The Powell Doctrine

I don't know if you've had a chance to see the PBS special on Colin Powell and "The Powell Doctrine," but it should be running again, in light of his resignation, and it's very good. In the meantime, here's a link to the PBS website for teachers (the brief form—you can explore further for more information).

In short, the PBS special stressed that Powell framed his doctrine prior to the Gulf War in 1991 and based it on what the military leadership and he himself (as an officer in Vietnam) learned from the Vietnam War. As the special pointed out, after the Vietnam War, the army was "broken" (the term the Army used) and military leaders assumed we must avoid another unwinnable war like Vietnam.

The PBS website provides this abstract: "Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."

PBS quotes Powell in 1992: "We must not, for example, send military forces into a crisis with an unclear mission they cannot accomplish--such as we did when we sent the U.S. Marines into Lebanon in 1983. We inserted those proud warriors into the middle of a five-faction civil war complete with terrorists, hostage-takers, and a dozen spies in every camp, and said, 'Gentlemen, be a buffer.' The results were 241 Marines and Navy personnel killed and a U.S. withdrawal from the troubled area."

As we all know, the Bush Administration did not follow the Powell Doctrine in its headstrong rush to war in Iraq, against a populace impoverished by U.N. economic sanctions and arms-restricted by U.N. WMD sanctions, that was barely held back from civil war by a ruthless dictator. No one expected Powell to stay with the Administration after his "tour of duty" was over, but he was a loyal soldier who remained at his post until his term was over.

PBS offers this 1993 newspaper critique of the war about to begin in Iraq: "The impending war in Iraq, however, arguably meets only one criterion of the Powell Doctrine. Weapons inspectors have just begun their work, which is why France, Russia, and China argue that war is not yet a last resort. Public support for a war in Iraq is hardly strong. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll, while a majority of Americans support the use of force as an option, 59 percent want to give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time. The divided opinion reflects the lack of a well-defined national interest in going to war now. The Bush administration has tried to portray a pre-emptive war against as essential to the war on terrorism, but the evidence of the 'links' between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is highly questionable."

Think of the Iraq war in light of the points of the Powell Doctrine: (a) last resort to an imminent threat, (b) overwhelming U.S. forces, (c) strong public support, and (d) clear exit strategy. Clearly the war was not a last resort nor was this claim made at the time. Nor was there an imminent threat: no links between Saddam and al Qaeda or 9/11, no WMDs or active programs to produce WMDs. The only way Mr. Bush was able to justify the war and create limited public approval was to rely on shaky reports from disgruntled Iraqi expatriots; these proved to be false, as many within the international and Washington community feared. In addition, we did not have sufficient forces to overwhelm the enemy and secure Iraqi munitions, and these have fallen into the hands of the insurgents (remnants of Saddam's army and their post-invasion recruits) and possibly others. We have no clear exit strategy, as the Bush Administration did not plan for the civil strife that was seething in Iraq, nor did it foresee that the Iraqi Army would resort to guerilla warfare as a defense. Our soldiers have not been trained to fight a guerilla war because our military believed that we would never involve our troops in another war like Vietnam—with the Powell Doctrine as a protection.

But military leaders were ignored and politicians started this war. So that now, 18 months after "the fall of Baghdad," parts of Baghdad are still too dangerous for our troops to move freely. This past week, we fought house-to-house to retake a city 50 miles from Baghdad, while leaders of the insurgents moved to other cities on the outskirts of Baghdad.

We still haven't secured Baghdad or the metropolitan area. In addition, the roads throughout Iraq are unsafe, even for rescue workers. We cannot begin to rebuild because of continued violence against anyone associated with the U.S.

We should take a moment to reflect on the wisdom of the Powell Doctrine, because it throws light on Bush's reckless rush to war and its catastrophic consequences.

Arafat . . . Bin Laden

For those of us with long memories, Yasser Arafat used to be a "terrorist." Here's what the wikipedia.org article on Arafat says: "He was a guerrilla leader, regarded as a resistance fighter (or freedom fighter) by Palestinians and their supporters, and as a terrorist by Israel and its supporters." I remember the PLO as the mother of all modern terrorist organizations, in the sense that it was the first "international" terrorist organization that I remember hearing about. One of its affiliate terrorist groups (or a branch) killed the Israeli olympic athletes. Arafat denied any connection with that, and managed to elevate himself to statesman status, even to peace talks at Camp David

I guess if you live long enough . . .

