Patton vs. Limited War

As President Bush begins to implement his new plan for the War in Iraq, Democrats and Republicans alike are scrambling to denounce it (and him) by passing numerous 'anti-surge' resolutions. In the process, nearly everyone on the Hill is becoming a master of the 'I support the Troops but not the Mission' mantra. Basically, while our Men and Women in the field continue to fight it out in Iraq, the vast majority of Congress-persons are doing what they do best: playing politics and 'please like me now' games instead of debating and resolving real issues.

Personally, I believe that a troop increase could have a significant impact on Iraq. However, I am not sure that this will necessarily help us in our drive towards victory. Indeed, the question of whether a troop increase will help the Cause in Iraq brings me to what I feel is the primary reason we have not seen the level of expected success in Iraq. I believe that we have struggled in Iraq because of the manner in which we have fought the war; thus, if we change our fighting style, an increase in troop quantity would surely help to ensure victory. However, if the fundamental aspects of the fighting style do not change, an increase in troop levels will not result in an increased ability to defeat the enemy.

So, you might ask, what exactly is this "manner" of fighting that has prevented success? Allow me to explain. Throughout history, in my understanding, there have been two fundamental ways in which wars have been waged. The first is as old as warfare itself, but I will refer to it as the "George Patton style" war, after one of my heroes. The George Patton style war is exactly what it sounds like, warfare that is aimed at winning. It is based on the idea that war works best when it consists, in essence, of "making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country (or organization, religion, etc.)" The second style of warfare is relatively new to the world, and has been used, to the best of my knowledge, by only two Nations: The United States and Great Britain. This style of warfare is also somewhat self-explanatory and I (and many others) call it "Limited War". Limited War consists of fighting, essentially, with one hand tied behind your back and includes attempts to 'win hearts and minds'. To the best of my knowledge, no Nation in history has ever won a Limited War. Perhaps the contrast I am referring to is epitomized by the situation surrounding the Sunni cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. If George Patton had been the top commander in Iraq, al-Sadr would have been killed early on, and never survived to cause as much trouble as he currently does. However, in our zest to not offend the local people (win hearts and minds) we, fighting in the Limited Warfare style, allowed him to live, much to the detriment of our long-term cause.

Indeed, this is the inherent flaw in the Limited War style - it tries to kill as few people as possible. The problem is, in the long run, this ends up resulting in more deaths. Perhaps the best analogy that I can draw for this reasoning is the dropping of the Atomic bomb. In the short run, it cost many lives and did very little to win us the 'hearts and minds' of the Japanese people; yet, in the long run, the dropping of these bombs resulted not only in fewer American casualties but fewer Japanese casualties as well, given the high cost which would have been paid by both sides during a land invasion of Honshu. Maybe the reasoning was best expressed by Voltaire, who noted that "a little evil is often necessary for obtaining a great good." Additionally, Limited War ignores the basic reasoning behind the 5 following quotations:

"A good plan now, violently executed, is better than a perfect plan next week" - Gen George S. Patton Jr.
"A pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood" - Gen George S. Patton Jr.
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - but the size of the fight in the dog" - Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower
"When you appeal to force there is one thing which you must never do - lose" - Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In war, there is no substitute for victory" - Gen Douglass MacArthur

Perhaps you noticed the stellar War credentials of those I quoted above? Many in today's world would call them 'neo-con war-mongers' for saying such things. Indeed, Limited War advocates waiting and searching for the perfect plan and conserving the pint of sweat; furthermore, it places a real emphasis on the size of the dog in the fight and also creates a substitute for victory. This is what we are doing in Iraq. The United States' record in Limited Wars is 0-1-1, with Vietnam being the loss and Korea being the tie. Neither a tie nor 'peace with honor' will do us any good in Iraq.

By all conventional measures we are winning this war. Our casualty rates are remarkably low. As a percentage of the GDP this is the second cheapest war in American history (at 2% some 11% cheaper than Vietnam). The civilian casualty rates in Iraq have been kept, for a war, remarkably low as well; and they have also decreased nearly three-fold since the days of Saddam. Iraq has voted on a Constitution and elected a government. The infrastructure is improving and certainly better than it was under Saddam. Indeed, according to a recent Newsweek report, Iraq's economy is doing surprisingly well. Despite all of this, few level-headed individuals would suggest we are having great success in Iraq. Why? I believe this is the unfortunate hallmark of a Limited War. We can win in Iraq, witness all the positives I just mentioned above, and, indeed, we must win in Iraq; or the War on Islamic Fascism (W.W.IV, as I see it) will be far more difficult than it should be.

