Thinking About War -- Before Starting One

March 20, 2013, 8:00 a.m.

Iraq: What Were We Thinking? We Weren't Thinking
This week marks the tenth anniversary of our ill-considered, ill-fated, unprovoked, unproductive, super-deadly, super-expensive, preemptive war of choice in Iraq.

Remember the lines from the Viet Nam War song, "War. What's it good for? Absolutely nothing"? (If not, click the link and read them.)

Unfortunately, the Iraq War was "good for" considerably more than "absolutely nothing." In addition to the hostility we created among Iraqis and throughout the Muslim world, thereby accelerating the recruitment efforts of al Qaeda, the destabilization of the Middle East, the tens of thousands of dead and disabled men, women and children, disrupted families and businesses, orphaned children, billions of property damage, and destruction of centuries old cultural artifacts from this "cradle of civilization," there is also the addition of some $2 trillion to our nation's mounting gift of debt to our grandchildren (after we've properly paid our wounded and surviving veterans for the rest of their lives). [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

Among all the regrets over which we should be grieving this week of remembrance, is that all of these consequences not only could have been predicted, they were predicted.

Although as Maritime Administrator I played some role with regard to sealift to Viet Nam, I claim no expertise in matters of war strategy. I have never been a member of the Staff to the Joints Chiefs of Staff, a member of the faculty of any of our war colleges, nor an author of any of "The Pentagon Papers."

My point is not that my early insights are evidence of my brilliance. Indeed, quite the opposite. My point, my question, is if these questions were so obvious to me, with no expertise in the strategy of war, or responsibility for launching an Iraq War of choice, why were they not even more obvious to those who had that expertise and responsibility? And if there were those within government who shared these concerns, as I assume there must have been, why were they rebuffed or overruled by their superiors?

Anyhow, here on this tenth anniversary, as we mourn their decision, is a republication of a column I wrote ten years ago:

Ten Questions for Bush Before War
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, Guest Opinion
February 4, 2003, p. A6
As a university community we don’t just “support” or “oppose” the war in Iraq. We value data and reasoned analysis. We ask questions.

Put aside the nukes in North Korea. Put aside the emotionally charged arguments. Not that they’re irrelevant. But just consider these 10 questions you might want to ask your public officials, academic colleagues, any presidential candidates you happen upon – and yourself.

1. Al Qaeda is alive and well, just over the Afghanistan border and in 60 countries. Why start a new war before resolving the last? How is "homeland security" improved by diverting focus from Al Qaeda?

2. Global Muslim support is essential to a successful war on terrorism. Threatening war with Iraq increases Muslims’ hatred – and terrorists’ recruiting. What benefits from war in Iraq exceed the costs of increased terrorism here?

3. Iraq war or not, our arrogant, go-it-alone saber-rattling has squandered valuable post-9/11 global good will. Our worldwide economic, democratic, military and human rights efforts require allies. How does alienating them serve our national interest?

4. President Bush says Saddam might use weapons of mass destruction. The President may be wrong; but especially if he's right, why fail to heed the CIA's warning: Saddam's most likely to do so only if attacked?

5. The administration’s inherited budget surpluses have become deep deficits. War with Iraq adds billions to our grandchildren’s national debt. Why abandon our relatively low-cost policy of containment? Why now? And, if so, why not increase taxes to pay as we go?

6. The Administration’s policy of global military domination and preemptive wars reverses 200 years of American policy, violates international law, the UN Charter, NATO Treaty, and possibly the U.S. Constitution. China could use the theory to justify attacking Taiwan. How is national security improved by setting back 50 years of progress in international relations?

7. Once the dogs of war are unleashed, there’s no controlling where they go. If we let the dogs out, minimally we lose Middle East stability. Worst case, we start World War III. How does risking either serve our interests?

8. What’s “war” in a city? We can level Baghdad, as we did Dresden and Hiroshima. That’s lots of “collateral damage.” We can send in ground troops. But even a weakened Hitler was able to kill the 10,000 Russian soldiers who tried that strategy in Berlin. What military strategy makes a Baghdad war “winnable” – with acceptable levels of civilian and U.S. casualties?

9. Assume the improbable: a war that’s quick, cheap, decisive and contained. What then? Why will Saddam’s successor be better? How can he prevent civil war among Iraq’s factions, let alone Middle East chaos? Our man in Afghanistan is still under attack even in Kabul. Why will our man in Baghdad do better? What will it cost us to rebuild Iraq? Will we keep bases there forever? Or will we abandon Iraq for wars elsewhere – as we’ve done in Afghanistan?

10. Iraq sits atop the world’s second largest oil reserves. How much of this proposed war is about oil? How will U.S. occupation of Iraq affect the interests of U.S. oil companies -- and consumers? Which campaign contributors profit from this war?

Washington hasn’t, yet, provided satisfactory (to me) answers to these and other questions. Maybe we can find them in Iowa City.

As it happens, the lessons from this disaster go far beyond governmental decisions about war, and the consequences for Defense Department appropriations and their impact on our national debt.

"What were you thinking?" we sometimes wonder about (or ask) teenagers. Occasionally, we're even wise enough to put that question to ourselves. And the most honest response is often, as with our War in Iraq, "We weren't thinking."

Although the questions are different, decisions regarding our choice of career, college, spouse or partner, apartment or house, automobile, entrepreneurial business, exercise regime, hobbies and volunteer activity, and more, are also subject to a similar kind of rational, analytical thinking our government should have used before going to war in Iraq -- even if the consequences for getting it wrong are far greater from war than from our personal failures to think before acting.

The Small Business Administration reports that a full 50% of all new businesses fail sometime within five years. At least one of the reasons why, perhaps the most important reason, is the failure to take seriously the necessity of a "business plan" and the thinking that goes into it -- including the failure to use what the Small Business Administration makes available for free to all budding entrepreneurs as the step-by-step instructions for creating such a plan.

_______________
For my additional pre-war thinking in columns throughout 2002, see

Nicholas Johnson, "Search for Better Response Than War; Don't Reward the Terrorists, but Understand Their Interests," Des Moines Sunday Register Opinion/Iowa View, June 30, 2002, p. OP3;

Nicholas Johnson, "Let's not get between Iraq and a hard place," Omaha World-Herald, August 13, 2002 (and as published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen and as submitted to both);

Nicholas Johnson, "On Iraq, Tell the Rest of the Story," Iowa City Gazette, October 2, 2002, p. A4;

Nicholas Johnson, "Capitalists Can Help U.S. Avert War with Iraq," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sunday Insight, October 6, 2002, p. A11;

and the March 2002 lecture, Nicholas Johnson, "Rethinking Terrorism," National Lawyers Guild Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, March 2, 2002.

# # #

Media as Misinformation

August 4, 2012, 3:55 p.m. From Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh

The preceding blog entry addressed the impact on a functioning democracy of "what we know that ain't so." "Snopes and 'What We Know That Ain't So," August 2, 2012.

Today's deals with the role of the media in perpetuating misinformation.

__________

Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan was a Hawkeye.

After graduating from the small, Illinois, Eureka College in 1932, Reagan was a UI employee, hired to broadcast home football games at $10 a game.

Having launched his broadcast career in Iowa City, he went from there to Davenport (WOC-AM) and Des Moines (WHO-AM) -- for which he announced Chicago Cubs games, creating fictional accounts of the action on the basis of spare details of the game delivered by telegraph.

He served as California's governor during the late '60s and early '70s [January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975], following which he returned to, among other things, radio commentary.

Between 1975 and 1979 Reagan wrote (most) and delivered (all) of some 1,000 commentaries dealing with a range of public policy issues. (Sources for preceding paragraphs: "Ronald Reagan," Wikipedia.org, and Reagan in His Own Voice.)

These were years during which I was traveling the country doing, among other things, an active public lecture business. Listening to local radio as I traveled, Reagan's presence on stations all across the country seemed a matter of some potential political significance.

