Redskin uniforms...and other topics

Okay, I dipped my foot into the political waters with my long-winded blog last week. I'm going to have to dive in (and risk sinking, I suppose) and explain myself a little better, or else take some punishment on these pages.

A few general notes...

1) Isn't this blog great? There's more thought-provoking stuff on these pages than most of the major newspapers in the country.

2) Paul's eloquence is unique. I couldn't have summed up the ideological reasons for staying the course and prevailing in Iraq any better. We are really much closer in accord than it might seem.

3) Regarding my mega-blog last week: anyone interested might want to re-read, I added a few bits and pieces after the first draft.

4) For many of my rants, I don't really have any ready-made solutions. They're just rants. I already have the best job in the world. God Bless those who have to come up with the solutions to these real-world problems and really live with the consequences. I'm just in the peanut gallery. Bill O'Reilly and the like can nail me if they ask about solutions. For most of these topics, I don't have any.

5) Timing, obviously, is not one of my strong suits. Election day in Iraq was hardly a day to list a laundry list of complaints against George W Bush. Sort of like reminding a guy on his wedding day that he once stole a stick of gum.

6) Such debates are great. For the most part, I can live with ideologues who have firm beliefs on issues, conservative or even liberal. Paul and Dan both feel deeply about the Iraq adventure, and though they're not necessarily on the same side, I can certainly respect both arguments. At this stage, however, I have veered away from simply lining up behind anyone, whether it be the President or anyone else. I think a lot of the Al Franken types are lining up against Bush (on whatever the subject) simply because they are going to disagree with Bush no matter what. Just as I believe a lot of Bush supporters are going to follow him lock, stock, and barrel, support him blindly no matter if it's the war or nominations like Bernard Kerik's. No, I don't put Paul in that group, he's been mad at Bush about several things. Nor do I put Dan in any group. They are to be applauded for being free thinkers in this whole debate, as I like to think of myself.

7) No truth to the rumor that I was responsible for the NY Times running that secret spying story the morning after the elections, either. I hate the NY Times almost as much as I hate the LA Times.

Here are some more specific clarifications:

1) Iraq. Of course the elections were a great development, but there is a long way to go, filled with pot holes, before we achieve the sort of nirvana we envision in the middle east. We've at least made a good start.

But I see a few different camps in this debate regarding our continuing military presence. The first camp is the stay the course at all costs camp. The second is to stay the course but not be especially happy about it. The third camp wants us to start drawing down, now. The fourth camp doesn't want us there at all and wants us out now.

Count me in the second group. Like I said, as long as we're there, do it right. To draw down for draw down's sake at this stage doesn't make too much sense to me unless we are getting closer to having the new Iraqi army up to speed. As that happens, I'd say a gradual draw-down is definitely in order. No need to even put dates on the draw down. Let it unfold and see what happens.

2) Priorities. I see all of the ideological arguments regarding our mission in Iraq, and acknowledge their nobility.

At the risk of offending the pro-war crowd, however, I view stemming the flood of illegal immigration into our country, and securing our borders, as more important to our well-being than establishing a democracy in the middle east that will hopefully bring stability to the region and, therefore, supposedly make us safer from terrorism. Not that I don't acknowledge the latter's significance. It's just that I see a greater threat to our well-being from the former.

Perhaps living a (figurative) stone's throw from Mexico has caused me to distort the issue. But the enormous social and economic strains being placed on local and state governments that can be directly attributed to the mass influx of illegals threatens us in a variety of destructive ways. Already, huge swaths of cities have been impacted negatively. They're almost uninhabitable, and getting worse with more and more illegals pouring across the border. A once-great city such as Los Angeles is almost a lost cause. Ditto for dozens of major cities and regions that are trying to absorb the influx. Heck, terrorists would be proud to cause that sort of social disintegration.

And I suggest that, for defense purposes, securing our borders with troops isn't a half-baked idea. Like I mentioned in the super blog, what an invitation it is for death-minded terrorists to sneak into the country and cause their mischief, knowing that a million or so are already pouring across our borders, illegally. Those sneaky scumbags are the guys I still fear.

3) WMD. Let me reiterate that I was all for the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Perhaps some of my complaints about our original involvement were style-related. But there is something a bit unnerving about the way we ramrodded in there on the basis of the WMD argument. At the time, I was sure WMD were being hidden away somewhere by Saddam, and that Dr. Hans Blix was either incompentent, or just covering something up. As time has passed, however, I started to wonder about the whole WMD justification to invade. Why cook something up, when there were already plenty of other reasons to go in and remove that bastard?

