Time for a change

By Ellen Ratner
Events this week offered columnists a "target rich opportunity" for subjects – what with the elections in Iraq and disclosures of President Bush's secret wiretapping and eavesdropping on American citizens (Gee, why is this liberal not surprised?). But I'm going to forego these current topics in favor of some bigger concerns, ones that actually go beyond the usual Left vs. Right conversation.



The issue is one of political dynasties and the problems they pose to both parties in governing America. I have two dynasties in mind – one already made (the Bushes) and one in the process of being made (the Clintons). Consider this: If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008 and serves a full two terms until 2016, that means that only two families will have controlled the American executive branch for 26 years.

It's not just about the confusion that already circulates around Bush-I and Bush-II (as if we're numbering our presidents the way the English did their kings) or the inevitable jokes that will swirl around a Hillary presidency, such as a "Mr. First Gentleman" or whatever the designation may be for former president Bill Clinton. It really has to do with the republic's dire need for fresh faces and fresh policies.

Consider the number of Americans who believe that Bush-II overthrew Saddam because of Bush-I: He wanted to either finish the job Daddy started, or, get even with Saddam for the attempted assassination of Dad in 1993. I don't know the extent to which either reason played a role in Bush-II's decision to invade Iraq. I do suspect, however, that it played a larger role than it should have.

The republic deserves better than the sacrifice of its citizens for personal vendettas – it also deserves to have a public policy without any reference to personal hang-ups.

This is not simply a "Bush" problem. The Clintons left office with a fair amount of, to put it gently, "unfinished business." There were the little matters of Republican tactics over perjury investigation, Clinton's impeachment, the failed Mideast negotiations, the last-minute pardons, continuing speculation about what Clinton did or didn't do about al-Qaida, North Korea, Iran, and so on. Dollars to donuts, everything that a Hillary administration would do regarding the Middle East, terrorism, pardons, relations with her husband's former Republican adversaries (many still in positions of power), would be prejudiced by suspicions that she was still working on Bill's issues, not the nation's.

And it's not just people whose last names are Bush or Clinton who trouble me. As every student of the American presidency knows, running for office requires the creation of vast numbers of friends, advisers, loyalists, worker bees and contributors. Once elected, this network, resonant of the old "Spoils System," demands payback. Fair enough – one expects to see qualified loyalists fill White House staff and executive positions. Indeed, every newly elected president probably considers his "FOBs" (Friends of Bill or Friends of Bush, take your pick) to be the smartest pack of players since the guys who wrote the Constitution.

But there's a problem – they're never as smart as the guys who wrote the Constitution, and, for dynastic administrations like the Bushes and potentially, the Clintons, they're also likely to be retreads. Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, James Baker, etc., etc., needed no introduction when Bush-II appointed them, campaigned with them or hired them to win the 2000 election. Why? Because they were already known quantities from the Bush-I administration.

Was anyone surprised when Bush-II used this aging set of family loyalists to turn Gulf War-I into Gulf War-II? Don't' get me wrong here – I don't question the sincerity of "Bush's people" (sounds like servants who belong to a plantation), but was it the right set of guys to figure out how to respond to 9-11? And does anyone doubt that a Hillary Clinton presidency will bring in some awfully familiar faces, raising some awfully familiar (bad) memories, and always leaving her suspect to being influenced by "dynastic considerations" (i.e., Bill's input based on his uncompleted agenda)? I think so. And I think the republic deserves better.

When Abraham Lincoln sent his famous 1862 Annual Message to Congress, he included some of his most memorable words. "As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Today, no one fears a rebel army marching on Washington, but we do have concerns about terrorist attacks, Americans with no health insurance, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, and so on.

Our case is surely new, and, given the magnitude of the problems we're confronting, we had better think anew and act anew – and I sometimes think that what we must disenthrall ourselves from in order to save the country are the same old faces and names and the same by now old and tired approaches to things.

This issue will not be addressed by electing as president somebody we've all heard of before. As the politicians love to say, "It's time for a change!"

What kind of bird...hawk or dove?

By Ellen Ratner
This is a difficult column for me to write. I have been a supporter of the Clintons since 1992 when Bill Clinton first showed leadership in the primary debates.

I supported then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Hillary Health." If people had read the thousand-plus pages of the program, they would have realized it was not big government and most Americans would have the benefit of health care today. Despite the Right's vilifying Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village," it contains many of the basic principles they hold dear. And I think Sen. Clinton does a great job for the state of New York. I hope she gets re-elected.