As it happened, however, none of the stations in the Washington, D.C., area (so far as I was then aware) carried his commentaries. So my warnings to fellow Democrats that this was serious, and cause for a major application of the Fairness Doctrine's opportunity to respond to his comments, fell on deaf ears. Nothing was done. The daily drumbeat of the world according to Reagan was implanted in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, left unaware of alternative perspectives. By November of 1980 he was President of the United States.

Media Matters

After yesterday's blog entry ("Snopes and 'What We Know That Ain't So," August 2, 2012), I found a comment placed there by Trish Nelson. Trish is bright, media attentive, informed, as energized as any media reformer I know, and effective. She is, among a great many other things, the Editor of "Blog for Iowa: The Online Information Resource for Iowa's Progressive Community".

Here is her comment:

Thanks for reminding us about this terrible problem and the negative effects on Democracy. Let's not forget about conservative talk radio. Iowa has 14 stations in every corner of the state that broadcast multiple hours daily of conservative talk. One Iowa station, KILR, broadcasts conservative talk 23 1/2 hours a day leaving a half hour for local news and sports. WHO Radio broadcasts 12 hours a day of conservative talk. Stations in Burlington, Sioux City and other communities broadcast 14-16 hours a day of the same stuff that goes around on the internet. Our publicly owned broadcast airwaves are saturated in Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage's opinions. It's no wonder people believe this stuff.

For sources, more detail and discussion, see Trish Nelson, "Iowa’s Talk Radio Landscape," Blog for Iowa, January 13, 2011.

FCC: From Regulation, to Fairness Doctrine, to Non-Regulation

Although clearly no longer the law, it is interesting to note that stations carrying many of those radio hosts Ms. Nelson mentions could have lost their licenses as the law stood in 1932. Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Com'n, 62 F.2d 850 (D.C. Cir. 1932): "Congress, may . . . refuse a renewal of license to one who has abused it to broadcast defamatory and untrue matter," the court then wrote, upholding the then-Federal Radio Commission's denial a license renewal for Los Angeles station KGEF-AM. 62 F.2nd at 851.

It continued,

[H]e [Dr. Shuler] charged particular judges with sundry immoral acts. He made defamatory statements against the board of health. He charged that the labor temple in Los Angeles was a boot-legging and gambling joint. In none of these matters, when called on to explain or justify his statements, was he able to do more than declare that the statements expressed his own sentiments. On one occasion he announced over the radio that he had certain damaging information against a prominent unnamed man which, unless a contribution (presumably to the church) of a hundred dollars was forthcoming, he would disclose. As a result, he received contributions from several persons. He freely spoke of "pimps" and prostitutes. He alluded slightingly to the Jews as a race, and made frequent and bitter attacks on the Roman Catholic religion and its relations to government. . . .

If it be considered that one . . . may . . . use these [broadcasting] facilities . . . to obstruct the administration of justice, offend the religious susceptibilities of thousands, inspire political distrust and civic discord . . . then this great science, instead of a boon, will become a scourge, and the nation a theater for the display of individual passions and the collision of personal interests. . . . Appellant [Dr. Shuler] may continue to indulge his strictures upon the characters of men in public office. He may just as freely as ever criticize religious practices of which he does not approve. He may even indulge private malice or personal slander — subject, of course, to be required to answer for the abuse thereof — but he may not, as we think, demand, of right, the continued use of an instrumentality of commerce for such purposes, or any other, except in subordination to all reasonable rules and regulations Congress, acting through the Commission, may prescribe. 62 F.2d at 852-53.

The Fairness Doctrine

As I've noted, above, this is no longer the law. What was substituted for it is generally referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine." Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 (1949). (And see the earlier, Great Lakes Broadcasting Company, 3 F.R.C. 32 (1929), rev'd on other grounds, 37 F.2d 993 (D.C. Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 706 (1930), in which the Federal Radio Commission denied a request for license modification because of a station's consistently failing to present a range of points of view.)

The Fairness Doctrine was never significantly intrusive on broadcasters, and was only modestly effective. It required no more than what a professional journalist would be doing anyway, the 60,000 complaints the FCC received each year (when I was there) were "investigated" by a staff of three that traveled in pairs, were first given to the stations to respond to, usually dismissed, and seldom if ever resulted in anything more than a notation in a station's file.

It only required two things. Stations must report on local "controversial issues of public importance," and in doing so refrain from functioning as an unrelieved, one-sided instrument of propaganda. Both were "requirements" of little more than what any professionally responsible -- and profitable -- journalist, or media owner, would do anyway. It did not require any particular subject to be addressed. It did not specify the format to be used. It did not require a presentation of all points of view. It did not require "equal time." It did not require that any specific person be given time on the station.

In 1969 the constitutionally of the Fairness Doctrine was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in the Red Lion decision. Indeed, when confronted with a claimed right to buy time on broadcast stations, the Court rejected the claim (upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals below, and advocated in my FCC dissent) on grounds that while a diversity of views was desirable, it was the Fairness Doctrine, rather than direct purchase, that provided this diversity. CBS v. Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973).

The Deregulation

Notwithstanding this policy, and the Court's interpretations, the F.C.C. chose to repeal the Fairness Doctrine -- without, of course, providing for a legal right to buy time for those whose views had been excluded. See, e.g., In the Matter of the Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards of the Communications Act, 48 F.C.C.2d 1 (F.C.C. 1974); Syracuse Peace Council, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043, 5058 n.2 (1987).

Thus, we have today no check from either Congress, or the Commission, on stations that wish to propagandize, engage in behavior like that of Dr. Shuler in the 1930s, or to provide unrelieved political, even partisan, commentary and criticism from one point of view.

Truth or Consequences

Those who support this state of affairs argue that, what with the Internet, Facebook, blogs and tweets, satellite and cable distribution of "television" programs, newspapers, magazines, and over-the-air stations, Americans have more than enough access to a "diversity" of viewpoints and information.

For news junkies who have that much access, and have reason to use it, the argument has some validity. But for many Americans -- without computers (or the skills to use them); reasonably priced broadband connections (if any); access to public television, NPR and the BBC; home delivery, or library availability, of the New York Times or other major newspapers; or who have a habit, or preference, to listen to only one local radio station -- their steady diet of brain food consists of the intellectual equivalent of salted french fries, loaded with the fat of partisan ideology. It's all they know. As Trish Nelson wrote in her comment, "It's no wonder people believe this stuff."

For a list of what "this stuff" consists of, see "Snopes and 'What We Know That Ain't So," August 2, 2012 -- and the expanded Snopes list, along with Snopes evaluations of the assertions.

Rush Limbaugh

Finally, a brief word about Rush Limbaugh. He is a modest man, as this opening to his show on the EIB ("Excellence in Broadcasting") Network reveals:

Greetings, conversationalists across the fruited plain, this is Rush Limbaugh, the most dangerous man in America, with the largest hypothalamus in North America, serving humanity simply by opening my mouth, destined for my own wing in the Museum of Broadcasting, executing everything I do flawlessly with zero mistakes, doing this show with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair because I have talent on loan from . . . God. Rush Limbaugh. A man. A legend. A way of life.
Richard Corliss and Daniel S. Levy, "A Man. A Legend. A What!?," Time, September 23, 1991.

For some evaluations of the truthfulness of Limbaugh's assertions, see "Rush Limbaugh," Wikipedia.org; "The Way Things Aren't; Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality," Extra! [FAIR], July/August 1994; John K. Wilson, The Most Dangerous Man in America; Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (New York: St. Martins Press, 2011); Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and Other Observations (New York: Dell, 1996).

Why Media Matters

Do these misrepresentations, this media-distributed misinformation, matter? According to, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," [The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, The American Public on International Issues] October 2, 2003, they do. With regard to the Iraq War, Americans were misinformed regarding Saddam Hussein's personal involvement in 9/11, Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, and the extent to which world public opinion supported the U.S. intervention.

Moreover, "The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience." Id., p. 12.

The percentage differences were stark. Some 80% of those who watched Fox had one or more misperceptions regarding "Evidence of al-Qaeda Links, WMD Found, or World Public Opinion." There were also PBS/NPR viewers and listeners who held misperceptions. Fans of the networks should take note of how many there were. But for our purposes at the moment, at 23% they compared well with Fox's 80%.

