning other politicians who just happen to be in the military.
The generals have a mentality. It is a "can do" approach to the mission. And, they don't sit around cogitating their navels on the what ifs: it is get the job done. It is a mentality. And, let's face it, what would we expect the good general to say come September about Iraq. "We are in a mess, the "surge" has failed. Saddam has joined other would be martyrs, the Iraqis have a constitution, we are out of here. God bless them." Give me a break!
HOW DOES ONE GET TO BE A GENERAL??????
How does one get to be a general? It is not because of his good looks or winning personality although these might help. He plays the games, especially as he gets close to the prize, a star. Somewhere along the way he acquires a sponsor, someone of a higher rank who has been this route before and is now a sponsor for a potential general officer. And, it is not out of the realm of possibility for an officer (Colonel) to be selected because of politics. Many have been "presidential aids" or similar sorts of things, i. e., served at embassies.
The "would be" general gets all his "tickets" punched. He goes to the right schools, i. e., Command and General Staff College (for potential commanders) and the War College or some similar school (to think over the heavier issues). Probably, along the way, the military sends him to a civilian school for a Masters degree and on occasion, a PhD--all at tax payer expense, mind you. And, he has the right military jobs, i. e. command posts, serving on a "joint" staff with all the Services. In most cases, he is a "ring knocker",(Academy graduate-West Point, Annapolis, AF Academy). When they are eligible, based on length of service, all of the above, they come before a promotion board. It is as secretive as getting into a Masonic order. It is playing politics as much as any Congressman/woman and we would do well to understand as these men have our kids lives in their hands in a place like Iraq.
Most generals would not be where they are if they weren't terribly ambitious. My experience is that the best officers in the military never get to the top for lots of reasons. Mostly, they tire of the games and sacrifices and opt for the civilian world. Our celebrity worshiping culture bears some fault in how we see our generals. Our media makes them into celebrities; for some, they get more face time than Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears. Much of what they say publicly is scripted and they have no more control over what happens in Iraq than those of us sitting out here in the hinterlands listening to them.
And, sadly,the generals have not helped us in Iraq; perpetrating a rosy picture that only makes it worse and delays the hard decisions. We have screwed up bigtime in Iraq and any truly honest general would say the same. Some have--a few have resigned but under this president, it really makes no difference.
My prediction is that General Petraeus will say that we have made progress, we are turning the corner. He'll use Anbar Province as an example and will not share that he and the Iraqi premier have almost come to blows over it. Petraeus has armed the Sunni Sheik's who have switched sides. Now, Maliki threatens to do the same with the Shiite militants. He has even threatened to have Petraeus relieved as if he could. Still, hardly a way to run a war.
And, the truth is that he believes it. And, he might be right if we stay there for years. We can't and won't is my hope.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Ain't It So
"It is a mind-boggling thing to me that we never learn. After every war, we scream, 'Never Again!' Only until we do it again. I don't understand it."
Movie Director Milos Forman
Milos, I agree with you. But, trust me on this, we are two voices crying in the wilderness. I don't know whether or not it is a reality that as we get older, we seem to cogitate our navels more when we think about repeating Vietnam all over in Iraq. Most Vietnam vets that I know say to me, how stupid that we are in Iraq after the debacle of Vietnam?. What thinking! In fact, one said to me recently after seeing, Rescue Dawn, a movie about the very first escape by a POW as Vietnam heated up. The Vietvet said, "I found myself being ashamed that here we were these big bad Americans whipping up on these emaciated peasants--" a little dramatic and I don't believe that's what he really means rather that somehow he didn't feel good about what we had done in Vietnam." And, the add on is that we cannot feel good about what is going on in Iraq.
Not long ago, I met an older gentleman, a world traveler, who had been in Rhodesia which is now Zimbabwe, for 20 years who said to me the often repeated comment, "We have not had a terrorist attack in America because we are pursuing them in Iraq." Republican Presidential candidate, Rudoplh Giuliani, has made "no attack at home" his theme song. What they are really saying is that it is OK for people to die in other places as long as it is not in the good old U. S. of A. Now, that's an attitude.
Movie Director Milos Forman
Milos, I agree with you. But, trust me on this, we are two voices crying in the wilderness. I don't know whether or not it is a reality that as we get older, we seem to cogitate our navels more when we think about repeating Vietnam all over in Iraq. Most Vietnam vets that I know say to me, how stupid that we are in Iraq after the debacle of Vietnam?. What thinking! In fact, one said to me recently after seeing, Rescue Dawn, a movie about the very first escape by a POW as Vietnam heated up. The Vietvet said, "I found myself being ashamed that here we were these big bad Americans whipping up on these emaciated peasants--" a little dramatic and I don't believe that's what he really means rather that somehow he didn't feel good about what we had done in Vietnam." And, the add on is that we cannot feel good about what is going on in Iraq.
Not long ago, I met an older gentleman, a world traveler, who had been in Rhodesia which is now Zimbabwe, for 20 years who said to me the often repeated comment, "We have not had a terrorist attack in America because we are pursuing them in Iraq." Republican Presidential candidate, Rudoplh Giuliani, has made "no attack at home" his theme song. What they are really saying is that it is OK for people to die in other places as long as it is not in the good old U. S. of A. Now, that's an attitude.
