Bloggy goodness all across the board.
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader figured he would take a few moments to try and respond to some items that have been written about in this space over the past week.
Concerning Bush and secrecy in government. The Minister of Propaganda made some very important points in this post. But, your Maximum Leader believes that the tendency to insulate the workings of the Executive Branch from the media (and by extension the public) has been going on since the creation of CNN. The Clinton Administration went to court numerous times to protect "privileged" meetings concerning Mrs. Clinton's health care reform initiatives. (To cite one Clinton era example of many.) And a closer examination of the records of the past 10-15 years would, your Maximum Leader believes, show increasing secrecy in the Executive branch of our government. Is this a good thing? No. As my loyal minister points out, exchange and competition of ideas is the very life-blood of a democracy. The public needs to be informed as to what the policies of his nation are; and what they are likely to be in the future. This requires a degree of transparency in how the business of government is conducted. How much transparency is the question.
Your Maximum Leader brought up the creation of CNN for a reason in this context. One reason for the increasing secrecy surrounding policy making is the fact that if there isn't some secrecy, incomplete policy considerations are likely to be reported on by the news networks. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News all have 24 hours a day coverage of news. And that means that every day brings them programming challenges. They are always looking for something to report upon. They would gladly report on what the President (any President) is doing or thinking of doing, if they could find out. Your Maximum Leader firmly believes that any president is entitled to get confidential advice from his people. But he also believes that "fact-finding" (to use a broad term) that leads to policy formulation should be open for examination. (Except in such cases where a clear national security issue can be shown to preclude public examination.)
Overall, your Maximum Leader would like to see more transparency in government. Though he sometimes (okay, much of the time) takes a dim view of the degree of political acumen of many of his fellow countrymen, it is still better for all that the information be out there.
Moving on to two linked issues... The Minister of Agriculture wrote about "Clarity for Kerry" and the Poet Laureate wrote about the possibility of the Draft returning.
The Minister of Agriculture wrote about how Kerry may be playing a UN card to cater to his Democratic base, but he is not going to just pull out of Iraq. The Minister of Agriculture believes that Kerry knows that he has to play to win in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader isn't too sure of this line of reasoning. Your Maximum Leader believes that Kerry is committed to both "winning in Iraq" and increasing the UN role in Iraq. These positions are not mutually exclusive. It all depends on your vision of winning. For Kerry, from what your Maximum Leader can tell, winning will consist of getting a UN mandate in Iraq and internationalizing the military forces there. Once that is accomplished, the problematic issues of Iraq's future government (and even status) is a group decision to be determined by the Security Council of the UN. Unrest in Iraq, which ethnic/religious group gets what, who controls the oil, and all other thorny issues would be determined by UN administrators on the ground with the help of Iraqis; and ultimately those decisions would be ratified by the Security Council.
That my minions is not winning. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe the UN is institutionally capable of "solving" the problems of Iraq. They have not proven themselves capable in Cyprus, the Balkans, East Timor, Lebanon, or any number of African nations. While internationalizing Iraq might take the heat off of the United States alone, it will not solve the problem. This begs the question of what will solve the problem?
Like the Minister of Agriculture, your Maximum Leader is becoming disillusioned with how the Administration is handling Iraq. As the Minister of Agriculture alludes (and has he said to your Maximum Leader privately), we (the United States) do not seem to be acting with clear intentions in Iraq. And regardless of that fact, we may not have the resources in Iraq to act decisively. Your Maximum Leader believes that a secular, democratic Iraq is an important goal. And one that with time and resources may be attainable. He doesn't believe that the United Nations will be able to mold such a state. (Indeed, your Maximum Leader believes that ultimately the UN, if they are more involved, will be unable to keep Iraq together and will recommend that it become at least two states. A majority Kurdish state and a majority Shia state; both with sizable Sunni minorities. (If not three states all together.) A secular democratic Iraq would be a leap forward in a region that is typified by authoritarian regimes. A secular democratic Iraq may also produce circumstances where extreme Islamofacists may not take root. (Ultimately, extremist Islam is our major security concern.) Only the United States and like-minded nations can produce any such result. The UN cannot because it is only going to be concerned about what is "best for Iraq" not best for the world.
So, where does that leave us? Well it still leaves us with the problem of the insurgency. Your Maximum Leader agrees with the Smallholder that if the Defence Department didn't think there might be an insurgency they were negligent. Your Maximum Leader is surprised (to be honest) that the insurgency is not more widespread, and didn't start earlier. But, it seems to be clearer and clearer that we need more troops on the ground. Where do they come from? Well, there is no easy answer to that.
