Yet no matter who wins on Tuesday, much of what goes on in Washington won't be all that different.
That's because there are significant limits on what a president can do without a compliant Congress. And forecasters expect the House to remain in Republican hands and the Senate to remain in Democratic hands. That sets the stage for the same Congressional gridlock we've seen over the past four years, when Congress' approval rating has hovered around 10 percent.
And let's say that Mr. Obama wins the election and the House also, improbably, ends up in Democratic hands. Even if Democrats hold the Senate, they still almost certainly won't have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, which will make it easy for Republicans to block many of their policy goals.
On the flip side, let's say Romney wins and Republicans take control of the Senate and hang onto the House. Republicans also wouldn't have 60 Senate votes, and while either party could use a maneuver called "reconciliation" to circumvent the filibuster on certain budget matters - this is what Republicans want to use to block the health care law from going into effect - the minority would still have significant power to stymie the majority.
Over two billion wasted on this election and no change expected. It figures.
(I'm not disputing Brian Montopoli, I think he's 100% correct about nothing changing.)
Imagine if Barack hadn't destroyed public financing in the general election. They wouldn't have wasted so much money.
I think this is the thing that, four years from now, even the left will have to realize is a problem, the destruction of a Watergate remedy to take soft money out of the presidential elections.
But what's done is done and they applauded Barack, didn't they?
A pet peeve. I drive to work and park underground. Sometimes, if I'm going crosstown but too far to walk, I will take public transportation.
I have no problem with taking public transportation . . . except . . .
Damn it, enforce the rules. I had to help a friend at lunch. I hopped onboard telling myself how I was helping the environment and then went over forms with her for 30 minutes before hopping the bus back.
On the way there and back, I had a woman behind me eating food. Fast food. Which smelled up the whole bus. There is a no eating sign. Why are you eating on the bus.
Do you get that other people may be hungry?
I was starving. I know the insurance forms backwards and forwards from years of my practice and I had no problem helping someone lost with them. I know that a new practice, especially, needs those filled out in a timely manner or you're waiting for checks that you can't afford to wait on.
I didn't mind rushing over (and insisted on it -- she offered to drop by my house tonight, I knew those needed to be faxed out today and that it would be easier to go over with her in person than on the phone from my office). But if there is a rule of no eating, and that is posted clearly, then enforce it.
Maybe the driver was just tired of playing monitor? He'd already collected a man's phone. The man was blasting music over the speaker. The driver gave him one warning then told him get off the bus or hand over the phone. I would love to tell you this was a teenager. No. The offender was in his 40s.
Anyway, that was something to think about that had nothing to do with the election. You're welcome.
I''m joking. But wouldn't it be great if we could focus on something else?
"TV: The continued demise of the media" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
It's two days before the election and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are tied. The electorate is evenly split. "Too close to call," we are told. Yet many have been more than happy to use programs -- which are not their own soapboxes -- to attempt to influence and sway the election.
They just haven't been willing to do their jobs. For sitcoms and Saturday Night Live, that's make people laugh. For public affairs programming, that's cover the issues that matter.
The last years have seen the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. It's funny that so many pretended to give a damn about service members. You may recall the "I'm against the war, not the warrior" type statements. Really?
Then where the hell is your coverage?
Krys Boyd thinks she's serving the public by whoring KERA's two hours each day for Barack Obama and by booking the author of a made-up-s**t?
She's not addressing the veterans who have returned wounded. She's not addressing veterans jobless rates. She's not addressing the long delays in VA care. She's not addressing any issues that really matter.
Dallas is a big city in Texas (the Dallas-Fort Worth area is considered the most populated in the state by the census). However, the capital of Texas is Austin. And The Austin-American Statesman offered a number of reports last month on veterans and suicide including "Suicide among veterans receiving less attention than active-duty deaths," "After returning home, many veterans get into motor vehicle accidents," "Which veterans are at highest risk for suicide?," "Researches look into possible causes of current 'epidemic' of suicide and PTSD" and "Scores of recent Texas war veterans have died of overdoses, suicides and vehicle crashes, investigation finds."
They can do that in Austin. But public radio out of Dallas is more concerned with offering an hour with an author whose book is filled with made up 'facts.'
We weren't aware an entertainment drought in the US, let alone one so mighty that it required public affairs programming to turn their back on public affairs and cover bulls**t instead.