Like many successful politicians, Sen. Clinton's "messaging" is well crafted, and the public often (and rightly) gives their pols great latitude, i.e., looks the other way when they shade, wiggle, maneuver. After over two centuries of casting votes, the American public knows they have to give their elected leaders a wide berth to deal with unexpected contingencies. Indeed, most voters even have a sense of humor about their politicians' foibles. Night after night, the Leno and Letterman monologues are sure to poke fun at leaders of both parties.

There are limits, however, especially when the issues are life and death – like war and peace. Since Bush's invasion of Iraq, the issue of that war has been no laughing matter. Not with over 2,000 brave Americans killed, 15,000 wounded, and untold numbers (at least 30,000 and perhaps thousands more) of Iraqis killed, and an unknown wounded or displaced. No jokes about that on late-night television.

So tell me, gentle reader, what did Sen. Clinton mean when she declared: "It seems to me the best thing to do is heed the wishes of all the leaders of Iraq ... who say they want us to draw down our forces." Then she added, "We don't want to set a fixed timetable if that led to chaos."

It sounds like we're back to political parsing, in which principle takes a back seat to opportunistic nuance, plausible deniability, and telling the world what it wants to hear. It's an echo of John Kerry's memorable statement that, "I voted for the bill [authorizing expenditures for the troops in Iraq] before I voted against it." That much "wiggle room" voters were not willing to give him. Does anyone doubt that if Kerry had simply declared he was against the war, and stuck unequivocally to that position, that he'd be president today?

So let's parse Sen. Clinton's statement. She wants to "heed the wishes" of Iraq's leaders – who, at a conference in Cairo insisted on a U.S. timetable for withdrawal – but doesn't want to set a timetable. So which is it, Sen. Clinton – timetable or no timetable? Those of us who opposed this war from the beginning have no problem continuing to declare our opposition. Even some Democrats, like Rep. John Murtha who originally supported the war, have no problem admitting that they were mistaken, and now oppose the war.

Maybe Sen. Clinton's statement should be rephrased. Try this: "It seems to me the best thing to do is to heed the wishes of all the Blue States, who overwhelmingly want us to draw down our forces. [But] we don't want a fixed timetable if that led to chaos in my Red State poll numbers."

Sen. Clinton has been posing as a hawk when she flies over Red States and a dove when she flies over Blue States. But she's making a huge mistake – like a mediocre general, she's too busy fighting the last war (election) to win the next one. What she doesn't seem to understand is the public is sick of the war and wants leadership, not parsing, to show them a way out. Whether you agree or disagree with him, John Murtha gives leadership on this issue – the only thing Clinton gives is a forked tongue. Meanwhile, men and women continue to die for a Bush's kaleidoscope policy, which seems to change with each nudge of the wheel.

Message to Sen. Clinton: Sometimes it pays to think like a bumper sticker. So either "Just Say No," or even "I Support the War" if it suits you. But remember – the world has changed since President Clinton pondered what the meaning of "is" is. Now, people are dying and you owe it to the rest of us to declare – simply, clearly, unmistakably – whether you think it's worth it or not.

Talk Radio News' Other Correspondent

By Ellen Ratner
I'm going to use my column this week to introduce my readers to a new book written by Richard F. Miller, the military affairs correspondent of Talk Radio News, of which I am the bureau chief. It's called "A Carrier at War: Shock and Awe aboard the USS Kitty Hawk," (Potomac Books, 2005). It's really a diary of the time he spent aboard the USS Kitty Hawk in the weeks leading up to Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Not much ink has been spilled about the Navy's role in that invasion – Miller's book may be the one and only.



But I have another agenda here besides promoting a colleague's book. Many of my readers – indeed, many conservatives – are convinced that the so-called Left, as well as the media in general, is little more than a narrow-thinking band of boobs who spend all of their time editing the news and slanting their stories in order to somehow deprive the American people of "the truth." I happen to know that's false, and I don't have to look any further than my own shop at Talk Radio News.

In terms of his personal politics, Richard Miller is about as conservative as they come. He's a religious man, and it shows throughout "A Carrier at War" as he tries square the looming conflict with his own personal faith. He and I don't agree on much, but despite his biases, the reporting he did for us during the conflict was virtually flawless, insofar as he managed to suppress his own opinions and report what he saw. When I syndicated his reports, both left-wing and right-wing radio stations were delighted with his broadcasts. They were reliable and proved again that somebody can sidestep their prejudices and tell it like they see it.

I sent Miller to Fallujah last March. Unlike some media "tourists" (including a few from talk radio) who visit Iraq from the comfort of the Green Zone (not that it's comfortable there any longer), Richard donned his Kevlar vest and helmet and embedded with the II MEF, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines. He went on both day and night patrols and took the same risks as the men he was covering – that is to say, he risked everything. Not too bad for a 54-year-old father of three with a wife of 29 years.

