Surge Ahead

Just like everyone, I was anxious to hear what General Patreaus would report to the nation on September 11, 2007. Unfortunately, by that scheduling timetable, someone decided once again to make a subtle gesture to try to link 9/11 to Iraq when no rationally-thinking humans left in this world can make any such connection. To quote George Tenant from page 341 of his book "Let me say it again: CIA found absolutely no linkage between Saddam and 9/11." That has been communicated TO the President, BY the President and still some choose to believe this (apparently because it comforts them).

This argument is over. There is no connection. All supposed connection theories and allegations have been proven false. To those out there who persist in this idiotic theory, it's time to move on. Just stop it.

There are a few topics of discussion from the Petreaus Report I want to discuss. First, many were unnerved by how a four-star general could be put in this position in the first place. It was very unusual to see an officer in that position. Second, the testimony showed once again just how divided this nation has become. The results has been to embolden both sides in an increasingly ugly national debate. Finally, the substance of the testimony preached more of the same and did little to give us hope for better results in the future.

GRILLING A GENERAL

It was unfortunate to watch such a highly-decorated military officer get grilled like that, but that was the bus under which General David Patreaus was thrown. Since January, the President has been telling critics of his "surge" policy to "wait until Gen. Patreaus gives us his update on the progress of the war." If he said that once, he said it 10,000 times.

And he said it again, and again, and again... and... you get it. Every critique of the strategy and the war in general were met with "wait for Gen. Patreaus, then we can talk." The "deal" brokered between Congress and the President to allow funding for the war before the surge was announced depended upon this report.

Some have criticized critics of the war for grilling the general. I believe that criticism is misplaced. General Patreaus was thrust into that position. When the President will not engage in dialogue and the reason given is the coming report that took on celebrity status, there was no other choice. Critics were to either pander to and defer to the General or do their duty by quizzing the only one who would answer questions.

Many have speculated and rumors have even surfaced that the military as a whole is unhappy with the way this was allowed to play out. I would be very surprised if the military EVER again consents to one of its own being used by the President as a shield as Gen. Patreaus was this month.

It was embarrassing and should never happen again. But I cannot blame Congressmen and Congresswomen for grilling the only one who will answer for what is going on. They have a very important job to do.

SURGE IN BELIEF

Both sides feel they were validated by the testimony. Those deferential to all things military or supporters of the war heard the phrase "making progress" and will use that to justify more patience. Those against the war or critical of the surge heard how slow and difficult that minor progress has been and will use that to strengthen an argument for withdrawal.

The bottom line is that Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto and cannot do anything to stop this war unless they get those votes. Frustrated Republicans have been switching sides regularly, but not in the numbers necessary for a veto-override.

The President continues to be defiant and to simply dismiss his critics and prosecute this war as he wishes despite the majority of Americans' beliefs on the subject. Critics continue to be apoplectic about the "original sin" of invasion in the first place.

I also can't get past the original sin. The more I hear what a mess this situation is the more I want to scream that we shouldn't be in this mess in the first place. As the article cited a few posts down in a comment on Executive Privilege, there is a lot of anger on both sides.

The challenge is to rise above that for a solution. But, strategies can't continue to be jammed down every one's throat by one side. That continues to happen with the now open-ended status of the war in Iraq. The 5,700 promised to come home before Christmas were scheduled to come home anyway based on time served there already. In other words, there was no concession.

I'm open to solution talk, but I don't think there are any good options. I do say this, though: If we are only a cork in the bottle stopping catastrophe (I'm not even sure we're even that considering the crisis there anyway), then that isn't worth the lives of our soldiers. If that Civil War will have to burst out of its bottle at some point whether 1 year or 20 years from now, just let it happen and get us out sooner than later.

The argument that bad things will happen if we leave is losing its strength rapidly. It looks like bad things could happen WHENEVER we leave. Heck, it looks like bad things are already happening.

My hope is that the next President will be able to unite this country again. Since it is now clear this will go on into the next Presidency, I only hope a unifying candidate emerges.

MORE OF THE SAME

No matter the circumstances behind the testimony, however, it was what it was expected to be. The substance of the much-anticipated testimony could be summed up as "more of the same."

What did Patreaus and Crocker really say? That can only be determined when we know exactly what the purpose of the surge was. To paraphrase W Bush, the purpose was to provide enough physical security to give "breathing room" to the political process in Iraq.

So, what did they say? Simple. They said that has not happened. No one testified that political progress has flourished or even progressed. The "government" in the capital of Iraq still does not control the nation, still does not pass necessary laws, still does not have the support or allegiance of much of the provinces (including Anbar, which remains against Al-Qaida AND the government in Baghdad), and still cannot provide its own security.

When you boil it all down, the testimony acknowledged failure of its stated purpose. It could only report "progress." If you listen to speeches from the 60s and 70s our military made nothing but progress right up until the last helicopter left Saigon and the name was changed to Ho Chi Mihn City.

I don't buy it.

