Looking At Washington: The Right Question
An 89-year-old regular at presidential press conferences recently asked President Obama the right question at a session he was having with the press—more a speech than a traditional press conference.
Helen Thomas (at presidential press conferences with the writer as far back as the sixties!) got in one of the limited number of questions after President Obama had used up most of the time defending his reaction to the Gulf oil disaster. She asked:
“Mr. President when are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?”
President Obama attempted to defend the war—now the longest war in American history. It has not claimed the lives of many American soldiers, compared to past wars (just over 1,000).
So this relatively small-scale war is not ruining the families of enough Americans in this country of over 300 million to produce a major reaction against it. But even one more death in Afghanistan is too many. We don’t know what the final result of our (and NATO) invasion of this Muslim nation will be. More and more estimates are that we can’t pacify this country and eliminate the Taliban.
The death toll in nearby Iraq has reached 4,401.
There were over 54,000 deaths in the Korean war. At least giving up the lives of 54,000 Americans accomplished something, though historically, Korea is none of our business—and we still have troops stationed out there.
Vietnam was a tragic waste of major proportions and that war shattered more than 58,000 families—for nothing gained.
There is a possibility our Afghan war will also produce no permanent gain. Taliban forces reoccupy areas in Afghanistan after our occupation to end Taliban influence.
A recent picture on the front page of the nation’s major newspapers showed a young wife who had lost her husband, killed in Afghanistan, brought the real horror of war into perspective—she was kneeling at the tombstone of her dead husband, in tears.
That’s what should have been remembered more on the recent Memorial Day. But too much emphasis on Memorial Day was glamorization of military units, and bravery.
The suffering of survivors should get more attention, and cause more hesitation on wars such as the gamble in Afghanistan, where we now provide half the NATO force, not a fourth, as when we entered the war. Many European allies have pulled their troops out.
Weapons Economy
As the Obama Administration searches for ways to reduce skyrocketing deficits, which must be reduced if the country is not to become an economic disaster, some fail to see how much money can be saved in military spending.
The first step could be to get out of the Muslim Middle East.
U.S. military officials say we have managed to defeat Iraqi based terrorists organizations. Thus President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing many of the over 80,000 U.S. troops still stationed there should begin.
One hopes he will also begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan next year—whether or not the war against terrorists there is completely victorious. Many see that requiring many years.
There’s the question whether we should continue the deployment of so many troops in the Far East, especially the more than 40,000 in Japan where the prime minister has just resigned, in protest to the continued presence of American troops in his country.
Another sure method of reducing defense spending is in the field of weapons. The nation currently maintains a stockpile of nuclear bombs numbering over 5,000. Many estimates conclude that in any future war, if nuclear weapons are ever used, a big if, less than a hundred would likely be enough to accomplish whatever the goal is, to bring about peace.
The huge stockpile is a relic of our Cold War competition with Russia, but even if a war with Russia had erupted, most believe the use of several hundred nuclear bombs would have been sufficient to achieve victory. After that—if it was a mutual nuclear bomb war—they would have effectively wrecked both countries.
One recent estimate is that our nuclear bomb stockpile should be 311 bombs, or at most 500. Russia would have to agree to a mutual reduction—which some Russian leaders have already contemplated.
Many now believe we can’t justify current enormous spending on several new weapons, such as the F-35 fighter, estimated to cost over 500 billion dollars before the current procurement is completed!
There are suggestions that we equip a number of our submarines with D-5 Trident missiles, which carry a nuclear warhead. Deploying 24, which has been suggested, on each of 12 submarines would translate to 192 missiles which could be positioned all over the world.
Our B-2 Stealth bombers could also be equipped to carry a nuclear weapon. All this would enable us to reduce the maintenance costs of a 5,113 nuclear weapons arsenal by many millions of dollars, some estimating a total savings at billions annually.
A Divided Nation
There are understandable reasons why some in this nation believe major warnings should be heeded to prevent the United States from becoming a chaotic democracy—something on the order of France, early in the last century, a country of so many divided parties and factions, parliament was to a large extent paralyzed.
The rise of the Tea Party, representing disappointment in Washington and the political parties, divisions among Americans especially in the Southwest, the terrorists threat and resentment of Muslim Americans, the recession, and other current trends are reasons for concern—concern whether a unified democracy will reduce its crime rate and achieve unity and order in the near future.
The crime rate itself is a national disgrace. Over 150 children have already been shot this year in Chicago. Bad as that is, Chicago famous as a criminal gang city, the number shot in Orlando is even higher!
