Better to Jaw-Jaw Than to War-War

Better to Jaw-Jaw than to War-War
By Jerome Grossman

In the last five years we should have learned that military intervention in the Middle East is difficult, bloody, and expensive. The enormous advantages of the U.S. in equipment and trained personnel have not brought victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The indigenous unorganized resistance has found ways to counter the awesome organized superpower.

Nevertheless, as incredible as it may appear, the Bush administration is moving our nation closer to another costly invasion in the Middle East, this time against Iran. It will be billed as virtually cost free; fire-power from the naval battle groups now in the Persian Gulf, B-2 bombers flying in from Missouri, primed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq and any people who get in the way.

Also destroyed will be what is left of America's reputation. For the 1.3 billion Muslims world- wide, attacking three Muslim nations simultaneously will have all the earmarks of another crusade against them. They can be expected to attack U.S. interests everywhere. To the rest of the world of other faiths or no faith, a third war will be conclusive evidence of the determination of the U.S. to crush any challenge to its world hegemony.

Already, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has told his soldiers to prepare for more “unconventional” wars, that is, wars where the weak resisters become guerrillas with homemade weapons and tactics. Will this take the rest of the century?

This scenario is not in the long-term interests of the United States. Our quarrels with Iran over its nuclear programs can be negotiated through the International Atomic Energy Agency in a manner similar to the current successful solution to North Korea's nuclear program. Our objections to Iran's influence in Iraq can and should be negotiated by the so-called free and democratically elected government of Iraq, supported by the U.S.

Diplomacy should be the initial response to international arguments before sanctions and international pressure. Military action is a last resort and then only with the broadest international support, hopefully with the blessing of the United Nations. The government of Iran has repeatedly asked for meetings and negotiations but the U.S. response has been military threats and Congressional resolutions so harsh that they have been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”

The stakes for the U.S. and the entire world are enormous. Let us remember the advice of a warrior, Winston Churchill, “Better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”

? Divide Iraq into Three States?

? Divide Iraq into Three States?

By Jerome Grossman

For several years, Senator Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been promoting a division of Iraq into three separate states, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. The theory is that the separation will allow each group to organize itself in accordance with its own traditions and objectives, to adopt separate policies, to elect its own leaders, thereby minimizing conflict and ending the civil war now raging for power and resources.

The plan needs to be taken seriously, because in September the U.S. Senate formally voted approval by 77 Democrats and Republicans. However, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately criticized the Biden plan as ineffective and unworkable.

Although each of the three groupings dominate particular areas, in many cities and towns they had been living together for years. Separation would require mass migrations involving loss of homes, jobs, as well as schools and associations that would be painful for all concerned and would certainly lead to local conflict in the very process of separation as people are forced to dispose of their assets.

How would the borders of each state be set? There are no natural divisions and the resolution of the border problem would surely lead to conflict.

How would the oil revenues be divided? Iraq lives off its oil with no other significant assets. In the likely Sunni area, there is no oil. Would they receive a fair division of the revenues? Would it be on a population basis, on area of land, on needs? How much would be stolen by people in the other two states?

Will each area have its own defense forces, or its own police? Would one area import enough arms and foreign soldiers in an attempt to conquer the other two? Would an arms race develop for defensive or offensive purposes?

Could each area afford the inevitable triplication of services notably more expensive than services by a single, unified government? Could each state support itself?

Would these three little weak countries be dominated or absorbed by powerful neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Would Turkey allow an independent or semi -- independent Kurdistan? The Kurds are the largest ethnic group, 25 million, in the world without their own country. They are anxious to unite their scattered people now residing in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Those nations refuse to surrender any part of their territory to the Kurds. Right now, Turkey has many troops on the border of Kurdish Iraq to prevent Kurdish infiltration.

The fact that the U.S. Senate promotes the Biden plan is additional evidence of the dominance of the U.S. in Iraqi affairs. The U.S. has the controlling military power, as well as the political power through the puppets the U.S. selected, installed and supports. However, the Bush administration is unlikely to adopt the Biden plan. The practical difficulties are too great and partition is contrary to the prime U.S. interests in the Middle East. The U.S. needs Iraq as a military base to dominate the area where 60% of the Earth's oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas are located. Control of those reserves will give the U.S. another tool to influence the policies of other nations. The U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave. The continuing occupation will have fewer problems with a unified Iraq. With 737 military bases already in 130 countries, control of Iraq will add another region to U.S. hegemony.

