America's Wars

Tonight President Obama will make what many are arguably calling "the most important speech of his presidency."  Of course, it appears that he will order another 30,000 troops into Afghanastan to bring our total troop commitment to somewhere around 100,000.  He also reportedly will outline a plan to effectively use American power in this God-forsaken, land-locked, tribal nation of cave-dwellers that will allow us to exit at some indefinite future date.

As I type these words the Democratic Party based is erupting with fury and scoldings from such glitteratti as Michael Moore arguing that he has abandoned the Party's philosophy that this is an unjust and immoral war and should be ended NOW.  We haven't heard from the "loyal opposition" but my guess is that the Republicans will mostly support this troop increase with some marginal criticism about the plan and exit strategy.

Now the question: is this the best strategy and will it lead to victory over the taliban and alqiada?  History tells us that the end result will most likely be an American defeat.  But, given the success of the Iraqi surge last year, it might work.  However, the American military success in stabilizing Iraqi is now in jeopardy because all sides have drifted back to their old ways and the majority Sunni are putting it to the minority Shia.  Ah, ain't life a beach?

A few years ago when I was an undergraduate student I took several foreign policy courses that helped me understand the application of power by a nation.  What I learned is that there are two "interests" for each nation: primary and secondary.  A Primary National Interest would always be the protection of the homeland, which would make war likely.  All nations strive to protect their borders from potential invaders.  A Secondary National Interest would be something that is a concern to the nation, but for which it would most likely not go to war over.

In those courses we used to argue and debate about the national interest of a superpower.  And since the only world superpower is the USA, the question begs: do we have any secondary national interests?  I would argue that we have few as everything that happens around the globe affects America in one way or another.  Hence, since the 1960s and our Vietnam adventure, America has stuck its nose into anything she thinks will adversely affect it, much to our chagrin.

It's interesting to note that correspondents are talking about the "war weariness of the American people."  Oh really!  What war weariness?  Have you or I been drafted?  Have our families made a supreme personal sacrifice?  Have we been called upon to make an economic sacrifice?  Have we marched on the Capitol to demand that America strive for complete victory?  The answer in a word is "No!"

Is this the first time in American history that our people have been so divided over a war?  Again, the answer is "No!"  History tells us the following.  The American War of Independence from Great Britain (1775-1783) was not universally supported by the approximately 2 million people living in the colonies.  Historians speculate that about one-third of the population favored separation from the Crown; one-third were staunchly pro-King; and one-third didn't care one way or the other.  That a minority of the population could start a war with the world's only superpower of that day and ultimately have them cave in is a story worth reading if you have not done so.

Other wars (War of 1812, Mexican-American War) prior to the seminal war in our nation's history (Civil War) were not widely supported.  In the aformentioned wars, the New England states and much of New York and Pennsylvania were against the effort.  In fact, a young freshman Whig Congressman (Abraham Lincoln) was a constant critic of President Polk's War policy to the point where he chose not to seek re-election in 1848 becasue of his unpopular stance in a western state (Illinois) that heavily supported it.

Absent a discussion of the Civil War, the two 20th Century wars were initially not widely popular with the American public.  Large blocks of German Americans and (in WW2) Italian Americans were strongly against going to war to aid Great Britain over Nazi Germany.  It wasn't until the Germans renewed submarine warfare (WW1) and the Japanese attacked Pearl Habor (WW2) that our nation came together and helped to finish the task at hand.

In fact, probably the only major war that was widely popular was the Spanish-American War (1898).  President McKinley was against going to war with Spain, but a "manifest destiny" congress and a "muckraking" press literly pushed him into it.  And, of course, it was like shooting fish in a barrell.  A decadent and demoralized Spain was quickly vanquished and America was on its way toward become a superpower.

So, President Obama is between the proverbial "rock and a hard place."  He has little wiggle room and quite frankly appears to be unsure about the decision.  Regardless, it will shape his presidency into the future and may cost him re-election in 2012.  But the bigger question is: what will it cost America?