After Osama Bin Laden's telecast last month, my husband offered the theory that Bin Laden hopes to be the next Arafat, that is, the next terrorist to be elevated to statesman. If you remember, Bin Laden credited the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebonon, which was really an attack on the PLO, and the U.S. support of that attack, as the cause of his resentment against the U.S.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Molly Ivins, bless her heart

Take time to read Molly Ivin's latest column, "Mourning in America." She finds the silver lining in the Bush victory--and urges all of us to get our butts in gear to prepare for the next election. And that means the very next election, not just the presidential elections.

The great deceiver: moral values

What happens when you deceive people about moral values?

I've been thinking about the exit poll results showing that people who supported Bush cited "moral values" as their highest concern. About half the country believes that Bush has lied about the Iraq war and about the war on terrorism, and the PIPA results (earlier post) bear that out.

When I ask myself why Kerry wasn't seen as the choice for people citing "moral values," I have to think about the smear campaigns. I've talked to more than one Republican who said that Bush is an asshole, and then blamed the Democrats for not coming up with someone better than Kerry. But Kerry is a moral person, right? Well, at least one of those Republicans cited the Swift Boat smear campaign as a reason not to trust Kerry--he perceived Kerry as a liar. He even said that Kerry committed war atrocities during Vietnam, having confused (I surmise) John Kerry and Bob Kerrey.

Since another problem with campaign differences is that each side insulates itself with others of like minds, including myself, I don't know if such ideas were promoted by the opposition, but I believe they were.

So I'd have to credit "dirty tricks" for the Bush win. He managed to smear the opponent so that people who were insulated from Bush discreditors were left believing that Kerry was the liar and the great deceiver.

The PIPA study discussed cognitive dissonance in the Bush supporters. Now what happens when they realize that Bush lied about the war and about being able to reduce the debt, and about the links between Iraq and 9/11 and al Qaeda, as well as lying about his reasons for going to war?

What happens when the people who voted for Bush realize that our National Guardsmen aren't trained to face opponents who use guerilla warfare? Our regular troops are only slightly better trained to fight guerillas. These soldiers are way over their heads, and it never had to happen this way. Even if you grant that we should have intervened in Iraq, based on Clinton's and McCain's support of the war, there was no hurry and no reason to send unprepared and unarmored troops. No reason except hubris.

How is that going to add to the cognitive dissonance? Will it cause the same kind of social meltdown that occurred in Nixon's second term when proof of his cover up and lies emerged? Our country is still suffering from that loss of faith in the presidency.

If Bush brought out the voters who are looking for a moral leaders, they are in for a shock. I wish them the best in dealing with it.

New marriage laws

My prediction: Any law defining marriage has to deal with duration and permanence (that is, it must address the social problem of serial divorce), or it will ultimately be found to be stealth discrimination. Because, my friends, any rationalization that such laws are written to protect the "sanctity" of marriage ignores the situation as it has been for some time: those horses have already left the barn.

Half of first marriages and two-thirds of subsequent marriages end in divorce, so we need to redefine what it is that the state is licensing. Consider the cultural icon, Elizabeth Taylor, who has been licensed for eight marriages and eight divorces, and tell me, please, what exactly is it that we are we calling "marriage."

If marriage depends upon commitment and duration, It seems to me that sometime after the third divorce, what is really being licensed is "civil union." In fact, if "marriage" indicates for most people a "sanctified union," then it is outside the purview of a government that maintains a separation between church and state. That is, any state within the U.S.is only able to sanction a civil union. A "sanctified" union requires a religious authority.

And if you want to bring religion into it, read what Jesus told his shocked disciples (Matt 19: 3-12):
3 Some Pharisees [i.e., a sect that rigidly followed the letter, but not the spirit, of Jewish law -- the religious right of Jesus' day] came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage [alternately translated as "made themselves eunuchs"] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." [Here Jesus almost certainly means "eunuch" in the figurative sense, i.e., celibate or unmarried--although some unmarried Christians have taken it literally and castrated themselves.]