A majority now opposes wars the country is waging in Muslim countries—countries which are none of our business, even though terrorists have come from them. That is probably impossible to end, and our invasions of countries from which they came has probably produced as much resentment and hate of Americans as friends.
In Iraq where about 4,000 Americans gave their lives in eight years of a war begun by President George W. Bush based on false information about nuclear weapons, there’s still chaos. Over 100 people were killed by bombing in the second week in May—the same news of recent years even when we were there to produce a democracy, order and stability.
The new government seems likely, again, to leave Sunnis out of the government, though President Karsai was warned about this on his recent weeklong visit in Washington (with his cabinet). They are a major racial element (in north Iraq) of the population.
Attacks on the United States by Islam terrorists are likely to continue, or be attempted, and though perhaps not wise public relations, words spoken recently by Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, contained much truth.
Graham said the true Islam faith and teaching as practiced by some is evil, since it justifies killing. Graham said it was shameful, wicked and evil. And it is—as viewed by the standards of tolerances observed by most Americans and other faiths.
There are some 29 countries where Islam is a major faith, with millions of adherents. We are waging wars in two and striving desperately to win over Muslim populations in all, but damnation of a population’s religion doesn’t make our task any easier.
Millions of Muslims also now live in the United States. They are a worrisome faction in the racial and cultural mix now threatening American unity.
No Protestants!
In, probably, no other country could its highest court contain not even one member of the majority faith in the nation.
Not just from the numbers count, but from the historical record, Protestants have been the major factor in shaping the nation’s laws, democracy and society since its founding.
Yet President Obama’s latest nominee to fill the vacancy of Justice John Paul Stevens, the only Protestant on the high court now leaving, is the third member of the Jewish faith on the court. The other six justices are Roman Catholics.
All were appointed by Protestant Presidents.
This is a step from the thinking of many of the nation’s founders, including John Jay, the Supreme Court’s first chief justice. Jay, in stressing the importance of national unity, wrote: “Providence has been pleased to give this one country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Protestant) attached to the same principles ofgovernment, very similar in their manners and customs.”
Alexander Hamilton said the safety of the republic depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment.”
Hamilton was speaking primarily about immigration — which citizens of Arizona might be interested to read today.
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made similar remarks about maintaining the moral and religious unity of the nation. George Washington (in a speech written by Hamilton) declared: “To render the people of this country as homogenous as possible must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanence of their union and posterity.”
That the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t contain even one Protestant, representing the philosophy of the founding fathers, doesn’t mean that members of other faiths can’t and won’t do so—and have.
But, at the very least, it’s something of an oddity for a country of about 100 million majority faith Protestants not to have even one member of their faith on the nation’s highest court.
Odd at a time when historically, the Roman Catholic faith is beset with a worldwide mass of sins and crimes by thousands of priests following centuries old church doctrine that priests not marry. One doesn’t imply any of the six Roman Catholics on the current court are connected, in any way, with this scandal.
But it can be said, and should be, that the faith of the founding fathers and the historic faith of the majority of Americans should be represented on the nation’s highest court, which has always been the case in U.S. history, until 2010.
This has nothing to do with capable nominee Elena Kagan, who will almost surely be confirmed, as the court’s third Jewish justice, who is widely respected. But Protestants should still fill several seats on the high court, traditionally and democratically.
Looking At Washington: Hollings’ Advice
The most realistic advice to President Obama and Congress to create jobs—the number one need in the present recession—has been offered by former long-time senator, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, now retired.
Hollings served in the Senate for 39 years, after serving as governor of South Carolina. He is a Democrat but voted on the issues according to what he felt was best for the country, not on a party-line basis.
What he’s now proposing, as the surest, fastest way to create jobs and reduce huge deficits, is ending the flow of manufacturing and jobs abroad.
“More jobs are lost today from off-shoring rather than from the recession. Yet Washington does nothing about off-shoring because that’s what business leadership wants,” Hollings recently wrote.
He added: “Wall Street, the big banks and corporate America want to keep flowing these off-shored profits from China, India, Vietnam, etc.. They know they can make more profit off-shoring than they can domestically.”
Hollings says the media has failed to focus on the trade war, reminds Americans cheaper production offshore is the jobs problem. That problem must be addressed, to make production of goods in this country pricecompetitive.
As long as this is not addressed, globalization as we know it, and which is nothing more than a trade war with producers looking for the
cheapest country in which to produce its product, will continue to drain jobs and production from the United States.
Hollings suggests we eliminate the corporate income tax and gain more revenue with a 2 percent value added tax.