Monday, July 16, 2007
THE DEFINITION OF THE AMERICAN SPIRIT
Recently, I've seen two movies that caused me lots of reflection. One is Sicko, the Michael Moore indictment of the country, and rightly so, of our despicable health care system. And, I don't care how you feel about Michael Moore, the facts, like Iraq, jump up and kick you in the posterior; 50 million Americans don't have health insurance. And, we are prisoners of the Health Care industry mainly because of gutless politicians and money. I came out of that movie saying WE CAN DO BETTER. Well, Rescue Dawn, shows us why we can do better. It is the epitome of the American Spirit.
Rescue Dawn is set in 1966: this is before the Vietnam war had jumped up and kicked us in the posterior. Here was young and cocky Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale, who was fabulous), German borne but American through and through. Rescue Dawn is really a character study or studies. A buddy of mine actually knew Dengler who died in 2001 in Mill Valley, California. He says that Dengler credits his very tough upbringing during WW ll to his capacity to survive.
Rescue Dawn is one of those uplifting movies that is destined to stick with you. It is harsh in terms of conditions and there are a few holes in the story but don't take away from the movie, i. e., what happened to the rest of the POWs who escaped with Dengler.
One gets the impression that these POWs held in Laos were not treated nearly as harsh as the Hanoi Hilton heroes like John McCain. It was tough though. Dengler had a terrific supporting cast. One, emaciated, already gone over the top and another who was precariously perched on the edge. For Dengler, as opposed to the rest, not escaping never even entered his mind.
What was fascinating to an audience, surely me, was the physical changes that we watched as Dengler and his cohorts moved through their meager and pitiful conditions: the sunken in cheeks, the emaciated looks, the obvious craziness that starving brings. It was only in reading about the making of the movie did I discover how it was done. It was filmed in reverse, meaning that they got the looks they wanted at the end and I guess inserted them in the movie at the right time. Genius, in film making, I think.
The director, Werner Herzog, has to be one of the best, merely for his versitility if for no other reason. Until I read that he had also done Grizzly Man, which is about the idiot who lived among the bears and they ate him--I had not realized that Herzog had made that documentary also.
I'm going to order the documentary made too by Herzog about Dengler, (Little Dieter Needs to Fly). I'd like to know more about Dengler, a true hero. In fact, when Dengler was being initially interrogated by an English speaking type, probably educated in the States, he is asked why he is bombing and doing these terrible things to these people. Dengler says something like, "I don't want to hurt anybody, I just wanted to fly."
There are some fascinating scenes in the movie, Dengler eating worms and maggots and making the experience like he's at a 4 Star restaurant. Whew! And, the best line of the movie spoken by another prisoner who simply could not grasp the idea of escape as they had already been there a year or so was, "The Jungle is the prison." I can tell you this is true from Vietnam. As a vet, I can remember being in an open space and then traveling a few miles (clicks) and you could easily be in triple thick jungle canopy where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. In fact, I can remember spending hours helping carve out a landing zone in the jungle for helicopters: it was excruciatingly difficult, back breaking. So, escaping through it had to be a Herculean effort by Dengler.
A last thing. When the movie ended, it was unbelievably quiet. A mostly full theater and there was no talking, no usual comments, I put it as a reverent feeling. Not an easy movie to watch but a movie experience that sticks with you, very existential. Three parachutes, maybe 4.
Rescue Dawn is set in 1966: this is before the Vietnam war had jumped up and kicked us in the posterior. Here was young and cocky Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale, who was fabulous), German borne but American through and through. Rescue Dawn is really a character study or studies. A buddy of mine actually knew Dengler who died in 2001 in Mill Valley, California. He says that Dengler credits his very tough upbringing during WW ll to his capacity to survive.
Rescue Dawn is one of those uplifting movies that is destined to stick with you. It is harsh in terms of conditions and there are a few holes in the story but don't take away from the movie, i. e., what happened to the rest of the POWs who escaped with Dengler.
One gets the impression that these POWs held in Laos were not treated nearly as harsh as the Hanoi Hilton heroes like John McCain. It was tough though. Dengler had a terrific supporting cast. One, emaciated, already gone over the top and another who was precariously perched on the edge. For Dengler, as opposed to the rest, not escaping never even entered his mind.
What was fascinating to an audience, surely me, was the physical changes that we watched as Dengler and his cohorts moved through their meager and pitiful conditions: the sunken in cheeks, the emaciated looks, the obvious craziness that starving brings. It was only in reading about the making of the movie did I discover how it was done. It was filmed in reverse, meaning that they got the looks they wanted at the end and I guess inserted them in the movie at the right time. Genius, in film making, I think.
The director, Werner Herzog, has to be one of the best, merely for his versitility if for no other reason. Until I read that he had also done Grizzly Man, which is about the idiot who lived among the bears and they ate him--I had not realized that Herzog had made that documentary also.
I'm going to order the documentary made too by Herzog about Dengler, (Little Dieter Needs to Fly). I'd like to know more about Dengler, a true hero. In fact, when Dengler was being initially interrogated by an English speaking type, probably educated in the States, he is asked why he is bombing and doing these terrible things to these people. Dengler says something like, "I don't want to hurt anybody, I just wanted to fly."