But what we are aware of is that many men and women have returned from the battlefield in the last decade, seriously injured. Ourselves? We are against the wars. We never felt the need to add "but we love the warrior!" That's because why do that? Why mouth words? If you're supportive of veterans and their needs, your record will prove that.
We have a record -- here and at The Common Ills -- of support for veterans. That's left wing, that's right wing, that's radical, that's conservative veterans. We don't really care about the ideology. We care that promises made get kept. We care that people in need get help.
Alphas ' primary mission is to entertain. It does do that. But as was pointed out to us last week when we were speaking to a veterans group, it's the only show that a roomful of veterans from today's wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) could point to that in the last months has even acknowledged some of what they go through. Go through. This isn't the distant past. If you are injured, not only are you adjusting to your injury, so are the people around you.
Good for Alphas and good for the SyFy network for stepping up. But how sad and telling of the world we now live in when public affairs programming would rather ignore the hundreds of thousands who have been wounded, the challenged and the disabled -- veteran and non-veteran populations, to instead focus day after day on the most trivial and trite topics while also trying to tell you how you must vote if you want to be considered 'cool' by these hosts who betray the public trust aspect of the public airwaves.
That was a really great essay.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
|
Monday,
November 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the US gears up for
Tuesday's elections, the issue of the Kurds gets some serious attention,
the political crisis continues, and more.
As last month drew to a close, the US Dept of Veterans Affairs announced
that the home loan program which was created as part of the GI Bill of
Rights back in 1944 had awarded its 20 millionth home loan. The VA's
Undersecretary For Benefits Allison Hickey declared, "The 20 millionth
VA home loan is a major milestone and is a testament to VA's commitment
to support and enhance the lives of Veterans, Servicemembers, their
families and survivors. As a result of their service and sacrifice, as a
group, they prove to be disciplined, reliable, and honorable -- traits
that are ideal for this kind of national investment." The VA has a history page on the GI Bill of Rights of 1944 which opens:
It
has been heralded as one of the most significant pieces of legislation
ever produced by the federal government -- one that impacted the United
States socially, economically and politically. But it almost never came
to pass.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act
of 1944 -- commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights -- nearly stalled in
Congress as members of the House and Senate debated provisions of the
controversial bill.
Some shunned the idea
of paying unemployed veterans $20 a week because they thought it
diminished their incentive to look for work. Others questioned the
concept of sending battle-hardened veterans to colleges and
universities, a privilege then reserved for the rich.
Despite their differences, all agreed something must be done to help veterans assimilate into civilian life.
Much
of the urgency stemmed from a desire to avoid the missteps following
World War I, when discharged veterans got little more than a $60
allowance and a train ticket home.
Veterans of today's wars also have The Post 9/11 GI Bill.
("The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides financial support for education and
housing to individuals with at least 90 days of aggregate service after
September 10, 2001, or individuals discharged with a service-connected
disability after 30 days. You must have received an honorable discharge
to be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.") Many of the leaders on the
Post 9-11 GI BIll are no longer in the House -- the 2010 midterms saw a
number of them lose their seats. It's another election year. Voting in
the US is done on Tuesday. IAVA's Paul Rieckhoff (Daily Beast) looks at what the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns have addressed or haven't addressed in their campaigns:
Eleven
years ago in October, American military forces launched a war in
Afghanistan that's still raging today. One would think that the war and
the postwar care for the veterans that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq
would be a crucial part of the 2012 presidential campaign, but that
hasn't been the case.
In stump speeches and
campaign pit stops across the country, President Obama and Governor
Romney have made cursory references to veterans' care and benefits, but
offered little in the way of specifics. And in the debates, the
candidates spent more time talking about Big Bird than they did vets'
policy. ObamaCare versus "Obama Cares" and "Romnesia" are funny, but
also a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse. The Main
Streets in countless American towns and cities are pushed aside for
carefully crafted PR zingers.
But whoever
wins on Tuesday, America's 2.5 million post-9/11 veterans -- more than
60,000 in Ohio alone -- will be looking to the president to address the
education, housing, employment, and health-care challenges they face
every day -- and to do so substantively, the same way they have tackled
the fallout from Hurricane Sandy. Just because the war in Afghanistan
will end someday doesn't mean it already has, nor does it mean that the
effects of it are going away anytime soon. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I
have friends in IAVA but I'm not a fan of Paul's. That's long
established here. So hopefully when I now say that he has written a
very important column, it means something if even one of his detractors,
like myself, praise it.