The fact is television, and to a lesser degree radio, do change our base of information, our opinions, and our beliefs. That's why corporations engaged in consumer marketing spend $200 billion on advertising. That's why political candidates' support decreases after a barrage of "negative" commercials. It works.

It also works to create a democratic nation of citizens who must struggle to overcome "what we know that ain't so."

# # #

Labor Day: Honor Workers Every Day

Septembe 6, 2010, 7:20 a.m.

Nick's 2010 Labor Day Press-Citizen Column
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
For recent blog entries related to labor issues, see Nicholas Johnson, "Finding Jobs on Labor Day; Former Labor Secretary Reich Has Economic Solution," September 5, 2010; and "Danger in the Workplace; Honoring Those Who Built, and Build, America," September 1, 2010.
__________

Honor Workers Every Day

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
September 6, 2010 p. A7
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20100906/OPINION02/9060303/Honor-workers-every-day
On Wednesday, Tom Fosdick died from injuries sustained Monday, when he fell while replacing Boyd Law Building windows.

On Tuesday, President Obama reported to the American people that we are, at last, out of Iraq -- albeit leaving 50,000 troops, uncounted mercenaries and contract employees.

In the course of his speech, he paid honor to the "over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq."

It is appropriate that he do so. Those who put their lives at risk in the streets and sands of Iraq, and made the ultimate sacrifice, certainly are entitled to our respect and honor.

But there are another "over 4,000" American workers who also have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. They, too, are entitled to our respect and honor.

Fosdick has joined their number.

In 2006, there were 5,865 workplace deaths. In 2009, there were 4,340. Apparently a benefit from millions of unemployed is that if they don't have a workplace they're much less likely to be killed in one. Even one year's 4,340 dead workers is the rough equivalent of seven years' dead in Iraq. And 5,865 is more than twice the 2,752 killed on Sept. 11.

Moreover, add in the number of workplace non-fatal injuries and diseases and the number in 2008 was more like 3.7 million.

These are the men and women who build and maintain what our military is defending, and the rest of us take for granted. They are the ones who have done the sometimes literally backbreaking work, who risk injury, disease and death on a daily basis. They built the high-rise office buildings and condos, the highways and bridges, hospitals and schools, the networks of power lines and natural gas pipelines. Three of them died building our Hancher Auditorium. Now another has died refurbishing our law school.

Their ancestors built the canals and railroads that spanned our continent. They now maintain those railroads and subways. They sweat in 100-degree heat in the foundries that produce our tractors.

They construct the wind farms, cell phone towers, and radio and TV towers (and then have to climb them to change the little red light bulb on top) -- including the 11 workers who constructed the 2,063-foot antenna tower in North Dakota for KVLY-TV.

Fortunately, none of those 11 died. The 11 on the BP offshore oil rig did. And so did the 29 coal miners working in an unsafe Massey mine a couple weeks earlier. We've yet to hear the fate of the 13 in last week's Gulf offshore oil rig explosion.

I find it hard to understand those in business and legislatures who sacrifice workplace safety for profits, do everything in their power to beat down unions, OSHA funding, project labor agreements, the right to a livable wage or even an increase in the minimum wage. How can they be mystified as to why Iowa's young folks leave the state for jobs in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois?

As someone who spends his days doing finger exercises on computer keyboards, I am in awe of what these men and women are able to do, and are willing to risk in the process. I stop to speak with them when I go into the law building.

But we don't introduce ourselves and certainly don't exchange business cards. So while I've met and visited with Fosdick's mother and brother, I don't know if Fosdick was ever among the workers with whom I visited, though I like to believe he was.

For me, the memory of Fosdick, the gift of his organs to others, will be something like the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington. Someone for whom I grieve, who symbolizes the others we will never know but should remember to recognize and honor every day.
__________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, teaches at the University of Iowa College of law.

__________
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Iraq: 'Mission Accomplished'? Hardly

August 22, 2010, 10:08 a.m.

Private Contractors and Public Credit Cards
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Who said that? A state senator in the Illinois legislature, eight short years ago. Barack Obama, "Remarks of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama Against Going to War With Iraq," October 2, 2002.

These were concerns shared by many Americans at the time, including some military leaders. I was among them; see, e.g., "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. 6A; "War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003; Nicholas Johnson, "Between Iraq and a Hard Place," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 17, 2002, p. 11A; "Military Industrial Media Complex; Why Did the Media Take Us to War?" March 19, 2008; and, more recently, "America Needs a War Tax; War on the Cheap is the Most Expensive," February 9, 2010; "Why Are We in Afghanistan . . . and how do we get out?" July 2, 2010.

Last week, now President Obama emailed his list, under the heading "Ending the War in Iraq," "Shortly after taking office, I put forward a plan to end the war in Iraq responsibly. Today, I'm pleased to report that . . . our combat mission will end this month . . . [a] milestone in the Iraq War . . .." ">Katelyn Sabochik, "The White House Blog: Ending the War in Iraq," Aug. 18, 2010.

Also last week, while fund raising in Ohio, he said “We are keeping the promise I made when I began my campaign for the presidency: by the end of this month, we will have removed 100,000 troops from Iraq, and our combat mission will be over in Iraq.” Peter Baker, "As Mission Shifts in Iraq, Risks Linger for Obama," New York Times, Aug. 22, 2010, p. A1.

As Baker explains, "The symbolism of the departing troops that played out on network television masked the more complex reality on the ground. Even as the last designated combat forces leave and the mission formally changes on Aug. 31 to a support role, 50,000 American 'advise and assist' troops will remain in the country for 16 months more, still in harm’s way and still armed for combat if necessary." Ibid.

He's right. Obama's wrong. This is not the end of our soldiers' "combat mission." It is only word play to say that 50,000 armed American military personnel are not "combat forces." They are embedded with Iraqi security forces, they have been trained to do battle, they are in a war zone rife with suicide bombers, rockets, IEDs, and the other weapons that have produced over 4000 dead and multiples more wounded American soldiers. They will have to, at a minimum, fire when fired upon and take other action in self-defense.

As Baker quotes the Center for Strategic and International Studies' military specialist, Anthony H. Cordesman, as saying, “The Iraq war is not over and it is not ‘won.’ In fact, it is at as critical a stage as at any time since 2003.”

The Iraq War will end up costing something more in the trillions of dollars than the millions or billions, once the long term care costs for veterans and other externalities are finally totaled up and included. And this, of course, says nothing about the opportunity costs -- what benefits those dollars could have produced if spent domestically (or even on international projects with greater return on the dollar).

Moreover, aside from the troops and their families, who have undergone great hardship and pain, this was a war without pain or sacrifice. After 9/11 President Bush suggested we all "go shopping." Instead of a war tax, the rich got tax breaks. "America Needs a War Tax; War on the Cheap is the Most Expensive," February 9, 2010. During WWII we sold ourselves "war bonds." This time we used our national credit card to pay for this war, and looked to the Chinese and others willing to buy the bonds that would enable us to make our monthly credit card payments. We've left it to our grandchildren to figure out what to do when those bonds come due. There was no Selective Service "draft" of our young sons and daughters. No one went to war who hadn't volunteered to do so. There was no need for the massive, anti-war student protests that accompanied the Viet Nam war. And the American mainstream media seemed more than willing to switch from the role of confrontational journalists to macho cheerleaders for war.

But there's been another major omission from most of the media's coverage of what the White House has called "Ending the War in Iraq."

Three years ago, the L.A. Times' T. Christian Miller wrote,

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show . . ..

More than 180,000 civilians . . . are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times. . . .

The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq . . ..

"These numbers are big," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. "This is not the coalition of the willing. It's the coalition of the billing."

T. Christian Miller, "Contractors outnumber troops in Iraq; The figure, higher than reported earlier, doesn't include security firms. Critics say the issue is accountability," Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2007.

