World War IV: Let's call this conflict what it is

Political people often dislike calling things by their names. Truth, particularly in wartime, is so unpleasant that we drape it in a veil of evasions, and the right naming of things is far from a simple task.

Take the matter of this war. It is most assuredly something other than the "Afghan War," as the press sometimes calls it. After all, the biggest engagement took place on American soil, and the administration promises to wage the conflict globally, and not, primarily, against Afghans.

Why count? Some have said that WWII was just a continuation of WWI. This promises to be many, many, many, many battles...with no end in sight....since it is expected to turn into an on-going international police action and investigation....to catch the next snake as soon as it is born. Welcome to the future. I think the idea is that, when the big nests are broken up, with the big equipment, then the smaller problems will be dealt with using equipment appropriare to the task: a bullet, a microphone and handcuffs...

This guy sees this war as the opportunity to create big new government programs-- typical Democrat. I see it as an opportunity to draw on the best and the brightest the private sector has to offer, uniting America in the quest to stomp out this menace for all time. It's not a gravy train. When it's all over, if we truly have the best and the brightest working the problem, they'll be delighted to return to the private sector to continue their illustrious careers. The best want to solve real problems, and they tend to leave government service when they no longer have real problems to solve.

The best and the brightest according to whose standards? I understand your point, and I agree with it in principle, but in the real world things shape up differently. Under Clinton, the best and the brightest were the military politicians who would willingly abandon principle and honor to get the next promotion to enhance their resumes for even higher promotions to come. The true warriors, what the military should really be about, were shunned, castigated, demoralized and finally retreated into retirement to save their own sense of honor.

Under Clinton the best and the brightest found all kinds of ways around our laws to escape justice, to collect money for themselves, illegally expand the Democrat voter base, and finally to sell our most important secrets to the highest bidder.

With the Bush administration things are getting back in order.

I personally liked Prof. Cohen's take on the situation. He didn't seem to me to be a Democrat simply trying to expand big government. He seemed to see things as they are and to put it all into proper perspective.

Well, with the exception of Rubin at Treasury (not that I agreed with his politics, but I thought he was a very bright, very good Treasury Sec.) , I always thought all of the Clinton people were the B team. The definition of "best" doesn't change from one administration to the next-- I mean, compare the teams: Powell/Albright, Rumsfield/Cohen, Rice/Berger. If this administration can bring the same caliber of people in at lower levels, i.e., younger and less experienced, but no less bright and capable, their job will be much easier.

But, you're right, maybe I mistook this guy's meaning. I have no problem with certain branches of the federal government growing during this war as needed to fight it, but I would hate to see it become permanently larger.

I am reminded that a couple of weeks ago I read a report that in response to the anthrax problem, a few people at the Mayo Clinic invented a new field test that's really fast (takes only a day I think), rather than the 3-4 days existing tests required. I mean, they just went and did this on their own initiative, to help out. What was the CDC's response? Defensive sputtering about how they would only use a test that met the high standards of their own test. That's a second-rater's response-- this is the MAYO CLINIC, not a couple of bozos at No-name U. If I had been running the CDC, my response would have been "COOL! Let's get those guys in here and see what they've got ASAP."

I mean, if Bill Joy calls up the Feds and says, hey, I invented this little computer program that might help you guys out, you LISTEN to him!

As I said, I agree with you on most things. My point was the basic realtivism thing which is a reflection of leadership. I think you are saying the same thing and that you want to see real leadership in all areas, leadership that will overcome the natural tendency of bureaucrats to stop being cautious and playing CYA rather than leading. That is usually a reflection of the strength and wisdom of those at the top, starting with the President. As you know, the LBJ and Slick Willie types place loyality and party line above all else. They put people in leadership positions who will enforce that and innovation and practical decision making is stifled all the way down the line. Facts are made to fit the desires of those at the top. That means many facts are hidden and others distorted and decisions are then made on illusory and shifting foundations.

To assure compliance LBJ hobnobbed frequently with J. Edgar Hoover to get the dirt on opponents and Clinton simply confiscated the files for himself rather than bothering with the niceties of polite politics. That is not leadership, that is oppression.

Things have generally been better and more open under Republicans, even Nixon despite the demonizing by the press and the Democrats. They did the same to Ken Starr. Will any dare consider the facts and say that Nixon was more dishonest than Clinton? No, the press and the Democrats present it as the opposite.

You want to see the kind of leadership that most conservatives learned about and admired early in life. The kind that reflects the standards set forth by our founders and in the Bible. The kind that values openness and honesty, honor and courage, generousity and concern for others and the country; the kind always presented in the movies and literature until the 1960s and since; the kind practiced by the greatest generation and exibited generally by those in our military; the kind taught my such groups as the Boy Scouts, the Boys Club and the YMCA. So do I.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.