I can't praise
Barack's lie that he ended the Iraq War, a lie he makes while also
negotiating with Nouri al-Maliki to send more US troops back into Iraq.
As Tim Arango (New York Times) reported
at the end of September, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an
agreement that could result in the return of small units of American
soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi
government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special
Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on
counterterrorism and help with intelligence." Kevin Gosztola (FireDogLake) notes:
Each paper praised Obama for ending the Iraq War. The Chicago Tribune suggested,
"He set and stuck to a withdrawal schedule for U.S. troops in Iraq."
Actually, in 2008, George W. Bush negotiated the withdrawal schedule. It
also must be noted
the Pentagon wanted to keep 10,000 to 20,000 troops in Iraq as
"trainers" and "anti-terrorism forces. They lowered the figure to around
3,000. The Pentagon, along with the Obama administration pressed for
immunity for any US troops that would remain in the country. That was
met with opposition and, when immunity could not be ensured, the
withdrawal officially began.
The US presence did not completely end though. According to the State Department, 16,000 to 17,000 US personnel would remain in the country along with about 5,500 military contractors. The US occupation would also leave behind the world's largest embassy in Baghdad.
How did Obama mark the end of the war? Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their book, The Untold History of the United States, gave it proper treatment:
Voices for Creative Nonviolence's Cathy Breen (OpEdNews) is on the ground in Iraq. Does it sound like the war ended:
If
anyone thinks that the war is over in Iraq, I have only to open my "At a
Glance" calendar where I have tried to note the number of Iraqi
casualties each day over the last nine plus years: deaths due to
explosions, bombs, assassinations. Just a few randomly selected numbers
from 2012 (these are the number of dead, the number of wounded is of
course much greater). 63, 54, 78, 97, 28, 36, 105, 24, 41, 115 ... the
list goes on and on.
One
of my hopes on this trip is to visit Iraqi families who have had to
return from Syria. Having fled the violence in Iraq, they came to Syria
where I met them as refugees. Now they are threatened once again, and
there are no countries willing to take them. Many have returned to Iraq,
and we are anxious to know how they are doing.
While
some deserve praise, some don't. Such as a spinner spinning online in
an attempt to bully/trick people into voting for Barack. First, you
would have been ripped apart in an undergrad poli sci class for your
gross ignorance -- forget an advanced class. No, we don't have
to vote. Voting is a right in the United Staes. So is owning a gun. I
don't own a gun. Second, Ralph Nader did work in 2000 regarding party
building and ballot access. After that? He continued to do strong
work on ballot access in terms of raising awareness. As for helping to
build the Green Party? The reality that the Green Party was
'conflcited' (co-opted) is why he didn't run with them in 2004 or 2008.
Distortions of Nader only reveal your sublime ignorance. In the
future, stick to horse race 'coverage' because your tired little mind
might be able to handle that. As for the accusation that the Greens
only show up at election time? First, isn't that the only time the
Democrats and Republicans remember that there are voters out there?
Second, your ignorance of what takes places in the fifty states is
exceeded only by your ego assuming you could absorb that information
even if the media bothered to cover it. The Michigan Green Party,
to name but one state, never stops working. From your computer
screen, you may think you see the world. But being aware of what's
happening on the ground would require you traveling to many states --
something I've done repeatedly since the month before the Iraq War
started.
Next topic on the elections: Barack
Obama supporters better get outraged. Republicans vote. I'm sorry if
that's upsetting news to anyone. I've done every task in the world on
campaigns during my lifetime and that includes getting out the vote on
election day. I've driven seniors to polls, you name it. I live in a
state that has gone Democratic in the last five elections. We also are
still voting -- due to the time difference -- when most states have
stopped. Regardless of what the prediction or, yes, 'call' is,
Republcians still show up to vote in those last hours. Many Democrats
don't. Point being, this nonsense of "Barack's going to win!" It's
hurting Barack and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't live in the
PST time zone which regularly sees how this sort of 'the winner's known'
talk effects turnout. It may hurt him just a little, it may hurt him a
lot. But you should be demanding that media stop saying he or anyone
has won.