There are some fascinating scenes in the movie, Dengler eating worms and maggots and making the experience like he's at a 4 Star restaurant. Whew! And, the best line of the movie spoken by another prisoner who simply could not grasp the idea of escape as they had already been there a year or so was, "The Jungle is the prison." I can tell you this is true from Vietnam. As a vet, I can remember being in an open space and then traveling a few miles (clicks) and you could easily be in triple thick jungle canopy where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. In fact, I can remember spending hours helping carve out a landing zone in the jungle for helicopters: it was excruciatingly difficult, back breaking. So, escaping through it had to be a Herculean effort by Dengler.
A last thing. When the movie ended, it was unbelievably quiet. A mostly full theater and there was no talking, no usual comments, I put it as a reverent feeling. Not an easy movie to watch but a movie experience that sticks with you, very existential. Three parachutes, maybe 4.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
UNBELIEVABLE
I wanted to say "living in paralleled universes" but I've already said that so many times. When I hear the President speak or any Republican, I can hardly believe what I'm hearing. Although I am a registered Democrat, I am really an Independent. Consequently, if I heard anything realistic coming out of the mouth of the President or anybody in the Administration, I would like to think I would give it credence. Honestly, however, I simply am flummoxed. It is as though the real happenings in Iraq are in a parallel universe of which they are not aware.
Recently on the Newshour, Jim Learer had a Senator from Pennsylvania and then Kay Baily Hutchinson from Texas. They were talking about Iraq: she is saying things like stay the course, cut and run, defeat is sending a message to the troops. I am thinking she has been hypnotized or something. Based on all we know and see and read, how can this be. I will have to say that the Senator from Pennsylvania did not respond to her comments (who would have expected him too or even the question from the moderator--the mantra is, "never answer the question you have been asked but answer the question that you wished you'd been asked.)I don't know if he used this tactic but it was almost like he didn't hear her but listed the numbers of American deaths in Iraq, the wounded, the maimed. It was pretty powerful, not an argument, simply the facts.
I am perplexed really how to put any sort of good comment or spin on Iraq. Just today, I was emailing my best friend who has a son in Iraq. As I was about to begin to rail like I am now, I suddenly stopped. Noway, he doesn't deserve any more pain than he already has. I don't know what these loved ones of soldiers think or how they cope with this impossible situation. To me, this makes Vietnam look like a much better war if there is such a thing. In Vietnam, we mostly were fighting in the country but for the combat soldier in Iraq, there is nothing worse than being in an urban guerrilla war. It is awful and I can only imagine--the total lack of knowing who the enemy is, all of the cloudy issues, i. e., religious fanaticism, tribalism, you name it.
There is simply no positive, other than the way the troops have performed. Just today, there's an article in the local paper about how much the insurgents have infiltrated the Police and Army. I know this is San Francisco and the way newspapers even do their headlines often points to the way they tilt the news. However, we can't deny that the situation is about as bereft of good news as anyone could imagine. Sometimes when I hear the President, I think, "I'd love to know who his speech writers are, how they can take a report like the Iraqi government's benchmarks and say this is positive--we have fulfilled 50% of them. Well, I guess fifty percent is better than nothing.
I think that soldiers, career soldiers in particular, are doing the best they can under the cloud that their life and death struggle is unpopular with Americans who care and think. Thinking Americans will be dealing with Iraq for a long time once it is over and it will be at sometime. Please God.
Just when you think you've heard it all about Iraq, something else pops up: a bank robbery in Iraq, guess what was stolen? Millions of American dollars and no suspects. Nobody, especially the Americans, seem to know how or why the bank had all this American money anyway. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.
Here's a good one. Supposedly, 250,000 Iraqis have been trained for the Army and Police. They are on the streets NOW or suppose to be. Here are the statistics: in Oct 2005, the military recorded 545 insurgent attacks, now it is 1,060 with the Iraqi Army and Police on the street. Well, they are suppose to be on the street but they really aren't. Out of a 1000 man unit, only about 330 show up for duty every day. Whether or not they show up, they still get paid. As for the police, it is estimated that thousands of positions are thought to be phantom officers, invented by supervisors who pocket the salary.
I could go on but I am really tired. let me end with a direct comment from one of our fine young battalion commanders who is out there with his soldiers every day, "The 'month of fire' has begun and the weather is living up to its reputation. Temperatures rise to well over 110 degrees with great regularity and we have conducted operations in 125 degree heat on multiple occasions. When it’s this hot, simple patrolling tasks take on new levels of difficulty. The sweat soaks through our uniforms in minutes, drips into our eyes, and our concentration takes more than the usual effort. Despite the suffocating heat, we are adapting to the harsh climate and continue with our mission in a way that would make you proud." For our fine young soldiers, we are indeed proud. jda
Recently on the Newshour, Jim Learer had a Senator from Pennsylvania and then Kay Baily Hutchinson from Texas. They were talking about Iraq: she is saying things like stay the course, cut and run, defeat is sending a message to the troops. I am thinking she has been hypnotized or something. Based on all we know and see and read, how can this be. I will have to say that the Senator from Pennsylvania did not respond to her comments (who would have expected him too or even the question from the moderator--the mantra is, "never answer the question you have been asked but answer the question that you wished you'd been asked.)I don't know if he used this tactic but it was almost like he didn't hear her but listed the numbers of American deaths in Iraq, the wounded, the maimed. It was pretty powerful, not an argument, simply the facts.