In his speech on the new policy in Iraq the President made reference to a loosening of the "Rules of Engagement" in Iraq. So far, from what I can discern from the news, this has actually translated into a policy change on the ground in Iraq. I had refrained from passing judgment on Bush's new policy until I saw promising signs along the lines of the Rules of Engagement. Assuming the positive trend in that area continues, I believe the troop surge will work.

For the sake of the Troops who have dedicated so much to this mission, let's hope I'm right.

The State O' My State

Just last week, Gov. Sanford gave his annual "State of the State" address, and today I was able to sit down and look through it. What follows is more or less my personal commentary on the speech, focusing mainly on his actual proposals instead of the other political B.S.

(Text of the speech linked here)

One of the top items on Sanford's agenda was improving the "soil conditions" for business. This is a continuation of one of the main themes from his first term in Columbia and one, on which, he has been fairly successful. What the Governor wants to do with this is, essentially, make South Carolina a more business friendly State, in order to create jobs and improve the overall economic atmosphere. The 3 main priorities are:

a)Reforming Workers' Comp
b)Cutting income taxes
c)Reforming small businesses' Health Care

Obviously, the cutting taxes part is great and the lowering of income taxes is another thing that Sanford did successfully in his last term. However, this new tax cut comes with a catch - Sanford wants to couple it with a slight increase in the taxes on Cigarettes. Obviously, smoking is an easy target for taxation; yet, a tax increase is still a tax increase. Despite the fact that I find smoking distasteful, I would much rather see Sanford propose decreases to both income and Cigarette taxes. (Hell, for that matter, just decrease every tax you can find.) As for the Workers Comp and Health Care reforms, from what I can tell, both seem to be reasonable pro-business solutions.

Another plank of Sanford's tenure in Columbia has been the downsizing of the State government - and it is, fortunately, something he plans on continuing to do in his second term. The South Carolina State government is on pace to have grown some 38% since 2004 - a growth rate which is nearly twice the average of other Southeastern States. In order to prevent this excessive growth, Sanford plans some "mid-year level budget cuts" as well as cuts "into the bone [of] agencies [currently being] adequately funded." I must admit, I particularly liked how he pointed out that such cuts would be "bad for anyone relying on government" - which is exactly how it should be!! It's a very simple cause and effect equation, really. When people rely on government, the government responds by growing and providing more and more for them. This continued growth makes the government inefficient, encroaches on the rights and liberties of citizens, and generally decreases the standard of living for all people under that particular government. In any case, during his first term, Sanford managed to noticeably reduce the size of S.C bureaucracies; and keeping up these reforms is clearly one of his priorities.

Furthermore, Sanford again brought up the idea of 'school choice' in public education reform. This brilliant idea manifested itself during his last term in the form of the failed Put Parent in Charge Act. Hopefully, this is a crusade on which the good Governor will not give up. No one doubts that S.C public education needs reform; the problem is that Democrats and many Republicans (especially the neo-Conservatives) feel the best reform is 'more of the same'. I could be wrong, but if 'more of the same' was not the answer in Iraq, isn't it also likely that 'more of the same' is not the answer for S.C education? Maybe if the Governor keeps at it, the people of South Carolina will begin to see the light.

The Governor, at the very least, paid lip service to some of the main problems we have over on the coast, such as those with the building of new roads and skyrocketing property taxes. Although, I have to say, I didn't see much in the way of actual solutions, just the usual political B.S. Time will tell, I suppose.

Overall, the speech seemed pretty good and, most importantly, had some good ideas in it. However, given that the S.C Governorship is one of the least powerful Executive branches in all 50 States, not to mention the somewhat abrasive nature of his relationship with the S.C State Legislature, one can't really determine how many of his ideas will actually translate into laws. Nevertheless, I personally am a huge Mark Sanford fan, and appreciate the way he conducts business up in Columbia. He had a successful 1st term and, for now, I have high hopes for the second.

At least, as high as one's hopes can be for a politician.

The Confederate Flag in Trenton?

There's nothing that most of us Southerners dislike more than 'Yankees' who come down our way and try to interfere with our lifestyle. Another thing most Southerners don't like is politicians (of any Party). So what happens when you combine the two? You get Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; both of whom utilized their visits to Columbia for MLK Day festivities to weigh in on South Carolina's Confederate Flag debate. This, of course, despite the fact that Biden is from Delaware and Dodd from Connecticut.

