Archive for September, 2008

Seven Years and Counting

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

By Eric Anschutz, September 10, 2008

China was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics in July, 2001, just two months before the 9/11 attacks. During the seven years since 2001, the Chinese have productively spent $47 billion creating the infrastructure and designing the buildings and processes needed to support the Olympics, and their economy has, during the past seven years, tripled in size. During that same seven-year period, we Americans have counter-productively spent $3 trillion waging the now widely regretted war in Iraq, gotten embroiled in what now looks increasingly like a quagmire in Afghanistan, and deferred for these seven long years doing anything to rebuild and modernize our aging and over-burdened infrastructure.

Yes, we suffered the scurrilous 9/11 attack that caused the loss of some 3000 lives, and we needed to respond. And, yes, too, all that growth in China has come at the cost of gross pollution of their air and their waterways, displacement of millions of Chinese to make way for that nation’s economic surge, and harsh suppression of dissent. China faces massive problems in having to deal with all that, but we too face massive problems; we need to find a way to resolve them; in particular, we need to confront and deal with the deterioration of our infrastructure and our industrial base.

I write now not to argue that we should in any way emulate China, but only that we need to turn away from war and turn toward building. Columnist Tom Friedman, upon his recent return from China and the Olympics, wrote: (During the past seven years,) “They’ve been building better stadiums, subways, airports, roads and parks…(while) we’ve been building better metal detectors, armored Humvees and pilot-less drones. The difference is starting to show. Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City, and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan, with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 220-mile-per-hour magnetic levitation train, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of steel wheels and tracks, to get to town in a blink.”

After acknowledging that much of China remains mired in poverty, Friedman goes on to say: “The rich parts of China, the modern parts of Beijing or Shanghai or Dalian, are now more state of the art than rich America. The buildings are architecturally more interesting, the wireless networks more sophisticated, the roads and trains more efficient and nicer.” China’s construction of the magnificent $47 billion infrastructure for the Olympics, and the majesty and beauty of their unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, are the result of seven years of intelligent investment, creativity, careful planning and hard work.

Again, I don’t want us to become China. I want us to become once again the America of an earlier time: moral leader, industrial giant, cultural icon, scientific colossus and agricultural breadbasket. I want us to make massive investments in the development of alternative energies, and in the infrastructure needed to support deployment of solar and wind driven electricity-generating systems. I want our new “green” economy to generate millions of new jobs here at home, and to become a source of trade revenue as we export these technologies to the world.

Yes, we need to spread freedom and democracy, but let’s do it by the example of the genius of our system. Yes, we need to object to evil and suppression, but let’s do it by persuasion and negotiation, not by assuming the role of world policeman. The openness and diversity of our culture, and the freedom of action accorded as a right to Americans, combine to give us a unique strength. What we lack is leadership out of the mindset that confrontation and conflict resolve international issues, that negotiation and diplomacy are for wimps and tantamount to appeasement, and that bellicosity wins respect and trumps moral leadership. America needs nation-building at home, not continued endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not a brand new hot war with Iran, or a renewed cold war with Russia.

President Clinton put it this way during his address at the Democratic Convention: “The world has always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” Exactly.

Posted in International, Life, Money, Rantle, peace, politics, war | 1 Comment »

Avoiding A Train Wreck in Iran

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

By Eric Anschutz, 9-3-08

We are told again and again by leaders from across the political spectrum that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons technology, and that military action remains “on the table” if Iran continues its program of uranium enrichment. All this bluster could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Iran continues to deny any plan or any wish to develop nukes. They say again and again that their uranium enrichment activities are in support of reactors to generate electricity. Nuclear weapons, they argue, are useless; indeed, they are an albatross. The Soviet Union had thousands of nukes, Iran points out, and they were of no value when the USSR disintegrated. The US was not able to use its thousands of nukes in Korea or Vietnam, or in Iraq. Israel has an arsenal of some size, and has not found them to be of value in Gaza or Lebanon. So, given that history of the essential worthlessness of nukes, says Iran, why would Iran choose to develop and build them?

Iran may, of course, be lying. Many of the world’s intelligence agencies seem to think so. But, then again, most of the world’s intelligence agencies thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam was undertaking nuclear weapons development. We know now that Saddam was bluffing. Iran may be bluffing, too, and for the same reason: to leave its neighbors in doubt. Lest we forget, and this is never mentioned in the ongoing anguish over Iran’s nuclear activities, US intelligence agencies released a National Intelligence Estimate, in November, 2007, concluding that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago. At a minimum, we are uncertain about their plans.

Before we start yet another Mid East war by attacking Iran, let’s pause to apply some thought to all this:

Would an attack succeed?

Iran’s nuclear facilities are known to be widely dispersed, and not all locations are known with precision. Some parts of Iran’s facilities are believed to be deeply underground. If we (or Israel) do attack, it may be impossible to know with certainty whether the aerial bombardment succeeded – which may cause the attacker to deploy ground troops to assess damage and complete the job.

How might Iran and its friends respond to an attack?

