Which War Are We Losing Now?

I’ll never forget the day we finally won the Vietnam War. Now I’m not talking about March of 1973, when the last of the American combat soldiers left South Vietnam. I’m not referring to the 21st of January in 1977, when President Carter pardoned all the men who had “dodged” the draft during the war. No, the day I’m thinking of was one of the last days in February 1991, when the first President Bush declared a ceasefire in the first Gulf War. That was a mere one hundred hours after the ground campaign started and not long before we began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf. I remember calling a bunch of friends and family back then, to tell them we had finally won the Vietnam War. It really felt like that at the time.

My father, unlike nearly three million Americans from his generation, never served in Vietnam. In fact, I was conceived in the mid-sixties specifically to keep my father from being drafted and, my birth at the end of 1966 managed to accomplish that goal. By the time fatherhood was no longer a way to defer the draft, my father was old enough to have missed compulsory service in Vietnam. He was lucky and so was I. Many children of my generation grew up with fathers haunted by their experiences fighting in that war, as well as those of coming home from the most unpopular war in US history.

While the way Americans think of the Vietnam War is complex, varied and has evolved, like many of my generation, I grew up believing that it was the first war that America had ever lost. Since it was also the only full-blown war during my lifetime, while I was growing up, the military seemed to live under the dark cloud of its failure. So when Bush announced the end of the relatively brief and successful war in the Persian Gulf, suddenly people were acting as though this had been some kind of a mulligan…like we had finally been granted the opportunity to redeem ourselves with a war that we not only had won, but had won handily with hardly any casualties. We had finally won the Vietnam War!

A decade and a half ago, when President Bush and his advisors decided to go to war with Iraq, they knew it was a risky proposition politically. They knew it would need to be an unmitigated success. To this end, they limited their objectives in order to maximize their chances of achieving them. In a speech on April 27, 1991, entitled, “The Gulf War: A First Assessment,” then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney explained the administration’s thinking along these lines:

Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding “no.”

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, “Liberate Kuwait.” He said, “Destroy Saddam Hussein’s offensive capability,” his capacity to threaten his neighbors — both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Today I was reading an Op-Ed piece from the New York Times called, “Home Alone,” by Danielle Trussoni, about her father’s difficulties as a Vietnam Veteran, in which she mentions that, “It saddens him to watch a new generation of soldiers going off to fight what is becoming an increasingly unpopular war.” So how did we get here from there?

For answers, we need look no further than the architects of the first Gulf War. In the same speech from 1991, Cheney demonstrates an eerily portentous understanding of the pitfalls involved in removing Hussein from power, as he defends the administration’s decision not to during the first Gulf War:

I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

It’s just too bad that Cheney didn’t heed his own advice. I guess that’s what you get when you elect flip-floppers.

Why I Don’t Date Republicans…

Hi Everyone!

Once again, it’s time for me to write about the absurdities of my eDating adventures. This time, I’ve changed my charming suitor’s name, in case he finds this post. I would like to avoid his wrath. By the way, this post includes some things written by him, which I’ve quoted exactly…spelling errors and all. I will call him “ConservativeGuy.”

So this is a guy I first met at one of those “speed dating” things, so I actually have met him in the real world. A few days before meeting him, he also sent me a note at match.com, expressing interest in me. He was okay-looking, so after meeting him, I replied to his match.com email and sent him my contact info, but after a couple of short emails back and forth, nothing really happened. Our last exchange was on August 30th. Then on September 17th, we were matched up on eHarmony.com. (If you’re thinking right now that I’m on too many of these stupid eDating sites…you’re right…but that’s another story =-)

Anyway, following is some of the information from his profile at eHarmony:

Match Name:  ConservativeGuy (name changed to protect the obnoxious)

Location:  Encino, California, United States

Occupation:  Investment Management

Height:  5′ 10”

Age: 41

Ethnicity:  White, non-Hispanic

Match Created:  September 17, 2005

Last Communication:  September 18, 2005

The things ConservativeGuy can’t live without are:

• Close relationships – family & friends
• A need to be a productive member of society
• Great sense of humor
• Helping others through volunteer work
• Having goals and ambitions

The most important thing ConservativeGuy is looking for in a person is:
Honest and open with a great sense of humor and a zest for life. She should have her own opinions (even if they differ from my own) and should be knowledgable and willing to discuss current events and the world around her.