Yes, these are old numbers. (I could not, quickly, find more current data.) As the number of "combat troops" have declined presumably the number of contract civilians have as well. What seems certain, however, is that the numbers involved, and costs, of the military's outsourcing of war remain both significant, and far in excess of the percentages during World War II or Viet Nam. Whether it is still more than the number of troops is not decisive to that conclusion.

Miller continues,

But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.

Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts.

"We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene."

Although private companies have played a role in conflicts since the American Revolution, the U.S. has relied more on contractors in Iraq than in any other war, according to military experts.

Contractors perform functions including construction, security and weapons system maintenance. . . .

[C]ritics worry that troops and their missions could be jeopardized if contractors, functioning outside the military's command and control, refuse to make deliveries of vital supplies under fire.

At one point in 2004, for example, U.S. forces were put on food rations when drivers balked at taking supplies into a combat zone.

Adding an element of potential confusion, no single agency keeps track of the number or location of contractors. . . .

[T]he U.S. Central Command began a census last year of the number of contractors . . . [but U.S. military officials acknowledged that the census did not include other government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department. . . .

The companies with the largest number of employees are foreign firms in the Middle East that subcontract to KBR, the Houston-based oil services company, according to the Central Command database. KBR, once a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., provides logistics support to troops, the single largest contract in Iraq. . . .

Other large employers of Americans in Iraq include New York-based L-3 Communications, which holds a contract to provide translators to troops, and ITT Corp., a New York engineering and technology firm.

The most controversial contractors are those working for private security companies, including Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. . . .

[S]ome of the sharpest criticism [is] from military policy experts who say their jobs should be done by the military. On several occasions, heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents.

Others worry that the private security contractors lack accountability. Although scores of troops have been prosecuted for serious crimes, only a handful of private security contractors have faced legal charges. . . .

The Times identified 21 security companies in the Central Command database, deploying 10,800 men.

However, the Defense Department's Motsek, who monitors contractors, said the Pentagon estimated the total was 6,000.

Both figures are far below the private security industry's own estimate of about 30,000 private security contractors . . ..

A few months earlier, the Washington Post reported:

The survey [of] companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.

It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers. . . .

Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said . . . it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. . . .

The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing U.S. practice of private military contracting," said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has been critical of the military's reliance on contractors. . . .

Central Command, which conducted the census, said [its] . . . figures do not include subcontractors, which could substantially grow the figure. . . .

[C]omplexities and questions [have bee]raised by the large numbers of civilians who have flooded into Iraq to work. With few industry standards, the military and contractors have sometimes lacked coordination, resulting in friendly fire incidents . . ..

"It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure contractor compliance," said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you're trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren't going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier."

Renae Merle, "Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq; Civilian Number, Duties Are Issues," Washington Post, December 5, 2006.

Almost totally hidden from view by the White House, Congress, Pentagon, and mainstream media, has been the treatment the members of our very substantial mercenary army. T. Christian Miller, "Contractors in Iraq Are Hidden Casualties of War," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 6, 2010, available from Pro Publica. For links to many more related stories see Pro Publica's Web site for the series.

Nearly 1,600 civilian workers -- both Americans and foreign nationals -- have died in the two war zones. Thousands more have been injured. (More than 5,200 U.S. service members have been killed and 35,000 wounded.)

Many of the civilians have come home as military veterans in all but name, sometimes with lifelong disabilities but without the support network available to returning troops.

There are no veterans' halls for civilian workers, no Gold Star Wives, no military hospitals. Politicians pay little attention to their problems, and the military has not publicized their contributions.

"Mission Accomplished"? "Ending the War in Iraq? Hardly. And there is, in fact, still no end in sight -- let alone the prospect of any U.S. benefits from this "invasion of choice" in exchange for the cost in lives and treasure.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Why Are We in Afghanistan . . .

July 2, 2010, 5:55 a.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Uncanny Prediction of BP Disaster & Response," June 10, 2010; "BP's Commercial: Shame on Media," June 9; "Big Oil: Calling Shots, Corrupting Government," May 26, 2010; "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]

. . . and how do we get out?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There are some things I think you and I need to reflect upon regarding our role in Afghanistan.

It's July 1 in Iowa, and July 2 where I am, addressing policies other than war. But I've just taken a "Democracy Now!" (Amy Goodman) break, thanks to the wonders of a tiny computer, an Ethernet cable, and the global Internet.

Her July 1 show (which you can find at the link, above) is a review of Afghanistan. And bringing that show to your attention is my purpose in breaking silence on this blog. (The absence of entries -- which will continue until my return -- has been occasioned by heavier than usual obligations, and shorter deadlines on other writing projects, than usual.)

So the following paragraph, an item from her opening headlines for that show, while not the topic of this blog entry, provides an explanation for why I think her daily, hour-long program is always an important part of your news budget -- and especially this one.

Study: Media Stopped Calling Waterboarding "Torture" Following Its Disclosure as Routine U.S. PracticeA new study says the U.S. corporate media drastically altered its use of the word torture after its practice by the U.S. became widely exposed under the Bush administration. Researchers at Harvard University found newspapers almost uniformly described waterboarding as torture dating back to the 1930s. But when it was revealed as a common tactic approved under President Bush, the same newspapers stopped using the word torture almost entirely. Whereas the New York Times had previously characterized waterboarding as torture in 81.5% of articles, from 2002 to 2008 it characterized waterboarding as torture in just 1.4 percent of articles.

"Democracy Now Headlines," July 1, 2010.

Now I don't think it's a good practice for any of us, regardless of our political/ideological orientation, to limit our news and opinion sources to those most likely to re-enforce our prejudices. I wouldn't suggest anyone limit their knowledge of the world to what Amy Goodman provides. The six daily papers I examine, as well as other sources, are almost exclusively what that brief story describes as "U.S. corporate media." I look to the official line from whitehouse.gov, and BP. And I add to them dips into the unabashedly right wing sources as well.

But I also watch Amy Goodman, for news and interviews I can get almost nowhere else (including PBS/NPR). And I devote a Website to links for a random sampling of what I call "Global Media." Because, in my judgment and experience, there does seem to be disproportionate pro-government/establishment/corporate emphasis in the "U.S. corporate media."

The paragraph quoted above, regarding the media's flip-flop handling of waterboarding as torture, simply reminded me of that all over again.

Headlines of interviews from the July 1 show include:

•Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone on the Story that Brought Down Gen. McChrystal and Exposed Widening Disputes Behind the U.S. Debacle in Afghanistan

•Rep. John Conyers and Out of Afghanistan Caucus Oppose Obama Admin’s $33B Escalation of Afghan War

•Fmr. Marine, State Dept. Official Matthew Hoh is First U.S. Official to Resign Over Afghan War

All involve facts and insights at least some of which will probably be new to you.

There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.

President G.W. Bush received similar advice from me before the Iraq War, e.g., "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. 6A; "War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003.

Similar observations were made about Afghanistan in "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Address, Fordham University, 2006.

And for the application of the analysis to Afghanistan, and a somewhat different appraisal of General McChrystal, see especially, Nicholas Johnson, "General McChrystal: Afghan Efforts 'Not Working,'" August 31, 2009, e.g.:

The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.

When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I outlined above.

What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?

Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").

Having extolled the benefits of exposure to views other than your own, above, as you may have guessed by now, you will find more from the guests interviewed on Amy Goodman's July 1 program that is consistent, than that which contradicts, my own view of our Afghanistan efforts.

But, then, a little support for one's instincts from time to time isn't all bad either.

Watch, or just listen, to the July 1 "Democracy Now!" show now, while you're thinking about it. You'll thank me that you did.

Oh, and how do we get out? That's Chairman John Conyers' contribution to the program.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

America Needs a War Tax

February 9, 2010, 9:30 p.m.

War on the Cheap Is the Most Expensive
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
It's highly unlikely I would ever "join" the Tea Party, or know how to go about doing so, or where to find "it" should I change my mind.

But I do share at least one concern with many of those who do so identify themselves, and that is our nation's mounting debt. Any regular reader of this blog already knows that.