On his return, he refused to talk about "war stories," and I had to learn from other sources how dangerous his time over there actually was. Instead, all he wanted to talk about was the war – how it was the right thing to do; how mistakes might have been made, but we had to see the mission through; how the situation was far better than (he claims) it's been represented in the press. Since his return, I've done little but argue with him about these issues. Yet this is not a problem at Talk Radio News – intellectual as well as racial, ethnic, and gender diversity is what makes our world go round, despite all the right-wing propaganda about "media bias."

To truly understand "Carrier at War," one needs to see another side of Richard Miller – one that transcends divisive politics. Next to his faith, family and country, his real passion is as a military historian is for Civil War studies. Recently, he wrote one of this year's acclaimed histories of that conflict, "Harvard's Civil War: The History of the Twentieth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry," (UPNE: 2005). (If you think the foregoing is puffery, see Professor James McPherson's review last month in the New York Review of Books.)

"Carrier at War" was actually deeply influenced by the Civil War. Richard Miller has read thousands of soldiers' letters and hundreds of diaries, and he wanted to produce a day-by-day account aboard ship of the run-up to the Iraq war – and his reaction to it – all written before he knows how events will turn out. In a nutshell, he succeeded in replicating the type of Civil War material that serious historians have used to understand how soldiers, journalists, and politicians understood that war, as it developed.

As another reviewer noted, many Iraq War accounts coming out recently have probably been altered based on what we know now. Things that look absurd now – fears about WMDs, Saddam's power to retaliate against U.S. forces, or even the writer's early support for the war – have been changed to suit today's world, not the world that writer claims to be describing. Not so in "Carrier at War" – out of a love for history, Richard kept all his opinions and observations exactly as he wrote them, no matter how erroneous, hopeful or even correct they turned out to be. He gives them dates, and often even a time of day – everything remains as he then wrote it, for the benefit of future historians.

This is the first and will probably be the last right-leaning book you'll ever see favorably mentioned in this space. But I know the author – he is also my cousin – I knew him then, and still know him. Honesty trumps ideology every time.

And besides, he's hopefully (this last is his word) going back to Iraq sometime in 2006 for another embed. Honest and stupid (sorry, Richard) may not make for a long life, but as "Carrier at War" proves, it can make for a heck of a read.

Fire in Iraq

By Ellen Ratner
We claimed that the reason why we invaded Iraq was to separate Saddam from his CBWs (as in Chemical and Biological Weapons) and, quite possibly, nukes. So I'll be blunt: Why are we now using chemical weapons against the Iraqis?



In another public-relations disaster (not to mention potential war crime) for the Bush administration, it was disclosed this week that the U.S. military had used white phosphorus against insurgents in the densely populated city of Fallujah during the 2004 offensives. This could lead to a scandal on the order of Abu Ghraib prison.

According to Reuters, white phosphorus is defined as "a colorless or yellowish translucent wax-like substance that smells a bit like garlic [and which] ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 86 degrees F. Its fire can be difficult to extinguish."

Let me give it to you straight: This was the stuff that the Allies dropped on Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo during World War II, intending to kill civilians. And it worked – hundreds of thousands innocent civilians died in hellacious firestorms created by bombings that have permanently besmirched the otherwise noble Allied efforts during that war. In fact, when white phosphorus comes in contact with human flesh, it is virtually impossible to extinguish until the flesh is consumed in unimaginable agony to the victim.

Unlike other chemical weapons, the use of white phosphorus is permitted, but in highly regulated circumstances. The 1983 Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons bars its use "against military targets within concentrations of civilians." The only time that white phosphorus is permitted is when "military targets within concentrations of civilians are clearly separated from civilians and 'all feasible precautions' are taken to avoid civilian casualties."

Significantly (and sneakily, if you ask me) while the United States is a signatory to the 1983 Convention, it has not ratified Protocol III which contains the restrictions against these kind of incendiary weapons. Conveniently, the Pentagon has simply declared that its use of white phosphorus is permitted out of "military necessity." But don't worry – it pledges that its use will be governed by a sense of "proportionality." Try telling that to Al Jazeera as accounts have emerged from Fallujah about civilians killed and horribly disfigured by our use of white phosphorus. It won't play too well in the Arab world – and this at a time when we need every friend we can get in the Middle East.

Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Fallujah, a city about the size of Miami, had a population of approximately 350,000 people. By the time the U.S. military's assault in November 2004, the population had decreased to some 200,000. Nevertheless, in Fallujah the insurgents insinuated themselves among the civilian population, in effect, tempting American forces to fight amidst the innocents, and in the process, create media-rich opportunities of dead and wounded civilians that would further inflame the Arab masses against the already deeply unpopular Bush administration. By using white phosphorus, we were foolish enough to take the bait, and further deepen the reservoirs of bad will against our country.

The technique involved was nicknamed "Shake and Bake." Explosive rounds containing white phosphorus were fired at insurgent positions – but it is important to note that in Fallujah those positions are actually houses and mosques, both containing large numbers of innocent civilians. Once the smoke and fire generated by the white phosphorus forced out the inhabitants, high explosive artillery rounds were fired into the position, killing anyone who happened to be nearby. That is, anyone whose flesh wasn't already on fire from the white phosphorus. In that case, dying instantly from an artillery round would be something like a mercy killing.

Those readers who think that the foregoing is just more blood from a liberal bleeding heart had better consider some cold and very hard facts. If our efforts in Iraq are failing – and they are – it is certainly in large part because we have utterly failed to win the hearts and minds of the Sunni Arabs whose cooperation is indispensable if a bloody civil war is to be avoided. Events like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the inappropriate use of white phosphorus at Fallujah have mightily contributed to the current mess between the Tigris and Euphrates.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit that Marine casualties might have been greater without the use of white phosphorus. But I'll also insist that if our efforts in Iraq wind up being for naught, then all the deaths and injuries suffered by our brave young Americans will likewise have been in vain, and that too is unforgivable.

Does America bear any responsibility?

By Ellen Ratner
"It would be meaningless to apologize now. But, I do apologize."

– Last words of Perry Smith, just before being executed for the murder of the Clutter family, "In Cold Blood"



Does America bear any responsibility for the hotel bombings in Amman? No, this isn't a political question – although one could make it so. It's a moral question that everyone, right and left, needs to reflect upon.

Like most civilized human beings, the news of this atrocity sickened me. Fifty-seven people dead, many were guests at a wedding. Over 100 were injured, many maimed for life.

New generations of victims, widows, orphans, the disabled – the war in Iraq has to date killed 2,065 U.S. troops, tens of thousands have been injured and maimed. New generations of childless parents, more widows and orphans, more permanently disabled.

One hundred thousand Iraqi civilians dead – hundreds of thousands wounded, maimed. An entire country that will spawn generations of vendetta holders, vengeance seekers, inflamed tribal and religious rivalries – the well of Iraqi society poisoned for as far as the eye can see.

Are al-Qaida and former Baathists to blame? You bet. Can the killer-Saddam skate from his damning responsibility in all of this? Not in this world or the next. And Zaraqawi? There will be a special place in hell for him and his followers.

But what about our responsibility? George Bush's, of course, but also those who voted for him and continue to support him. "Cry havoc and loose the dogs of war!" said William Shakespeare, and George Bush, in all of our names, did precisely that. How easy it was to cry havoc and issue the orders to our brave men and women in uniform – and how satisfying to many Americans who understandably sought revenge for 9-11 and who were somehow comforted in believing that the invasion of Iraq would be as clean and simple as Granada in '83 or Panama in '89.

As I write, the casualties mount and the dogs of war are loose upon the world, snarling on the Internet, killing in market places in East Baghdad, nightclubs in Bali, subways in London, pizzerias in Israel, trains in Madrid, and jungles in the Philippines. We kicked over a hornet's nest in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some foresaw it at the time; Bush did not, and now, despite the president's efforts last week to shame his critics, one still must ask: 'What is Bush's moral responsibility for having globalized the war on terror?

I ask my readers to set aside their ideology and think of the corpses. We and our enemies have been on killing sprees at least since 2001; earlier, if you count (and you should count) the attack on the USS Cole and Khobar Towers; earlier still if you count (and you should count) the '93 attack on the World Trade Center.

If you want to consider politics, then ask yourself this: Was waging a globalized American jihad the only way? From the standpoint of those who are dead and those who will die, would it not have been better, safer, less bloody, to work through international institutions? Should we have listened to the United Nations, despite its flaws, and waited for international consent before invading Iraq? And if that consent never came, for whatever the reason, wouldn't we have been better off to have been forced to consider other, less bloody ways to implement our legitimate need for an effective anti-terrorism policy?

Our mistakes are legion, whether made in good faith or not. We may have started this thing as an innocent party, but we have blood on our hands now. When I think of the dead, I know that it is probably meaningless to apologize for our share of the suffering "loosed by the dogs of war." But the American people need to think long and hard about the moral questions here.

And the best way to apologize is to vote – for a change in congressional control in '06 and the White House in '08.