Democrats are more likely to be
working class and they're more likely to have obstacles to voting. You
start saying that Barack's won, your hurting his turnout and you're
hurting the Democratic Party turnout. Not just in the PST states, but
in all the states. Encouraging people not to vote -- calling the election the day before the vote is encouraging people not to vote
-- can also hurt Senate races, House races and state and municipal
races. People are busy enough as it is, don't give those who want to
vote but are buy a reason not to. (And I'd make this point if Mitt
Romney were the one the press was saying would win Tuesday. Although
I'd be less concerned about turnout being depressed as a result because,
again, Republicans vote regardless. CBS could call it for Barack at
7:30 PM EST tomorrow and Republicans on the West Coast would still show
up at the polls.)
Howard Kurtz (Daily Beast) observes
a Barack defeat "will also be a crushing blow for the punditocracy that
headed into Election Day filled with confidence that Obama had it in
the bag." Liz Marlantes (Christian Science Monitor) tries to provide caution and that's appreciated but she also reveals a knowledge gap:
In
addition, the growing prevalence of early voting has provided analysts
with a more concrete metric – allowing prognosticators to base their
assumptions not only on what polls suggest will happen on Election Day,
but also on what early voting patterns suggest has already happened.
English
lit is not poli sci. Maybe people who didn't study poli sci shouldn't
be presenting as 'experts.' Liz's comment above? You have nothing to
base a conclusion on. The votes have not been counted. Not even the
early votes. Not the mail-in votes. Not the votes that will be cast on
Tuesday. You have nothing. You don't have early prognostics.
You
have polling which can be an indication. Provided the pollsters are
doing their job correctly and provided that people aren't pissed off at
the pollsters. Meaning when someone says, "I'm doing a poll . . .,"
respondents aren't thinking, "I hate that polling firm/outlet, I'm going
to f**k with this man/woman and lie about my vote."
Predictions
don't win elections, votes do. Nate Silver and the rest have already
destroyed whatever was left of campaign reporting because the coverage
is even less about issues. (In the film, Network, these
worthless types were represented by the character Sybil the Soothsayer.
Remember when so many on the left couldn't stop citing Network
and insisting we heed its cautionary tales?) Now they're taking over
the last hours of the election as well. Supporters of the nonsense Nate
does like to claim, "Well sports . . ." Correct me if I'm wrong (and I
may be, I don't follow sports) but predicting a winner in sports is
based upon using their past performance in that season. There has been
no 'win' in a general election this year that you can base another one
on. Tomorrow is the contest.
I don't care who
you vote for. If you choose not to vote in a race or not to vote in
all races because you make that decision, that's your choice and be
happy with it. (I will not be voting in the presidential race, no
candidate earned my vote. I will be voting in other races) But I do
care that whomever is elected is elected by the people and not by the
media. The media overwhelmingly wants Barack to win. That's been
obvious for some time. But preening and strutting before an election
may not bring about their desired result.
Trusting
the media worked out real well in 2000, didn't it? And it worked out
real well with the Iraq War, too, right? (Wrong in both cases.) Do you
really want to be a Quil Lawrence? March 7, 2010, Iraq held
parliamentary elections. March 8th, Quil did what? Before votes were counted, Quil was on NPR's Morning Edition telling Steve Inskeep
that Nouri did "very well." Maybe Barack will do "very well," too?
"Very well," when the ballots were actually counted and Quil Lawrence
had left the region and moved on to another story, translated as:
Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya. Second place isn't
winning in an election.
