Liberal and Loving It

Bush is our Neville Chamberlain

One major talking point out of the Bush White House early on in the war in Iraq was that George Bush was not going to be another Neville Chamberlain. "We would take out Iraq before it started a much larger war."

To a large degree Hitler, and Chamberlain's appeasement of him was the fundamental argument for invading Iraq. And the counter arguments did not challenge this basic reading of comparative history, but instead discussed how big of a threat Iraq was and could become. Bush got a free ride on the concept that preventative war was the correct answer if Iraq would become a large enough threat.

But lets look for a moment on how the U.S. and the "free world" responded to the threat of Russia at the end of WWII and through the cold war. What did we do?

To a large degree the same as Chamberlain did with Hitler. We told Stalin that any country he was in, he could keep. We asked for elections in Eastern Europe but we had no guarantees and both Churchill and Truman knew that they were turning those countries over to Russian domination.

In the case of Finland (neither had troops there) and Austria (both had troops there) we agreed to their being neutral. And both were effectively neutral for the length of the cold war. In Greece and Turkey(?) we provided massive assistance when Russia assisted native communist movements. And we both stationed troops in Europe and provided massive assistance via the Marshall Plan.

But all of these actions were to defend what "we" held at the end of WWII. None of this was to take back anything that Russia held. And our troops were not enough to stop a Russian invasion. They were merely enough that a Russian attack would force our participation because of how many American soldiers would be killed.

All of this was very similar to what England and France did for Poland after Chamberlain met with Hitler. The only significant difference was that England and France had no troops in Poland and that was because they couldn't move them there.

The big difference was that Hitler took a gamble that he could beat England, France, Russia, and then later on, America. Stalin declined to take that gamble. Either one of them could have decided different. It wasn't what we did, it was what they decided based on what they were facing.

Yet Truman, Acheson, etc are viewed as brilliant statesmen for containing Russia without resorting to war. And their actions saved the lives of tens of millions. Another war in Europe would have been horrifyingly brutal and would have further devastated all of Europe as well as Russia and possibly America.

So what is the difference? The difference is that Chamberlain misread the situation and consistently took the wrong action. Truman and others correctly read the situation and consistently took the best action.

To be like Neville Chamberlain is not to always look for "peace in our time" (which is admitidly a very good goal). I postulate that to be like Neville Chamberlain is to misread the situation, to then take the wrong steps time after time, and to have those missteps lead to a war.

On the flip side, to be like Harry Truman is to also look for a solution that does not require war (ie peace). But to do so where each step is appropriate, effective, and leads to a balance where we can avoid war and remain safe. Truman did not "solve" the problem of Russia. He contained it and gave us "peace in our time."

If you look at the abysmal failure of Chamberlain as how he strove for his goal, not that he preferred peace for war - then George Bush is our Neville Chamberlain. Because his steps have consistently lead us to the worst result.

And like Neville Chamberlain, George Bush's decisions have led us to a larger, longer, more horrific war with global fallout than was necessary. Both could have avoided large scale war by taking a different path (Chamberlain by invading the Ruhr when German troops first entered it). Bush will join Chamberlain in history of mistake after mistake leading a country to an unnecessary war.

George Bush is no Harry Truman. But he definitely is a Neville Chamberlain.

What 5 laws would you introduce?

Apparently here in Colorado each legislator can introduce 5 bills each session. So I started thinking, what would my five bills be. It's an interesting question because that is a very limited number.

I would limit it to issues where the bill would have a chance. Or if it would be DOA, it would start an important discussion that could lead to something else almost as good. Or something that over several years could build up enough support to win.

So no bills just making statements. No bills that feel good but don't do much. No bills addressing things that really should be handled at the federal or local level.

And it would be bills that are specific enough to actually improve things.

Here is what I have come up with so far.