President Hillary is Inevitable

President Hillary is Inevitable

By Jerome Grossman

Now that Hillary is really inevitable, the professional pundits are protecting their careers by opining that her election is not inevitable. But if you want to bet on Hillary going all the way, the legal bookies in Ireland will pay you only one dollar for every two bet: she is the odds-on favorite. Possessing a magic name, the best organization, the most experienced managers, the most connections to the biggest donors, her main weakness was her unfavorability rating hovering at 48 -- 49%. How could she be elected when half of the voters didn't like her? That barrier has been broken: the negative number is down to 37, where most politicians are. Americans learn to love front runners, to admire success.
To cinch the case, here are poll numbers conducted in late September by ABC News / Washington Post, covering just about every personal and issue valuation of the three top Democratic candidates. No need to analyze the Republicans. In my book, any Democrat nominated for President will defeat any Republican. It's all over folks.

Regardless of who you support, who do you think ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
Is the strongest leader 61% 20% 13%
Is the most honest and
Trustworthy 35 26 22
Has the best chance of
Getting elected 57 16 20
Is best able to reduce
partisanship in D.C. 42 20 24
Best reflects the core
VIs the most inspiring 41 37 14

Regardless of who you support, who do you trust most to handle ___?
(Dems) HRC Obama Edwards
The war in Iraq 52% 22% 17%
The U.S. campaign
Against terrorism 51 20 19
The economy 56 17 17
Healthcare 66 15 14
Corruption in gov’t 40 28 20

George W. Bush is Happier

George W. Bush is Happier

By Jerome Grossman

President Bush enjoys off - the - record lunches with favored journalists from time to time. One of the rules for the occasion provides for absolutely no direct quotations, but allows for reference to the matters discussed. At a recent lunch, Bush seemed more buoyant and especially interested in presidential politics and the 2008 election. He expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and probably the general election. He did not seem too perturbed by the prospect. He indicated that the Democratic candidates were coming around to his point of view on the Iraq war and that Hillary would continue his Iraq policy once she appreciates the dangers and difficulties. What may have caught Bush’s attention was Hillary’s statement that she “hoped” to withdraw troops by 2013 as well as her plan for a residual US military force. Here is Hillary's latest plan for a residual U.S. force of undetermined size in Iraq with no time limit: To protect the U.S.Embassy and other U.S. installations: to train the Iraqi army, to fight insurgents, and to deter Iran.
Bush thinks that a Democratic President continuing the occupation would validate his Iraq policy and restore his reputation and standing in history. His model is President Harry Truman, like Bush lowly regarded at the end of his presidency, now a hero of the Cold War in some history books. Bush hinted at some back channel advice emanating from the White House to the Clinton campaign.
Could it be from Bush to his father to buddy Bill Clinton to Hillary?

Hillary Isn't President Yet

Hillary Isn't President Yet
By Jerome Grossman

My blog on September 22 warned that President Hillary might find it necessary to prove that a woman is tough enough, resolute enough, to be commander-in-chief in time of war. It took only four days for her to prove me prescient.

On September 26 she voted in the U.S. Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization based on intelligence offered by the Bush administration that furnished the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, argued that designating part of Iran's government as a terrorist group represents a de facto declaration of war on Iran.

This amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill was written by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Senator John KYL, D-AZ, and was adopted 76 -- 22. The original version was much more provocative, actually calling for using all military instruments against Iran, but cooler heads prevail.

Presidential candidates Biden and Dodd voted NAY, Obama was not present but said he would have voted NAY, Edwards criticized Hillary for her vote saying "You cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted." Amen.

Hillary defended her vote:" it gives us the options to impose sanctions... to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." Tough talk, There are strong rumors in Washington and around the world that the U.S. is preparing a massive air strike on Iran. Then we will be fighting three wars against Moslem countries simultaneously, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, with a worn out military 10,000 miles from home, and a purpose that has been rejected by almost all other nations. Let's see know-it-all Hillary manage that as President.

In another in -your -face to the American people, Hillary staked out some hawkish ground on Iraq in the presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover New Hampshire, on September 26. She refused to commit, but “ hopes” to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 - that is no misprint - 2013. And she was echoed by her main rivals, Edwards and Obama. Only the also-rans, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel gave answers that would satisfy the voters who gave the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. So much for the Democratic Party commitment to end the war.

Basking in her political sunshine with a 20 point lead, President Hillary is already sounding like President Lyndon Johnson did on Vietnam-and she is not even nominated or elected yet. Where is Gene McCarthy now that we need him to talk peace and political courage? Dead and buried, that's where, but remembered as the hero who began the political process that got us out of Vietnam But if a worthy successor springs up, watch out Hillary, you aren't President yet.