---

Well, he doesn’t sound so bad, right? …And I knew he wasn’t ugly, so I was glad that almost immediately he sent me the following email from the eHarmony site:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Hi Again

Date:  17 September 2005 01:04 PM Pacific

In looking at your profile, I do believe we have communicated on another site.  If you want to chat just let me know….

—ConservativeGuy

---

So, I wrote him back…figured I’d give it one more shot:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Re: Hi Again

Date:  17 September 2005 08:09 PM Pacific

Hi again ConservativeGuy =-)

Yes, I’d love to chat. Feel free to write me or call me. My number is:  310-xxx-xxxx
My actual email address is: me@xxxxxxxxxx.com

Best, Noetical.

---

Now before I go on, let me explain that eHarmony has everyone pick ten “Must Haves” and ten “Can’t Stands” to share with their matches and I’m going to share mine here with you:

MY MUST HAVES:

Shared Politics…
      I must have someone who has political beliefs which are the same or similar to my own.
Autonomy…
      I must have a partner who will give me space to be my own person.
Intellect…
      I must have a partner who is bright and can share my understanding of the world as well as enjoy discussing important issues.
Sense of Humor…
      I must have someone who is sharp and can enjoy the humorous side of life.
Loyal…
      I must have someone I can count on to always support me.
Communicator…
      I must have someone who is good at talking and listening.
Emotionally Generous…
      I must have a partner who enjoys people and is generous with his or her compassion, attention, sympathies and love.
Curiosity…
      I must have a partner who is hungry for new information and knowledge and who strives to learn as much as possible.
Strong Character…
      I must have a partner who is honest and strong enough to do the right thing.
Chemistry…
      I must feel deeply in love with and attracted to my partner.

MY CAN’T STANDS:

Anger…
      I can’t stand someone who can’t manage their anger, who yells, or bottles it up inside.
Lying…
      I can’t stand someone who lies to anyone-especially to me.
Rude…
      I can’t stand someone who is belittling, impatient or hateful to people in any situation.
Petty…
      I can’t stand someone who focuses on imperfection.
Judgmental…
      I can’t stand someone who finds fault with everyone and everything.
Racist…
      I can’t stand someone who believes that any particular ethnic group to which they belong is superior to the rest of humanity.
Infidelity…
      I can’t stand someone who engages in sex outside a committed relationship.
Pessimism…
      I can’t stand someone who always sees the glass as half empty.
Mean Spirited…
      I can’t stand someone who has a devious nature and is mean to others.
Intolerance…
      While I understand that religious conviction is a positive trait, I can’t stand someone who is self-righteous and feels that their particular faith is the only one that matters.

---

All of the choices are pretty basic, and his didn’t vary from mine that much, but here are the ones he chose:

HIS MUST HAVES:

Intellect...
      I must have a partner who is bright and can share my understanding of the world as well as enjoy discussing important issues.
Sense of Humor…
      I must have someone who is sharp and can enjoy the humorous side of life.
Family…
      I must have someone who shares my desire to have or adopt children.
Responsible…
      My partner must be financially responsible.
Emotionally Generous…
      I must have a partner who enjoys people and is generous with his or her compassion, attention, sympathies and love.
Attractiveness…
      I must have a partner who is considered “very attractive” by most current standards.
Affectionate…
      I must have someone who is comfortable giving and receiving affection.
Sexually Knowledgeable…
      I must have someone who is mature and experienced as a potential sexual partner and is able to express himself/herself freely.
Strong Character…
      I must have a partner who is honest and strong enough to do the right thing.
Chemistry…
      I must feel deeply in love with and attracted to my partner.

HIS CAN’T STANDS:

Lying…
      I can’t stand someone who lies to anyone-especially to me.
Rude…
      I can’t stand someone who is belittling, impatient or hateful to people in any situation.
Racist…
      I can’t stand someone who believes that any particular ethnic group to which they belong is superior to the rest of humanity.
Cheating…
      I can’t stand someone who takes advantage of people.
Undependable…
      I can’t stand someone who fails to come through and is unreliable.
Infidelity…
      I can’t stand someone who engages in sex outside a committed relationship.
Mean Spirited…
      I can’t stand someone who has a devious nature and is mean to others.
Intolerance…
      While I understand that religious conviction is a positive trait, I can’t stand someone who is self-righteous and feels that their particular faith is the only one that matters.
Flirts…
      I can’t stand someone who constantly flirts with the opposite sex.
Victim Mentality…
      While everyone has times of self-pity, I can’t stand someone who continually sees himself/herself as a victim.

