Rantle

By Eric Anschutz, February 27, 2008

Senator Obama tells us that there is one America. There is, he says, no Liberal America, no Conservative America; there is only The United States of America. I wish it were so, but I have doubts. Increasingly, it seems to me that there are two Americas; Senator Edwards held, wrongly I think, that those below the poverty line constitute one America, and the wealthier among us constitute the other America. He was wrong, I believe, because ideology cuts across income lines. Let me explain.

At the risk of generalizing, here’s one way to define Blue America: latte drinking, Prius driving, Birkenstock-wearing, tax and spend liberals! Blue America includes most Duemocrats, most blacks, most Hispanics, most school teachers, virtually all college professors, most atheists and agnostics, and believes that the First Amendment (freedom of speech, of the press and of the right peaceably to assemble) is the single most important part of the Bill of Rights. Blue America wants to save money by bringing our troops home from the 130 overseas bases on which they are now deployed, and to invest, instead, far more in infrastructure and education and health care. Blue America believes in a multilateral foreign policy and in the importance of the United Nations, thinks that war is almost always counterproductive, believes that soft power is actually more potent than military power, and that negotiation is always preferable to conflict. Blue America believes in a social and educational and business meritocracy, but also believes that affirmative action is essential for full integration of minorities, in a safety net for the underprivileged, and in a far higher minimum wage; it is convinced that global warming is real, that it is man-made, and that conservation and alternative fuel technologies must be far more aggressively developed and deployed.

On the other hand, red America, (and, again, forgive the gross generalization), drives SUVs, refutes global warming, disdains tree-hugging conservationists, believes that creationism is more likely than evolution and that it should be taught in our public schools, disdains big government (except for the military, which is never big enough to suit them), wants government out of our private lives (except for abortion and same sex marriage), and cherishes the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) above all others. Red America embraces republicans, Christian Evangelicals, NASCAR fans, and hunters; it believes strongly in individual responsibility and self-reliance, disdains the United Nations and the welfare state, denies the need for affirmative action (except for corporations), and holds the view that anyone can “make it” in America if they work hard and obey the rules. They believe in “my country, right or wrong,” that invading Iraq was a good idea and that we need to stay there until we win, that we should maintain permanent bases in Iraq, that it is necessary for our security to keep troops in Germany and South Korea and Japan and in the 127 other countries in which they are now based, and that our aircraft carriers have every right to relentlessly patrol the Straits of Hormuz as a way to remind Iran, constantly, that the military option remains on the table.

The American electorate is hopeful of finding a way to bridge the ideological chasm that separates Blue America from Red America. Barack Obama has made reconciliation of the two halves of America a central part of his campaign promise. Here, taken from an on-line article in the “Nation,” are Obama’s thoughts on the matter: “I have learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.”

The “Nation” article continues with its own thoughts: “Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, “operatives”) and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows wavering Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join.”

I, for one, continue to have doubts about bridging the gap. But like most of the rest of the country, I am hopeful. Remember, however, that we had heard the plea for unity before: George Bush 43 promised to be a “uniter, not a divider.” Perhaps Bush has done it in part: at least Democrats are united as never before. But Blues and Reds are further apart than ever.

By Eric Anschutz, February 20, 2008

The Decider’s game plan for Iraq became apparent more than a year ago: keep the troops there, at whatever cost, until January 2009. The Democrats will then take the White House, and begin the process of pulling the troops out. That will allow Republicans to proclaim that victory was in America’s grasp, and to blame the “cut and run, America-hating Democrats” for our having lost the war in Iraq.

The Republican candidates (with the singular exception of the undaunted Ron Paul) vie with one another for the position of Head Rambo. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to “win,” whatever that means. Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo, increase the size of our military, and fight on against his relentlessly repeated fantasy of the “Islamic Caliphate.” The now wholly-discredited Giuliani keeps repeating his 9-11 mantra, defends water-boarding and urges an expanded war against Moslem terrorists worldwide.

Let me elaborate about Ron Paul. While I disagree with his views on tax policy, affirmative action, abortion, stem cell research and health care, Congressman Paul’s criticism of America’s foreign policy is both original and courageous. Here’s what this very unique Republican says – the following five points are quoted directly from his web site:

• The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars.
• Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
• We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
• Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
• At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Given his views, Congressman Paul will never be nominated for the presidency by the Republican Party, but the foreign policy notions expressed above, and in his campaign appearances, are worthy of serious consideration, which they have not received. Instead, during debates between Republican candidates, Paul’s views were often ridiculed by the other candidates, and frequently subject to open disdain from Giuliani, and smirks from Romney and McCain. ,

Nor are Paul’s views supported by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or, indeed, by any mainstream media or foreign policy analysts, liberal or conservative. Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who has bowed out of the presidential race, is the sole exception, and he, like Paul was neither a serious candidate, nor is he an esteemed member of his party.