Iran has said it will retaliate with force against any attack upon it. Almost certainly we could expect closing of the straits of Hormuz to oil-carrying tankers, causing the price of oil to skyrocket, resulting in worldwide economic chaos. Widened and sustained acts of terror against Israel, the US and possibly against European cities could be expected from Hezbollah and Hamas, both allies of Iran. It is not difficult to envision an escalating conflict involving other Mid East countries. Iran and other Muslim countries would probably experience increased nationalistic and possibly religious fervor.

Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, is there any real basis for expecting an Iranian nuclear attack upon Israel?

Iran’s leaders know that if they attack Israel with nukes, Iran would risk being wiped out in a retaliatory attack. But, some say, Iranians hate Israel so much that they would be willing to commit national suicide to annihilate Israel. Strategic expert Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University has written that Iran agreed to a ceasefire in the war with Iraq once Iraqi missiles began falling on Tehran. The ayatollahs, he concludes. might be willing to sacrifice soldiers, but not national survival.

What should be done?

Iran is said to be the most “westernized” of all Mid Eastern countries. American culture and mores are said to be attractive to many Iranians. With all that in mind, my suggestion would be something like this: open a US embassy in Teheran as soon as possible; send American movies and TV programs; offer to bring Iran into most-favored-nation trade arrangements; cancel all sanctions currently imposed on Iran; encourage Israel to send the Israeli National Symphony Orchestra to give concerts in Teheran; and send the New York Yankees to play ball.
But, most importantly, offer Iran a non- aggression treaty and a guarantee that we will not seek regime change – all of the above to be offered in exchange for open and continuing inspection by the IAEA of Iran’s entire uranium enrichment program – so that the world can be certain that enrichment is being done strictly to provide fuel for their power reactors. Though there is no certainty that my proposed “soft power” approach would work, it seems to me that it has a higher prospect of success than bombing, would cost less and be far less dangerous, and would win support from across the world, a world hungry for peace, and scared stiff of yet another war.

Posted in International, Money, Rantle, peace, politics, war | No Comments »

When Will We Learn?

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

By Eric Anschutz, August 27, 2008

Just recently, we passed the 400 mark of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. To memorialize that tragic milestone, “The New York Times” printed pictures of each of the lost 400. Reading now that 400 have died in Afghanistan, and knowing that more than 4,100 have died in Iraq, is saddening, even shocking. The words reporting all those deaths are bad enough, but seeing the row upon row of pictures of the now dead 400 was, to me, beyond sad. The pictures were in black and white, each the size of a postage stamp. Small as these pictures were, the “Times” required two and a half full pages to portray the 400 dead kids. They were in large part a cross section of small town working class America; kids from affluent families rarely volunteer for military service.

The “Times” pictures were arranged alphabetically, starting with Sergio Abad, age 21, from Morganfield, Kentucky, and ending with Gunnar Zwilling, age 20, from Florrissant, Missouri. The “Times” posted some details about a few of the 400, including Evander Andrews, from Solon, Maine, the first American fatality in Afghanistan, Bryan Brewster, from Fontana, California, and Matthew Blaskowski, from Levering, Michigan. Following the death of Sergeant Brewster, who died in a helicopter crash, along with nine others, his father searched the media to find information relevant to his son’s distant war; finding little, he concludes that Afghanistan seems to be the forgotten war. Sergeant Blaskowski died from enemy fire, in a clash that was at the moment of his death being covered by a TV camera crew. The Sergeant’s mother is quoted as saying that she views the video of that firefight over and over: “I think (his death) isn’t true, and he will call in the middle of the night like he used to. We would sleep lightly waiting for that blessed call. Now we don’t sleep well at all.”

Most of the 400 were, of course, young men, but there were a number of young women too. As I studied all those beautiful young faces, I was moved not only by sorrow for them and their families, but also by the loss to America. Every one of them had aspirations, now denied. Every one of them had a talent of some kind, now lost to the world. The tragedy does not end with their deaths, it extends to those left behind: the mothers and fathers and wives and children, all of whom grieve, and some of whom have had their own lives destroyed just as surely and in some ways just as brutally as those of the dead soldiers.

Our leaders will tell us, because it is expected of them, that these young people died for their country, that they died to preserve the American way of life, that they died to kill terrorists who would otherwise kill us. They died “over there” to keep the enemy from coming “over here.” Election to high office in today’s America would be impossible for anyone who publicly opined that these 400 deaths in Afghanistan, and the 4130 deaths in Iraq, and the 58,226 deaths in Vietnam, were wasted, needless, unnecessary, pointless, unwarranted, uncalled for.

Most Americans have concluded that the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were massive strategic blunders, but the war in Afghanistan remains in the minds of most, a necessary war, “the central focus of the war against terrorism.” The fact is that realization of our goal there, to capture bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda, is as elusive and distant today as it was six years ago, when that war began. And the fact is that every day we are there, more Afghan civilians die (collateral damage, they call it), resulting in ever-increasing hatred for America, and ever-increasing support for the Taliban and ever-more recruits for al Qaeda. With every passing day of the war in Afghanistan, we get less secure there, and here.

