A Suggestion for Senator Obama

Here are my thoughts to assist Senator Obama in his effort to be elected President.

McCain is a trained and experienced military officer. When he speaks on military issues, he has credibility, even when he is being disingenuous, as he often is when speaking on the war in Iraq. Obama has few military credentials so when he speaks on military matters, such as setting a time table for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, he is easily attacked as not knowing what he is talking about.
Obama needs a tool, an argument, that offsets his lack of military credibility. I believe that Obama should publish a military mission statement for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that provides a frame of reference and a foundation for all his discussion of military matters.
I’ll explain. Planning of a military operation begins with a statement of the mission: what the operation is to accomplish. The initial mission underlying our invasion of Iraq was to dispose Saddam Husain. That mission was completed in a matter of weeks. In fact Bush flew onto a carrier and held photo op on the basis of Mission Accomplished.
When the troops did not pull out of Iraq, I, and I’m sure thousands of others who understand how military operations are planned, waited to learn of the new mission. No mission statement was ever released to the press. Through news of what was happening in Iraq, we learned of what must be bits and pieces of a mission statement. Only discrete operational elements of the overall mission have been available. Such as the search for weapons of mass destruction, halting of sectarian violence, searching out and destroying Al Qaeda terrorists, putting down so-called insurgents, rebuilding the infrastructure, installing a democratic government, Etc.
What I’m getting at is, that the Administration and the high ranking military officers who report to the President have been, in my opinion, very careful to neither publish nor discuss our nation’s mission in Iraq for the simple reason that if the true mission statement was made public, the nation would know the mission is so broad that it is impossible to accomplish within any reasonable time frame and budget.
I assume Obama’s campaign has access to at least one three of four star general who can advise in the preparation of the mission statement that Obama will implement when he is president. With publication of such a mission statement, Obama’s position on military matters, such as a deadline for withdrawing our troops, is founded on a public document. Also when attacked, Obama can challenge McCain to publish the Bush mission statement, that they have hidden for so long.

Racism and the Oval Office

For the first time in our nation’s history, an African American is seeking nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President. Senator Barack Obama seems to me to be fully qualified to occupy the Oval Office as President were he elected. Up to this past week, I foresaw no problem with either his nomination or election.

Then the issue of racism raised it’s ugly head in the heat of the campaign to become the Democratic nominee. Senator Hilary Clinton made a public statement that some in the African American community took to be a slur on the good name of Martin Luther King. As far as I can determine, Senator Clinton merely made a statement of fact. Dr. King raised the nation’s awareness of the then existing social, economic, and political inequities of African American citizens in the nation. Because of Dr. King’s efforts, President Lyndon Johnson was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into law.
Senator Clinton merely stated the historical fact that it was the office of the President that actually got the land-mark law passed as an example of the president as an agent for change.

While reading of this dust up in the New York Times, I realized that this minor racist incident was, perhaps, indicative of what might happen if Senator Obama becomes President. It does not take a great amount of imagination to envision the reaction of the African-American community to the publishing of an attack on President Obama’s actions by columnists such as Maureen Dowd. Based on the reaction to Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, Dowd would most certainly be labeled a racist. On the other hand, the right-wing ultra conservatives would be equally quick to label the President’s actions as racist. President Obama’s term could degenerate into four years of divisive racist bickering.

My fear is that the citizens of our nation are not yet ready for an African-American President, not matter how qualified and well intended as he or she may be.

Thoughts on Pending Immigration Legislation

Back in June, when so-called immigration-reform legislation was pending in the Congress, I received an email forwarding a letter from a mutual friend detailing how different today’s “immigrants’ were from those that passed through Ellis Island one-hundred years ago.

I responded with a slightly updated version of an earlier blog. I repeat it because I feel so strongly about the subject. For me, the purpose of an intellect is action, not merely understanding. This is my action.

Here we go again. Although I agree completely with Rosemary’s point that things have changed since Ellis Island days, I fear she has made the exact same mistake that the Congress and the media are making, regarding the estimated 12 million illegal aliens resident in our country

The mistake and the response to Rosemary’s letter is simply that the 12 million or so aliens who reside illegally here are not immigrants. They are more correctly called “alien workers”. My Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the term “immigrant” as “A person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.”

Most immigrant ancestors of today’s U.S citizens were malcontents. So fed up with the situation in which they found themselves in their home country, that they sold out everything, packed up the entire family, and came to America where they had no job waiting and often could not speak the language. These immigrants were committed. They had no intention of returning to their native countries. For them, God Bless their courage, it was sink or swim in the new land of America.

There is a very old and simple analogy that describes a true immigrant: In the process of providing a ham and egg breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. And so it is with most illegals. They are merely involved in U.S. society and culture. They are not committed.

Virtually none of the current illegals came to the U.S. with the intention of taking up permanent residence. Most, if not all, came solely to earn the money needed to support their families who remained in their country of origin. They want to stay in the U.S. to work, but not to immigrate. They don’t wish to become citizens. They wish only to obtain documentation that assures them permanent residence. That being the case, they do not bother to learn English or to honor our flag. Hence, when they participate in a demonstration of support for their group, they fly the flags of the their mother country, proving my point.