When I was in government I recall the year President Lyndon Johnson pulled out all the stops to keep the budget from going over $100 billion dollars. He thought there was something symbolic about that number. That's right, a budget in the "billions" not "trillions." President Obama's budget is 30 to 40 times that amount. The interest alone is multiples of what it took then to run every government agency and program, fund the new "Great Society" social programs, and the Viet Nam War.

Nations are reluctant to go to war when their people see and feel the costs. That's why those who have reasons for wanting war have reasons for wanting to hide the costs.

There's nothing like a draft to bring that cost to every kitchen table in America. Among those who honestly, analytically, and thoughtfully believed the Viet Nam War was a great mistake were those of draft age. But clearly there were young men and women, and their parents, whose objections were intensified by the prospect of family members, friends and neighbors having to travel thousands of miles abroad to fight in a war from which they might never return.

As Country Joe and the Fish put it in the lyrics to "I Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag,"

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

I can never forget watching on a military air base as soldiers boarded one plane, headed for Viet Nam, while a couple hundred yards away coffins of the fallen were being unloaded from another plane, and taken into the same hanger from which the solders had emerged.

It's easier for a nation to support a war politically if the military only takes volunteers, and since that's nowhere nearly enough men and women, "outsources" the rest of the tasks to high-priced mercenaries.

It's easier when, instead of rationing gasoline, tires, sugar, and other essential items in the war effort, the president responds to an attack on our country by encouraging everyone to go shopping.

It's easier when, instead of foxholes, trenches, and hand-to-hand combat, wars can be fought from 30,000 feet, where pilots are at relatively less risk -- or better still, with drones over Pakistan that don't even require pilots, and can be controlled like simulated objects in a video game by CIA operatives from thousands of miles away in the U.S..

It's easy for the wealthy to support a war, or be agnostic about it, when the president is simultaneously cutting their taxes -- instead of increasing them for a pay-as-you-go war.

It's hard to pick what's worst about war. But an aspect of those we're now fighting that gets all too little attention in the midst of the media's coverage of individual battles and "collateral damage" is the costs we're putting on our nation's maxed out credit card.

What are we thinking? What are our options? One possibility is a decimated dollar and the resulting wild, raging inflation -- a cruelty that is hard to imagine, and harder still to impose on those with fixed incomes. Another is to declare the nation bankrupt, and default on all our loans. The third is to leave it to multiple future generations to devote their lives to paying off the interest and debt we have run up with our irresponsible and immoral folly and merely left, like trash after a college football game, for someone else to pick up.

Meanwhile, the only folks who benefit from this are the same bankers to whom we gave the trillion-dollar bailouts (who earn the multi-billion-dollar interest on the government's bonds and T-bills), the munitions manufacturers, and the mercenary operations owners.

I usually would not use extensive excerpts from an article, but those that follow are such a useful contribution that I'm going to do so on this occasion.

Here it is.

Eric Margolis, "Wars sending U.S. into ruin; Obama the peace president is fighting battles his country cannot afford," Toronto Sun, February 5, 2010:

More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion. The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin by buying tanks.

Washington's deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion US this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, to which the U.S. already owes $1.5 trillion. Debt service will cost $250 billion.

To spend $1 trillion, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today. [And see, Nicholas Johnson, "A $14 Trillion Opportunity Cost," January 27, 2010.]

Obama's total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military "contractors" (mercenaries and workers); and veterans' costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada's total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama's Afghan "surge" of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion - more than Germany's total defence budget.

No wonder U.S. defence stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama's "austerity" budget.

Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as unemployment heads over 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. America has become the Sick Man of the Western Hemisphere, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire.

The Pentagon now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America's rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%.

China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of what the U.S. spends on defence.
There are 750 U.S. military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea.

Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. During the Bush administration, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - funded by borrowing - cost each American family more than $25,000.

Like Bush, Obama is paying for America's wars through supplemental authorizations -- putting them on the nation's already maxed-out credit card. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.

This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.

America's wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud.

If U.S. taxpayers actually had to pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.

America needs a fair, honest war tax.

Excerpts from: Eric Margolis, "Wars sending U.S. into ruin; Obama the peace president is fighting battles his country cannot afford," Toronto Sun, February 5, 2010.

Clearly our war policies need more than "a fair, honest war tax," but that sure would be a good start on the return road to reality.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

General McChrystal: Afghan Efforts 'Not Working'

August 31, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

For a better written, but otherwise almost identical analysis to my own, though I suffer no illusion that George Will reads this blog, see the next day's George Will, "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan," Washington Post, September 1, 2009.

BBC Has General Stanley McChrystal Report
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Although neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post seems to have anything online about The McChrystal Report as I write this, the BBC -- which remains in my judgment the world's single best news organization -- does. General Stanley McChrystal, our top military commander for Afghanistan, has been charged with reponsibility for preparing a report for his superiors -- up to and including the Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama -- regarding how things are going over there.

It reminds me of a similar (though much less public, significant and influential) assignment I was once given by another president, President Lyndon Johnson, regarding our efforts in Viet Nam and southeast Asia generally. My conclusion? "Mr. President, you can't play basketball on a football field."

What did I mean by that?

I recalled Iowa City during World War II, and the "Navy Pre-Flight Training School" in our neighborhood, under the command of Captain Hanrahan. I and my friends were only in grade school at the time, but he was always willing to give a little time to the operation's mascots. This included pointing out to us, on the map of Europe on the wall of his office (in the building we now call "South Quad"), how the "front line" was moving across Europe.

For in Viet Nam -- as in Iraq, and now Afghanistan -- there was no "front line." Territory secured one day and lost the next might or might not be repeatedly captured and lost.

Nor was that the only reason why it was very difficult to conduct a "war."

Whenever an economically advanced and militarily powerful nation tries to conduct a "war" in a less powerful country, regardless of how benevolent the military power's motives may be, a substantial portion of the local population will look upon the operation as only the latest in a centuries-long history of invaders and occupiers.

Just as many Americans would organize to fight off invaders and occupiers -- as we did, after all, in the Revolutionary War that marked our nation's beginning -- so do those in the countries we attempt to control with our military.

In science, the mere fact that a scientific experiment is being conducted may impact on what it is that is being observed. Similarly, however counter intuitive it may seem, it the more troops we put in a country, and the longer they are there, the greater is the local hostility to their presence and the more locals who are motivated to participate in the resistance. The resulting chaos may even ignite and exacerbate, rather than reduce, internal strife and fighting among local groups formerly existing under some form of truce.

More often than not, it's very difficult to know who "the enemy" is in such situations. We are identifiable by our uniforms. They are not. They are embedded in the civilian population. They may be part-time fighters with other jobs to which they devote more or less time on any given day. Some may actually be on our payroll.

One of the consequences is that in order to kill them we end up with enormous numbers of dead civilians -- sometimes school children, or those attending weddings or funerals -- whom we euphemistically refer to with the sanitized expression, "collateral damage." Needless to say, such deaths are extremely counterproductive in our effort to "win hearts and minds."

The whole operation is significantly handicapped, moreover, by the fact that those we send overseas, and those who send them there, often through no fault of their own, know very little about the local country and people. Often as not, we cannot speak their language. We don't know their history and religion, their literature and culture, their legitimate and criminal economic activities, their tribal and family ties, their social power structure (we certainly don't even know the names of, let alone have longstanding personal relationships with, local leaders), the internal territorial or religious groups' hostilities, what they do and do not consider appropriate behavior. Even the territory -- deserts and mountainous areas -- may be alien to our troops.

Finally, all of this takes place in an area that is significantly unlike anything we are used to as a "country" based on our American experience. Afghanistan, for example, with its poverty and lack of an educated population, nonexistent to inadequate systems of roads and communication networks, a poppy-based drug economy, with even the capital, Kabul, under attack, and the rest of the country essentially divided into areas under the dictatorial, all-powerful control of individual war lords, is not a "nation" in the sense we use that word.