America's Political Parties

Americans continue to express frustration, dismay and out-right hostility toward America's major political parties.  Some folks want no parties, just a congress or state legislature filled with those citizens who desire to be a public servant for a finite period of time.  Others want to impose term limits to keep new blood circulating and stop some members with tenure from abusing and misusing the system.  Most all express disdain for congress and the legislature, except for their representative; he or she is, well, okay!

If you study the United States Constitution there's not one word therein about political parties.  Nope, nothing, nada, zip.  So, how did they come about?  And when?  In the initial days of the new Republic under the Constitution of 1787, the president was elected by the Electoral College.  Each state had an Electoral Vote equivalent to the number of U S Senators and Congressmen.  Since there was no popular vote until 1828, the candidate with the most votes became president and the runner up vice-president.  Hence, in our first national election (1788) George Washington was elected president and John Adams vice-president.

Now scholars argue whether Washington had a political position.  Generally speaking, Washington and Adams were tilted toward the Federalist concept of government; that the power and authority of the federal government had more weight than the states.  As the new Republic grew the Washington Administration had two very powerful and contrary advocates within the Cabinet: Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton.  Jefferson spoke the language of the "common man" and generally speaking was tilted more toward state's rights.  Hamilton was an avowed Federalist.  These two titans fought often and bitterly, and as a result members of the Congress who agreed with them coalesced around a political party: the Federalist supporting Hamilton and the Anti-Federalist supporting Jefferson.

Since those nascent days, not much from a macro political perspective has changed.  The people continue to elect members from their 435 House Districts and two U S Senators.  And usually it's either a Democrat or a Republican, with very few exceptions.  Despite the hail of words from the candidates about how they will vote and approach bi-partisanship, all of this is forgotten on their first day in office.  What's that you say?  They don't get past their first day before going partisan?  Correct!  That's because the very first vote each member of the U S House and Pennsylvania House of Representative cast is for Speaker.  Both parties put up their leaders and the winner is elected along a party-line vote.  For you see, to get along, you need to "go along."

I can remember way back in the 1980s when my state House member decided to vote for the opposition party's Speaker candidate.  He liked that house member and his party was so far in the minority that his vote really didn't matter, or did it?  Well, it turns out that his vote did matter...to his peers.  He was stripped of his committee assignments, placed into an office with a member who smoked (this man didn't) and had to share a secretary.  Did he get the point?   You bet!

So, regardless of ideology, each Democrat House member voted for Nancy Pelosi and each Republican voted for John Boehner.  Well, you know who has the votes; it was Nancy in a landslide!  And, remember, the Speaker of the U S House and Pennsylvania House has broad and deep powers, first and foremost of which are appointing all the Standing Committee Chairs.  You cross the Speaker at your own political peril!

Can this system ever be undone?  Of course it can; nothing is forever.  But, it will take political will from a majority of members not on the extreme fringes to change the political dynamic.  And I just don't see that happening in my lifetime.

America's Wars - Are We Learning Anything?

This past Saturday the Harrisburg, PA Patriot News had an Editorial Cartoon which showed American troops standing by their Humvee with the caption "Know Yourself, Know Your Enemy, But above All, Know the Terrain."  In the background are large rocks with the names "Leave Mongols," "Turks Get Out," Death to the British Empire," "USSR Go Home," and "US Out of Afghanistan."

Sometimes I wonder how smart we are.  Does anybody read history?  Does anybody understand that the application of military might into regions of the world that haven't been conquered in centuries will not come to a succesasful conclusion?

There's an old axiom in politics which says that your enemies will work twice as hard to defeat you as your friends will to support you.  As American power is projected throughout the world, the question always comes back to that statement.  Who are our friends?  Who will help us fight these wars?  The answer, sadly, is that very few of our so-called allies want anything to do with these wars.  And our enemies, the indigenous peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Taliban, will fight to the death to keep us from changing their culture and their way of life.

