Rant #11 - Playing Rummy... Could it be Time to Discard?

I'm about to go off on a little rant... (albeit a wee controversial)

Approaching this November election, we stand 7 days away from a watershed moment in politics, and American sentiment. For the first time in 30 years we could see the atmosphere and condition of another nation around the world determine how we are going to live here in America. More than 60% of Americans are frustrated with the war in Iraq and agree that it has not gone exceptionally well. In fact, the President agrees with them. No particular person is to blame for this scenario, but the percolating facts and figures tend toward one side of the soup bowl. And whether right or wrong - I've learned that management life is never fair - fault (or the lack thereof) does not always equal responsibility, yet it does not negate it either; and wherever the epicenter of criticism should be in blaming our losses in Iraq, we must make a decision about how to correct the current malaise.

In the midst of this, it would be a mistake to believe President Bush is the person we ought to focus on in this debate. It has been unfortunate that the focus of this election for months has been on a man that is not even on the ballot. On the one hand, the political left is right to portray this election not in a local context, but on a national perspective. If you want the current national state of being to continue, your vote may play a very large part in determining the future course of our country. But on the other hand, the stakes are high: Chairmanship of every committee in Congress is up in the air, and if laid in the hands of eager Democratic visionaries, we will see the rise of middle and top end taxes on income, restoration of ridiculous increases of government entitlements, decreased funding of intelligence agencies, and either a full pull-out of Iraq or simply political deadlock on the campaign - leaving no fire behind push. The factors effecting the purity of our war in Iraq have been numerous and unpredictable.

NEWS FLASH: All wars suffer the same fate!

If the Republican Party has just one more significant trick up it's sleeve, I measureably believe it could be one thing: ask Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Ok, take a breather and consider it for a moment......

You good? Ok. Donald Rumsfeld represents a number of glaring truths about this war, and our country's approach to armed conflict.

• He stands firm and makes resolute decisions he feels are the best for the country
• He has aggressively and effectively placed the entire military industrial complex on the chopping table, and made it leaner, meaner and more efficient. In short, we're getting more bang for our buck, so to speak.
• He has a very defined goal in mind, rather than a muddled, one-day-at-a-time mentality. He knows we must get the job done in Iraq, and does not want to throw away any accomplishment by pulling out before the right time.

But... I also believe he has shown his resolve can ruffle feathers, get under the skin of subordinates, irritate diplomatic relations... he has revealed to his counterparts in the media that he is stubborn to the point of encyclopedic proportions. While his strengths make him a valuable asset, his method makes him a liability.

For nearly a year and a half, the President has stood by the side of Rumsfeld, declaring his confidence in the man, and repeating his mantra that they are "getting the job done". Unfortunately for the President, as the American people have grown weary of this war's daily figures and headlines they've begun to place the onus upon him, not just his administration, or even terrorists that know conditions on the ground affect policy and public sentiment here. So suddenly, the third district House race in "Anywhere, U.S.A." matters more than it did last time. This Congressional election has become a referendum on America's emotional capacity for nasty headlines. And our economy and national security may suffer the consequences.

If the Republican Party wants to turn this election on its ugly head and go into the last several day stretch with a push the Democratic Party will not have time to construe an answer to, there is only one choice I believe they have to make: Release Donald Rumsfeld.

Even if he's not asked to leave right away, the sentiment will have such a staggering effect on media consciousness, it will ripple through America quicker than $100 million of dirty prime-time advertising. Bush will become the water-cooler conversation for the next 5 business days, and people who have been questioning the President's ability to lead, whether legitimate or not, just may tilt on the fence of opinion and vote with their gut, not their emotions. This action would not be a surrender, it would not project weakness; it would certainly undermine the only claim the Democratic Party has against this administration in light of a roaring economy, rising wages and benefits, lower crime, easing health-care costs, historically low unemployment, increasing diplomatic relations with North Korea, increased border security, disappearing budget deficits (in fact, achieving budget surpluses within 6 years), record stock indexes, higher standards for public education, resolved baseball labor agreements (thank GOD!)... or whatever else you can think we have now that we did not 6 years ago. So, if you want to change all these things about our nation's current condition, then vote your emotions and against Republican candidates. Otherwise, vote with your gut, your brain, your wallet, or whatever it is that makes you vote for the conservative agenda.

The facts before voters (although a bit clouded and unclear) are that the economic condition is incredibly viable through many terrible factors, local and state governments are becoming more solvent and effective, small businesses are flourishing, international security threats are being dealt with in a determined manner... and despite the discouraging news from a war that is as difficult as any other we have fought, we ought to consider that all the great things that have been accomplished the last 5-6 years could begin to dim if we lose faith in a system of government that allows Americans to control their own destiny, their own finances and their own day to day functions. Keeping that subtle drift toward more government control is more important to me than casting my emotional vote on how I feel about Iraq, and I believe most of the rest of us feel the same.

I believe the key to winning this election handily, rather than by the hair on our chinny-chin-chin is by discarding our highest scoring card for the sake of beating the odds. Bid Rummy a respectable farewell and say hello to Deputy Gordon England or General Pace.