Which is fine. Each year, thousands of true, legal immigrants come to our country, as they have for a couple centuries.

The legislation currently being considered by Congress is totally flawed, beginning with the name and purpose of the bill. We U.S. citizens and the 12 million illegal aliens, don’t need to reform “immigration.” We need to define and pass laws governing the rights, registration, and control of resident alien workers.

These aliens are here, most are hard workers, elements of our economy depend on their labor, and we need to recognize them. We don’t need to provide a “path to citizenship”. They didn’t arrive here with any desire for becoming citizens, so why provide a special means to do so. They want work, not to be one of us. Our current laws already provide a well-proven process for becoming a citizen. The ancestors of the vast majority of American citizens followed it.

To put my position in as simple terms as possible. Devising a successful solution to any problem begins with a clear understanding of the fundamental cause from which the problem arose. One test of understanding is to be able to assign a name to the problem. We won’t get anywhere with our illegal alien problem until we stop calling it an “immigration” problem and begin calling by what it is. An alien worker problem.

My Thoughts on a May 17 Speach by Senator Joe Lieberman

Ginger, my Washingto, D.C contact, sent me the text of the the Senator's speach to a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

My response follows.

In my view, Lieberman repeats the same tired and erroneous reasoning as the Bush Administration: Al Qaeda and our war on terrorism demand that we “win” the war we began In Iraq. I wish it were that simple. There is no question that both Al Qaeda and terrorists are fighting us in Iraq. In fact, it is accepted by both the military and intelligence agencies that Iraq is a training place for terrorists. But only because it is the perfect opportunity to hone their skills.

Lieberman makes all sorts of wild statements predicting doom and gloom if we “lose to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq.” But he gives no rational for such wildly exaggerated statements. It is like saying, in 1970, that if we lose in Vietnam, China or the USSR will attack us. Nonsense. Iraq, like Vietnam, is a minor war where no vital U.S. national interests are involved, and where a very large part of the indigenous population view us as aggressive, oppressive invaders, with the addition of a religious motivation thrown in.

The fact is that, like Vietnam, winning in Iraq is not worth the cost, so, as we did in Vietnam, we should simply declare the war over and leave.

As I have said before on this blog, the test of Lieberman’s position, and all those like him, is to ask him to state in fifty words or less our mission in Iraq. Never mind all the boogie-man bullshit. Just tell me, succinctly, the goal we hope to achieve in Iraq with the killing and maiming our youth. Mind you, I don’t mind the killing and maiming of our youth. That’s what war does. I just want the losses to mean something worthy of their deaths. Like Vietnam, so long ago, I listen very carefully for just such a statement, and have never heard it.

My Views on Taxation

Been busy completing the third draft of a 100,000-word manuscriupt of a novel I've been working on this year. While working away, I received an email from a friend lambasting the level of federal taxation we citizens pay. Here's my response.

My view of taxation may surprise you. I have an entirely different view of taxes than most folks.

When I got out of college in June of 1956 and was looking for work, the Korean War had ended in a cease fire a few years before, and the arms race of the Cold War had started in earnest. I decided that a career in the Defense Industry would be a good idea because I would be working with cutting-edge technology on systems that were considered critical to our nation’s defense. Thus, the prospect for long term employment looked very good. Equally important, the prospect for interesting and intellectually challenging work also looked good.

So, in October of 1956, I took a job with Electric Boat working on the first nuclear submarines. This was the beginning of a most enjoyable, 48-year, engineering career, that was personally intellectually and financially rewarding. A career that was paid for entirely by taxes on the citizens of our nation and, later, those nations of my foreign clients.

Thank you, good citizens everywhere.

May the Soviet Union rest in peace. As stated in my first positing on this blog my toast is: “So Long USSR, And Thanks For All The Threats.”

Immigrants Versus Alien Workers

The so-called Immigration Bill has been on the front pages and a lead evening TV news story for some time now. As I see it, the current legislation, concerning the estimated 12 million illegal aliens now resident in our country, now being debated contains a fundamental error that precludes its success, and perhaps its passage.

The error is simply that the 12 million or so aliens who reside illegally here are not immigrants. They are more correctly called “alien workers”. My Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the term “immigrant” as “A person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.”

Unlike our ancestors when they arrived on our shore and passed through Ellis Island, virtually none of the current illegals entered the U.S. with the intention of taking up permanent residence. Most, if not all, came solely to earn the money needed to support their families who remained in their country of origin. They want to stay in the U.S. to work, but not to immigrate. They don’t wish to become citizens. They wish only to obtain documentation that assures them permanent residence. That being the case, they do not bother to learn English, or our history, or honor our flag. Hence, when they participate in a demonstration in support for their group, they fly the flag of the their mother country.

Such behavior is merely an expression of fee speech, and, I feel, acceptable. After all, ach year, thousands of true, legal immigrants come to our country, as they have past couple of centuries.