Hillary: What kind of President?

Hillary: What kind of President?
By Jerome Grossman

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President. She leads the field in the polls of the key early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. If she wins these states there will be a landslide. In the general election in November, there is every indication that the hungry and angry Democrats will turn out in force, while the Republicans, demoralized by scandals and policy failures, will vote in lesser numbers than in the GOP heyday. The Democratic nominee will be a cinch to win.

Hillary will be the first woman President. What kind of President will she be? How will her being the first woman affect her performance?

Hillary brings important qualities to the office: she is informed, educated, well spoken, hard-working, experienced. She has been a social worker and lawyer, ran programs in Arkansas and the White House, and served six years as a United States Senator from New York. She can do the job. She has political smarts to weave her way through the competing interests in the fifty states and indeed the nations of the world.

Hillary's politics are centrist, just like husband Bill’s. They have made their way by locating the consensus of their time and supporting it. They make their peace with the dominant interests and are clever in selling the policies produced to the public. Hillary, the social worker, had no problem accepting the mantra that “the era of big government is over “and the ensuing decline in federal social services.

Experimental programs seeking new approaches to intractable problems, like crime, drug addiction, segregation, income inequality, etc. will get short shrift. Hillary's health care program protects the interests of the major players, making no attempt to adopt the single-payer approach used by every other industrialized nation. The liberal constituency of the Democratic Party is sure to be disappointed in her domestic programs as she finds another Robert Rubin to guide her through paths approved by Wall Street.

Hillary's biggest problem will be her performance as Commander – in - Chief at a time of international upheaval, guerrilla insurgencies, terrorism and war. In spite of her business - like style and her demonstrated ability to compete with the boys, the public instinctively sees in this woman, or any woman, a caring, sympathetic, loving, tender person with the warmth and social skills they remember from their mothers, whether or not the mothers actually had them.

Is a woman tough enough, resolute enough, to be Commander – in - Chief in time of war, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack when necessary, to command in times of stress, to make the often brutal call for the military? That is the question that will be asked of Hillary during the election campaign and her first term. Many Americans will reply that a woman, any woman, cannot command with the necessary authority.

Hillary has prepared herself for these questions. She voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq and refuses to apologize. She has voted every year for the enormous U.S.military budget, larger than the military budgets of all other countries in the world combined. She has never questioned Pentagon development of new weapons. As First Lady, Hillary participated in Cabinet meetings and favored the Clinton military interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia. Together with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vice President Al Gore, Hillary pushed a reluctant President Bill to adopt a policy of humanitarian military interventions later used by the neo-cons to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Will President Hillary be able to resist military solutions to international problems? Will President Hillary challenge the ever higher military budgets requested by the Pentagon? Will President Hillary resist Pentagon demands for new nuclear weapons? Will President Hillary resist making an attack on Iran? Will President Hillary withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq?

The example of Prime Minister Margret Thatcher in Britain,” the toughest person in the Cabinet” seems to indicate that a woman must be tougher than a man to prove that she can handle the duties of a Commander – in – Chief in time of war. Electing a woman President may not be the path to peace.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

MEDICARE FOR ALL

by Jerome Grossman

The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States have proposed reforms of the nation's health-care system. The plans of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are similar in outline, but not necessarily in detail. Especially noteworthy is their retention of the basic system relying on business and insurance companies to finance health care.

However, each candidate articulated themes contrary to the current basic system. They praise government - run Medicare for low administrative costs, high efficiency, and for not cherry picking patients. They praise the government - run Veterans Administration for the same features as well as consumer satisfaction. They praise government -run systems in other industrialized nations pointing out that the U.S. lags behind all most all of these nations in adult longevity and infant mortality. Yet the candidates insist on retaining our current system with minor modifications. Universal Medicare would eliminate the cost of health insurance to businesses and lower insurance costs by about 25% percent by eliminating advertising, big execuitive salaries salaries and insurance company bureaucracy aimed at increasing market share and profitability.

The primary constituency of business is the stockholder and the primary activity is to cut costs and maximize profits. In health care this usually means insure as few workers as possible for the fewest ailments. Insurance companies are also focused on the bottom line, charging as much as the market will bear while avoiding the large expenses of the very sick The maneuvers toward these objectives inflate the cost of healthcare

Expanding Medicare to the entire population would realize the goal of universality, improve the national health, lower administrative costs, shift control of care to doctors and hospitals. Why should seniors and veterans be the only groups receiving government subsidies for health care? What about that 10 year old girl I see through my window? How about the worker who repairs my necessities?