But Kucinich and Paul are right: we do have troops in 130 countries, and our military budget exceeds the cumulative total of all other military budgets in the world. Why? The cost in dollars of this military bloat has put our country into massive debt, has drained our infrastructure, our education system, and cost us moral authority and leadership in science and industry. Isn’t it time to rethink our foreign and military policies, to bring our troops home from the 130 countries in which they are based for no good reason, and at such great expense to our taxpayers, and use those wasted billions to rebuild America?

By Eric Anschutz, February 6, 2008

Recent polls tell us that though some 80% of Americans are satisfied with their lives; but here’s the paradox: a like percentage believes that our nation is on the wrong course. Thus, we are generally optimistic about our personal situation, but at the same time profoundly discontent with the affairs and direction of our nation. Since I count myself as one of the 80%, who feel that way, I thought it might be worthwhile to ponder the reason for our national disgruntlement, the sour public mood and the widespread restlessness when it comes to the state of our union.

The war in Iraq is clearly a part of it. We hold our leaders in low repute because of the war, not only because it is now widely agreed that the war was needless, even counterproductive, but perhaps as importantly because the war has been so badly and even corruptly executed. We have experienced more than four years of one tragic mistake after another. Not only has this needless war cost lives and limbs and treasure and reputation, it has at the same time shown us to be inept, not only in warfare, but as well in reconstruction and diplomacy and civil management. We wanted to bring stability and democracy to the Mid East; instead we brought chaos and a fertile ground for terrorism to grow and to further develop its nefarious skills.

But, it is not only the war. Failure to rebuild New Orleans is another sign of inept governmental leadership, local and state, as well as federal. And it is not only governmental failures that have brought discontent to 80% of us: leaders all across the landscape of America have fallen from grace. Here are just a few particulars:

• Our CEO’s gave us the scandals of Enron and Tyco and WorldCom and Health South and Adelphia; even the CEO of the iconic American Red Cross has recently proved culpable.
• America’s most prestigious financial institutions, allowing greed to win over good sense, have given us the tragedy of ill-advised loans, on a scale so massive that it continue to rock the economy, and to threaten a decline into recession.
• Some churches have became known more for pedophilia than sanctity, needing to dun congregations for billions of dollars to settle the countless law suits that arose from decades of priestly offenses against children. Numbers of evangelical leaders, too, have surrendered moral leadership with acts of moral turpitude.
• Our media let America down in the run-up to the war by failing to present any of the many arguments against it. There were many who foresaw the tragedy that would ensue from a US takeover of Iraq. Twenty-three Democratic Senators spoke out and voted against the war, but the media (including especially the allegedly “liberal” New York Times and Washington Post) were cowed into marching to and even amplifying the administration’s drumbeats for war.
• We have in the seven years of the Bush administration increased our national debt from $5.5 trillion to $9 trillion (some $800 billion of that increase results from the Iraq war); most of the rest is from Bush’s ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy.
• Global warming is getting worse every year – and though many of our state governments (notably California) are attempting to stem the tide, virtually nothing is being done about it at the federal level.

So, what needs to be done to bring that disenchanted 80% of us back from dissatisfaction with the direction of our country to pride in our accomplishments and hopefulness for our future? The answer begins with withdrawal from war. We must then proceed to aggressive diplomacy and a willingness to listen to and to work together with other nations and with the United Nations. We must work to find solutions to global warming, provide greatly expanded aid to impoverished countries, create federal policies to nourish US science and development, and multiply our investments in education, universal health care, and the infrastructure of our American cities. All of this will, of course, cost a lot, but so has the war. And, unlike war, which is inherently destructive and wasteful, investment in America will provide continuing economic stimulus and the promise of a better tomorrow.

by Eric Anschutz, April, 2007

Americans of every political stripe share a concern about the state of our world. Relationships between our country and much of the Islamic Mid-East range from tense to hostile to incendiary. There is growing concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility that some may come into the hands of terrorists, especially those driven by irrational religious extremism.

To compound some of these anxieties, the role of nation-states is diminishing, while the role of sects and sub-national players expands daily. These sub-national groups, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like, wield power, far greater than their numbers would suggest, because of their readiness to kill any and all who stand in their way, and because of their willingness to perform suicidal missions. These insurgents and terrorist groups are difficult to root out and defeat militarily because they live in population centers, because they do their murderous deeds in everyday locations such as shopping areas and busy intersections, and because they are often difficult to identify; most have “day jobs” driving taxicabs and teaching school, or even serving as local police.