Taking down Saddam and his army was simply good for mankind. We didn't need the WMD excuse to do that.

This is all hindsight, but there would have been nothing wrong with Bush, in early 2003, saying:

"We neither have specific evidence of WMD existing in Iraq, nor evidence that Iraq has bought uranium from Niger to accelerate the process of developing WMD. But we believe this scoundrel would like to produce WMD, and might soon be capable of producing them, and even if he lacks the means to deploy them, he could act as a middleman to any rogue terrorist group that could deploy them.

"Saddam must not only be removed because of that potential threat to our security, but also because he is a nuisance in the most-volatile region in the world. And if we are ever to have some sort of stability in the middle east, his presence, and sympathies to like-minded terrorists, must be eliminated."

I would suggest that Bush would have garnered all the support he needed with such an approach, wouldn't have had to eventually worry about Karl Rove getting subpeonaed, and we never would have seen Patrick Fitzgerald become a household name.

4) GWOT. Of course, Iraq is part of the war on terror. And I understand all of the positive ramifications about creating a democracy in the middle east. But as I said in the first mega-blog, I won't necessarily feel any safer from terror.

It would be naive to suggest we ever will eliminate terror and destroy it, which was one of my hypotehtical fears in the mega-blog (the "We Whipped Terror" buttons, etc.). We can minimize the threat, which success in Iraq AND securing our borders would help facilitate. But terrorists have been around for ages, and they will always be lurking somewhere.

Our biggest worries, I still believe, are from the rogue terrorist elements, like Al Qaeda, that delivered the blow on 9/11. While we achieve our objectives in Iraq, are we really dismantling Al Qaeda? That they might not have a safe haven any longer in Iraq is a plus, but it would be naive to believe their threat is significantly diminished by whatever we accomplish in Baghdad.

We can't dismiss that another nation would ever attack us on our soil. Japan did it 64 years ago. But to do so would be risking their own extinction, and I never believed Saddam's Iraq, witht an armed forces depleted by the '91 Gulf War, had the capability to ever execute such an attack. For all of the military might of the Soviet Union in its heyday, it would never have dared try something like the 9/11 stunt. Only a rogue element like Al Qaeda would ever be so brash.

Of course, Saddam's role as a middleman of terror was one of concern, and eliminating him certainly was one of the focal points in any GWOT. Maybe he had a hand in 9/11, though I always suspected he merely applauded what happened, and didn't have a part in it (open to wide debate, I know). But, I firmly believe what I wrote the other day, that terrorist cells present the biggest danger to us, and they are still out there, throughout the globe, perhaps even in North America, no matter what the result in Iraq.

Removing a sponsor of terror, or one who sympathizes with them (Saddam both), is important. But these bastards still exist in the lowest bowels of society, and those are the sorts who can cause the most grief.

That's why I'm not going to put my guard down when and if Iraq is settled the way we want it to be. If anyone wants to feel safer, and that the danger is eliminated when that day comes when we exit Iraq successfully, okay. But I'm still going to be worried.

5) Our military. This will have to do it for today, as I, too, have to get to work. But let me explain what I meant by limits of what we can accomplish.

It concerns me that there are a lot of pro-war supporters who believe that success in Iraq is worth whatever the cost. That cost is already about $200 million per day, $260 billion (and growing) since the start of the war, about 2200 US service men and women killed, another few hundred coalition service men and women killed, about 150 American contract or other US civilian employees killed, another 450 or so of the same from coaliton countries, and about 16000 US soldiers wounded. Those numbers are all going to keep increasing (though hopefully they'll start to slow after the elections). And I haven't even mentioned Iraqi casualties.

And you can multiply by several times the number of people who have been directly impacted, and lives forever altered (most for the worse), by all of those numbers.

I'm sure I'm going to get the screams from those who say that we lost over 3000 people on 9/11. I'm with them, that's terrible. And I'm sure I'd hear that this is the price we have to pay to make sure another 9/11 never happens again.

But as much as we needed to get rid of Saddam, however, I don't think responsibility with 9/11 was directly with him or Iraq. I'm sure we'll debate that later.