I am perplexed really how to put any sort of good comment or spin on Iraq. Just today, I was emailing my best friend who has a son in Iraq. As I was about to begin to rail like I am now, I suddenly stopped. Noway, he doesn't deserve any more pain than he already has. I don't know what these loved ones of soldiers think or how they cope with this impossible situation. To me, this makes Vietnam look like a much better war if there is such a thing. In Vietnam, we mostly were fighting in the country but for the combat soldier in Iraq, there is nothing worse than being in an urban guerrilla war. It is awful and I can only imagine--the total lack of knowing who the enemy is, all of the cloudy issues, i. e., religious fanaticism, tribalism, you name it.
There is simply no positive, other than the way the troops have performed. Just today, there's an article in the local paper about how much the insurgents have infiltrated the Police and Army. I know this is San Francisco and the way newspapers even do their headlines often points to the way they tilt the news. However, we can't deny that the situation is about as bereft of good news as anyone could imagine. Sometimes when I hear the President, I think, "I'd love to know who his speech writers are, how they can take a report like the Iraqi government's benchmarks and say this is positive--we have fulfilled 50% of them. Well, I guess fifty percent is better than nothing.
I think that soldiers, career soldiers in particular, are doing the best they can under the cloud that their life and death struggle is unpopular with Americans who care and think. Thinking Americans will be dealing with Iraq for a long time once it is over and it will be at sometime. Please God.
Just when you think you've heard it all about Iraq, something else pops up: a bank robbery in Iraq, guess what was stolen? Millions of American dollars and no suspects. Nobody, especially the Americans, seem to know how or why the bank had all this American money anyway. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.
Here's a good one. Supposedly, 250,000 Iraqis have been trained for the Army and Police. They are on the streets NOW or suppose to be. Here are the statistics: in Oct 2005, the military recorded 545 insurgent attacks, now it is 1,060 with the Iraqi Army and Police on the street. Well, they are suppose to be on the street but they really aren't. Out of a 1000 man unit, only about 330 show up for duty every day. Whether or not they show up, they still get paid. As for the police, it is estimated that thousands of positions are thought to be phantom officers, invented by supervisors who pocket the salary.
I could go on but I am really tired. let me end with a direct comment from one of our fine young battalion commanders who is out there with his soldiers every day, "The 'month of fire' has begun and the weather is living up to its reputation. Temperatures rise to well over 110 degrees with great regularity and we have conducted operations in 125 degree heat on multiple occasions. When it’s this hot, simple patrolling tasks take on new levels of difficulty. The sweat soaks through our uniforms in minutes, drips into our eyes, and our concentration takes more than the usual effort. Despite the suffocating heat, we are adapting to the harsh climate and continue with our mission in a way that would make you proud." For our fine young soldiers, we are indeed proud. jda
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
IN GOOD HANDS
I'm leaning more and more toward Barach. Why? New ideas. I've been a Hillary person, thinking that a woman would be better for the country. But, let's face it, the Clintons are politicians through and through. I remember reading some article once where Hillary and Bill sat down with their daughter and basially said, "Be prepared, everything in life as relates to our family has to do with politics". This is not exactly it but close, meaning that everything is considered in that vein.
With Barach, I don't think this is the case. At least at this point, he doesn't appear to be handled by handlers but an honest expression of who he is. He's not afraid to hit back at those who want to "Swift Boat" him. But, mostly what I like is that Obama is not going to be a Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Jessie Jackson will show up where there's a camera and play to the crowd. This is understandable. Many a politician when they are talking to a friendly audience gets egged on by them and often "opens mouth and inserts foot." Think the President who goes before military audiences or a ship and declares victory. Barack doesn't seem to be in that nature. And, he's not tilting his words in such a way that they end just at the point when the crowd can go crazy with applause. None of those metaphor laden speeches of the "Jessie" man. Here's a guy who talks about issues and has avoided the minefields of being stereotyped while not denying who he is.
I think "white" America will vote for him and will be excited about what we get. We want somebody of substance--at least those of us who think do--not the same old stuff. We had a black Prez on the TV show, 24 and I could hardly believe they killed him off even if he wanted to go on making those commercials for All State Insurance. AllState was smart because the former Prez on 24 made you feel that you were in "good hands." Thats the way I think we're going to feel with Barach, we're in good hands.
With Barach, I don't think this is the case. At least at this point, he doesn't appear to be handled by handlers but an honest expression of who he is. He's not afraid to hit back at those who want to "Swift Boat" him. But, mostly what I like is that Obama is not going to be a Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Jessie Jackson will show up where there's a camera and play to the crowd. This is understandable. Many a politician when they are talking to a friendly audience gets egged on by them and often "opens mouth and inserts foot." Think the President who goes before military audiences or a ship and declares victory. Barack doesn't seem to be in that nature. And, he's not tilting his words in such a way that they end just at the point when the crowd can go crazy with applause. None of those metaphor laden speeches of the "Jessie" man. Here's a guy who talks about issues and has avoided the minefields of being stereotyped while not denying who he is.
I think "white" America will vote for him and will be excited about what we get. We want somebody of substance--at least those of us who think do--not the same old stuff. We had a black Prez on the TV show, 24 and I could hardly believe they killed him off even if he wanted to go on making those commercials for All State Insurance. AllState was smart because the former Prez on 24 made you feel that you were in "good hands." Thats the way I think we're going to feel with Barach, we're in good hands.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
ONE BRIGHT SHINING MOMENT
Every person in America who cares ought to be forced to watch this DVD. What I thought I was renting from Netflix and what I got weren't the same. I've never even thought much about McGovern. What I remember about the Presidential election in 1972 was that McGovern lost in a landslide. I was on the other side and only watch and bow my head NOW in retrospect. One Bright Shining Moment really shows all those awful times of the Vietnam era. It is 1972, I was in the Army. Seeing what was going on in Vietnam during this time and comparing it to Iraq today with all the denial of what we're doing in that mismanaged war is unbelievably excruciatingly sad.