Why, you might ask, would two Senators from Northern States with no real interest or say-so in this South Carolinian political debate want to offer their opinion on the issue? Well, you see, both Biden and Dodd have announced their entry into the 2008 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination; and as everyone knows, the inside ticket to the Democratic nomination comes from the black vote. So what better way to spend your MLK Day than to jump into a debate, in which you have no place, and score a few political points with the black community! Wait, did I just say that? I'm sorry; they were 'attending an NAACP rally at the South Carolina Statehouse.' There that's more PC.

For the record, both Dodd and Biden said they wanted the flag moved off its current location on the Statehouse grounds - as if you couldn't have guessed. My point, however, is that it doesn't matter what they think; indeed, the fact that they said it should not even be newsworthy. If Governor Sanford or Senator Graham wants to offer their input, that's newsworthy - because they're actually from South Carolina. I'm not saying people outside of the State can't have an opinion on the issue; it's just that their opinion is not all that important to the actual debate. Furthermore, Senators Biden and Dodd weren't just giving their opinion, they were trying to have what little effect they could on the debate; and also trying to score political points for the South Carolina primaries coming up in a year or so.

Both of those objectives involve politicians from one State jumping into the internal politics of another - and that's what's not right about the Senators' actions. I wouldn't want Senator DeMint to go to Atlantic City and start talking about their local gambling laws, nor would I approve of Senator Graham stumping in Hartford over one of that city's pressing issues. Indeed, them doing so wouldn't make much sense or meet with much public approval. Well, the same should go for Senators Biden and Dodd and what they did earlier today in Columbia. The question of the South Carolina Statehouse and the Confederate Flag is, quite simply, not of their concern.

Perhaps the best commentary of the day came from Jim Hanks; a man who, given that he was one of the pro-Confederate Flag protestors across the street from the NAACP rally, I can only assume is a genuine South Carolina good ol' boy. He remarked that Dodd and Biden "would probably say most anything to get elected." Ain't nobody could have said it better.

***Afterthought***

If Islam is a religion of peace being hijacked by Fundamentalist radicals, doesn't that make the Confederate Flag a symbol of States' Rights that's been hijacked by Racist radicals?

Food for thought.

Hillary Care - Arnold Style!

Thank God Arnold Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally banned from running for President. After having spent the last few months catering to California's large population of illegal immigrants, he's now taking the policy a step further - he's decided to give them free Health Care! Of course, it's not just illegal aliens that Arnold thinks should get free Health Care, it's everyone! Yup, that's right, 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) is back and, sadly, this time it's a Republican proposing it. (Which genuinely begs the question: to what Political Party do America's actual Conservatives now belong?)

Arnold, like everyone else who believes in the fantasy of Socialized Health Care, is devoid of facts and economic reality. So let's examine a few components of Arnold's plan.

If you're going to provide people with Health Care, there is, of course, this little problem that you must, well, pay for such services; a problem Arnold tackles head on. First and foremost is the stupidest part of his plan: to "tax doctors 2% of their gross revenue and place a 4% tax on hospitals." Oh my, where to begin. First of all allow me to point out that this type of 'tax the Doctors and Hospitals' plan has already been tried in New Mexico. As a result of this plan, New Mexico has a very difficult time attracting new Doctors. Furthermore, many of the Doctors they already have are quick to move across the boarder to Texas where, just by crossing the State Line, they see their income jump about 10-15%. You know, if you're trying to get Health Care for "all Californians," instituting a plan which has been proven to reduce the number of Doctors you have, doesn't seem very bright. Because, ya know, those Doctors, they're pretty crucial to the whole 'Health Care' industry.

Also, let's not forget that taxing only the Doctors and Hospitals is, well, discriminatory; and while discrimination is a wonderful thing for policemen, airline baggage screeners and the CIA to base their work off of - it's no basis for a system of taxation.

One last observation on this point, and that is this: what exactly is accomplished by taxing the Doctors? In the end, isn't the money supposed to go to them? I mean, if you're poor, and you need money to help pay for your visits to the Doctor, why does the Government have to come in, take money from the Doctor, to give you, so you can go to the Doctor and then.....give the money back to the Doctor. Wait a minute! Why does the Government have to be the middle-man here??

I think my inner Libertarian may have just had a heart attack.

The plan doesn't get any better. Next up is the most hilarious line in all of Arnold's proposal; the one where he claims that, under the current system, those who do have Health insurance are paying a "hidden tax." Which naturally means we should eliminate it in favor of a real one. Duh! It's almost like he's saying 'You're already getting screwed - so now let's make it official! Yay!'

What a farce!

