(Writing this on October 31, 2008, it seems I was quite prescient; and, oh, I so wish I’d been wrong. Obama seems to be disappointed in his supporters on the left, but not as disappointed as we are in him. But still . . . would we have been better off with the “Maverick and the Twit”? Probably not. Unless we believe that really bad government would quicken the advent of a new dawn. Unfortunately, I’m not that naive. Although if Sarah Palin were nominated in 2012 . . . )
With the Presidential election just a few days away I thought I’d write something political. No, not about who you should vote for, we’re all getting more than enough direction on that subject. The choice is obvious. So obvious that it’s almost no choice at all. Not even the wealthy can afford to dither, now that the very sources of wealth are at risk. That a washed-up political hack, in the early stages of senility, with a reputation for rage and unthinking reaction, who’s only noteworthy accomplishment was getting shot down over Vietnam and being imprisoned more than a generation ago, is even competitive is a sorry commentary on American Politics.
Let’s assume Obama will win. The alternative is literally unthinkable. No, I want to talk about what happens then. As the (hopefully) failed Presidential hopeful might say, “my friends, we are in sorry shape.” We have gone on for far too long believing in myths instead of looking at reality. Wherever the economy may be heading, it’s unlikely to be a pleasant journey. We’ve been living on borrowed time – and borrowed money. We are less than 5 % of the world’s population, yet we use 25 % of its resources. American financial dominance began to falter in the 70s: We abandoned the gold standard in 1971; oil production peaked in ’72; OPEC embargoed oil in ’73; and in ‘74 our exports exceeded imports for the last time. In 1980 Jimmy Carter told us we had to change direction, and it would be hard work, but we chose Reagan’s “Morning in America.” And now our markers are coming due.
We’re surrounded by failure. Katrina and New Orleans, a joint failure of government and infrastructure, made the lesson obvious. As we’ve been coasting on financial strength built up during WWII and the high-growth years that followed, we’ve been living off of Public Works constructed during the same period: big power-generating projects, the interstate highway system, bridges, sewer and water systems, transmission lines, etc., etc. But we’ve avoided timely maintenance and replacement, and now that we’re running out of money we’re also running out of time. Bills for this neglect are becoming due. Past due in many cases.
We seem to have lost the ability to do things – the very thing Americans used to be famous for. Every President since Johnson has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, yet we use more of it every year. Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 – and 36 years later we are still “making progress.” In 1982 they mandated a National Storage Site for spent nuclear fuel, and settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, by ’87. It was due to open in 1998; that date is now 2017, and no one is taking bets that it will ever actually happen. It’s only a small example, but telling because of its implications for a renewed nuclear power program in light of oil prices and global warming, not to mention homeland security. And speaking of security, the building replacing Manhattan’s twin towers sure showed those terrorists what we could do – didn’t it?
Our military has failed us . . . again and again. A successful military produces quick, economical and meaningful victories. Valor and impressive technology (and no nation has ever spent more on this than us) are not measures of military effectiveness, success is. And success has been sorely lacking. The first Gulf War? That “first” gives it away. A victory? Perhaps, if parades are a sign of victory. But ten years of subsequent bombing and a follow-on invasion have shown it to have been meaningless. And we are now fighting two lost wars. Yes, lost. Lost soon after we announced those victories. We’ve now spent 7 years in Afghanistan, 5 years in Iraq. Our Civil War lasted 4, as did our participation in WWII; even the Revolution took only 6 years. Our Vietnam adventure, however, lasted 16. Do you see a pattern? Vietnam, the lesson we forgot.
Our recent adventures were doomed from the start. Invading foreign places and “killing strange people until they stop trying to make us go away” is not a recipe for success. It’s a formula for wasted lives and treasure, and demonstrates a profound failure of leadership and strategic thought.