Think about it...

BlogBlurb - America, Watch Out!

The Associated Press - you know, "they" - just reported that Mexico officially opposed the construction of a 700 mile border fence *gasp!* along a stretch of our border with Mexico, by reading a statement at the Organization of American States. Based in Washington, DC., this diplomatic organization is comprised of representatives from each of the American states in the western hemisphere.

Being supported by 27 other sovereign nations, "the declaration [was] read aloud Wednesday at the OAS headquarters in Washington, and said the barriers would not solve the immigration problem urging the U.S. government to rethink its position, according to press releases from the OAS and Mexican foreign ministry."

When I first read this statement, I felt a twinge in my gut and said to myself "man, I'm so tired of the United States having a negative image in the minds of other nations when we're only doing what's necessary... what now? But then I read on; would you like to know who those 27 nations were that Mexico has rallied against the evil United States?!

This is going to shake you off your chair. If these nations turn against us, where else do we have to turn? In fact, if we're not careful, they just may deem the U.S. an unsafe global neighbor and impose sanctions and God knows what else to put us in line...

In an incredible, indelible, undeniably intimidating show of unity against our "shameful Berlin Wall" (as Vicente Fox calls it), the following nations are holding our necks against the wall with a warning: *shiver*

Antigua
Argentina
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Our good friends, Colombia
Costa Rica
Chile
Ecuador
Stable little El Salvador
Poor little beat up Granada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti, with all their integrity
Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua's quasi-communists
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
The imposing San Kitts and Nevis
San Lucia
San Vicente
Suriname
Uruguay
And of course, the always dependable foe, Venezuela.

President Bush, you have a "coalition of the willing" that have stood against you; beware your actions and be quaking in your Tejano snake skin boots every time you see an illegal immigrant.

They have the world behind their cause!

Disclaimer:
If you actually think I'm not being sarcastic, then please visit this page and read with complete seriousness and piety.

Rave #6 - Debunking the Myth of the Underprivileged Soldier

The following is a paper published by the Heritage Foundation in November, 2005 in response to a underground leftist claim that our military deliberately attempts to build our armed forces and lines on the battlefield with poor under-privileged kids from cities and rural regions, sending our "poor off to fight the rich man's war".

__________________________________
Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier
by Tim Kane and James CarafanoNovember 29, 2005

They all volunteered. The U.S. soldiers pitching in with hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast and those fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere decided, on their own, to serve their nation.

Or was the decision made so freely? Could it be that unscrupulous Pentagon recruiters duped them, taking advantage of their poverty, their lack of education and the bleak futures they share as members of the USA's urban underclass?

That's the view of some critics, such as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who writes that "very few" of the soldiers fighting in Iraq "are coming from the privileged economic classes," and that there would likely be no war if rich kids had to fight. According to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., social equality demands reinstatement of the draft, which he justifies by asserting that "the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." Herbert concludes that there is "something very, very wrong with this picture."

What's "very, very wrong" with the Rangel-Herbert picture is that it has no factual basis.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.

Yes, rural areas and the South produced more soldiers than their percentage of the population would suggest in 2003. Indeed, four rural states - Montana, Alaska, Wyoming and Maine - rank 1-2-3-4 in proportion of their 18-24 populations enlisted in the military. But this isn't news.

Enlistees have always come from rural areas. Yet a new study, reported in The Washington Post earlier this month, suggests that higher enlistment rates in rural counties are new, implying a poorer military. They err by drawing conclusions from a non-random sample of a few counties, a statistically cloaked anecdote. The only accurate way to assess military demographics is to consider all recruits.

If, for example, we consider the education of every recruit, 98% joined with high-school diplomas or better. By comparison, 75% of the general population meets that standard. Among all three-digit ZIP code areas in the USA in 2003 (one can study larger areas by isolating just the first three digits of ZIP codes), not one had a higher graduation rate among civilians than among its recruits.

In fact, since the 9/11 attacks, more volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes and fewer from the lowest-income groups. In 1999, both the highest fifth of the nation in income and the lowest fifth were slightly underrepresented among military volunteers. Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top two-fifths of income levels but have decreased among the lowest fifth.

Allegations that recruiters are disproportionately targeting blacks also don't hold water. First, whites make up 77.4% of the nation's population and 75.8% of its military volunteers, according to our analysis of Department of Defense data.

Second, we explored the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks, which range from 24.1% black up to 68.6%. These areas, which account for 14.6% of the adult population, produced 16.6% of recruits in 1999 and only 14.1% in 2003.

Maintaining the strength and size of our all-volunteer military isn't always easy. But Americans step up when their country needs them. To suggest the system is failing or exploiting citizens is wrong. And to make claims about the nature of U.S. troops to discredit their mission ought to be politically out of bounds.

Tim Kane is an Air Force veteran, and James Carafano is an Army veteran. Both are research fellows at The Heritage Foundation.

First appeared in USA Today