I've never been much of a conspiratorial type and the idea that Nixon was such a scoundrel is hard to realize. He surely was. Now in hindsight, to me, it was about the war. For Americans who literally operate in a state of denial, the same thing that happened then is with us today. Gross denial.
Where in this world would we be today had McGovern won the Presidency? A man, even if sanitized in the DVD, still came across as dull as a butter knife but truthful and with one goal: get us out of Vietnam. One statement he made sounds so much like one heard over and over today: he said about Vietnam, "if we continue to bomb for another five years, it is not going to make a difference." In Iraq, if we stay there a hundred years, it is not going to make a difference.
Watching One Bright Shining Moment, I think as a country, we probably deserve what we get. The DVD again shows how media driven we are. What we see on TV, how it is spun, this is what most Americans go for. I guess many of us still are naive about life and politics in America and what is right as opposed to wrong is going to eventually out. It's pretty sad if you asked me. One place where our hope lies is that the Internet spawning blogs and websites make the process of 72 at least more difficult. Today it is much more transparent and that is some of our hope that the McGoverns of the future get a true chance at serving the country.
In 68, Nixon promised that we'd get out of Vietnam, if elected. He lied and 20,000 more young Americans died. McGovern's Speech Come Home America is one of the best I've ever heard.
Ron Kovac, author of Born on the 4th of July in the documentary says something like, we will never let something life Vietnam happen again. Guess what, Ron? We have. This DVD is like looking through a mirror. On one side is Vietnam and on the other is Iraq. They are the same. Even today, I often am simply overwhelmed with the idea that after Vietnam, we have another Vietnam in Iraq.
I've never been much of a conspiratorial type and the idea that Nixon was such a scoundrel is hard to realize. He surely was. Now in hindsight, to me, it was about the war. For Americans who literally operate in a state of denial, the same thing that happened then is with us today. Gross denial.
Where in this world would we be today had McGovern won the Presidency? A man, even if sanitized in the DVD, still came across as dull as a butter knife but truthful and with one goal: get us out of Vietnam. One statement he made sounds so much like one heard over and over today: he said about Vietnam, "if we continue to bomb for another five years, it is not going to make a difference." In Iraq, if we stay there a hundred years, it is not going to make a difference.
Watching One Bright Shining Moment, I think as a country, we probably deserve what we get. The DVD again shows how media driven we are. What we see on TV, how it is spun, this is what most Americans go for. I guess many of us still are naive about life and politics in America and what is right as opposed to wrong is going to eventually out. It's pretty sad if you asked me. One place where our hope lies is that the Internet spawning blogs and websites make the process of 72 at least more difficult. Today it is much more transparent and that is some of our hope that the McGoverns of the future get a true chance at serving the country.
In 68, Nixon promised that we'd get out of Vietnam, if elected. He lied and 20,000 more young Americans died. McGovern's Speech Come Home America is one of the best I've ever heard.
Ron Kovac, author of Born on the 4th of July in the documentary says something like, we will never let something life Vietnam happen again. Guess what, Ron? We have. This DVD is like looking through a mirror. On one side is Vietnam and on the other is Iraq. They are the same. Even today, I often am simply overwhelmed with the idea that after Vietnam, we have another Vietnam in Iraq.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
HOLLYWOOD VIETNAM
Fabulous documentary. One morning really early, I couldn't sleep and started flipping the TV, just as I'm about to go to music, I run across this documentary, Hollywood Vietnam. It is how Hollywood deals with war. What was absolutely mesmerizing is the fact that I'm looking at this while we are at war in Iraq. The documentary was made during Iraq and makes no reference to it. Openings were everywhere to show the insaneness of war and especially in light of what a mess we are in in Iraq, Nada.
The documentary uses comments from those like former Georgia Senator, Max Cleland, one of my heroes. I could not help but think of how he was unseated in his bid for a second term in the Senate. Mostly it was a smear campaign by the right wing, mainly those like Anne Caulder who has now been mostly discredited by anyone who thinks. Her outrageous statements are designed mainly to build her bank account. During the campaign, she said that Cleland should not be considered a war hero because what took his legs and arm was a routine accident. Many Georgia voters apparently bought her rantings. I would love to know where those voters stand now in light of Iraq. Probably at the same place: don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Shameful.
Lee Ermey, who was the drill sergeant, in the best movie I think about Vietnam, Full Medal Jacket, and was killed in the movie by one of his crazed recruits. Matthew Modine was really good. There's one scene where some Colonel accosts him in Vietnam. Modine is wearing a peace symbol. The Colonel lets go with a barrage of typical stuff: do you love your country, etc.; Modine comes forth as a very respectful Marine and says something like, "the symbol is about the duality of man. A Jungian thing." Funny!
Bobby Muller, founder of Vietnam Veterans of America, was very eloquent. I've read about him for years. I was a VVA member for awhile and probably still would be if they had been better at marketing. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet, with somewhat political babble talked about a more balanced view of the Vietnam vet and issues of an Army out of control.
