Letters to the Editor
Mishima666
Published Letters: 125 Editor's Choice: 28
-
A very bad move.
[Read the article: A new front in Berkeley vs. the Marine Corps ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The last I knew we lived in a free country, a fact that those on the extreme left find offensive. Some have defended the City Council move as an exercise in "free speech." Fair enough. But people are also free to choose a career, and should be free to receive information on that career. One of those careers is military service, and one source of information is military recruiters.
This may come as a surprise to the Berkeley City Council, but many people have found military service to be a meaningful and satisfying career. Fortunately, we live in a time in which there is a tremendous amount of information on the military; the military is not the only source of information. Any prospective military recruit who wants to understand the risks and down side of a military career has any number of movies, documentaries, and books that will describe that in great detail, often in graphic detail. The words of critics of military service are freely and easily available to all.
Nonetheless, many still decide to join the military. It's not the decision I would make, but I don't criticize those who do make that decision, and thank goodness there are people who do make that decision.
I have never been in the military, though I have friends who have served. During the Vietnam war I was close to being tried in federal court for refusing induction. I was spared that due to a Supreme Court decision, and ended up doing two years of alternate service as a conscientious objector. That was my personal decision, my personal path. Others went into the military, and I have great respect for them. In other words, I do not assume that what was right for me is right for everyone else. I do not assume that my perception of morality should be normative for everyone else.
I do not now and have never supported the war in Iraq. But as a decades-long liberal I thought the resolution of the Berkeley City Council was very bad, and I was ashamed to be associated with people who would do something like that. I'm glad the members of the Berkeley City Council have the market cornered on moral wisdom, because I sure as hell don't. Of course they don't either. Unfortunately they don't know that, and thus have become an embarrassment to all true liberals.
-
When a Strategy Isn't A Strategy
[Read the article: McCain's risky strategy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In discussing military operations we have to be very clear what what it means to have a "strategy."
For example, in World War I the use of mass attacks against entrenched enemies, resulting in terrible casualties, was described as a "strategy." It was not a strategy; in fact it was the absence of a strategy.
Likewise, what we have in Iraq is not a strategy, but the absence of a strategy. Having a strategy means having a stated objective that one strives to achieve through rational means.
Question: at this point, what is the objective in Iraq? We hear various answers. One objective is simply to depart, thus leaving Iraq in a state of chaos. But that's not an objective. It is the absence of an objective. Walking away from the battlefield is not an objective; it is what is commonly called "defeat."
Or, the objective is to depart and leave a stable Iraq. But if that's the objective by what means do we accomplish that objective? What is the plan? A plan would entail some kind of timeline. The reason the Bush administration objects to a timeline is that a timeline would require a plan. But there is no plan. No one has any idea how a "stable Iraq" could be achieved. Whether or not the surge was "successful" it is a temporary measure that cannot be continued.
Or, the objective is, as McCain suggests, to stay in Iraq indefinitely. But again, that's not an "objective." It is the absence of an objective, and thus the absence of a strategy.
Any time a politician talks about his or her Iraq "strategy" we need to ask "if you have a strategy then what is the objective, what are the means to accomplish that objective, what is the plan, and what is the timeline?" If you don't have all those then you don't have a stragegy.
If a politician simply wants to depart from Iraq, leaving it in chaos, that's fine. But the politician needs to be clear that what he or she is doing is accepting defeat, calling it by it's true name. For all I know, maybe that's what we should do. But if so, let's at least be honest about what is being advocated. And whatever else it might be, it sure as hell isn't a "strategy."
And that's the basic problem. The Bush administration has gotten us involved in a war in which there is no strategy. They have run the boat on to the rocks and there is no way to refloat it. The neocons say that to lower the lifeboats and row away is "cut and run." I prefer to call it "abandon ship." That's not a strategy, but it is a great way to save your life.
-
A memorable experience.
[Read the article: Rock vs. jazz]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of Jazz performances where only 20 people show up -- I was once at a performance where two of us showed up. The fantastic jazz bassist David Friesen was playing in a hotel bar one night. Apparently a friend and I were the only ones who heard about the performance. For most of the evening we were literally the only ones there.
Many musicians would have packed up and gone home. But Friesen gave a performance like he was playing at Carnegie Hall. In between sets he sat at our table and sipped on a glass of water and talked to us about the local jazz scene, his instrument, other musicians, etc. It was an unbelievable experience, and in my view David Friesen is not just a great musician but also a great person.