Oh yes, the “surge.” Lessening the rate of killing is not the same as victory – especially when it’s achieved by giving arms and money to the “other” side. Actually, all three sides: Kurd, Sunni and Shi’a. Having a war disappear from our TV screens is not the same as making the war disappear.
Can we end these wars and leave gracefully? No. But we can just leave. We did that in Vietnam. Oh, it was disguised with a lot of words and logistical flim-flam, but it all came down to lifting those last Americans off of the roof of the Saigon Embassy. And yes, it was bad public relations, and more soldiers died in the leaving (the Nixon years) than when victory was just around the corner (that’s what happens when you try to leave gracefully), but it wasn’t that bad was it?
The war stopped, the killing stopped, the drain on our treasury stopped, and the violence and rage at home stopped. We are now wearing a lot of Vietnamese T-shirts and former soldiers are taking vacations in Ho Chi Minh City. Come to think of it, Germany and Japan were famous victories, but our troops are still there more than 60 years later; and Korea was a not-so-famous tie, and we’ve been there for over 50 years. But we’re not in China (think Korea) or Vietnam. All in all, we might be better off losing. Losing seems to be a lot cheaper.
Whomever it is we are fighting over there, they don’t represent an existential threat – a threat to our existence as a people and nation. Neither are “terrorism,” North Korea nor Iran existential threats. Oddly enough, the existential threat we faced during the “Cold War,” of Russian nukes aimed at our cities, is still the one we face today. The nukes are still there, and still aimed at us. But we don’t hear much about it, do we? What we do hear is a lot of fuzzy language to obfuscate the issue. It’s no longer nuclear weapons, it’s “WMD,” as if chemical and biological attacks presented threats of equal severity. However, there is another existential threat facing us. One perhaps even more dangerous in the long run: our over-reaction to incorrectly perceived dangers, and the waste of resources that entails.
So if Obama wins, what can he do? Let’s assume he does what he’s promised (and when did that last happen?). It still doesn’t look good. We might be able to leave Iraq, or, at least, kinda leave Iraq, but he seems to believe winning in Afghanistan is still possible. The Russians, and the British before them, would beg to differ. He wants to rebuild our military. “For what” might be an obvious question? He’s proposed a health care plan that includes insurance companies but not all citizens. And by not separating health insurance from the job, does nothing to ease the competitive problems of American corporations. Working towards a green energy future, a fairer tax system, more affordable higher education . . . These are all worthwhile, perhaps even noble, goals, but they require the willing participation of a Democratic Congress. The congress we elected in 2006 to end the war in Iraq – that went swimmingly didn’t it?
Will a Congress who couldn’t summon up the courage to cut off funding for an unpopular war – and by all accounts this will be a great year for congressional Democrats, whether or not Obama wins – challenge a despised administration or end torture, support meaningful change? It’s not as if we are talking about a lot of courage – just the courage to risk your job. I wouldn’t bet on it. And Obama, will he really fight for change, or settle for “Clinton-like” tokenism and gestures? Giving us great words in place of deeds. Meaningful change means sacrifice, perhaps from all of us, but surely from influential segments of our society. Change, however appealing in the abstract, is rarely popular when it strikes close to home.
But perhaps I’m being too pessimistic. Obama is obviously intelligent. Not that intelligence has always served our Nation well. No one ever doubted Clinton’s intelligence, nor Hoover’s, nor Wilson’s. But still, it’s a start (think Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt). We’ve seen what the opposite can accomplish. His campaign, and I have no doubt it was his campaign, has been masterful. He has shown himself to be a great politician. And I mean that as a compliment, in the sense that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were great politicians. How improbable would it have seemed, a few years back, that a relatively unknown black man might well be elected President? To have achieved that is no small accomplishment. And while no one without an inflated ego even contemplates running for President, Obama’s background provides some evidence for selfless and altruistic behavior. So let’s be hopeful. But let’s not expect miracles.
Not even small ones.
There really is no other choice.
Al
No comments:
Post a Comment