When will we learn that military force is not the answer to the problem of terrorism? The root of terrorism is misery and alienation and isolation and disaffection and anger at perceived insult. The number of terrorists in the Islamic populations is surely a small percentage of the population; most Muslims want peace and order and stability just as most of us do. To bring terrorism under control, we need to refrain from bombing a village in order to subdue or kill a few would-be terrorists; our focus needs to change from military force to intelligence and police action and negotiation. We need to win hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide by the example of our ability to build and teach and to heal. Doing more of that, and less of bombing will gain sympathy for us across the Mid East, and would gradually bring about disaffection of the majority of peace-loving Muslims from the would-be terrorists among them. Sending two or three more brigades to Afghanistan (proposed by both Obama and McCain) is not the answer. All that will do is increase the number of dead GI’s to something far greater than the current 400.

Posted in International, Rantle, peace, politics, war | No Comments »

McCain the Mudslinger and Muckraker

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

By Eric Anschutz, August 13, 2008

John McCain has Carl Rove whispering into one ear with advice on how to throw mud onto Barack Obama, while Joe Lieberman whispers into his other ear reminding him that Iraq has no border with Pakistan and that Iran is a Shiite nation. But the media continue to portray him as “an honorable man – prepared to lead our country.” McCain is not honorable when he mouths the noxious innuendoes and outright lies that are beginning to be the central message of his otherwise idealess campaign. Nor is he prepared to lead when his record demonstrates serious lack of both thoughtfulness and understanding of the issues.

I give the Republican campaign managers credit for their artful design of poisonous darts. Dukakis was destroyed by salacious innuendoes about his release of Willie Horton. John Kerry was destroyed when the “swiftboaters” portrayed his Vietnam service as traitorous, despite his many medals and glowing supportive testimony from his crew and others. Now, the Rovians are after Obama, and McCain has seized on muckraking and mudslinging to blur the fact that a McCain presidency would be nothing more than an extension of failed Bush policies, leading to unending and wider war, an economy mired in failure, stifled science, deteriorating infrastructure, and continuing worldwide disdain for US leadership and moral authority.

Let’s look at some of the lies that McCain and his Rovian acolytes are spreading about Obama. First, to distract attention from Obama’s overwhelmingly positive reception by the troops during his visit to Iraq, the Rovians tell us falsely that Obama refused to visit wounded soldiers because military authorities would not allow media to be present; the truth is that Obama chose to forgo that visit because the Pentagon voiced concerns that his aide on the trip was a campaign aide and not a Senate staffer (and McCain knows this). Second, McCain fatuously levels what amounts to a charge of treason, saying that Obama is prepared to lose a war just to win an election. Third, McCain self-righteously touts himself as “the American president Americans have been waiting for,” snidely suggesting that Obama is somehow not fully American (after all he has an African Muslim father, and spent some childhood years living in Indonesia). Fourth, a recent McCain ad suggests with a wink that Obama (graduate of both Columbia and Harvard Law and former president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review) is an empty-headed “celebrity” akin to the vacuous Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Fifth, McCain is telling us with a smirk that the adoring crowds greeting Obama in Europe, and the subtle support of Obama’s candidacy given by leaders in Germany, France and England, somehow suggest that Obama is more interested in fame and adulation than in substance.

After listening for a week or two to McCain’s grossly unfair charges, Obama chose, with a clear attempt at humor, to confront them by making the following statement to a nearly all-white audience in Missouri: “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.” The audience seemed to appreciate his comments. But McCain and his Rovian acolytes, probably concerned that they themselves might be accused of closet racism, preempted any such charge with feigned outrage by jumping at what they saw as an opening, audaciously smearing Obama’s comments as racist.
Amazingly, it’s working. Though there is widespread agreement that Obama would never deliberately involve himself in racism, if for no other reason than that such involvement would be counterproductive for the first-ever viable African-American presidential candidate, media attention has been diverted from consideration of the issues to discussion of McCain’s charges of racism. Which is exactly what McCain seeks: with no program to offer the electorate other than touting more of Bush’s failed policies, McCain benefits by diverting the media into endless and completely inane discussion of Obama’s patriotism (he doesn’t always wear a flag pin),and his elitism (he doesn’t bowl or hunt).

Meanwhile, Obama and his surrogates have refrained from anything that might be construed as an insult to McCain. The fact that McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and that his hollow claim to foreign policy expertise is belied by the fact that he has no experience at all in the architecture of national security strategy, is never mentioned by Obama or those who speak for him. When General Wesley Clark noted some weeks ago that getting shot down in a plane doesn’t make McCain qualified to become president, he spoke an undeniable truth. Yet, Obama immediately disassociated himself from General Clark’s comment, and nothing further has been heard along those lines. But, then again, Carl Rove is advising McCain, not Obama.

If you want your name added to the list of those who receive this column by email every time it appears in the Rossmoor News, please send a note to ericsr@yahoo.com.

Posted in International, Life, Rantle, peace, politics, war | No Comments »