As the shocked disciples said, "it is better not to marry" than to be held to that kind of commitment. And it is exactly that kind of commitment that these new marriage laws ignore. So they aren't "Christian" corrections of the definition of marriage--unless they also attempt to correct liberalized divorce laws as they apply to heterosexuals. These new laws are meant to limit our system, of serial "marriage" and divorce, to heterosexuals.

This is hypocracy and stealth discrimination by our pharisaic religious right.

Election Results - Historical Review

Time to step back and take a look at how this election looks against the others of the past 70 years or so (roughly a lifetime). Bush won by 3%. Kerry lost because he didn't get enough votes. Beyond that, it's just speculation. As a win, 3% isn't all that great. The landslides of my lifetime were 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater by 23 percentage points, and 1972, when Nixon beat McGovern by 23 percentage points (Roosevelt was before my time). Now that's when the losing side presented an inadequate opponent. Kerry was entirely adequate as a candidate; he just didn't get enough votes. And while I'm at it, the youth vote was terrific--just think what the margin would be without it. And gay marriage--more about that later--is not to blame. Republicans are perceived as more "hawkish" and Democrats as more "dove-ish," and I believe this pulled many wavering Republican votes toward Bush, despite strong disapproval of his fiscal recklessness and his performance as commander-in-chief of the Iraq war.

The following table provides figures from wikipedia.org on election results. As we know all too well, there are many different ways to interpret figures. But aside from the landslides described in the preceding paragraph, the table shows that Bush's 2004 victory was the weakest result for an incumbent in the 72 years shown, and Bush's 2000 victory is the only win with a negative percent of the popular vote. An interesting factor that the table format shows is the influence of a strong third party candidate (I didn't show third-party candidates with less than 3% of the vote).

Note that both Eisenhower and Reagan had double digit wins for both terms. Note that H.W. Bush and both Clinton terms were won by twice the lead that W. claimed over Kerry.

Election year	Percentage of popular vote (winner : loser)	Margin of difference (percentage points)	Candidates (winner / loser)	Third party influence (percentage points)
2004	51 : 48	+ 3	Bush/Kerry
2000	47.9 : 48.3	- 0.4	Bush/Gore	3% Nader
1996	49 : 41	+ 8	Clinton/Dole	8% Perot
1992	43 : 37	+ 6	Clinton/Bush	19% Perot
1988	53 : 46	+ 7	Bush/Dukakis
1984	59 : 41	+ 18	Reagan/Mondale
1980	51 :41	+ 10	Reagan/Carter	7% Anderson
1976	50 : 48	+ 2	Carter/Ford
1972	61 : 38	+ 23	Nixon/McGovern
1968	43.2 : 42.6	+ 0.6	Nixon/Humphrey	13% Wallace
1964	61 : 38	+ 23	Johnson/Goldwater
1960	49.7 : 49.6	+ 0.1	Kennedy/Nixon
1956	57 : 42	+ 15	Eisenhower/Stevenson
1952	55 : 45	+ 10	Eisenhower/Stevenson
1948	48 : 45	+ 3	Truman/Dewey
1944	54 : 46	+ 8	Roosevelt/Dewey
1940	55 : 45	+ 10	Roosevelt/Wilke
1936	61 : 37	+ 24	Roosevelt/Landon
1932	58 : 40	+ 18	Roosevelt/Hoover

Roe v. Wade: the court decision

For a long time now, the term "Roe v. Wade" has been a code phrase expressing a political desire to legislate morality, and the actual court case has receded into the distant reaches of memory--that is, if the people using the term had ever understood the ruling. Now that Bush has won a second term and Justice Rundquist is clearly very ill, the "Roe v. Wade" call to war is causing Republicans to fight amongst themselves.

So, what exactly does Roe v. Wade say about abortion?

In reviewing the history of legal rights of the unborn, the court found, "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." That is, this issue rests on whether the unborn has "personhood" in the whole sense. Most arguments about abortion assume that "personhood" does not require deliberation. Yet, as a society, are we really ready to invest the unborn with full personhood? The consequences of that legality must be fully explored, as it would involve holding the pregnant woman potentially guilty of neglect and child abuse for questions of nutrition and unhealthy practices. This is generally considered a can of worms that our legal system cannot afford to open. If our courts are now bearing the weight of lawsuits against companies for offering fattening food for sale and for offering clearly marked tobacco for sale, just imagine the consequences of holding the vessel responsible for perfect nurturing of the unborn. And not just the vessel, but the father, as well, who would be responsible for financing the perfect nurturing of the unborn. From the practical standpoint, consider how unsuccessful we are at getting father and mothers to perfectly nurture the born, and consider the conflict arising from a definition of "adequate nuture." This is the starting point for the judicial ruling, and it has to be the starting place for any legitimate discussion of abortion.