Your Maximum Leader agrees with Senator McCain that Congress, regardless of what the President thinks, should vote to expand the size (along with improve the pay) of our Army and Marine Corps. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe there is a need for a draft, nor does he think one is in the offing. This will take time to accomplish, but should be done. In the meanwhile, shifting forces from Europe, Korea, and the Balkans to Iraq seems to be feasible. Your Maximum Leader believes that the current administration is holding out against increased deployments in Iraq because of how it would be perceived politically. This is wrong. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe the administration is ideologically incapable of sending more troops; they just don't want to "give an issue" to the Democrats. (This same line of thinking was also used by Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam. To make a historical analogy that may not be completely applicable in this circumstance.) This is wrong. If more troops are needed, and pretty much everyone thinks more are, more should be sent.
As for the draft...
Your Maximum Leader agrees with Tacitus insomuch as a draft is politcally nearly impossible, but it would be a clear sign that America was serious about its overseas committments. Your Maximum Leader has pondered this question quite a bit over the past few days. How could we institute a draft where members of all economic classes were equally likely to serve? (This is one of the questions raised by the Poet Laureate.) Simple. Remove many of the exemptions. Like going to college. If college were not an exception, lots more "upper class" kids would have to be drafted. As for fleeing to Canada (or elsewhere), that regrettably will always be an option for those with means. But what shouldn't be an option is pardoning those people who flee (thanks President Carter) or allowing them to possess or manage property (assets) in the United States.
Hell, forget the draft, how about mandatory military service?
One last point... The AirMarshal requested that your Maximum Leader blog about Saudi Arabia. That would take so much more time than he has right now... But to rattle off a few points. The Saudi Royal Family is corrupt. They hold on to power through careful spending of money, cultivation of friends who can help them, deflection of anger against them towards the US and Israel, and oppression of their people. Their hold on power is tenuous. But, the prospects of who could replace them is even more scary. Your Maximum Leader believes that Saudi Arabia is a deeply troubled nation that needs reform at so many levels he wouldn't know where to start.
Fingers tired my loyal minions. Will sign off now.
Carry on.
Concerning Bush and secrecy in government. The Minister of Propaganda made some very important points in this post. But, your Maximum Leader believes that the tendency to insulate the workings of the Executive Branch from the media (and by extension the public) has been going on since the creation of CNN. The Clinton Administration went to court numerous times to protect "privileged" meetings concerning Mrs. Clinton's health care reform initiatives. (To cite one Clinton era example of many.) And a closer examination of the records of the past 10-15 years would, your Maximum Leader believes, show increasing secrecy in the Executive branch of our government. Is this a good thing? No. As my loyal minister points out, exchange and competition of ideas is the very life-blood of a democracy. The public needs to be informed as to what the policies of his nation are; and what they are likely to be in the future. This requires a degree of transparency in how the business of government is conducted. How much transparency is the question.
Your Maximum Leader brought up the creation of CNN for a reason in this context. One reason for the increasing secrecy surrounding policy making is the fact that if there isn't some secrecy, incomplete policy considerations are likely to be reported on by the news networks. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News all have 24 hours a day coverage of news. And that means that every day brings them programming challenges. They are always looking for something to report upon. They would gladly report on what the President (any President) is doing or thinking of doing, if they could find out. Your Maximum Leader firmly believes that any president is entitled to get confidential advice from his people. But he also believes that "fact-finding" (to use a broad term) that leads to policy formulation should be open for examination. (Except in such cases where a clear national security issue can be shown to preclude public examination.)
Overall, your Maximum Leader would like to see more transparency in government. Though he sometimes (okay, much of the time) takes a dim view of the degree of political acumen of many of his fellow countrymen, it is still better for all that the information be out there.
Moving on to two linked issues... The Minister of Agriculture wrote about "Clarity for Kerry" and the Poet Laureate wrote about the possibility of the Draft returning.