We cannot hope to guard every market place, every mosque, every hospital and every school all the time. Nor could a “trained” Iraqi army and police force do so. Baghdad has become a place where every car and truck is a possible explosives-laden missile, every grandmother is a possible terrorist with nail-studded dynamite under the tent of her burqa, and every wedding party, every school building and sporting event is a possible target.

We are told that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our own streets. Maybe, but I doubt that. Terrorists on the streets of Baghdad are Arabs with few if any skills in the English language, and little if any knowledge of our culture. Those who might follow us to America would find it difficult to blend into our communities without being detected. It is said that al Qaeda cells already exist in America; if so, that threat has so far been fully contained. Our police and FBI are demonstrably much better at this kind of thing than Iraqi police, and better than American soldiers in Iraq, who must do their work in a alien culture with no local language skills.

It is of course possible, perhaps even probable that we will one day suffer another major terrorist attack against the American homeland. But I think that the assertion that “they will follow us home” if we pull our troops out of Iraq is specious and misleading. Our troops will leave Iraq one day, if not this year or next, then some day in the future. And so far, with every passing month that we stay in Iraq, the numbers of terrorists has increased. Their ranks are replenished constantly, even as we kill and capture them by the hundreds and thousands. The war in Iraq, and the large American presence in the Middle East, has rallied Moslem extremists against us in ever-increasing numbers.

My thought, just thinking… is to leave as soon as logistically possible, within months, not years. If the Shia and Sunni extremists are determined to continue their civil war, let them do so without our troops standing in the middle. We are now spending some $10 billion every month in Iraq; once we withdraw our troops, we could allocate a fraction of that amount to enhance our homeland security, and a further fraction to create economic and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, making deals with all those willing to make them in exchange for peace, and save the lives and limbs of countless American soldiers in the process. To stabilize the wider Middle East, and to bring lasting peace to the region, we must negotiate with Iran, with Syria and with Lebanon, and find ways to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

by Eric Anschutz, April, 2007

Americans of every political stripe share a concern about the state of our world. Relationships between our country and much of the Islamic Mid-East range from tense to hostile to incendiary. There is growing concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility that some may come into the hands of terrorists, especially those driven by irrational religious extremism.

To compound some of these anxieties, the role of nation-states is diminishing, while the role of sects and sub-national players expands daily. These sub-national groups, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like, wield power, far greater than their numbers would suggest, because of their readiness to kill any and all who stand in their way, and because of their willingness to perform suicidal missions. These insurgents and terrorist groups are difficult to root out and defeat militarily because they live in population centers, because they do their murderous deeds in everyday locations such as shopping areas and busy intersections, and because they are often difficult to identify; most have “day jobs” driving taxicabs and teaching school, or even serving as local police.

We cannot hope to guard every market place, every mosque, every hospital and every school all the time. Nor could a “trained” Iraqi army and police force do so. Baghdad has become a place where every car and truck is a possible explosives-laden missile, every grandmother is a possible terrorist with nail-studded dynamite under the tent of her burqa, and every wedding party, every school building and sporting event is a possible target.

We are told that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our own streets. Maybe, but I doubt that. Terrorists on the streets of Baghdad are Arabs with few if any skills in the English language, and little if any knowledge of our culture. Those who might follow us to America would find it difficult to blend into our communities without being detected. It is said that al Qaeda cells already exist in America; if so, that threat has so far been fully contained. Our police and FBI are demonstrably much better at this kind of thing than Iraqi police, and better than American soldiers in Iraq, who must do their work in a alien culture with no local language skills.

It is of course possible, perhaps even probable that we will one day suffer another major terrorist attack against the American homeland. But I think that the assertion that “they will follow us home” if we pull our troops out of Iraq is specious and misleading. Our troops will leave Iraq one day, if not this year or next, then some day in the future. And so far, with every passing month that we stay in Iraq, the numbers of terrorists has increased. Their ranks are replenished constantly, even as we kill and capture them by the hundreds and thousands. The war in Iraq, and the large American presence in the Middle East, has rallied Moslem extremists against us in ever-increasing numbers.

My thought, just thinking… is to leave as soon as logistically possible, within months, not years. If the Shia and Sunni extremists are determined to continue their civil war, let them do so without our troops standing in the middle. We are now spending some $10 billion every month in Iraq; once we withdraw our troops, we could allocate a fraction of that amount to enhance our homeland security, and a further fraction to create economic and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, making deals with all those willing to make them in exchange for peace, and save the lives and limbs of countless American soldiers in the process. To stabilize the wider Middle East, and to bring lasting peace to the region, we must negotiate with Iran, with Syria and with Lebanon, and find ways to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.