The legislation currently being considered by Congress is totally flawed, beginning with the name and purpose of the bill. We U.S. citizens and the 12 million illegal aliens, don’t need to reform “immigration.” The current immigration laws are fine. What we need to do is to write and pass new laws governing the rights, registration, and control of resident alien workers.

These aliens. by the millions, are here, most are hard workers, elements of our economy depend on their labor, and we need to legalize and document them. We don’t need to provide a “path to citizenship”. They didn’t arrive here with any hope of becoming citizens, so why provide a special means to do so. They want only documentation that allows them to work, not to be one of us. Our current laws already provide a well-proven process for becoming a citizen. The vast majority of American citizens ancestors followed it.

To put my position in as simple terms as possible. Devising a solution to any problem begins with a clear understanding of the fundamental cause from which the problem arose. One test of understanding is to be able to assign a name to the problem. Which is why names matter. We won’t get anywhere with our illegal alien problem until we stop calling it an “immigration” problem and begin calling by what it is: An resident alien worker problem.

The Fundamental Role of Media in a Democracy

Received a piece from a friend the other day that was attributed to Jay Leno. In the piece, the reported dissatisfaction of American’s with the Bush administration is attributed solely to negative reporting by the media. The piece goes on to discuss, in some detail, those aspects of American society that are good. It then concludes that because the media does not cherish these fine attributes, Americans are: “are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.”

To me, if the piece was actually written or, even .presented by Leno, then it proves that you need neither knowledge nor insight to be successful as an entertainer. To blame the public’s dissatisfaction with the current Administration on the negative focus of reportage by the media, is not only puerile, it demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of what a democracy is and the fundamental necessity of reporting in a democracy.

The United States is a democracy. Since the ancient Greeks who invented the democratic form of government, the essence of a democracy has not been merely a political goal or structure, but, a social process. The purpose of the process is to provide the greatest individual freedom while promoting the highest standard of living for the greatest number of individuals within the society. The process is, by definition, self regulating and self enhancing. That is, the individual members of the democratic society collectively derive a consensus on what changes are needed to improve their society. By simple exclusion resulting from natural selection, the consensus for change focuses on those aspects of the society that need improvement, and which, when improved, advance the process toward perfection for all. The role of media is to report and discuss those aspects in need of improvement so that a consensus can form. By definition, those aspects of a democratic society that are satisfactory to the franchised majority, need not be reported or discussed.


This leads to some interesting anomalies. In American history, a consensus of Northern voters felt very strongly about freeing the slaves. A consensus of Southern voters felt equally strong about retaining slavery. The two conflicting consensuses were resolved only by war. The ancient Greeks, had no such problem. The democratic Greek city states functioned very nicely founded on slavery.

In closing, we have a word for media reporting that focuses primarily on the positive rather than negative aspects of the national situation. It’s called propaganda, and is generally treated with distrust.

Why I Think We Should Pull Out of Iraq

This morning I received an e-mail from a friend asking me, in effect, why I believe we should pull our forces out of Iraq. What follows is my attempt to answer her question.

For me, the keys to my reasoning as to why we should pull out of Iraq lie in the true answers to two questions;
a. Who are the so called “insurgents?”
b. What is our mission in Iraq?

Bush, the military, and, unfortunately, even the media, without exception, refer to the insurgents when they mean patriots. The Iraqi insurgents are simply Muslim patriots who are fighting a non-Islamic invader and occupier of their country. Fundamentally, we have no right to occupy Iraq. The argument that we must occupy Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people, is an ancient, but bankrupted, excuse for oppression.

Again, Bush, the military, and the media have failed to release a statement defining the military mission that our occupation of Iraq is directed toward accomplishing. Bush, as always, assumes the American people are simple minded, and talks of having to fight terrorism in Iraq so we won’t have to fight them on American soil. Terrorism is his boogey man so he paints a picture of boat loads of terrorists, waiting to infiltrate our boarders the moment our military pull out of Iraq. Which of course, is pure, high-grade bullshit. The facts are that, rather than suppressing and holding back terrorism, our occupation of Iraq is providing an ideal situation for encouraging, recruiting and training of terrorists.

When we invaded Iraq, the mission was to disarm the Iraqi Army and terminate Saddam Hussein’s rule. Well the Iraqi army was disarmed and is now being rebuilt according to our liking. Hussein is dead. Our mission is accomplished and we can leave.

Now, however, although no authority has said so, one supposes, from merely observing current events in Iraq, that our mission has become so broad and complex that it cannot be communicated in a simple statement. We can, however, state what must be major elements of the unstated mission. That is: recruit and train both the Iraqi Army and national police forces; rebuild the service infrastructure of the nation; fight off the patriots trying to end our occupation; stop the religious war going on between the two major Islamic sects; get the economy functioning to the point that it will sustain employment; and, lastly, kill as many true terrorists as we can find.

Small wonder no authority has attempted to put forth a concise statement of this mishmash of goals since they are clearly unattainable.

Putting it differently, it seems to me, that if you cannot justify the death and maiming of the youth of America in a simple, concise, statement, you ought to stop the military action causing the death and maiming.

Such a statement has not and cannot be written. So, I say, we should leave.