Last night I watched An Inconvenient Truth. Yeah, I know. I’m a little behind the times. Anyway, there was something that struck me (beyond the whole “the earth is heating up and were all gonna die” thing). Al Gore will forever be linked, not to Bill Clinton, but to George W. Bush. The election of 2000 is the key moment in the political history of Al Gore, and for those of us on the left side of things, he will always be the man who should have been.
But this is what got me about the movie. Here is a film in which 95% of the dialogue is given by one man, and it’s riveting. A man considered dry, dull and boring talks for an hour and a half and it is amazing to watch. I then tried to imagine a movie in which George W. Bush talks for 90 minutes on his passion, whatever that might be. How bad would that movie be?! He couldn’t do it based on his personality alone. George W. Bush loses the charisma battle to Al Gore. Who would have guessed that? Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go recycle something.
This is just a quick word of thanks for all of those who came out to see me speak at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in San Pedro last Sunday. I gave a talk about Islam and the Sunni/Shia split. It was a very nice turnout and everyone had thoughtful comments and questions. I am always pleasantly surprised whenever I give a talk like this at a church. There is rarely a negative reaction to the subject manner and, I hope there is a deeper understanding of the religion, the people and the commonalties that we share. Thanks and I hope to continue the dialogue.
I have just read the same book twice. Bob Woodward’s State of Denial and Colonel H.R. McMaster’s Dereliction of Duty are remarkably similar yet decades apart. Woodward’s book is the most recent and better known. It decribes an ineffective Defense Department headed by a Secretary who’s ego supercedes his judgment, and a weak uniformed leadership unwilling to take a stand and speak truth to power. It is all the more tragic because it is a lesson that should have already been learned.
Col. McMaster’s Ph.D. dissertation was published as Dereliction of Duty in 1997. It tells the story of the Defense Department during the Lyndon Johnson administration during the Vietnam war. The similarities between the two books are amazing.
Both Donald Rumsfeld and Robert McNamara took the job of Secretary of Defense with
the intent of reforming the military. Rumsfeld wanted a light, quick-moving army, one
that could be rapidly deployed to defeat an enemy. In an effort to eliminate waste,
both Rumsfeld and McNamara forced the Joint Staff to justify programs already in
existance including those clearly designed to help keep troops safe.
They both ignored the military advice of experienced generals. General Eric Shinseki said “something on the order of “several hundred thousand soldiers” would be necessary
to secure Iraq. Members of the Joint Chiefs under LBJ argued for overwhelming force to
be used in Vietnam.
Both felt the Joint Chiefs, and the Chairman in particular, should support the military
strategies and policies set forth by the civilian leadership. In other words, the Joint
Chiefs should be subservient to the President rather than give their honest military
advise as described in the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols
Act.
Both had Chairmen (Maxwell Taylor, Richard Myers and Peter Pace) that were/are empty suits, more eager to please the President rather than do what was right for the country or military for which they serve.
People have compared Iraq to Vietnam before, but the truely telling thing about these books is the comparison of the respective administrations. The similarities are not in the wars fought but in the personalities that chose to fight them. Two worthwhile reads.
On Friday I was watching the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. It is the only television news program worth watching in my opinion. Typically on Friday’s they do a segment that features David Brooks and Mark Shields discussing the major political issues of the week. Both are smart men, although not surprisingly I find myself agreeing more with Shields than with Brooks, but they are both well spoken and intelligent people who engage in healthly dialogue rather than the screaming idiotacy that occurs on FOX.
Anyway, they were discussing the fallout of the Walter Reed Army Hospital fiasco and Mark Shields said something interesting. You can read the whole thing here, but this is the part that struck me.
“MARK SHIELDS: It is a leadership problem, Jim, but I’d also add that this is a war unlike any war we’ve ever been through. One-third of 1 percent of Americans, those in uniform and their families, are the only ones making any sacrifice, the only ones suffering.
The rest of us have been patriotically asked to take tax cuts, a series of tax cuts, to put a magnet, a “Support our Troops” magnet on the back of an SUV, and kind of saying, “Well, we’re supporting our troops.”
And the reality is, all of the sacrifice, all of the suffering is being borne by them”
And later:
“…if you accept the premise, David, that war demands equality of sacrifice, if you accept that, which is an American value up until this war, OK, and you go to any college campus — and I challenge you, next time you ask, “Who here’s for all-volunteer service?” All the hands go up. “Who’s going to volunteer?” No hands go up”.
I suppose I could make some larger point about the war, or Walter Reed but I’m not. I guess I just want people to think about the solider, regardless of your view of the war, think about the soldier, their families and what this is doing to them. It’s not much to ask.