1. Public schools are a mess. And there are a lot of things that need to be done. But I think one of the biggest problems is teacher tenure. A bad teacher cannot be fired. This encourages mediocrity. It also increases overhead cost because it is much more expensive to improve teachers using just a carrot and no stick. So my first bill would require each district to fire 1% of their tenured teachers each year for 10 years. This would force the districts to finally address this issue.
2. Medical insurance is a nightmare. And trying different approaches in each state is not a bad idea. Colorado has wide borders (it's a long trip from a city in a bordering state to a city in Colorado) and so can experiment without covering all of our neighbors. My second bill would do three things. First, it would require all insurance companies to provide insurance to all at the same price. They could set rates based on age and a couple of life-choice risk factors (smoker, drug user) but that's it. The price per person on a corporate deal at IBM is identical to the same person walking in off the street. Second, no pre-existing exclusions for anyone on a plan in Colorado. Third, all business contributions to insurance would be taxed. This would give the insurance companies a chance to show they can be part of an improved system. And it would push the purchasing decision on to the consumer where it belongs.
3. Legislative districts, state and federal, are designed to make as many seats as safe as possible. This is the worst possible outcome for the voters. So my third bill would require that reapportionment have the maximum number of competitive districts (closer than 52/48) and that districts borders be as short as possible (keep it geographically sane). This would give us a more robust democracy.
4. With the increase in high school grads from bill 1 we are going to need more colleges. My 4th bill would be to increase the number of public colleges in Colorado by 50% and move to free college for in-state students over the next 10 years. The only way we can stay competitive in the world is by significantly increasing the percentage of college educated people in the state.
5. And last but not least. Colorado has several amendments and referendum that limit taxes (TABOR) and mandate funding (education and health). It's a mess, it's not workable, and it is inefficient. This bill would be an amendment and referendum (both are needed) that remove the existing bills and instead set the total taxes raised by the state to a set percentage of the state's GDP. The legislature could raise and lower various taxes but the total take would be this set percentage of the GDP. And that percentage? It would be set by referendum and could only be changed by referendum. Instead of playing games with various initiatives, we would directly determine how much money will go to the state. And every election groups could put a referendum on the ballot to raise/lower the percentage and campaign directly for the funding level they think is appropiate.

As to laws that I would like to see passed but don't stand a prayer - number 1 is my proposal on how to handle term limits. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to sell this.

So there you go. That's my five. What are yours?

No to General Casey

General George Casey is presently being questioned by the Senate before they approve him as the Army chief of staff.

According to CNN "Despite frustrations over the war, senators are likely to confirm Casey."

WHY?

Now before you say I'm just another anti-war nut, I am one of those moderate Democrats who initially supported the war in Iraq. And I stayed hopeful longer than most.

I have also watched Iraq turn in to a disaster, month after month, year after year. And while there is plenty of blame to go around. And while final responsibility rests with Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld. They do not bear sole responsibility.

The mess at Abu Garib was a failure of military leadership. Guantanamo to a large degree is due to the axis of evil (Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld) but Abu Garib was not driven by them. It was the military leadership in Iraq.

And that is not the only place. As I list out in here, the responsibility for getting the job done rested on the military leadership in Iraq. I doubt Bush or Rumsfeld ever told the Generals - please make this a disaster.

General Casey bears direct responsibility for the disaster in Iraq. As the senior commander on the ground there his only job was to make Iraq a success. And he has failed. He has failed his country and he has failed our soldiers.

He is now being considered for a promotion to the top position in the Army. A position where his largest job is overseeing the war in Iraq. And he is being considered for this after failing in Iraq.

And if his excuse is that he was limited by Bush and Rumsfeld - so we want a Army Chief of Staff who will not speak up when the administration sets this country up for failure. Yes he needs to follow orders. But he also has a responsibility to speak up first if those orders are a receipe for failure. He did not do this.

Senate approval of Casey is akin to the Presidential Medals of Freedom for Tenat and Bremer - a reward for loyalty to the president while failing.

Senate approval of Casey is a statement by the Senate that he is the best soldier we have to manage the Army. And this is at a time when the Army is under greater stress than any time since the start of the Civil War. (This is worse than any time during WWII for the U.S.)

Senate approval of Casey is a clear message that the Senate will talk. But that they will continue to let George Bush run the war as he sees fit. We can't pull the troops out tomorrow. We may not have the votes to force a draw-down. We may not even be able to stop the surge escalation.

But the Senate sure can say that the man who was a failure leading the troops in Iraq is not acceptable to run the Army. They can insist that the Army Chief of Staff be competent for the job.