Hollywood Vietnam shows the transitions of what we see in war and in Vietnam in particular. We start off with the heroism of War, the WW ll movies, Sands of Iwo Jima, John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Battleground. We want to translate that to Vietnam and in the beginning Hollywood depicts just that, i. e., Green Berets with John Wayne. It's kind of heroist but not totally: movies like, Boys in Company C, Purple Hearts which single out individuals but still with some degree of positive.
The country changes and movies take on more a flavor of negativism and surreal existence: Apolcalyse Now and Platoon. In Apocalyse Now, there's one telling scene that Frances Ford Coppola insists upon to tell the story that he wants to tell: the boat crew suddenly stops a boat of Vietnamese and ends up killing them. It is a kind of MyLai right in the middle of the movie.
Next Hollywood begins to depict the returning vet as some sort of crazy. America is tired and wants to get out. LBJ says, "I can't be the first President to lose a war."
Then there comes more of a sympathetic view in movies like, Coming Home and the Deer Hunter. Ten years after the 1968 Tet offensive which most Americans viewed as the turning point of the lost war--the Vietnam war was a loser, therefore Vietnam vets became losers. Hollywood is not left with any real winners as they see it and so they have to find some stories where there's personal winners: movies like, Born on the Fourth of July. Ron Kovics, the writer, played by Tom Cruise in the movie makes a pivotal speech that is so applicable today; basically that the government is not the people. These are angry guys from Vietnam with a cause.
In Hollywood Vietnam, someone says vets need a parade--we put you through this and as a society, we owe you a parade. We never did that with Vietnam vets. The War at Home and other movies began to depict the hair trigger nut. Vietnam vets who were nutso. Nutso Vietnam vets in movies like Black Sunday. Gardens of Stone, Rolling Thunder, and even comedies like Caddy Shack, with Bill Murray, a Vietnam vet who was unhinged.
Then, there's the kind of redemptive movie or attempts at it where Jon Voight says, "I'm not the enemy, the enemy is War." Deer Hunter was another of those attempting to be sympathetic while telling a story, sometimes inaccurate, i. e., the crazy Russian roulette scene which never was.
Movies were primarily the media that informed America about Vietnam. In movies like, Flight of the Intruder, people are dying for nothing. America wanted to believe if you just had Chuck Norris, Syvester Stallone. just the right mix--Special Forces. Look at Iraq, still searching for a stragedy, with the seeming idea that if we can just find the right mix. Forget it! Often, movies had nothing to do with reality.
There seemed to be some sort of evolvement; instead of the crazed, there's a flesh and blood, hero in the movie, We were soldiers.
Is it that we have a love of war? Can't learn from history, My favorite depiction in Hollywood Vietnam is one where Bruce Willis in, In Country, is facing the Vietnam Memorial in contemplation, he leaves a Bronze Star Medal and a pack of camels--this is his closure. We wish it were that easy.
What I came away from this accidental viewing of HOLLYWOOD VIETNAM is sadness: a sadness that as a country, we never learn. The undeniable stupidity that we are at war after having the experience of Vietnam is almost unbelievable. If we had a Vietnam vet president, I doubt seriously that we'd be in Iraq but we know that story, right?
The documentary uses comments from those like former Georgia Senator, Max Cleland, one of my heroes. I could not help but think of how he was unseated in his bid for a second term in the Senate. Mostly it was a smear campaign by the right wing, mainly those like Anne Caulder who has now been mostly discredited by anyone who thinks. Her outrageous statements are designed mainly to build her bank account. During the campaign, she said that Cleland should not be considered a war hero because what took his legs and arm was a routine accident. Many Georgia voters apparently bought her rantings. I would love to know where those voters stand now in light of Iraq. Probably at the same place: don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Shameful.
Lee Ermey, who was the drill sergeant, in the best movie I think about Vietnam, Full Medal Jacket, and was killed in the movie by one of his crazed recruits. Matthew Modine was really good. There's one scene where some Colonel accosts him in Vietnam. Modine is wearing a peace symbol. The Colonel lets go with a barrage of typical stuff: do you love your country, etc.; Modine comes forth as a very respectful Marine and says something like, "the symbol is about the duality of man. A Jungian thing." Funny!
Bobby Muller, founder of Vietnam Veterans of America, was very eloquent. I've read about him for years. I was a VVA member for awhile and probably still would be if they had been better at marketing. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet, with somewhat political babble talked about a more balanced view of the Vietnam vet and issues of an Army out of control.
Hollywood Vietnam shows the transitions of what we see in war and in Vietnam in particular. We start off with the heroism of War, the WW ll movies, Sands of Iwo Jima, John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Battleground. We want to translate that to Vietnam and in the beginning Hollywood depicts just that, i. e., Green Berets with John Wayne. It's kind of heroist but not totally: movies like, Boys in Company C, Purple Hearts which single out individuals but still with some degree of positive.
The country changes and movies take on more a flavor of negativism and surreal existence: Apolcalyse Now and Platoon. In Apocalyse Now, there's one telling scene that Frances Ford Coppola insists upon to tell the story that he wants to tell: the boat crew suddenly stops a boat of Vietnamese and ends up killing them. It is a kind of MyLai right in the middle of the movie.
Next Hollywood begins to depict the returning vet as some sort of crazy. America is tired and wants to get out. LBJ says, "I can't be the first President to lose a war."