Sadly, it's been that way since the Vietnam War.  America lost more than 58,000 of its young, many drafted into a war they wanted nothing to do with.  And thus far the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost more than 4,000 deaths.  To what end?  If Vietnam taught us anything it's that the limits of American power are quickly realized when we go up against an enemy that has passion, belief in its cause and is fighting on its home soil.

It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to know that any war fought in Afghanistan is domed to fail.  Study the history of this land-locked nation.  Of recent date, the British and the Russians couldn't subdue these grizzled-faced cave-dwellers.  What are we doing in this part of the world?  We have no friends and when the sun goes down, the populace fears for their lives.  From my vantage point, we should bring all of our troops home.  We can't afford to fight wars that bleed us white financially and in human terms.  Furthermore, bring our troops home from throughout the world.  We're not an "imperial power."  We're a Revolutionary people, born to fight to be free and achieve our dreams.  And our dreams are rapidly vanishing under a crushing debt that includes wars fought by both parties without raising taxes to pay for them.  Shame on both Democrats and Republicans for their lack of leadership.  It's time to pay the piper and we'll not like it one bit.  Too bad!

State Budget Crisis

We're 58 days into a new fiscal year with no approved state budget except for funding to pay the salaries of most state workers and all venders.  The question I have is this: does anybody care that we have no budget?  I sure haven't been affected by the lack of one; have you?  And that begs the question: what is the role of state government?  Having worked in the state Senate for many years, I've come to the conclusion that the first and foremost responsibility our legislators have is to adequately fund the needs of state government agencies, boards, commissions and departments.  Those needs are first prioritized by the governor during a January/February budget message, followed by House and Senate Appropriations Committee budget hearings, and finalized by the crafting of a bill to fulfill those needs.  When the executive and legislative branches are controlled by one party the passage of a state budget is fairly easy and usually done by June 30th.  However, when the legislative branch is split as we have today, you get exactly what we have - stalemate!  From my "centerist" point of view, my heart is with the governor and House Democrats when they say that we must temporarily increase spending during rough economic times to help those individuals, groups and governmental entities with unmet needs.  However, my mind is with the Senate Republicans who say that we shouldn't increase taxes during difficult economic times and either cut or hold the line on spending until better fiscal times emerge.  So, where does that leave us relative to the passage of a state budget?  Absent sufficient outside pressure to pass one, it leaves us in a state of limbo.  But, there's one budget line item - ESBE - that will most likely cause a compromise.  The Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education is the largest single budget line item and is the driver of state taxed dollars back to the 501 school districts.  As the new school year begins, there's no reimbursement checks heading to them.  And the pain will be great as programs will be curtailed, layoffs will begin and/or taxes will have to be increased on the local level to adequately fund their budgets.  Then you will hear a louder cry to "get it done!"

Health Care In America

The debate on Health Care has been hijacked by the extreme left and right through their media outlets, Talk Radio, MSNBC, FOX, etc.  The circus atmosphere is so pervasive  and the carnival barking so loud and shrill that it's nearly impossible for this issue to be properly debated.  I'm so tired of listening to people talk over each other, screeming at the top of their lungs to drown out the other person.  Where is the civility, the manners, the courtesy that our mothers taught us as youth?  From a "centerist viewpoint" I'm a strong believer that all Americans have a right to some kind of health care that provides access to doctors and hospitals.  I just don't know how to get there from here, especially when our nation is impolding as a result of debt so crushing that we and future generations may never recover from its effects.  If I were president, I would adopt the Teddy Roosevelt approach.  I'd call in representatives from the insurance industry, the hospitals and doctors, and lawyers, put them in a room and tell them not to come out until a compromise has been agreed to.  The carot and stick is simple: if the private sector doesn't create the solution, government will intrude and most likely muck it all up!