The political crisis continues in Iraq, not a surprise when the White House spat on the Iraqi Constitution and the will of the people to back second place Nouri over first place winner Iraqiya. All Iraq News reports MP Mohammed Jaafar al-Sadr is calling for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to accelerate the resolution attempts. But what can be done? Saturday Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reported that negotiations had stalled as a result of disagreements with the National Alliance -- specifcially within the 'Reform Commission.' To avoid a National Conference, Nouri stalled and road blocked and then finally, in late spring, insisted what was needed was a Reform Commission. That turned out to be a paper. And all this time, Nouri and company have led people to believe that there was a paper. Turns out the paper has yet to be written but there are 'intentions' to write it, al-Tamimi notes. Yesterday, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reported a Kurdistan Alliance MP was stating State of Law (Nouri al-Maliki's political slate) was attempting to prevent a National Conference to resolve the political crisis. That seems plausible since Nouri's been attempting to do that since Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Jalal Talabani first began calling for one nearly a year ago (December 21st). The Tigris Operation continues with no US coverage. This is seen as yet another power grab by Nouri. Nouri is sending in military under his command to disputed Kirkuk. This has long been protected by the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces). Nouri has refused to implement Article 140 of the Constitution (hold a census and referendum) on Kirkuk to resolve the dispute and his decision to send in security forces is seen as laying the ground work for his ignoring the Constitution and just declaring Kirkuk to be part of the Baghdad-based government and not part of the Kurdistan Regional Government. (Kirkuk is oil rich.) Alsumaria reports that the Salahuddin Province's Student Council has called for Nouri to cancel the operation. Al Mada reports that Kurdistan Alliance MP Chuan Mohammed Taha has called out the operation and states that Nouri has gone beyond any powers listed in the Constitution. The RAND Corporation's Larry Hanauer examines the Kirkuk issue here. The power grabs never stop with Nouri. Last month, he fired the Governor of the Central Bank (despite not having the authority to do that) and declared him a criminal (thereby running him out of the country). Sinan al-Shabibi had been the Governor of the Central Bank since 2003. In fact, he's still listed as such on the Central Bank's website whic notes: Awards
Career
How did such an applauded figure end up up charged with crimes? Dropping back to October 21st,
" In other scandals, Nouri fired Sinan al-Shabibi as Governor of the
Central Bank (despite Article 103 of the Constitution making clear that
he doesn't have that right -- Parliament does). Since then a warrant's
been put out for al-Shabibi who is said to be in Europe. An unnamed MP tells Al Mada
that Nouri fired al-Shabibi because the man refused to loan Nouri $63
billion that Nouri said was for the government's budget. Al Mada notes
that Moqtada al-Sadr is calling out Nouri's attempts to politicize the
Central Bank and he also asks where is the reform that Nouri promised in
early 2011?" Shortly afterward, Prashant Rao (AFP) reported,
"The targeting of Iraq's well-respected central bank chief appears to
be a move by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to consolidate power and
sends a bad message to international investors, experts and diplomats
say." Long time Iraq observer Joost Hiltermann of the International
Crisis Group told Rao, "The Maliki government will claim it (the move
against Shabibi) is part of long-standing efforts to root out
corruption. It looks more like a long-standing effort to gain control
over independent institutions."
But
that's really more what happened. The how he ended up charged goes
back further. Back to the days when Nouri was having the then-head of
Iraq's Electoral Commission arrested because he wanted to take over that
independent body. At the same time, he was attempting to take over
Iraq's Central Bank, insisting it must come under his authority -- he
targeted all the independent institutions in his attempted power
grab. Fear of the Arab Spring spreading into Iraq prevented Nouri from
following up on that desire. Now he's gone in the back door. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
Nouri is accused of attempting to stack the Central bank with Dawa
personnel in order to control it. (Dawa is Nouri's political party,
State of Law is his political slate.)
Violence continues in Iraq and is encouraged by Nouri's repeated targeting of political rivals and non-stop mass arrests. All Iraq News reports a Baghdad car bombing near a mosque has resulted in 1 death and six people being left injured. In an update, they note the death toll has risen to 3 with eight injured. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Taji car bombing claimed 1 life and left seven people injured.
In addition, Alsumaria reports
that Turkish war planes bombed erbil Sunday night for approximately
one hour, setting at least one section of a forest on fire. Hurriyet Daily News adds
that the latest attacks, beginning Saturday night, are taking place
under the name "Panther Operation" and that Saturday's assault lasted
two hours. They are targeting the PKK. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk."
The root of the conflict? Dr. Aland Mizell explores it at Kurdish Aspect:
I
am not arguing or asking Turkey to give the Kurds rights, but I am
asking who gave Turkey or Islamists the right to deny Kurdish basic
rights, such as birth rights to a right to life, a right to speak, a
right to worship, and a right to a fair trial before a judge? If God has
created the human race, skin color, languages, as well as tribes, and
rights are natural, inalienable, God-given, and self-evident, then why
do TUrkey and most Islamist countries deny the Kurds those rights? Today
more than 40 million Kurds are denied basic rights not by Christians or
Jews but by Muslim countries; yet, most Muslim countries consider Islam
to be the only religion that administers true justice, tolerance, and
peace on earth, and consider Christians, Jews, and devotees of other
religions as unjust, intolerant, and cruel. But what about the more than
40 million Kurds who live in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria being denied
their basic rights? Why are mroe than 683 Kurdish people
participating in a hunger strike in Turkey and agreeing to die? They
have been on a hunger strike for more than 53 days, and the days move
them closer to death. Because they are like any other human being,
demanding to live in dignity and because death for them is the last
resort to voice their plight even though they cherish human life and
liberty, but will the world listen as the Kurds show solidarity in their
suffering? Will those who learn of their hunger strike pressure Turkey
not to play the hypocrite when it comes to the Kurdish issue but to
value human beings? Will they pressure Turkey to let the kurds decide
how to live and who to worship, and let the Kurds, not Turks, Arabs, or
Persians, decide their destiny?