But back to termination of pregnancy--what does the judgment on Roe v. Wade say about induced abortion? First of all, it does NOT say that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy in any stage of gestation. It defines three stages in pregnancy and holds different rulings on the three stages. The following is exact wording from the U.S. Supreme Court decision:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

That means, essentially, that the court allows abortion pretty much "at will" in the first 12 weeks. After that, the states may pass laws limiting abortion. Furthermore, after "viability" (that is, once the unborn can survive on its own) may outlaw abortion except to preserve the life or health of the mother.

So legislations concerning "late-term" or "partial-birth" abortion do not overturn Roe v. Wade. But because they do not allow for exception when the mother's life or health is genuinely threatened, they are unconstitutional--for reasons unrelated to Roe v. Wade.

What we are arguing about when we take up the political "Roe v. Wade" versus the judicial Roe v. Wade is the first twelve weeks, or the first trimester, of pregnancy, when nature herself spontaneously aborts (by miscarrage) one-quarter to one-half (doctors disagree within these boundaries) of all pregnancies.

In a perfect world, a politician could discuss this issue in a way that would educate the public, but in our world, politicians use the "Roe v. Wade" code to mean something else.

And then there are the Orwellian double-thinkers, who argue that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, except in the cases of rape and incent, when it's okay for the mother to choose to "murder" the unborn--just so long as "they" get to decide when a mother has a right to make a choice. This boils down to a punishment against a woman for having willing sex. This is only "fair and equal" treatment under the law if the woman can hold the chld's father equally responsible--that is, both legally and financially responsibly for raising the child, and that would require much tougher criminalization of child-support enforcement laws.

This is a very emotional issue because it involves the generation of life and the propagation of our species. People have very strong opinions--and that's how it should be. People should decide for themselves whether they believe it is "right" to abort a fetus in the first 12 weeks--and then should follow their own beliefs. That's what "pro-choice" means. It doesn't mean "pro-abortion," which is a phrase used by the other side; it means exactly what it says: the individual needs to make this choice using moral reasoning.

Turning this moral decision into a legality is a problem. The movement of moral decisions into the legal arena has already caused our courts to bog down. Until the embryo is awarded full personhood--and we must consider the implications of such a move--this is a moral issue, not a legal issue.

Legislating a moral issue only results in weaker morals within a society, because a truly moral society does not act morally in order to avoid punishment. A moral society acts in accord with individual morality. We need to stop talking about legislation and, instead, talk about making individual moral decisions and taking individual responsibility for the consequences.

Hey--stop the madness!

I'm very uncomfortable with what I'm reading about the Massachusetts gay marriage issue being the turning point of this election. If this isn't "gay bashing," then what is it? Neither candidate came out for gay marriage, and even Bush eventually (a few days before the election) spoke in favor of civil unions. It's unfair to blame the election results on one issue, especially this one, which isn't really a divider along Republican/Democrat lines.

It's just another brick in the wall.

If I were to point one finger, it would be at Kerry's single-mindedness at the Demo convention. His military service is admirable, but long past, and he was blatantly using it as an oblique attack on Bush's service. But others have tried to use Bush's military service against him, but it has never worked as a good wedge issue before. Too many of us remember those days and have very complicated views. For example, I'm awed by Kerry's volunteering for Vietnam, but I fully support his protesting the war, also. And I support Bush's pulling of strings to avoid Vietnam--and I know that lots of people in high power didn't complete all their Guard commitment. It just doesn't work as a wedge issue.

And Kerry's insistence on featuring the Swift Boat team set the stage for the smear campaign that followed.

Kerry should have run on his *entire* record--it is a strong record of important issues. He has a good Senate record, and he could have done more explaining of the way senators vote--how votes are often about riders and pork, rather than the central issue of the bill.

In fact, why not spend more time explaining issues as a way to combat the knee-jerk slogans?