See generally, Nicholas Johnson, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," Daily Iowan, February 4, 2008, p. A6.

As President Obama is discovering, even the president of the United States is far from a powerful single leader of America insofar as the very independent members of the Senate and House are concerned, or the lobbyists and major campaign contributors who fund them. In Afghanistan it's much worse. "Our man in Kabul," Afghan President Hamid Karzai, has to make deals with the drug lords in Afghanistan just as Obama needs to make deals with the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. Karzai can't dictate to the regional war lords of his country any more than Obama can dictate to the senators and governors here.

Indeed, there's a growing disenchantment in Washington with Karzai. And it's not helped with the mounting evidence of outrageous and significant fraud in the recent election for which the ballots are still being counted, and his ties to the drug business. But without Karzai, whom do we turn to as a powerful Afghanistan "leader"?

This is the environment into which the U.S., and the coalition, have sent some 100,000 troops -- and may be sending more.

But with what "mission"? Why are we there? How are our national interests involved -- to such a degree that rational prioritization dictates continuing to spend in excess of a trillion dollars there (Afghanistan and Iraq) rather than here? How would we know if we'd ever been "successful"? What is our ultimate exit strategy? Why will Afghanistan be better off -- by any standard -- years after we've left than it was before we arrived? Why will we be any safer from "terrorism" -- since there are plenty of ungoverned "nations" where the Al Qaeda can hole up and train warriors even if we could run them and the Taliban out of Afghanistan, which it appears we cannot?

Moreover, even if we had a metric for measuring our "success," which we don't, why are we focused on Afghanistan? It's kind of like our response to 9/11 initially -- Saudi Arabia was the source of those who flew the planes into the Twin Towers, and the money that funded their operation. So what did we do? We bombed Afghanistan and then invaded Iraq, a country whose leaders and people apparently had virtually nothing to do with the operation and were actually hostile to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem to be primarily located in and working out of Pakistan. So where are we engaging them? In Afghanistan.

So it is that we cannot be surprised with what early leaks indicate may be coming to us from General McChrystal, in these excerpts from the BBC's report:

A report by the top US general in Afghanistan is expected to admit the current strategy is not working, the BBC understands.

General Stanley McChrystal will liken the US military to a bull charging at a matador [the Taliban] - slightly weakened with each "cut" it receives.

His review is also expected to say that protecting the Afghan people against the Taliban must be the top priority. . . .

Crisis of confidence

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell says General McChrystal's bullfighting metaphor is striking because it is not the usual way that US commanders talk about the country's armed forces.

The general's blunt assessment will also say that the Afghan people are undergoing a crisis of confidence because the war against the Taliban has not made their lives better, our correspondent says.

General McChrystal says the aim should be for Afghan forces to take the lead but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police.

And he will warn that villages have to be taken from the Taliban and held, not merely taken.

General McChrystal also wants more engagement with the Taliban fighters and he believes that 60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs.

"US Afghan Strategy 'Not Working,'" BBC News, 31 August 2009 09:13 UK.

It looks like the Report will end up being further support for my only half joking proposal that "what we need is more military control of the civilians" (a take off on the basic American constitutional principle of "civilian control of the military").

It is, after all, the elected officials and talk show hosts who suggest that we should "Nuke 'em!" or "Let's go kick some butt!" or whose contribution to military strategy such vacuous lines as "These colors don't run!"

The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.

When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I outlined above. What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?

Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs"). [See, e.g., Pamela Constable, "Many Women Stayed Away From the Polls In Afghanistan; Fear, Tradition, Apathy Reversed Hopeful Trend," Washington Post, August 31, 2009 ("Five years ago, with the country at peace, traditional taboos easing and Western donors pushing for women to participate in democracy, millions of Afghan women eagerly registered and then voted for a presidential candidate. . . . But on Aug. 20 [, 2009], when Afghans again went to the polls to choose a president, . . . a combination of fear, tradition, apathy and poor planning conspired to deprive many Afghan women of rights they had only recently begun to exercise").]

To the extent he's talking about conventional military issues at all, he comments (as I do above) that "villages have to be taken from the Taliban and held, not merely taken." And that function would require, of course, multiples of the numbers of troops anyone has so far proposed. (It's reminiscent of Jerry Seinfeld's routine at the car rental counter: "You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation." See video, embedded in Nicholas Johnson, "Gannett Shoots Straight -- Into Foot," May 3, 2009.)

It remains to be seen what's contained in the full report, if it is to be made public. But from what's been leaked so far it looks like it is going to provide the kind of candor that is needed and far more likely to come from the best and the brightest among the military in Afghanistan than from the civilians in Washington.
____________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Send in . . . the Musicians

May 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m.

Best Mother's Day Gift? World Peace
So, Don't "Send in the Marines," Send in the Musicians

At the risk of sounding like a candidate for Miss America with my appeal for "world peace" here are some thoughts during and following a CNN presentation last evening (Saturday, May 10, 7:00 p.m. CT). The program is scheduled to run again this evening (May 11) at both 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. CT.

[Photo credit: BBC.] It was a follow-up by Christiane Amanpour -- a reporter for whom I have enormous admiration -- on the dramatic story of the New York Philharmonic's performance in North Korea earlier this year. CNN Special Investigations Unit, Amanpour Reports Notes from North Korea. And see, Christiane Amanpour, "Behind the Scenes: Amanpour's Notes from North Korea," cnn.com/asia, May 8, 2008, with links to photos and videos. Here is a video of the concert.

I've come to have a lot of respect for the best and the brightest in our U.S. military -- largely for the informed, rational and analytical approach they bring to issues of war and peace. It is the civilians in the White House and Congress who want to "send in the Marines," "kick some butt," or "nuke 'em" at the slightest provocation who most concern me. Notwithstanding our constitutional tradition of "civilian control of the military," the contrast between those approaches is what's given rise to my mostly joking suggestion that what we need is "military control of the civilians."

I wrote at length echoing their cool caution prior to our latest foray of folly into the Middle East. (See, list of my articles and speech texts at "Terrorism and the War in Iraq.") The military knows better than most of us that "the military option" is simply not appropriate for many of the international missions our country needs to undertake. (It is in some instances, as I once described for an earlier president, "like trying to play basketball on a football field.") It can even be self-defeating -- as in Iraq, where our presence has ended up encouraging the recruitment of terrorists and increasing the number, reach and force of their tactics -- thereby further destabilizing the Middle East, harming our national security and making us less safe rather than more.

No less a military expert than General David Petraeus said over a year ago, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq . . .." "No Military Solution to Iraq, U.S. General Says," cnn.com, March 9, 2007. [Photo credit: CNN.]

Senator Barack Obama shares this perspective and insight:

“I think we all have to recognize that we’re not going to achieve a military solution in Iraq, . . .. We have got to redouble our diplomatic efforts, internally as well as externally. . . . It is my judgment—and I think it’s the judgment of most military and political experts—that the best we can hope for, at this point, is to make sure that we are seeing some sort of accommodation [among] the various factions. The only leverage we have to encourage those factions to start coming to the [negotiating] table is if we say we are not going to be there in an open-ended military commitment.”

Joe Conason, "Bush Fantasy, Obama Reality," The New York Observer, March 25, 2007 (quoting from a Larry King Live interview).

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton, presumably in her effort to demonstrate that she has "passed the commander in chief test" -- although possibly just in an effort to put the lie to Elayne Boosler's assertion that, "When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country." -- expresses a different view:

Mrs. Clinton . . . in an interview on ABC last week [said], “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” . . . when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she added.

Nazila Fathi, "Iran Protests to U.N. About Clinton Comments," New York Times, May 1, 2008.

Ms. Amanpour's shared insights about North Korea involve far more than one evening's concert -- indeed, among other things, she was invited to see a nuclear facility. It's a country about which we all need to know a great deal more than we do -- as we recently discovered about a number of countries in the Middle East. One hour of television -- even an hour with Christiane Amanpour -- won't tell us all we need to know. One concert won't bring "peace in our time," an open society in North Korea, or feed millions of North Koreans. But it's a start, a useful start.