However, I must give credit where credit is due; there is a hidden tax for California tax payers. It's called the tort tax, and it's the real reason that Health Care in California is too expensive for 1 out of 5 Californians. Nevertheless, as we can see from the example of Texas, the way to eliminate this hidden tax is not to legitimize it, but to enact legal reform that will reduce it. Moreover, if we reduce the tort tax, and all of the frivolous lawsuits it represents, Doctors' insurance premiums will decrease, which will, in turn, allow Doctors to decrease the rates they charge their patients. That's how you make Health Care available to more people.

Here, of course, is the crux of the Socialized Care debate. The problem is very simple: the cost of Health Care services is too high for some people to afford. The Arnold solution is, let's not worry about the cost, let's just try to give people enough money to cover it. The Conservative solution to expensive Health Care is more logical - it simply aims to, surprise, lower the cost! Furthermore, in the Arnold solution, no attempt is made to increase the quality of the actual Health Care being administered; however, in the Conservative solution, by increasing market competition, the quality of the actual Health Care is likely to improve. Indeed, as evidenced by other Socialized medical systems around the world, the Arnold solution has the additional problem of decreasing the quality of the Health Care.

On top of all the Health Care concerns with Arnold's plan, there are some important buisness ones as well. Arnold wants to "ban insurers from refusing to offer coverage to some individuals because of their prior medical conditions;" a proposal which ignores any basic business sense. If insurance companies are going to be forced to cater to individuals who will loose them money, why would they want to be insurers in that particular market at all? Granted, California is a fairly large market, so the Governor may not have to deal with the consequences on this one.

A second part of Arnold's plan which ignores basic business sense, however, may prove more costly. He plans to mandate that all businesses "with 10 workers or more [buy] insurance for their workers or pay a fee of 4% of their payroll into a program to help provide coverage for the uninsured." Whoa! Speaking of hidden taxes, how about this hidden tax on private businesses? Look, it's been said before and I'll say it again, the services that businesses provide to their employees are up to those businesses! It's not an area that the Government should be involved in, period. If you are an employee and your company doesn't offer Health Insurance you have two options: a) Deal with it and have no Health Insurance, or b) Go work for a business that offers Health Insurance. Hopefully that's not too complex for Arnold to understand.

In the end, it comes down to the simple question of what does a better job of providing Americans with the best possible Health Care: the Free Market and the individuals who compose it or the Government? The answer should be obvious.

So I ask that before Arnold wrecks California Health Care, he take a step back and listen to, well, himself. From Arnold's speech as the 2004 Republican National Convention:

"...have faith in Free Enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy."

Have faith indeed. In any case, it's a lot safer than having faith in the Government.

Shut Up! (For the Children!)

In the last couple of days, since taking over as Speaker of the House, it seems children have really been on Nancy Pelosi's mind; and when I say really, I mean really. In every clip or quote I have seen from her in the last few days, whether on TV, in the newspapers, on-line, or elsewhere, she's managed not only to inject the word 'children,' but preceded it with 'for the' directly every time! With that kind of repetitiveness you'd almost think she was trying to sell you some sort of political agenda - but, nah, how could someone who does everything 'for the children' possibly be doing anything wrong?

Of course, as all of us with a brain know, Nancy Pelosi is trying to sell a political agenda - and an ambitious one at that. She, like every great Democratic talking head before her, understands that there is just something irresistible about that phrase: 'for the children'.

It just sounds so innocent.

In a way it reminds me of Southern women prefacing statements with 'bless his/her lil' heart' - it may sound pretty and sweet, but it's still followed by something unflattering. 'Hank is a jackass' sounds much worse than 'Hank, bless his lil' heart, is just as rude as he can be;' much like 'Tax hike' sounds a heckuva lot worse than 'programme increases to secure the future of our children'. Yet, in the former, the bottom line is that Hank is not a pleasant dude, regardless of how you say it; and in the latter, the bottom line is that you're going to get increased spending on wasteful government programs, no matter how you spin it.

Sadly, many Americans don't seem to understand the, ahem, subtlety of Nancy Pelosi's 'for the children' phrase; and so they buy the whole gag. Results? Who needs results? Just listen to how compassionate she sounds when she's speaking! I mean, seriously, how do you think Democrats continue to be seen as the party with the upper hand on education? Trust me, it's not the test scores (especially here in S.C). No, it has a lot more to do with the fact that they're very good at saying the things that people want to hear. Which is why, despite her seemingly good intentions, I'm not at all impressed with our new House Speaker. Sure, she sounds good, but, God help us, I can only imagine what her Congress' actual results will be. Thus I have but one suggestion for Madame Speaker: Mrs. Pelosi, bless your lil' heart, just hush already with your stupid political pandering - for the children's sake!