Then there comes more of a sympathetic view in movies like, Coming Home and the Deer Hunter. Ten years after the 1968 Tet offensive which most Americans viewed as the turning point of the lost war--the Vietnam war was a loser, therefore Vietnam vets became losers. Hollywood is not left with any real winners as they see it and so they have to find some stories where there's personal winners: movies like, Born on the Fourth of July. Ron Kovics, the writer, played by Tom Cruise in the movie makes a pivotal speech that is so applicable today; basically that the government is not the people. These are angry guys from Vietnam with a cause.
In Hollywood Vietnam, someone says vets need a parade--we put you through this and as a society, we owe you a parade. We never did that with Vietnam vets. The War at Home and other movies began to depict the hair trigger nut. Vietnam vets who were nutso. Nutso Vietnam vets in movies like Black Sunday. Gardens of Stone, Rolling Thunder, and even comedies like Caddy Shack, with Bill Murray, a Vietnam vet who was unhinged.
Then, there's the kind of redemptive movie or attempts at it where Jon Voight says, "I'm not the enemy, the enemy is War." Deer Hunter was another of those attempting to be sympathetic while telling a story, sometimes inaccurate, i. e., the crazy Russian roulette scene which never was.
Movies were primarily the media that informed America about Vietnam. In movies like, Flight of the Intruder, people are dying for nothing. America wanted to believe if you just had Chuck Norris, Syvester Stallone. just the right mix--Special Forces. Look at Iraq, still searching for a stragedy, with the seeming idea that if we can just find the right mix. Forget it! Often, movies had nothing to do with reality.
There seemed to be some sort of evolvement; instead of the crazed, there's a flesh and blood, hero in the movie, We were soldiers.
Is it that we have a love of war? Can't learn from history, My favorite depiction in Hollywood Vietnam is one where Bruce Willis in, In Country, is facing the Vietnam Memorial in contemplation, he leaves a Bronze Star Medal and a pack of camels--this is his closure. We wish it were that easy.
What I came away from this accidental viewing of HOLLYWOOD VIETNAM is sadness: a sadness that as a country, we never learn. The undeniable stupidity that we are at war after having the experience of Vietnam is almost unbelievable. If we had a Vietnam vet president, I doubt seriously that we'd be in Iraq but we know that story, right?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Deja vu
When I was watching this movie, I immediately thought, "Wow, what a concept for Iraq." The basic story is that Denzel Washington is an ATF Agent and is called to the scene of an awful terrorist attack. A group of sailors on leave on a ferry boat, along with scores of other innocents, are blown up.
Denzel is one of my favorite actors, always good and cool. In the process of his investigation and in cooperation with the local gendarmes, he is introduced to what he thinks is an intricate surveillance system, only to discover that it can actually recreate the past. Do you see where I am going here? He recreates the past, discovers the culprit and someway sends himself back into the past to prevent the terrorist act and save the girl. I love movies/books/tv, they can make what they want happen. Always.
Apply this to Iraq. Let's go back. Saddam: let's keep containing him, getting good intelligence. We turn back the clock before 9-11, Afghanistan. See what I mean? The movies can do what they want. Real life just ain't so. God bless us.
Denzel is one of my favorite actors, always good and cool. In the process of his investigation and in cooperation with the local gendarmes, he is introduced to what he thinks is an intricate surveillance system, only to discover that it can actually recreate the past. Do you see where I am going here? He recreates the past, discovers the culprit and someway sends himself back into the past to prevent the terrorist act and save the girl. I love movies/books/tv, they can make what they want happen. Always.
Apply this to Iraq. Let's go back. Saddam: let's keep containing him, getting good intelligence. We turn back the clock before 9-11, Afghanistan. See what I mean? The movies can do what they want. Real life just ain't so. God bless us.
Friday, June 15, 2007
UNSEEMLY
Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate isn't serving himself well by badmouthing the military in the form of General Paetraus and the ousted Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace. I want to see Reid's "military record." Then and then only can Reid be even close to criticizing Pace. And, to blame Pace for the debacle in Iraq is about the epitome of stupid. Maybe Pace was not as forceful with Rumsfelt or now with Gates as possible but he's served his country well and has now been treated shabbily.
I really don't know what someone like Pace could do. Well, he could have resigned, I guess and yet, in the big picture what would it have served? Rumsfelt although a Patriot, still operated with a "I have my mind made up and so don't confuse me with facts." I'll bet you that Gates wishes he was back at Texas A and M. Replacing Pace is a long shot from making any difference in Iraq as if anything could short of rewinding and hanging on to Saddam.
In a recent survey of Americans on who they trusted most? (Although I'm not all that big on surveys--much has to do with how questions are asked). Question was, who is most trustworthy? It ain't the President and surely not Chaney; of the fifteen folks trusted, Chaney is fifteen and the President is next to him. Got to love it! Guess who was number ONE, uno--Patreus. People trust him and Reid even put the bad mouth on him because Pretraus said some places in Iraq had improved. And, they have and Paetraus may be able to bring this "quagmire" home but it would take five to ten more years minimum, plus lots of pain.