North Korea and Iraq were both on President Bush's list of countries in "the axis of evil" (a characterization, incidentally, we should not be surprised to discover was not well received by the North Korean people). For one we said, "send in the Marines!" (over the protest of the Marines). For the other we said, "send in the musicians."

Which do you think has worked best?

Senator Hillary Clinton aside, it does seem that Elayne Boosler is closer to the truth. Women have tended to be in the forefront of peace efforts around the world and over the years. I don't know why. It may be because of something related to what I call "the natural superiority of women." It may be that if men had to go through childbirth to bring those young soldiers into the world they, too, would value their lives more highly.

In any event, there it is. Hats off to Christiane Amanpour, Elayne Boosler, and their three billion female colleagues around the world.

Thank you all, and

Happy Mother's Day!

# # #

Military Industrial Media Complex

March 19, 2008, 9:00 a.m.; March 22, 2008, 12:30 p.m.

Why Did the Media Take Us to War?
On the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War -- a war that has already lasted longer than, and is projected to cost ten times as much as, World War II -- it is appropriate that we try to understand how and why America's mass media (contrary to that of other nations) were so willing to support this Administration's rush to start an unprovoked war.

March 22: "On the Media" -- a "must listen" public radio program from WNYC for anyone interested in media issues -- devoted its program this weekend to "5 Years of Covering Iraq," an effort to at least describe in some detail, even if it fails to fully explain, the media's devastating failure to serve its audience during the build-up to, initiation, and continuation of this war. And the failure continues: OTM points out that whereas 24% of "the news" involved the war some months ago, it is now 1% of "the news," and there has been little to no effort by the media, on this fifth anniversary, to discuss and explain its failures. (The program is available for listening from the site linked above.)

The Press-Citizen (like, hopefully, other papers this morning) does a bit of an editorial mea culpa that "we were wrong."

But "opps, sorry; we were wrong" is not enough, as Norman Solomon documents in the film, "War Made Easy." It's commendable that the media is willing to do a post mortem -- literally in this case with 4000 U.S. military dead, and estimates of 70,000 to 700,000 Iraqi dead. Confession is good for the soul. But, as Solomon notes, it does little to bring back those dead souls, or the estimated $3 trillion of our grandchildren's money it's going to take to pay for this folly.

So we're left with the question of how and why the media could have got it so wrong.

Were there no red flags, no warning signs, no voices of dissent?

No, that can't be the answer. As the Press-Citizen notes this morning "there were voices arguing against the military option" -- including that of Senator Barack Obama.

Two months earlier there was also my own voice in the form of an op ed column in the Press-Citizen.

Nor we were the only two. Numerous individuals with far more impressive military credentials than Senator Obama or I were making similar points.

I've reproduced all of these below, starting with this morning's Press-Citizen editorial:

Five years ago, we -- like many others in the American media and the broader American population -- bought the Bush Administration's arguments for toppling Saddam Hussein. After watching Colin Powell address the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, we editorialized that the then U.S. secretary of state had "laid out in clear and unequivocal terms how Iraq is connected to terrorists, how it is building weapons of mass destruction and how it is deliberately deceiving U.N. inspectors." . . . [Editorial, "Powell finally offers proof against Iraq," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 6, 2003].

The past five years have shown that Powell was wrong, that we were wrong, that the majority of the U.S. media was wrong and that U.S. intelligence was wrong. . . .

In the build up to the invasion of Iraq that began on March 19, 2003, there were voices arguing against the military option. . . .

Five years later, those dire predictions have proven all too true.

Editorial, "Draw Down U.S. Troops Before Next Anniversary," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 19, 2008, p. A12.

Here is a part of Senator Obama's eloquent speech opposing the war that he delivered in October 2002. (The entire text, linked below, is worth reading as much for its stirring literary quality as its sound analysis.)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama, "Remarks of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama Against Going to War With Iraq," October 2, 2002.

I did a good bit of early writing about terrorism and the War. Here is a sample of my own warning, two months earlier than Senator Obama's, in August of 2002, published in the Press-Citizen (along with the Omaha World-Herald and possibly other papers):

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Nicholas Johnson

Guest Opinion, Iowa City Press-Citizen

August 17, 2002, p. 11A

Good citizenship demands every American choose a position on a major issue: the proposed war on Iraq.

In our overcrowded lives, obligations of citizenship tend to slide. This one can’t.

Some in the Bush Administration advocate we unilaterally attack a nation that has not attacked us, because President Bush would like “a change in the regime.”

Is that OK? Can any country overthrow another nation’s regime just to better serve its corporate and other interests? Hitler thought so. Clearly Bush is no Hitler. But he has, so far, given us the same rationale for our proposed invasion as Hitler provided the Germans for theirs.

Can nations be attacked just because they have “weapons of mass destruction”? If so, watch out. We have more than the rest of the world combined.

Are “pre-emptive wars” legitimate? If so, we have less justification for attacking Iraq than they would have for attacking us (we’ve announced we’re considering attacking them).

Reverse the roles. What if Iraq wanted “a change in the regime” in the U.S.? The equivalent of 250,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq would be three million Iraqi soldiers here (with 12 times their population).

Would you then back Iraq’s choice for U.S. president? If not, why should they back our choice for Iraq?

We have often tried to change other nations’ regimes: Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and now Afghanistan. The complete list is long. We sometimes use our military, sometimes encourage coups by those of other countries, or funnel money and arms through third countries, or use a clandestine CIA.

Whatever means we choose, regime changes aren’t easy. Our man in Kabul, with our military’s support, never controlled much of Afghanistan beyond the capital. Now he’s even under attack there. Why will our man in Baghdad have it easier?

Moreover, precedent doesn’t make it right. Such aggression is not only immoral it also violates international law (admittedly of little concern to Washington).

Finally, it’s “un-American.”

Hitler invaded Poland. But he didn’t pretend to be a cheerleader for democracy. We do.

Have we abandoned that role? If not, promoting our interests by overturning regimes in other countries is both the rankest hypocrisy and self-defeating.

You don’t care that it is illegal, immoral and contrary to our world role? OK, then consider the pragmatic reasons why it won’t work. Why it will further anger our enemies, alienate our allies, and decrease rather than increase our “homeland security.” Merely proposing war has already done that.

Could that be why the State Department, CIA, U.S. Army, and the Republican House majority leader, Dick Armey, oppose the war?

No, an unprovoked big Iraq attack, over near-unanimous Muslim nations’ opposition, isn’t likely to decrease terrorists’ hostility.

The President’s father left Saddam in office for a reason: balance of power in the Middle East. Why do we now want a dominant Saudi Arabia -- the source of the September 11 terrorists and their financing?

Another practical downside is that 250,000 soldiers need to be based somewhere in the region. Right now most all the bases we’ve formerly used are being denied us for this war.

We have no articulated plan for getting into Iraq, or getting out. Knowledge of why we’re there, what we’ll do once we are, or of Saddam’s probable countermoves (here as well as there). The definition of “win,” what we’d do if we did, and how long we’ll stay. What it will cost in our soldiers’ blood, taxpayers’ treasure, and the Iraqi civilian casualties from urban war. Or why the unknown “new regime” will be better.

All we know for certain is that it will add more multi-billion-dollar debt to our already weakened economy, increase the burden we’re bequeathing our grandchildren, and possibly improve the Republicans’ odds in November.

You may disagree. Whatever your analysis, this is one time you must let your elected officials hear from you.
_______________

Nicholas Johnson is the former director of the War Shipping Authority and now teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. His Web page is at www.nicholasjohnson.org.

Over five years later we're still left to wonder: How and why could the media have ignored such analyses and warnings -- especially when published in their own pages?

# # #

Politics and Psychology

September 14, 2007, 8:20 a.m., 12:30 p.m.

On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations
Today's blog entry may involve an effort to weave together more seemingly unrelated items than any one ought to be permitted to try to plug into a coherent theme. But if you're willing to stick with me through this one I'll let you be the judge of whether I succeed.