The value added tax, rebated, reduces the price of exports. Hollings also notes that enforcing terms of the War Production Act of 1950 would create millions of American jobs.
The problem with most of these remedies is that they’ll be opposed by corporate interests, since cheaper production offshore means increased profits. But the proposals Hollings suggests are in the interest of the working man, in creating millions of jobs.
If adopted, these proposals would produce jobs, improve the economy and could provide money to begin paying down the national debt.
Looking At Washington: Air Power In War
One of the most difficult questions for NATO and U.S. commanders in Afghanistan is how and when to use our vast superiority in air power on a terrorist civilian enemy.
Last month U.S. aircraft mistook three buses carrying native civilians for enemy vehicles they had been ordered to attack. The result was the killing of innocent Afghan civilians.
As with artillery, the results of shelling can’t always be predicted and innocent civilians are often killed, but if the shelling is along a front along which two armies are facing one another, there’s less chance of innocents being killed.
Air power, on the other hand, is not usually utilized on armies confronting one another, but behind the lines. The difficulty in Afghanistan is there is an enemy of civilian terrorists mixed in with the native population in towns and cities and the countryside.
That limits utilization of our greatly superior air power. And it may be that greater use of air strikes and bombing could be counterproductive in Afghanistan.
Past history shows that we have, in past wars, overestimated what superior air power can accomplish.
In World War II we thought aerial bombing could win the war. The British R.A.F. commander thought his massive attacks on target cities would win the war. On one R.A.F. bombing mission in this month in 1943 Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris launched 800 heavy bombers to attack Nuremberg– the spiritual home of Nazism.
That night 95 bombers were shot down, 9 others crashed in England and many landed shot up with wounded airmen aboard. About a thousand airmen were lost. On this month in 1945 the U.S. Army Air Force launched a thousand bomber raid on Berlin. Sixty-nine were lost–690 crew plus eight fighter pilots. Post-war evaluations came to the conclusion results didn’t justify ordering so many airmen to their death. (The writer was on that mission.)
In Vietnam, fighting against both terrorists and an army our vastly superior air power couldn’t win that war, and the massive killing of civilians turned many Vietnamese against us. Thus the careful use of our air power advantage in Afghanistan is highly important.
The killing of 21 civilians on three buses in Afghanistan in February hasn’t turned most Afghans against us but it is a warning. The Taliban has many supporters among the civilian population. The killing of civilians on the three buses was widely publicized, and was the fourth mistake our air strikes have made this year, killing innocent civilian Afghans.
These strikes from the air could have done more harm than good.
Iraq Verdict — Looking at Washington
Vice President Joe Biden made his fifth trip to Iraq early this month, once again trying to persuade leaders of various parties to collaborate in forming a new government.
The government we fought with, and American troops died doing so in a joint effort, deserve to know whether the leader of the country we supported, costing over 4,000 American deaths and over 30,000 wounded, is to continue to lead the country—Nouri al-Maliki.
His party, and allied parties, won fewer seats in the Iraq parliament than backers of Ayad Allawi. And for four months now the various factions have been deadlocked, with the designation of the new prime minister undetermined.
Meanwhile, bombings continue and Washington insists U.S. troop withdrawals will be on schedule at the end of August. But this announcement is deceiving.
We now have 80,000 American soldiers in this small Muslim country, who probably never should have been sent there.
The U.S. invasion of this Muslim nation was an unforgivable tragedy—for Christians, numbered over a million, living in Iraq, a country of less than 20 million.
Some 600,000 Christians fled the country because of the reaction of Muslims to a Christian invasion. Thousands were killed and tens of thousands lost all their possessions. We hear little about this in our glamorized publicity about a U.S. victory and the sacrifice of Americans (hopefully for a permanent, meaningful victory).
As to the much-publicized troop withdrawal, it’s importance and significance is overrated. We are only going to bring home, now, 30,000 Americans, leaving far more, 50,000, remaining in Iraq. This proves we know the war there is not a permanent victory, as bombings continue and the deadlock over formation of a new government continues.
And since we recently added 30,000 troops to our forces fighting another highly questionable war in Afghanistan, the number of Americans ordered to fight wars in these two Muslim countries remains the same. As suicides among our soldiers increase and Americans are facing reductions in government job programs, and even mail service—for lack of money—Americans continue to die in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, with June claiming the highest number of monthly American deaths in the entire eight plus years of war in Afghanistan, possibly a worse gamble than Iraq.
These two gambles are costing an estimated $200 billion dollars a year!