---

Okay, so he didn’t write me at my email address and he didn’t call me, but he sent me the following reply to me at eHarmony:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Re: Hi Again

Date:  18 September 2005 07:55 AM Pacific

Small world!  So I see shared politics is a “must have.” Can you elaborate?

---

So I wrote back to him and elaborated:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Politics
Date:  18 September 2005 09:54 AM Pacific

Hi ConservativeGuy. Yes, it is a small world…at least the LA dating scene is small =-)

This is a new “must have” for me. It’s not that I’m intolerant of other people’s beliefs…and I don’t need my partner and me to agree on EVERYTHING…but at least we should be coming at the issues with common assumptions. I find that it’s much more interesting to discuss issues with someone who has a similar foundation…otherwise, the conversation never really progresses to the more complex and stagnates at the base of the argument. It’s one thing to disagree on the solution, but if you disagree on the very nature of the problem, or even what that problem is, that can be a very frustrating wall to smash your head against.

I hope that makes sense. I think I’m better at answering this question verbally, so feel free to ask me again sometime on the phone.

If you’re really interested in where I’m coming from politically and how I interact with those with whom I disagree, you can check out the following link:
http://noetical.blogs.friendster.com/noet_all/2005/07/are_we_still_in.html

So you mention that you like to volunteer. What are the local causes that you support? What do you care about, believe in?

Best, Noetical.

---

Still not quite sure of me, he sent the following message in response:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Re: Politics
Date:  18 September 2005 10:40 AM Pacific

Hi,

Scanned your website and your political statements.  While I am extremely conservative politically and more liberal socially, I certainly don’t have an issue if someone has a different viewpoint than my own.  However, it is important to me that they have an opinion one way or another and also that they can back it up.

—ConservativeGuy

---

Not sure what that meant, I mean, what the fuck?! So you wanna talk or not? And here’s the thing…for some reason, I wasn’t thinking “actually, I think you’re a dick and I don’t want to talk to you…please lose my number.” Instead, I sent the following message in response:

From:  Noetical

To:  ConservativeGuy

Subject:  Re: Politics

Date:  18 September 2005 03:29 PM Pacific

Dear ConservativeGuy:

Well, since you scanned my statements, you know that I *do* have opinions; and I hope you’ve concluded that I can at least argue their merits. So when you say that you’re “extremely conservative politically,” what do you mean by that? In general, I consider myself a “liberal,” but my politics are not “liberal” down the line, as I take each issue as its own question, which you probably do as well.

I’m conservative when it comes to many economic issues, but I’m not sure what that means anymore because the current “conservative” administration doesn’t seem fiscally conservative or responsible to me at all. In fact, I think they spend money like drunken sailors.

I admit that being “extremely conservative politically” has come to mean a few things to me that it might not mean to you, as being “more liberal socially” is incompatible with my understanding of extremely conservative political beliefs. The public conservative agenda has evolved dramatically in recent years in a way that I have found disturbing. Most of my issues with the current state of conservative politics are tied to the extent to which the Christian Right has become more powerful and influential in issues of public policy. For instance, I don’t have an issue with someone who believes that dinosaurs and people co-existed and that the first woman was made from a man’s rib, but I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on teaching that to children in our public science classrooms.

I’ve never considered myself a libertarian, although I know many of my views are consistent with classically liberal principles. I took this online survey called “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” According to that, my answers say that the best way to describe my political views is libertarian. I scored 90% on personal issues and 70% on economic issues. (It’s a funny little quiz; you should check it out at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for me it’s more about sharing fundamental values rather than ideology. Hope that all makes sense and isn’t too much information. =-)

Best, Noetical.

