Watching the Pot

President Obama’s announcement this week of a “draw-down” in Afghanistan forces has resulted in a vigorous debate. Too few? Too many? Too soon? Too late? Take your pick...there’s always room for one more.

To call this conflict a war is appropriate, but it is a reflection of what a 21st century war is and is not. This war is not a disagreement with a country and its population. It is a battle with those that owe no allegiance to any particular sovereign state. The enemy wears no uniform and can be found moving about within a given country as well as across neighboring borders or beyond. Unlike most of its predecessors, this war is without boundaries or easily identifiable foes. As such, I do not think it is a war that can be “won”.

Those that we are fighting in Afghanistan, be they Taliban or al Qaida or some other hostile group, are adept at running away so they can live to fight another day. After all, their battle has stretched over eons and a mere ten years for us is but a blip on their timeline. They will shoot and run or perhaps even suspend their fight until the force du jour decides to “draw-down”. Then, when the coast is decidedly clearer, they will re-emerge to continue their quest for dominion.

So how does one “win” such a war? They don’t. The Russians found that out as we are today and precious lives are being risked and lost while we search for a “winning” strategy. Marketing, in other words. Is it so important that the US can declare victory while extricating itself from a hapless situation? Apparently so, at least to those that lead.

We’ve all learned that a watched pot never boils. Drawing a rough parallel, I have no doubt that violence will return to the streets of every Afghan community once US forces vacate them. Are the Afghanis lawless and inherently violent? Probably not, but they are a collection of sects and tribes that do not recognize a central government. Left to their own, historic devices who can be surprised that they will return to what they know? And we simply cannot afford the dollars and personnel to keep a close watch on them.

So let’s agree that, regardless of specific numbers and dates, the sooner is, by far, the better. Chaos will once again reign with only a question of when yet to be decided. And while we draw-down our forces in Afghanistan, how about taking a look at our commitments in other, less volatile countries. Germany, for instance, or Japan or Korea. These are pots that have long since cooled and pose little or threat of boiling over. And modern warfare strategies make the past practice of standing guard on a given line obsolete. It seems to me that our presence provides more economic support than strategic and, if so, let’s bring some more troops back home from less hostile climes.

Einstein opined that insanity is no more than doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Our current involvement in a country that has endured centuries of invasion and conflict is a perfect example. Right or wrong, we ain’t gonna win this thing no matter how distorted the definition. There are those that will speak of strategic advantage or long term stability in support of maintaining a presence. Mere code words, I’d say, for staying a course littered with hidden agendas and lost lives. 

Wave Action

Over the years, some have called me a wave maker. Others have labeled me a trouble maker. And others, still, prefer the term “shit disturber”. Take your pick: they all apply depending on one’s point of view and the specific circumstance surrounding my participation. Let’s be clear, though: I do not go out of my way to find trouble or to make trouble for its own sake. What I do, though, is raise the BS flag when I am in a situation that attempts to exploit unreasonable amounts of patience or understanding on my part. 

I’m fully prepared for undesirable monikers from those that would rather I stand quietly and wait my turn at the whipping post and such a threat does not deter me from attempting to right a negative experience. Hence my question. “What’s wrong with making waves?”

Have you ever visited a pond in mid-summer? The water is a virtual mirror as the surroundings are perfectly reflected in its stillness. A thin sheen (usually green) lies over the entire expanse as various midges and such fly lazily above. The odds of finding a fish or any other viable creature under the surface are small because the water is more or less stagnant. And a sip? Are you kidding me?

Now, compare our pond with the ocean. Churning, foaming, vibrant. Abundant life and, yes, the potential for danger. We can back off a bit, though, to a stream fed lake, for instance. The presence of a current makes for less stagnation and more vitality. And we can confirm the current’s existence by noticing the waves upon the surface.

Just as waves upon the water lead to a greater degree of vibrance, the waves we make as we venture into the daily stream of events contribute to a better environment for everyone. With few exceptions, every opinion expressed in this weekly offering or the chapters in my book urge the reader to become more active in the outcome of various and sundry events. This activity is simply the making of a wave. And, once again, what’s wrong with that?

Well, the keepers of the status quo find something wrong with that because waves create a degree of turbulence and they would just as soon keep everything humming along with nary a ripple. The absence of waves ensures continued job security and the cash flow it provides. Once we start questioning the why’s and how’s no one can predict what fallout may occur. Not coincidentally, these believers of the status quo are generally a good bit farther up the food chain than most worker bees. “Oh, well,” they sigh. “That’s the way it goes, I guess.”

The problem lies in the fact that the worker bees start sighing the same lament and that’s when any hope for progress is extinguished. No questions...no comments...no waves. Not even a ripple. Life goes on, uninterrupted and unimproved.

This leads me to one last question for the week. When’s the last time you made a wave? Any kind will do: a comment or complaint to a manager, a question over a policy that makes no sense, a letter to an elected representative. Pick any day in the last week and try to find one that did not offer at least one opportunity to say something that you felt needed saying. I’d bet that you can’t and good for you if you spoke up. But many do not. I can offer no sensible explanation, but can’t help but think that they prefer the stillness of our stagnant pond than the rougher waters of the lake or ocean. Lazy? I don’t think so. Maybe indifferent or seeing no benefit in speaking up. It doesn’t matter, though, because the silence has nothing but negative implication where the roar represents the possibility of improvement.

Sometimes I wonder why I continue to send my musings into cyberspace for your review. Nothing seems to be changing so why spin my wheels? Some call me a pessimist and I would be hard pressed to argue, but I do remain hopeful. A hopeful pessimist? Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two and I fully intend to discuss the dichotomy in an upcoming piece.