Only a universal health system run by the government is defensible morally and politically. Equality and democracy require it. How long will the voters allow this unfairness and waste of money on a basic right to life to continue? Will one of the presidential candidates, from either party, endorse the Medicare approach and arouse the voters to demand it?

The answer to that question is " NO." American political leaders are understandably intimidated by the economic and political power of the health and insurance industries. They remember how Hillary Clinton's mild health reform proposals of 1993 were defeated, and even worse, ridiculed to such extent that it affects her campaign for president 15 years later.

Any proposed change must not be perceived as attacking the profit motive, the most dynamic element in the American economic juggernaut. However, certain communal activities do not lend themselves to the profit model. Health care, education and the military rely on the values of equality, cooperation and even sacrifice. The model for each is common benefit before individual advancement and profit.

However, there may be a way to resolve the dilemma, by following the example of big business. Our government cannot drive the health and insurance industries out of business to install a universal Medicare, but it could buy them out and make health a government monopoly. Give them their profit, give stockholders, executives, workers a big payout, something on the order of100% profit or a years salary. Even if costs one trillion dollars, the lower costs could return the capital outlay in ten years or less. The new efficiencies, the new satisfactions, the increased longevity, the saving of children's lives could transform our lives as they have already benefited our senior population since 1965. And think of the value of increased happiness, of diminished worry about the precious gift of life. Do we have the courage to break the pattern of the past, for ourselves and future generations?

Stop Funding for the Iraq War

Stop Funding for the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman

After defying the expressed will of the American people, President George W. Bush has laid out a plan for withdrawal of some U.S. troops from Iraq - maybe. Perhaps some by Christmas, perhaps more next spring, perhaps another group by the November election, depending on conditions on the ground. Bush is stealing from the Democrats an idea that will not work. At least 130,000 troops will remain indefinitely to implement what Bush calls an “enduring “role in Iraq, an open-ended commitment there. This is a perversion of the popular demand and continues the series of mistakes committed by the administration. However, Bush and the Democrats in Congress seem to have arrived at the same point. While the Democrats demand “withdrawal”, every piece of legislation they pass on Iraq includes provisions for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq without a time limit to protect U.S. installations, to train Iraqi troops and to fight Al Qaeda and the insurgents. The residual force would require between 100,000 and 160,000 troops. The leading Democratic candidates for president, Clinton, Obama and Edwards also say that they will retain that residual force when elected. It's time for the Democrats to stop playing political games that perpetuate the war. The only way to stop the war is for the Democratic Congress to not appropriate funds for the war. Just don't vote on it because if the funding bill is passed, Bush would veto and be upheld. However, a failure to appropriate will work legally and constitutionally. The U.S. now has 737 military bases in 130 countries. Do we need another in Iraq when the American and Iraqi people have so clearly indicated their disapproval?

The Democrats in Congress

The Democrats in Congress

By Jerome Grossman

If the Democrats in Congress argue about the details of the Bush war strategy in Iraq, they will validate the illegal war.

If the Democrats in Congress argue about the size of American troop cuts, they will concede that some troops can remain in Iraq.

If the Democrats in Congress argue for an American residual force in Iraq, they will be defending the occupation.

If the Democrats in Congress argue about the degree of success of the military "surge", they will be accepting the right of U.S. forces to fight in Iraq.

If the Democrats in Congress argue about the performance of the Iraqi government, they will be treating it as a puppet.

If the Democrats in Congress accept a partial reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq, they will be accepting the remainder as legitimate occupiers.

If the Democrats in Congress accept the responsibility for training Iraqi troops and police, they will confirm U.S. control of the country.

If the Democrats in Congress support retaining any military bases in Iraq, they will confirm a policy of permanent occupation and control.

If the Democrats in Congress fail to insist on a firm date for total troop withdrawal, they will be accepting a long U.S. occupation.

If the Democrats in Congress accept a token troop withdrawal, they will give President Bush a clever victory: sending 30,000 troops, then withdrawing 10,000; diminishing the public pressure for withdrawal, the occupation goes on.

Out of Iraq Now

Out of Iraq Now
By Jerome Grossman

The nation is on the verge of a most important debate on the Iraq war. It is crucial that you send a message right now to your senators and representative with your opinion. Even if they have similar views to yours, try to spur them into more action. We must end this war now. We must withdraw all troops now. We must not leave a residual military force that would continue the illegal invasion and occupation. American lives and dollars are being sacrificed for no legitimate purpose. It must end now. Please do your part.