At Huffington Post, Stanley Weiss makes the argument that now is the time for an independent Kurdistan:
It
will not be easy, but the uncertainty and plasticity in the region
today offers an opportunity to secure a Kurdish homeland and remedy the
capricious map-making of the early 20th century. Iraq is threatening to
split into the pre-Iraq Sunni, Shia and Kurdish divisions of the Ottoman
Empire, with the Kurds semi-independent and the Iran-allied Shiites
ruling the Sunnis. Iran's economy is in free-fall. Syria will soon have
no central control and no choice. And while no country is eager to
surrender a fifth of its population, Turkey would do well to get ahead
of this issue -- ending the vicious, ongoing war with the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), saving countless lives and positioning themselves
to reap the benefits of a long-term strategic alliance to counterbalance
Iranian influence. Not to mention, membership in the European Union
will forever be out of reach for a Turkey at war with itself.
For
proof of what's possible, look no further than Iraqi Kurdistan, a
pro-American, pro-Israel and semi-autonomous parliamentary democracy
most Americans have never heard of. Nurtured by an American no-fly zone
in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) was established under the Iraqi Constitution in 2005, a
stunning testament to the success of Muslim representative government.
Of more than 4,800 American soldiers killed in the brutal battles for
Iraq, not a single one
has lost their life -- and no foreigner has been kidnapped -- within
the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Boasting two international airports, a
booming oil industry and a dawning respect for the rights of women, this
15,000 square-mile territory of nearly four million Kurds is the one
part of President George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" that was
actually accomplished.
Building on this
unanticipated success, the U.S. should rethink its previous opposition
to an independent greater Kurdistan and recognize that the advantages of
a friendly, democratic and strategically-positioned ally far outweigh
the outdated assumption that the Kurds' national liberation would result
in regional conflagration.
Lastly, Bill Corcoran writes at CORKSPHERE about Iraq and Afghanistan. He's now planning/toying with walking away. At the New York Times' At War, he writes:
The
blog passed one million hits over a year ago. But something was
happening: both the news media and the American public were suffering
from "war fatigue." Interest in the blog was waning.
Blog
viewership dropped to under 200 hits a day, and even though I was
posting fresh material on Facebook and Twitter, it became more and more
obvious to me that the American public was no longer very interested in a
conflict that, in the case of the Afghan war, had entered its 12th
year.
I'm a realist and I'm fully aware
that after so many years it is hard for people to continue to care
deeply about a conflict that doesn't seem to have any end goal or sense
of mission. So a few weeks ago, I decided I would stop the blog after
the election. (I'm leaving the door open just a bit to a last-minute
change of heart.) If I do stop posting, however, I intend to keep it on
the Internet as a historical reference for anyone interested in the Iraq
and Afghan wars.
You can check out his site
(I never knew about the site until a few minutes ago). At some point,
most will say "enough" (I would love to and am still weighing whether or
not we'll do six more months). I do agree that there is war fatigue. I
also think there are other issues at play. (Including the lack of
interest on the part of the US media which tends to make a number of
people believe that the end credits rolled, the lights came up and it's
all over.) I'm sorry that he doesn't feel there's an audience (our
audience has only increased in 2012 -- the increase has largely come
from outside the US). I'm sadder that he feels you do something based
on numbers. But mainly, I'm saddened by the fact that he's obviously
put a great deal of time in trying to keep Iraq and Afghanistan in the
national discourse and he feels his work didn't matter or doesn't
now. What he has done matters and, even if you were unaware of the
site until this evening (like me), it being out there did and does make a
difference. Whether he continues with it or shuts it down, thank you,
Bill Corcoran for focusing on something that actually mattered in a
landscape that's otherwise so much fluff from sea to shining sea.
|