The impact of fear on attitudes and action. It began earlier this week, when listening to a discussion on Tom Ashcroft's "On Point" program, carried on WSUI-AM910 from WBUR-FM90.9, Boston. The segment was called "9/11, Fear, and Politics," September 10, 2007. (If you are now, or later, interested in listening you can hear it at that link.)

Bottom line: when we are thinking about, or reminded of, death -- or are stressed with fear -- it tends to affect our attitudes and actions on a whole range of unrelated matters. As Ashcroft's intro put it, "Research finds the mere mention of death changes minds. The image of the Twin Towers exploding is a psychological supernova." Guests included:

· Sheldon Solomon, professor of psychology at Skidmore College and co-author of "In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror"
· Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, author of "The Paranoia Switch: How Terror Rewires Our Brains and Reshapes Our Behavior -- and How We Can Reclaim Our Courage"
· Graham Allison, professor of government and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe"

When negatives re-enforce the opposite. That program, in turn, reminded me of a segment from another radio program, "On the Media" -- a weekly "must listen" media mavens. (It comes from New York Public Radio, and is hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield.)

This segment ("The Truth of False," September 7, 2007) can also be listened to, if you wish. The promo reads:

Good myths die hard. Recent psychological studies suggest journalists' attempts to set the record straight may in fact be perpetuating falsehoods. Shankar Vedantam, columnist at the Washington Post, explains.

If this interests you be sure to read his very powerful report of the supporting research Shankar Vedantam, "Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach," Washington Post, September 4, 2007, p. A3.

The neurobiology of politics. That reminded me of a story reporting on research that seems to indicate there's actually something different about the ways the brains of liberals and conservatives are wired. Denise Gellene, "Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain; Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show," Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2007 ("Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.")

Bringing the people to their leaders' bidding; just "tell them they are being attacked." And once I got to thinking about those three stories together, that in turn brought me back to a quote I've always found insightful and provocative:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

It was Hermann Goering who provided us this insight some 60 years ago. (Here's a link to a source that confirms the accuracy of the quote and identifies the source.)

Is the White House public relations strategy science-based? When the White House schedules General David H. Petraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq, to testify on September 10 and 11 -- the anniversary of "9/11" -- is it in any, even small, part due to the awareness of President Bush (or more likely his advisers) of the material just discussed?

The research of those whom Tom Ashcroft interviewed suggests that when we are made to think about death -- or we're stressed with insecurity -- we are more likely to, among other things: (1) look for and follow authoritarian figures, (2) become less accepting of the "other" (e.g., races, religions, ethic groups, and nationalities), and (3) become harsher in the defensive means we're willing to use and penalties we're willing to impose on others.

One of the most startling revelations was what was found about the sentences handed down by judges. Needless to say, I don't know enough about this research to vouch for it, I haven't read it, and it's not my field. But what I got from it goes as follows.

A group of judges -- all of whom felt they were not swayed by external factors when sentencing -- were asked what sentence they would impose for prostitution (apparently a fairly common crime in Phoenix, where they were located). The average in such cases, in fact, is apparently $50. And that was, in fact, the average sentence imposed by those in the control group. Those in the group that was caused to think about death in one way or another were proposing fines that averaged more in the range of $450.

Could it be that the Bush Administration is actually building its public relations strategies on a foundation of their awareness of such research? Do they know they can jiggle the poll results, the President's popularity, the support for the War and for General Petraeus' report, by associating his testimony with the public's insecurities that are aroused by reminders of 9/11?

Can this research explain why we're arming our campus police? What does all this have to teach us about the arming of the campus police at Iowa's Regents' universities?

I don't wish to re-plow the arguments pro and con to try to persuade anyone on the merits.

But I have been struggling in my efforts to understand and articulate, "How did we get to this decision?"

As UI Professor Jeff Cox has pointed out, for 40 years the UI has operated without a gun-toting campus police. Moreover, there was no outcry to bring more guns onto the campus; not from students or their parents, not from staff or faculty, not from administrators, and not from Iowa City officials or other leaders.

The position of the CIA, and the National Intelligence Estimate, is that the War in Iraq is making us (as I joined many others in predicting) less safe, less secure, not more -- primarily by fomenting more terrorism, not less, and contributing substantially to the terrorists' recruitment efforts.

Similarly, the evidence was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous.

The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus.

The arguments were fairly weak.

(1) "But Johnny's mommy lets him do it." That is, "other campuses police get to carry guns, so we should be able to do so, too."

(2) "We're trained to use firearms." Yeah. (That's good; because they have firearms back at headquarters for an emergency (the likelihood of which is somewhere between "slim and none at all") and they better know how to use them.) And some campus police officers may be trained to fly private planes, too. But that doesn't mean we should have a single-engine plane constantly flying over the campus at low altitude.

(3) "If you won't let me be the pitcher I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home." What is this blackmail about, anyway? "'If it doesn't go through, I will lose 50 percent of my officers,' [the UI's] public safety director Chuck Green said." Brian Morelli, "Half of university officers to leave if regents answer is no," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2007. Who organized that walkout? The campus police have wanted guns for years. But if this was such a big deal, something that went beyond mere requests and protests, something that would actually cause half the force to resign, why weren't they resigning in 2006, 2005, and 2004? (There may well be an answer to that; but it's not immediately obvious what the 2007 Tsunami was that produced this rather dramatic threat.)

I could go on. But as I said earlier, the point is not to re-argue the merits. The point is that the reasons for this radical and abrupt U-turn in UI policy at this time, and the process leading up to that decision, are hard to explain without some theory.

And the research with which this blog entry begins may provide that theory.

The Virginia Tech shootings were our 9/11. They caused us to focus on death, and to imagine what it would be like on the UI campus if something like that were to occur. As a result, we were more willing to look to authoritarian figures for guidance, leadership, and advice -- and then follow their lead. In this instance, authority was in the guise, and uniform, of the police -- rather than the President of the United States and the military for which he is Commander-in-Chief. We were more willing to be suspicious of -- of what? -- of whatever is buried deep inside a sub-conscious of which we may not be proud, a sub-conscious that may hold fears of the "other" (whether race or ethnicity), a sub-conscious that is "sub" and often forgotten, but which rose to consciousness under these fearful conditions. And we were willing to take a more aggressive stance, a willingness to use guns, to protect ourselves, to provide us a greater sense of safety and security -- even though more guns would actually make us less safe and secure. Finally, the more opponents argued that "campus police don't need guns" the more the phrases "campus police" and "need guns" were linked in the minds of advocates -- rather than the reverse -- especially for those whose brains are less effectively wired to hold ambiguous and contradictory notions.

There's a public relations aspect to this as well, something that administrators must always be thinking about during their decision process.

There are two possible public relations disasters involving guns: (1) that campus police are armed and one of them accidentally or deliberately shoots and kills someone on campus, and (2) that the campus police are not armed and a member of the UI community, or an outsider -- persons other than campus police -- will shoot and kill a member of the UI community.

Both are bad for the administrator's public relations. But which is worse? The second -- even if the evidence is overwhelming that the failure to arm the campus police had absolutely no effect whatsoever on those events, and that had they been armed they could not possibly have prevented the deaths anyway.

Why?

Under the first scenario the administrators have done their job, they've "done all they could." A part of the price for providing Iraq with "security" is the unavoidable deaths of 100,000 or more innocent civilians. A part of the price for providing the campus with "security" may be the deaths of innocent students. Those deaths represent a price we're perfectly willing to pay for the greater good (or so it is presented and perceived by many) -- as we were when and Iowa City policeman shot an innocent Eric Shaw (and was never punished for his action).

The second (not arming the campus police, following which a student is shot) is much more serious for administrators -- however irrational, unfair and inaccurate the criticism of them may be -- because they will be portrayed as having failed to make a decision that would have made us safer and prevented the death (even though neither is true).

I don't know if these are sound analyses or not.

But it's my way of making sense of what the Regents' university presidents have just recommended the members of our Board of Regents are probably about to do.

# # #