In the meantime, throw a stick out into the middle of that stagnant pond and watch the ripples as they spread and sometimes reach places far from the point of impact. The ripples you make in your daily life can be equally far-reaching. It’s entirely up to you, though, as to whether you toss that stick or let everything lie still and undisturbed. (Go on...throw the stick!)

The Perils of Power

The recent exploits of Anthony Weiner are only the latest in a string of seemingly irrational acts committed by folks seen as powerful in their respective arena. John Edwards and his love child, Arnold Schwarzenegger and his, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the chambermaid, Chris Lee and his shirtless pose for Craigslist: just some of the more recent. One could say that such behavior dates back at least to Richard Nixon and his Watergate albatross, but all have one thing in common: powerful people doing stupid things.

The first phase of this stupidity path is audacity. Many, if not most of us have fantasized about committing some sort of illegal or immoral act. The little voice that keeps us from acting on that impulse is our conscience telling us that we’re screwed when (not if) we get caught. The powerful, though, have come to ignore that voice as they are led further and further into the land of make-believe where anything they do can be made to disappear.

The audacity leads one to act on impulse and, when caught, to the lying that inevitably follows. (Chris Lee the notable exception since he resigned from Congress immediately upon being discovered.) Once again, audacity reigns supreme in creating the belief that the bad news will simply go away simply because of the individual involved.

Sooner or later, the truth comes out in one way or another. The facts pile up as water behind a levee and cracks are soon exposed which allow even more details to come rushing onto the public scene. The powerful have learned that the rest of us demand they take responsibility for their actions. As such, many now claim that they take full responsibility for their actions. Only after their lies have failed, of course, and they seem to believe the claim alone will bring the unpleasantry to an end.

 Responsibility is hollow absent consequence, though, and this is where power starts to trip upon itself. You see, the powerful see consequence as having no place at the head of their table and refuse to entertain its certainty. Nixon’s resignation, Clinton’s impeachment, Arnold’s divorce and DSK’s incarceration are all fine examples of the consequences stemming from the doing and the lying.

Anthony Weiner now refuses to resign from Congress. The point seems moot to me since he will be shunned within those halls and subsequently spurned by the voters. While his acts may not be illegal and many may deem them something short of immoral, his lying as an attempt to avoid responsibility and consequence should be unpardonable. I would hope that honesty and integrity be sacrosanct for any member of Congress.

So long as there are pedestrians within the halls of power, be they political or corporate or social, the perils of audacity, avoidance, responsibility, and consequence will exist. True, over time we become disillusioned with those considered role models and subsequently cynical of those that follow. Perhaps, if we all accept the fact that power doesn’t dispel human failings, we can better accept the bad side when it appears.

As for Weiner? Well, should he decide to resign, I’ve an idea for his future enterprise: the marketplace is apparently in need of professionally photographed poses of penises.  Who wouldn’t want their manhood to be depicted in its best light before sharing it with the cyber-world? He’s got the name and the experience. He could call it DixPix!

Help Wanted...Please!

Immediate Opening:
Presidential Candidate
No Experience Necessary
Must be willing to debate smart black man
Belief in God and Guns a plus
Contact Republican National Committee


It's hard to believe that, with an unemployment rate of 9%, the Republican Party is struggling to find a viable candidate that might challenge Obama next year. On the other hand, when one considers what a candidate is expected to provide, maybe not.

The Tea Party has thrown the party ass over tea kettle (pun intended) as they pull any hopeful to the right. While this may serve them well during the primaries, national elections generally attract more moderate voters who will cross party lines to avoid strident views. This means that the candidates must be near-schizophrenic as they energize "the base" to get the nomination and then the nation by espousing differing views.

California's race for Barbara Boxer's senate seat last year is a case in point: while all polls showed Tom Campbell the only primary candidate able to defeat Boxer, the primary voters looked upon him as too moderate. They chose Carly Fiorina to challenge Boxer and she lost because the overall pool of voters more than likely looked upon her as too far to the right.

And, despite what they purport, the Republican field views Obama as a formidable opponent and anyone with aspirations of a political future is loathe to run and lose for fear of an enduring scar in 2016. Candidates such as Gingrich or Giuliani have little to lose. Pawlenty is so new on the national scene that he, too, could well survive a defeat and live to run another day. Likewise, Sarah Palin could well run as the anti-establishment candidate without harming her brand name.

Regardless, the schism within the party has created the need for one person that can satisfy the expectations of two very different constituencies. So maybe, after all, we should not be surprised that many on the right have decided to sit out the 2012 dance.

In the meantime, the political right remains frustrated as they look for that perfect candidate. It is very possible that, in realizing there is no such animal in this cycle, the Tea Party will promote their own candidate. While this may be philosophically satisfying, the result will be a revisit to 1992 when Ross Perot's name on the ballot split the Republican vote and Clinton won the White House.

Whomever the eventual nominee is, the mantra will remain the same: low taxes, small government, family values. In other words, pay little, expect nothing, and keep your private life private. All three run counter to human nature and examples abound to prove their impotence. Nevertheless, expect a debate over polarizing philosophies rather than real-world ideas and proposed solutions. So maybe the particular candidate's name is secondary and really has no bearing on what happens next.

A true conundrum, to be sure, and only time will tell if a serious contender throws a hat into the ring. Should Obama contribute to some national failure or scandal, the doors open wide for challengers as soon as he is seen as vulnerable. Otherwise, don't expect much from right field. It's not about our nation's future and continued vitality, you know. It's about the future and vitality of one's public service "career".