Back to the gay issue, it would be fairer to point a finger at Kerry and Edwards for bringing Cheney's daughter into the debates, which was also an oblique attack that didn't work well. Not enough people understood that Kerry was attacking the Bush team's hypocracy--they saw him "attacking" Mary Cheney for being gay (after all, people who think it's wrong to be gay are likely to read it that way).

But it was a narrow loss. Three percentage points on the popular vote. The same as Truman/Dewey.

A great quote for today

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

Thomas Jefferson, 1798,
in a letter written after the passage of the Sedition Act.

"The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters"

More on the poll by PIPA on differences between Bush and Kerry supporters--because I think it is key to understanding our differences and preparing for the next few months. I have provided a more complete tabular representation of the poll results at the bottom of this post.

To explain the differences between perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, the PIPA analysis finds, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money. Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information." Pipa concludes with this assessment:

Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. He admits that he was surprised that WMD were not found, but does not say that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were never there and continues to talk about “disarming” Iraq. He asserts that he never said that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but maintains that there were contacts with al Qaeda in a way that implies that they were significant. Most telling, his supporters as well as his opponents overwhelmingly say that they hear him still saying that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda. To remain loyal and bonded to him means to enter into this false reality.

Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there also risks in succeeding in getting elected based on false beliefs. The number of people in the public who see through the illusion will likely continue to grow, eating away at the implied mandate of an election. Further, the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern.

"The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters"
The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, conducted October 21, 2004

Do you agree with this statement?	% Bush supporters agree	% Kerry supporters agree
Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.	55	22
The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.	43	20
Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.	20	8
The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.	13	7
Just before the war, the Bush Administration said that Iraq gave substantial support to or was directly involved in 9/11.	75	74
The Bush Administration is currently saying that the U.S. has found clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al Qaeda.	55	52
The Bush Administration is currently saying that, just before the war, Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program.	82	84
Most experts say that, just before the war, Iraq did have actual WMDs.	56	18
The Duelfer report, commissioned by President Bush, concluded that, just before the war, Iraq had WMDs or a major WMD program.	57	23
The Bush Administration is saying that, just before the war, Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program.	82	84
The U.S. should NOT have gone to war if, prior to the war, U.S. intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing support to al Qaeda.	58	92
The majority of the people in the world oppose the U.S. going to war with Iraq.	31	74
According to recent polls, the majority of the people in the world support Bush’s reelection.	57	1
Most people in the Islamic world favor U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism.	51	21
Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.	69
Bush supports the treaty banning land mines.	72
Bush supports international labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.	74
Bush supports US participation in the Kyoto treaty on global warming.	51

The day after

We lost, fair and square. And while that's small consolation, it's a much better feeling than four years ago. Now we need to prepare for the next election. We need a stronger Democratic candidate, with a clean background and an admirable record.

My main consolation is that George W. Bush will have to deal with the messes he's created. He will have to deal with the problems in Iraq, with the insurgency, with the elections to be held there in January and the possibility of a resulting theocracy. I don't believe John Kerry could have changed Iraq, should he have taken office in late January, so there's some justice in Bush having to rebuild Iraq, as well as having to deal with the results of his disasterous rush to war without adequate troops or protection for our troops and without emminent threat.

I believe it is up to each of us to make sure that the Bush Administration is held accountable for the rush to war, for the poor planning, and for their hubris in under-estimating the Iraqi resistance. Since Bush invaded Iraq, 100,000 Iraqiis are dead and about 10,000 Americans are wounded or dead. And hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives are missing and can be assumed to be in the hands of the insurgents and terrorists.

We have to overcome the misunderstandings that Bush has instilled in half of the people of this country who do not realize what he has done to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to our standing in the eyes of the world.

It is also just for Bush to deal with the enormous budget deficit he has incurred. Again, Kerry couldn't have turned it around in just four years, and a failure to do so would have weakened his chances for a second term. So let Bush take the blame, as it becomes clear that his tax cuts for the wealthy have not spurred the economy or created new jobs. Let him figure out how to fix the economy and social security.

I am less worried about whether Bush will instigate another war--not because he wouldn't want to, but because he doesn't have enough troops for the two wars he is already fighting--and he will not find the support of the American people for another war. What I hope is that we are not forced to defend ourselves while we are spread so thin.

It is up to each of us, personally, to challenge the misleading claims and misinformation that were fed to people who have trusted Bush. If we were shy of speaking out before, we need to speak out now.