Most telling for me was when John Warner, a conservative hawk, asked if this plan, as presented by Gen. Patreaus, would make America safer. General Patreaus just said "it will help us achieve our objective in Iraq." Warner responded "does THAT make America safer?" Patreaus said "I don't know" and explained that he is focused on Iraq. Although it is the job of politicians usually to deal with those kinds of questions, I cannot imagine Eisenhower saying after D-Day anything other than "absolutely, our actions here today made our country safer." Why? Because that situation had clarity.

That illustrates why this is a very different and unique situation. That is why this country is divided. Because there is no way to equate those two things (Iraq and safety). There is entirely too much grey in this war. No answer that could ever be provided in this fact situation could ever unite this country behind a given strategy. There is too much grey. Does it make us safer? Debatable. Does it have anything to do with 9/11? This was grey, but is now clear. Did it rid a country of WMD? No. What exactly did we accomplish? Not clear. Grey.

Grey is the byproduct of a war without solid moral grounds.

As a result, we should never expect anything but more of the same until someone disconnected from the "original sin" of invasion takes office. It just stinks that so much bad must happen while we wait.

NOTE: Still working on getting those pictures of Jacob transferred (at this point I'm trying to fill a disc). I expect to be able to get that done this week. I may even be able to post a short home movie of Jacob. Stay tuned.

Wahoo-wa

I have stumbled upon some problems trying to get our new laptop to recognize our older digital camera. Therefore, my plan to write about Jacob, complete with pictures, will have to wait until I figure out this technological riddle. That also explains my delay in posting.

For now, I figured I could talk about my day today (Saturday, Sept. 1, 2007). I went to Laramie Wyoming to watch the Virginia Cavaliers play the Wyoming Cowboys with my buddy Mike. I've been a big Virginia fan since I started going to their games in 1983. My dad and I attended just about every home game from then until 1991. Naturally, one does not drop a team after spending so much time rooting for them. I lived and died with those UVA teams when we lived in Virginia and have followed the team ever since.

Unfortunately, it was different this time. I had contemplated taking Jacob with me, but it was too hot, he is too active (and mobile) and it would probably have only served to distract me from the game and annoy fellow spectators. So, I left him home. I'm glad I did. My hope was to take him to a UVA game just as my dad took me. Afterall, this was probably one time the Wahoos will ever come around these parts again.

Not only did UVA get killed and look horrible, but it was just different this time. Many would wonder why I would root for a team I only followed over one from which I received a degree. I can't really explain it other than that there was always something special about UVA. Probably because when I went to those games, I had my dad all to myself. I was about 7 or 8 when I started going to those games and was about 14 or 15 when we moved. Those are ages when alone-time with a parent is important.

I can still remember being angry at dad when he used "my" ticket for a friend of his who was visiting from out of town. I remember feeling hurt that he would contemplate taking anyone else. Kids don't understand those things sometimes.

I now know that it will never be like that with Jacob and UVA. Simply put, that was for me and dad and no one else. It will never be duplicated. Watching my first live UVA game without my dad pretty much sealed the deal for me. It'll never be the same again. And, that's OK. In fact, it's actually comforting to know that it really was the quality time and not the game that mattered. It was equally comforting and depressing to realize that.

It is important for kids to have something they can do with each parent exclusively. I hope to have something like that with Jacob. I've already decided that if Jacob is interested and has the attention span (and after a few trial runs when he is old enough), I will look into Colorado University season tickets. Then that can become our special time. If he isn't interested in CU football, we'll find something else. It could be anything. I don't care what it is, sports or not. But, one way or another we will find something that will be for us only.

Jacob has already taken to helping Jen in the garden and is always thrilled to get in the mud and pick the flowers. I hope he finds something that the two of them will also have as mom-son time (and it looks like they have an early leader in gardening). I think such intimate relationship building with parents individually builds strong connections.

For now, I walk away from the train-wreck performance by Virginia in Laramie without too much disappointment. No matter how much UVA stunk, my memories are safe. I was at the 1990 game when Virginia beat Clemson for the first time in 30 tries. I still remember the scream of the crowd when the punt-returner broke free down the sidelines and it was obvious that the curse was over. I found a You-Tube clip of that moment and it's just as I remembered it. Please see the first play from the TOP video I linked to the left of this post (titled 1990 Virginia vs. Clemson football part II). The punt return is the first play you see. Pay special attention to late in the run when the crowd realized together "holy cow, he didn't step out of bounds and is still going!" That squeal is still vivid in my memory. If you watch both links, they provide all the highlights from the game.

What great times. I am already watching closely to make sure Colorado is on the right path so the team will perform well for me and Jacob down the road if that's what we end up doing. (It didn't hurt that they beat CSU today... although I'm still usually only relieved when they win that game as opposed to happy). But, even if they don't get better quickly, I remember suffering through a 55-0 loss to Clemson in 1984. I remember because I couldn't blow my new UVA horn unless Virginia scored. When UVA blocked a fourth-quarter extra point, dad let me blow the horn. It made the 1990 game all the sweeter.

I look forward to my Jacob time, no matter what it is. And I hope it'll some day be as special for him as it was for me when I was the kid. And I imagine I'll just root for UVA alone... which is just fine by me.