That's not my point, however. If there indeed is no cost too great to accomplish our goals in Iraq, let me go hypothetical again. What if our number of dead exceeds 20,000? 30,000? 40,000? What if the costs continue to mushroom. $1 trillion? $2 trillion? $3 trillion? What if the draft is reinstituted, women are eligible, and men up to the age of 50 are eligible?

Of course, that's all ridiculous. But it's no more ridiculous than saying we will achieve our aims in Iraq, no matter what the cost. There is a cost. I cringe at the way we've lost so many soldiers over there (more on that below). And I plead ignorance in that I don't know quite how we're funding all of the war. Now that I run a business, I'm starting to notice that end a bit more. Government, and war, is different, I suppose.

Back to the military. Of course, it is the job of soldiers to defend. Being in harm's way is part of the deal. It's like a painter whose work clothes get splattered with paint every day. Part of the territory.

I suppose what bothers me a bit is the way so many of our brave soldiers have met their demise over the past 2 1/2 years. Saddam and his army had been rooted out within a couple of months of our invasion in 2003. The tradtional true "combat" phase, with a few exceptions, has been over for a long while.

For the most part, it's been occupation time for our men and women over there since, and the vast majority of our casualties have come as our troops have been sitting ducks for the insurgents and suicide bombers and other evil forces lurking in the shadows. I see no inconsistency in being for achieving our objectives over there, yet at the same time finding it very disconcerting about the circumstances in which so many of our bravest are meeting their demise.

I read Dan's forwarded story this morning, about the less-than-enthusiastic reception that was given to Dick Cheney when he met with the troops over there this past weekend. What hits me first is how anybody could be surprised at the story. Can anyone really believe that these servicemen and women are particularly enthused about the thought of having to stay over there a lot longer, knowing they might be sitting ducks for insurgents and the like? How about the reservists who are already on their 3rd or 4th tour? Sure, they've got a job to do, but how could anyone be surprised that they might be getting a bit weary?

I don't know that it is a particularly easy sell to the servicemen to tell them their mission is to risk their lives to form a democracy in Iraq that will help stabilize the middle east and therefore make us safer from terror. To go after Osama and find that bastard after what he masterminded on 9/11 is one thing. Or to go to war against Japan 63 years ago after what they did at Pearl Harbor.

I'm just not sure that risking life as a sitting duck against insurgents while we help make Iraq a democracy that will stabilize the middle east and therefore make us safer from terror is a terribly appealing argument for the servicemen or the vast number of reservists who have been called to serve, disrupting, and in many cases shattering, their former lives.

Of course, part of the deal as a serviceman or reservist is to defend your country. We're simply taking that a couple of steps further in Iraq.

There should be a lot of concern about what shape our military will be in after we finally get done in Iraq, whenever that is. Enlistment in the reserves is already drastically down. I can't believe we're not depleting ourselves dangerously. Worthwhile? Probably, but I'm not sure everybody is taking into account the enormous sacrifices and costs we have already incurred, and will continue to incur. I am alarmed that so many pro-war advocates seem to scoff at the numbers, as if they're, well, just numbers. They're not.

What if we have to go into Iran some time soon? Not easy, not with so much rugged terrain to deal with. We're apparently ready to go with more aerial power to deal with the current insurgent problem in Iraq, perhaps lessening the burden on the "boots" on the ground. Maybe we'd have to do the same in Iran, if we ever have to go in there. It would be a heckuva burden to send boots on the ground into that country.

I'm for staying the course, but I have reservations. I think we have to set some limits and not just believe we can go and pull out the military or threaten to pull out the nukes (and I've heard that argument more than a few times) to take care of business. Any assertion that the United States must run the world, even for our own good, is tricky. That's what every tyrant and would-be conqueror has asserted in the past: that they and only they have the answer to the world's problems. The Soviets believed that, and so did the British, the Germans, and the French with Napoleon, etc. Be careful, it never works out so easy.

Sometimes I think some of these politicos ought to go back and watch the original Star Trek, and listen to some of what Gene Roddenberry had to say. This would have certainly applied to Madeline Albright a few years ago, when she said, "What's the use of having this great military if we never use it?" Perhaps she should have paid heed to Captain Kirk, who, in the "Doomsday Machine" episode, said, "They built these machines so they'd never have to use them." Food for thought.

Way more to talk about, with John Murtha, Bush and his "yes" men and women, and other topics, all to come.

In the meantime, back to a serious subject: why have the Redskins discarded their burgundy pants?