---

Okay, now first of all, someone show me where in ANY of these emails I’ve identified as a “Democrat.” Then explain to me which part of my responses were hostile and aggressive. If you can do that, then maybe I will understand why this guy felt justified to send me this response:

From:  ConservativeGuy

To:  Noetical

Subject:  Hi Again

Date:  18 September 2005 05:09 PM Pacific

Hi,

I have been a Republican as long as I can remember because I suscribe to their fundamental belielf that putting the power and capital in the hands of people is much preferable to the government running affairs (which without exception are far more costly and less effective). Also, the recent election proved that Democrats are out of touch with the core values of the American public (religion, faith, etc which do matter to most Americans).  The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party has not been viable in the last 30 years with the exception of Clinton who lied to the American people, performed criminal acts (pardoning Rich), yet still had the christma to get away with it.  The Democrats do not stand for anything except for opposing those things that the Reblicans believe in (see comments of recent congressional hearings). And, if the best candidate they can come up with in 2004 is John Kerry (and Edwards who could not even win his home state) then they are in serious trouble. This is not a viable party in its current state and there is not a single candidate currently that could prevail in 2008 today.

—ConservativeGuy

---

While I wrote several responses to him in my head, after a few daze of not writing back to him, I got the following message about him from eHarmony:

Match Closed: One of the hardest things about any new relationship is deciding when or if you should continue forward in a relationship. ConservativeGuy has decided to permanently close communication with you at this point for the following reason or reasons:

• I don’t feel that the chemistry is there.
• I think the difference in our values is too great.

---

Okay, where to start? First of all, no shit the difference in our values is too great. …but what an idiotic way to respond to my considered explanation of my beliefs. He might as well have said, “yeah, well you’re a poopie head.” Whatever.

I hate it when Republicans talk about things that the last election “proved” about “most Americans.” The truth is, “most Americans” did not vote for Bush, even if you don’t take into account the fact that there were many “irregularities” reported (as detailed here in Wikipedia.) The number of votes that were officially counted for Bush was somewhere around 62,040,606. According to the census reports from July 2004, there were about 220,377,406 Americans over the age of 18 at the time. That means that only 28% of adult Americans voted for him. In what world is that MOST? At best, the election proved that MOST adult Americans don’t vote…which is another thing that bothers me, but don’t get me started.

As for the Bush administration “putting the power and capital in the hands of people,” that may be true…if you mean the “People’s Republic of China,” who make an obscene amount of money from the interest on their stake in our government. As of this summer, that stake had grown to $242 billion and that’s before the Katrina pots of gold have been factored in (which are going in part to pay for no-bid contracts that have gone to some of the same companies that have been getting rich from the war in Iraq.) According to an article in the Washington Post last week, “Foreign holdings of U.S. government debt exceeded $2.03 trillion in July, meaning that every man, woman and child in the United States owes foreign investors $6,846.”

Well, in re-reading this before posting it, I realize that it sounds much more angry than I intended. The truth is that I found this exchange to be highly amusing because this guy so clearly lacked the ability or will to do what he said he wants others to do, i.e. “back up” his opinion. While it was fun to watch him become aggressive and obnoxious so quickly, this exchange has confirmed my suspicion that I just can’t date someone with substantially divergent political beliefs.

And that my friends, is why I don’t date Republicans. =-)

Words & Quotes of the Week

I spent much of the long weekend transfixed by the news. I watched abject misery rise in the streets of New Orleans with the flood. As chaos pervaded, LIVE on CNN, a few words started running through my mind.

WORDS OF THE WEEK:

“AMERICA,” as in: “Is this really happening in AMERICA?”

“POVERTY,” as in: “If you live in POVERTY, you don’t have an SUV to drive out of town before the hurricane arrives.”

“LEADERSHIP,” as in: “People aren’t frustrated by the lack of LEADERSHIP, they’re dying because of it.”

“WATER,” as in: “The streets are filled with WATER!” and “Where the fuck is the food and WATER?”

The aforementioned words inspired the following QUOTES OF THE WEEK:

AMERICA:
“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
—James Arthur Baldwin
“If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone ‘America died from a delusion that she had moral leadership’.”
—Will Rogers
“I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” (…unless you’re poor.)
—George W. Bush

POVERTY:
“It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of poverty.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty“
—Aristotle
“Poverty may be the mother of crime, but lack of good sense is the father”
—Jean de la Bruyere
“Poverty is the worst form of violence.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

LEADERSHIP:
“One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”
— Arnold H. Glasgow
“The only safe ship in a storm is leadership.”
—Faye Wattleton

WATER:
“You don’t drown by falling in the water; you drown by staying there”
—Edwin Louis Cole
“Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink”
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge