Monday's New Yorker will report that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been micromanaging the war, according to Reuters. According to the article, Pentagon sources say Rumsfeld overruled military planners who wanted more forces on the ground, banking on Iraqi resistance crumbling under the experimental Shock and Awe strategy. AFP news (via Yahoo) broke the story first.

Rumsfeld isn't the only control freak in the administration by a long shot. I think we need a new psychological measure - an "Ego-Q". Every person in a leadership role should have to disclose theirs before being allowed to make important decisions that affect others.

Around the blog-o-sphere

A couple of days ago I read an article about "Soldier Bloggers". Today I checked out some of the sites mentioned in the article. I'm disappointed. "LT Smash - Live from the sandbox" is the only site worth linking to. He's actually over there. The others seem to be typical Stateside warbloggers.

Salam Pax, the mysterious "blogger of Baghdad," is much more interesting. Some doubt that he's for real, but I believe. Along with everyone else, I'm concerned for him - he hasn't posted in several days. I spent hours yesterday just following the links on his blog - and the links on those blogs. Here are a couple of highlights from my "tour", both beautiful photoblogs.

• Hunkabutta
• Ziboy from Beijing

Ian recently posted that some people only "read" his blog for the pictures. Which got me thinking. My theory is that some of us are picture people, others are word people. I'm mainly a "wordie" (I figure we're outnumbered at least 2 to 1). I love good pictures, but when I view web pages, I generally read around the pictures to get to the ideas. Too, I remember the dark and terrible days of dialup (shudder) when image-intensive pages took forever to load. Despair not, dear photoheads (not that any of the hardcore bothered to read this far): my camera (cheap 35mm right now) goes wherever I do and eventually I get the pictures developed. With a little luck, soon the war won't be the only thing on my mind, and I'll get back to strolling the hills and shutterbugging.

As for the war, Bob Dylan said it so well almost 40 years ago, though I have it on good authority that the Neville Brothers sing this song best.

Posted by Me at 20:17 link

Like a lot of people lately, I'm discouraged by recent events. Peace is better than unjust, unnecessary war; so I worked for peace, and continue to do. Failing peace, a quick war is better than a long one; but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. The Iraqi military don't seem particularly shocked or awed, nor are the Iraqi people rising up in our support. I feel the US administration and US lawmakers are committed to war, committed now by bloodshed, beyond the point of no return. Among our leaders, only diehard peace supporters, such as Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi, can voice impassioned dissent without losing face.

Americans display less tolerance and more hatred lately. Debate itself has grown warlike, full of personal attacks and with-us-or-against-us logic. This is becoming true on both sides of the war debate. Acts of violent hatred increasingly threaten our vibrant, diverse culture.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Historical parallels also can be drawn with America, 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War. A dissatisfying presidential election. An economic downturn. An increasingly divided nation. A lot of people who didn't really know what war was, both for and against it. A number of contentious issues, a number of ways to frame the debate. A large number of people on each side with stongly-held, mutually-exclusive views. A large number of people who didn't know what to believe. A small number of hotheads who finally took action, sending events into unknowable chaos, beyond a point of no return, creating a chain of events and an outcome no one could have predicted, exacting a toll few would have paid willingly.

In 1914, at the beginning of what came to be known as the Great War, all parties hoped for a quick resolution. Events quickly spiraled out of control, as events so often do once one country's soldiers have shed the blood of another country's. Then, too, the end results were vastly different from initial expectations - and much costlier.

Today's conflict could easily broaden or otherwise turn uglier. Seemingly unrelated situations could comingle with current hostilities, creating further spirals of chaos.

Against these fears, the little electric candle burning day and night in my window seems dreadfully inadequate. I see other lights, here and there across my little town. And I know such lights burn across this country - and around the world. Still, sometimes I feel surrounded by darkness. I hope light will prevail. And in a spirit of hope, joining with another 20^th century Irish poet, "I will sing, sing a new song".

May our lights shine brightly and our voices ring strong and true. It's our only hope.

Posted by Me at 23:24 link

Be sure to let your elected officials know how much you appreciate the ongoing allocation of US resources in Iraq. Especially the president, as he deserves the bulk of the credit (be sure to use small words).

Posted by Me at 13:14 link

Today I struggled to avoid feeling boring. I pondered my dream, even as I wandered through the usual tasks. Writing computer programs. Reading poetry. Writing words. Reading computer textbooks. Driving. Cat herding. Dog reassuring. Self reassuring. Looking around at Spring. Breathing it in. Feeling it. Listening. Learning to eat papaya. (Is there a wrong way to eat papaya? I guess anything's fair game as long as the papaya ends up inside you. I think I'll live on green tea, papayas and mangoes from now on).

The dream, as far as I can tell, means America is heading for a whole lot of trouble. See, that's the problem - no matter where my thoughts go, no matter how hard I try to let them wander, they snap right back to the war. Some people don't seem to have that problem, don't seem to care all that much. I've never been able to ignore the elephant in the room. Maybe if I lived in Los Angeles.

Consider Casey Kasem's weekly benediction: "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars". Which part (if either) comes naturally to you? Which part (if either) requires work? For me, I keep my feet on the ground automatically but I don't reach for the stars much. I like to look at the stars, but I don't desire them. My little patch of earth is all I want. A blessing. A curse.

Desire is the fundamental cause of unhappiness, so surely its absence is a blessing? But I want to want more than I actually want. Which is weird. And a curse.

Posted by Me at 23:55 link

Sandy desert, dunes. Blue, cloudless sky. Gentle breeze. A bit cool, but warm in the sun. Morning. A long line of cavalry troops snaking casually through the desert, black horses, gray uniforms. Riding at their head, proudly, George W. Bush carrying the flag - the Confederate Navy Jack, though on each uniformed shoulder the Stars & Stripes. An expression of calm certainty upon his untroubled face. Suddenly from behind a dune, a rain of arrows. One strikes Bush in the chest. He continues to hold the flag with one hand. With the other he grips the arrow in his heart. Not trying to pull it out, he just holds it and stares down at it as blood flows down the front of his pressed gray uniform shirt. On his face a puzzled expression. All around, the soldiers look at him, similarly puzzled, scared, their horses restless and rearing as the arrows continue to rain in.

Posted by Me at 09:37 link

I actually believed that until I saw today's Onion.

Posted by Me at 03:26 link

It appears the Iraqis aren't throwing any flowers in the path of the US forces. In fact, our reception so far isn't much better than the Chinese got when they "liberated" Tibet. Most Iraqis say they'd be happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. Why then aren't they happy to see us?

This BBC article offers a few ideas. It starts by outlining the US/UK governments' theory - that the people of Iraq are still too scared of Saddam to openly oppose him and support us. Probably true, but not the whole story. The article goes on to offer a few more reasons: the shameful way George (H.W.) Bush urged the Kurds and the Shi'ites to rise up against Saddam Hussein in 1991, then went fishing while the Iraqi army slaughtered them in numbers. Also, Iraqis blame the UN and the US - not Saddam - for the 12-year regime of sanctions which has resulted in mass starvation and poverty. The article suggests Iraqi nationalism (patriotism?) plays a role. After all, we're invading their country. And, we're bombing them. We're not just bombing the Iraqi army, but also the civilians the Iraqi army have surrounded themselves with. All things considered, we're doing as well as anyone could; but to a father holding the body of his dead daughter, "doing our best" surely must have a hollow ring.

Here's another reason. Consider our history with Iraq, especially the US government's relationship with Saddam Hussein. After the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the US, fearing the spread of radical Islam, befriended Iraq, helped arm them (thanks to San Francisco Liberal for the link), even helped them develop chemical weapons. We helped Hussein throughout the Iran/Iraq war, with weapons, money and battlefield intelligence - even after it became clear he was using chemical weapons against Iran on a regular basis. In 1988, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, the US did offer condemnation (some US lawmakers were outraged), but we failed to take any significant action, citing strategic national interest.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein consulted with the United States before invading Kuwait. He was assured by US Ambassador April Glaspie that "we have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflict". Not surprisingly, Saddam was stunned by the US reaction to the invasion.

Why'd we do that? Let them - make that help them - get away with murder for ten years, lie to Saddam and then pounce? A number of possible reasons are outlined in this list of Gulf War articles not covered by major media (from FAIR). A more believable explanation can be found in the Mother Jones article I've referenced twice before, and in documents like this one from Project for the New American Century - it appears that these guys want nothing less than for America to dominate the world. What do you think the Iraqi people think? That we're full of good intentions? That we have their best interests at heart? That we'll keep our promises?

I think they, like most Americans, don't really know what the hell we're doing in their country. But they have a pretty good idea it's not good.

I think we're in for a tough war, and then we're in for a nation-building - oh, excuse me, a post-conflict reconstruction - adventure unlike anything anyone's ever seen before.

We'll win, we'll win, there's no question but that we'll win. But -

What then?

Posted by Me at 17:06 link

President Bush presented his cost estimate for the war. Not included in the estimate: cost of lives lost or shattered; damage to US foreign relations; damage to international law. These things are tough to put a price on, anyway, so it's best he kept it strictly monetary. Since this is a government project, we should expect major cost overruns. I'm not sure what the final figure will be, but I'm pretty sure it'll end up being measured in barrels.

Posted by Me at 00:59 link

Although I generally find BBC coverage to be balanced and accurate, I must take issue with the headline "Iraq's David and Goliath Tactics". (story here) In the Bible story, David, though much smaller and weaker than Goliath, stood and faced him fairly, and won the battle through outstanding skill. The Iraqi tactics described in the article, fighting in civilian clothes and taking sanctuary in populated areas, are illegal and unfair, and put innocent civilians at risk. These tactics are clear violations of the laws of conflict. Many have argued that these and other illegal actions by Iraqi forces can be excused because the US violated international law when it attacked Iraq, or because the US force is so vastly superior to the Iraqi force. Nonsense. International Humanitarian Law is very clear on this point. (here's a quick primer)

Certainly the Bush administration has itself behaved questionably several times since 9/11/2001. Credible accusations of US torture (admittedly the non-extreme sort) of Afghanistan detainees have been made. Less credible accusations have been made of much more serious abuses. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both voiced concerns over the classification of captured Al-Qaeda prisoners as "unlawful combatants" rather than as prisoners of war (they would be accorded more rights as POWs). The US rejection of the International Criminal Court has led to worldwide criticism that America considers itself "above the law". In Iraq, the US has allowed Iraqi prisoners to be shown on television, a violation of their Geneva Convention rights not unlike the Iraqi treatment of US prisoners. Not to mention the illegality of the Iraq war itself.

Do any of these entitle other nations to ignore the law? Absolutely not. Back to kindergarten again: two wrongs don't make a right. But does this sort of behavior erode international law, encourage further questionable behavior, and place anyone near a combat site (including US forces) at greater risk? Absolutely.

So no, this isn't David and Goliath. More like Jeffrey Dahmer versus Darth Vader.

Posted by Me at 18:46 link

As I rule, I don't make substantive changes in posts after I publish them (I do routinely correct "dead links" as well as grammatical or typographical errors), but I felt compelled to make a couple of significant changes after re-reading my post from this morning. I had made the statements "I hate the Iraqi regime" and "I hate Iraq" which do not accurately reflect my feelings. It runs against my core beliefs to harbor hatred for individuals or groups of individuals and my statements had implied exactly that. I have corrected the post so that the statements now read "I hate the many wrong actions of the Iraqi regime" and "I hate the many wrong actions of the government of Iraq" which accurately state my feelings.

Here's more intelligent discussion of the highly-questionable legality of the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive self-defense.

Posted by Me at 17:29 link

As reports roll in from Iraq, detailing the inevitable horrors of war - civilian casualties, American casualties, British casualties, Iraqi casualties, "friendly fire" casualties involving both allies and reporters, environmental catastrophe - let's not lose sight of what this war is all about (more).

Puzzled by the pro-war bias of the news media, especially the cable news networks? Examined closely, it makes perfect sense. And, dare I say it, lots of dollars. Besides, war is exciting, and war coverage is still cheaper to produce than other shows.

Could anything illustrate more clearly how the war has divided America than the audience's reaction to Michael Moore's speech last night at the Oscars?

Generally speaking, the war seems to be going according to plan. By the way, you can read all about the plan - the "Shock and Awe" strategy, actually part of a larger strategy called Rapid Dominance, is discussed in exhaustive depth at the US Defense Department's Command and Control Research Program (DoDCCRP) site. When I first saw that, I thought it very odd that they'd put their strategy in the public eye, but after reading it, I realize that so much of the strategy depends on our overwhelming technological superiority that it doesn't make a bit a difference who knows about it. Perhaps an enemy's reading about the strategy would induce some of the desired effects of the strategy. By the time I finished reading, I was glassy-eyed and ready to surrender.

The Iraqis have probably read it; they're trying hard to spin recent events as best they can. As much as I hate the many wrong actions of the Iraqi regime, I have to give them my "most colorful use of language in propaganda" award.

Which doesn't change the fact that they've committed war crimes. Yes, I hate the many wrong actions of the government of Iraq and I hate the war. The war is wrong, not because Iraq is right, but because throwing the first punch is wrong. (more). Didn't most of us learn that in kindergarten?

Posted by Me at 09:06 link

Today was a good day to get out and take a look around. I went for a walk with the dogs, down by the park. It was so crowded there, we just stayed with the sidewalks. Wonderful! Almost embarassingly warm - mid 70's - and a multitude of new life. Bradford pear trees in full blossom, pink cherry trees, forsythia, daffodils, lilacs, hyacinths... Lawn mowers buzzing. The smell of backyard grilling.

The only reminder of war came as we made our way up the last hill back to the house. I heard the familiar rhythmic thump-thump of some car's subwoofer growing louder and expected to see, as we passed the apartment buildings that obsured the next corner, a high-schooler out posing around town. Instead, I found my spirits unexpectedly lifted as first I recognized the tune - Edwin Starr's peace classic "War" - and then saw that the vehicle from which it blasted was a slightly-distressed yellow Toyota mini-pickup, adorned with Veterans for Peace stickers, driven by an aging-hippie type who returned my smiling wave with one of his own. Yeah!

Posted by Me at 23:48 link

Two recent articles from Britain's Guardian Unlimited offer insight into America's international image problem and even a little advice on how to fix it:

• Maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the absence of UN support for the US, given how many resolutions we've vetoed. And most Americans, myself included, have only the faintest idea what America has supported or opposed at the UN.
• We're perceived as greedy, domineering, unapologetically unilateralist, and hypocritical. And we have no clue that we're seen that way.