Reid is not serving his party well or maybe those of us who care. One of the only positive thing about Iraq happens to be the soldiers. And, this is no small thing, believe me. And, When Reid, representing the Majority party blames the military for the morass in Iraq, we have got to think that he is maybe suffering some TIAs or something. More likely, he was speaking to a bunch of left wing bloggers and was warming to his audience. Politicians do it all the time. They get in trouble by listening to the enthusiasm of a bunch of zeolots and the first thing you know, they've transferred into stupid.
I really don't know what someone like Pace could do. Well, he could have resigned, I guess and yet, in the big picture what would it have served? Rumsfelt although a Patriot, still operated with a "I have my mind made up and so don't confuse me with facts." I'll bet you that Gates wishes he was back at Texas A and M. Replacing Pace is a long shot from making any difference in Iraq as if anything could short of rewinding and hanging on to Saddam.
In a recent survey of Americans on who they trusted most? (Although I'm not all that big on surveys--much has to do with how questions are asked). Question was, who is most trustworthy? It ain't the President and surely not Chaney; of the fifteen folks trusted, Chaney is fifteen and the President is next to him. Got to love it! Guess who was number ONE, uno--Patreus. People trust him and Reid even put the bad mouth on him because Pretraus said some places in Iraq had improved. And, they have and Paetraus may be able to bring this "quagmire" home but it would take five to ten more years minimum, plus lots of pain.
Reid is not serving his party well or maybe those of us who care. One of the only positive thing about Iraq happens to be the soldiers. And, this is no small thing, believe me. And, When Reid, representing the Majority party blames the military for the morass in Iraq, we have got to think that he is maybe suffering some TIAs or something. More likely, he was speaking to a bunch of left wing bloggers and was warming to his audience. Politicians do it all the time. They get in trouble by listening to the enthusiasm of a bunch of zeolots and the first thing you know, they've transferred into stupid.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
THE FIRED GENERAL
I'm sure that General Pace won't quite feel it like many of my Vietnam vet buddies who were summarily fired after surviving several tours in the Nam. Many had shed their life's blood and Uncle Sam called them in and said, Sayonara. Officially it was called a RIF (reduction in force) and later downsizing. But, any spin you put on it, call it fired.
Thus far, I've not been a fan of General Pace or his boss, Gates. Let's call it what it is, politics. And, all generals above the 1 star are political or else they would not be where they are. As they face the tribunals for promotion, they have to have a sponsor, somebody already there, sometimes even a politician who makes sure they are afforded all the necessary considerations. And, so it is that Pace is where he is because of some element of politics. This does not mean he is not a good leader and honorable man; simply, it means that ascendancy just didn't occur on his good record alone. Scores of others whose records were equally as good were not chosen.
I feel bad for him. In his present job, he has not distinguished himself other than somewhat of a "yes" man. But, this is understandable. Military people learn to say "yes" to superiors, it is in their nature. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! We would like to think that the good Marine General, at some point, behind closed doors said to Gates and surely to Rumsfelt before him, "You are full of it." I've always felt that generals at the top levels need to be advocates for soldiers. Here we have a military with legions of problems: military recruiting, equipment being run in the ground, multiple tours at war, lack of preparation for returning vets--the list is endless. Advocacy at the top level is what is needed, not compliance.
Gates fired him pretty publicly even while killing him with kindness: he no longer can leap tall buildings with a single bound but is good at small ones. Politics really did General Pace in and in a sense, nothing to be done about it. Here's what I think would have given him a lasting legacy: be courageous in the same way he was while a combat Lieutenant in Vietnam. He's been talking to politicians who want to blame you for the debacles of Iraq. Most wouldn't know a pair of combat boots if it ran over them. To hell with them, Pace is better off and his firing won't solve Iraq.
I'm sure that General Pace won't quite feel it like many of my Vietnam vet buddies who were summarily fired after surviving several tours in the Nam. Many had shed their life's blood and Uncle Sam called them in and said, Sayonara. Officially it was called a RIF (reduction in force) and later downsizing. But, any spin you put on it, call it fired.
Thus far, I've not been a fan of General Pace or his boss, Gates. Let's call it what it is, politics. And, all generals above the 1 star are political or else they would not be where they are. As they face the tribunals for promotion, they have to have a sponsor, somebody already there, sometimes even a politician who makes sure they are afforded all the necessary considerations. And, so it is that Pace is where he is because of some element of politics. This does not mean he is not a good leader and honorable man; simply, it means that ascendancy just didn't occur on his good record alone. Scores of others whose records were equally as good were not chosen.
I feel bad for him. In his present job, he has not distinguished himself other than somewhat of a "yes" man. But, this is understandable. Military people learn to say "yes" to superiors, it is in their nature. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! We would like to think that the good Marine General, at some point, behind closed doors said to Gates and surely to Rumsfelt before him, "You are full of it." I've always felt that generals at the top levels need to be advocates for soldiers. Here we have a military with legions of problems: military recruiting, equipment being run in the ground, multiple tours at war, lack of preparation for returning vets--the list is endless. Advocacy at the top level is what is needed, not compliance.
Gates fired him pretty publicly even while killing him with kindness: he no longer can leap tall buildings with a single bound but is good at small ones. Politics really did General Pace in and in a sense, nothing to be done about it. Here's what I think would have given him a lasting legacy: be courageous in the same way he was while a combat Lieutenant in Vietnam. He's been talking to politicians who want to blame you for the debacles of Iraq. Most wouldn't know a pair of combat boots if it ran over them. To hell with them, Pace is better off and his firing won't solve Iraq.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 28, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 21, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)