The Minister of Agriculture wrote about how Kerry may be playing a UN card to cater to his Democratic base, but he is not going to just pull out of Iraq. The Minister of Agriculture believes that Kerry knows that he has to play to win in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader isn't too sure of this line of reasoning. Your Maximum Leader believes that Kerry is committed to both "winning in Iraq" and increasing the UN role in Iraq. These positions are not mutually exclusive. It all depends on your vision of winning. For Kerry, from what your Maximum Leader can tell, winning will consist of getting a UN mandate in Iraq and internationalizing the military forces there. Once that is accomplished, the problematic issues of Iraq's future government (and even status) is a group decision to be determined by the Security Council of the UN. Unrest in Iraq, which ethnic/religious group gets what, who controls the oil, and all other thorny issues would be determined by UN administrators on the ground with the help of Iraqis; and ultimately those decisions would be ratified by the Security Council.
That my minions is not winning. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe the UN is institutionally capable of "solving" the problems of Iraq. They have not proven themselves capable in Cyprus, the Balkans, East Timor, Lebanon, or any number of African nations. While internationalizing Iraq might take the heat off of the United States alone, it will not solve the problem. This begs the question of what will solve the problem?
Like the Minister of Agriculture, your Maximum Leader is becoming disillusioned with how the Administration is handling Iraq. As the Minister of Agriculture alludes (and has he said to your Maximum Leader privately), we (the United States) do not seem to be acting with clear intentions in Iraq. And regardless of that fact, we may not have the resources in Iraq to act decisively. Your Maximum Leader believes that a secular, democratic Iraq is an important goal. And one that with time and resources may be attainable. He doesn't believe that the United Nations will be able to mold such a state. (Indeed, your Maximum Leader believes that ultimately the UN, if they are more involved, will be unable to keep Iraq together and will recommend that it become at least two states. A majority Kurdish state and a majority Shia state; both with sizable Sunni minorities. (If not three states all together.) A secular democratic Iraq would be a leap forward in a region that is typified by authoritarian regimes. A secular democratic Iraq may also produce circumstances where extreme Islamofacists may not take root. (Ultimately, extremist Islam is our major security concern.) Only the United States and like-minded nations can produce any such result. The UN cannot because it is only going to be concerned about what is "best for Iraq" not best for the world.
So, where does that leave us? Well it still leaves us with the problem of the insurgency. Your Maximum Leader agrees with the Smallholder that if the Defence Department didn't think there might be an insurgency they were negligent. Your Maximum Leader is surprised (to be honest) that the insurgency is not more widespread, and didn't start earlier. But, it seems to be clearer and clearer that we need more troops on the ground. Where do they come from? Well, there is no easy answer to that.
Your Maximum Leader agrees with Senator McCain that Congress, regardless of what the President thinks, should vote to expand the size (along with improve the pay) of our Army and Marine Corps. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe there is a need for a draft, nor does he think one is in the offing. This will take time to accomplish, but should be done. In the meanwhile, shifting forces from Europe, Korea, and the Balkans to Iraq seems to be feasible. Your Maximum Leader believes that the current administration is holding out against increased deployments in Iraq because of how it would be perceived politically. This is wrong. Your Maximum Leader doesn't believe the administration is ideologically incapable of sending more troops; they just don't want to "give an issue" to the Democrats. (This same line of thinking was also used by Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam. To make a historical analogy that may not be completely applicable in this circumstance.) This is wrong. If more troops are needed, and pretty much everyone thinks more are, more should be sent.
As for the draft...
Your Maximum Leader agrees with Tacitus insomuch as a draft is politcally nearly impossible, but it would be a clear sign that America was serious about its overseas committments. Your Maximum Leader has pondered this question quite a bit over the past few days. How could we institute a draft where members of all economic classes were equally likely to serve? (This is one of the questions raised by the Poet Laureate.) Simple. Remove many of the exemptions. Like going to college. If college were not an exception, lots more "upper class" kids would have to be drafted. As for fleeing to Canada (or elsewhere), that regrettably will always be an option for those with means. But what shouldn't be an option is pardoning those people who flee (thanks President Carter) or allowing them to possess or manage property (assets) in the United States.
Hell, forget the draft, how about mandatory military service?
One last point... The AirMarshal requested that your Maximum Leader blog about Saudi Arabia. That would take so much more time than he has right now... But to rattle off a few points. The Saudi Royal Family is corrupt. They hold on to power through careful spending of money, cultivation of friends who can help them, deflection of anger against them towards the US and Israel, and oppression of their people. Their hold on power is tenuous. But, the prospects of who could replace them is even more scary. Your Maximum Leader believes that Saudi Arabia is a deeply troubled nation that needs reform at so many levels he wouldn't know where to start.
Fingers tired my loyal minions. Will sign off now.
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 4/25/2004 04:03:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home