Take Your Medicine

A former neighbor I grew up with is a professional golf caddy. He works with a semi-well-known pro on the PGA Tour. This pro he caddies for, like any PGA golfer, is very good at the game. However, the guy has yet to win a major. At least that is true to the best of my knowledge to date. When asked what holds this pro back from clinching a major or sustaining a major winning record, he responded that the guy doesn’t take his medicine.

I am not a golfer. I did grow up with it and many in my family adore the sport. If you haven’t a clue what this medicinal reference means, simply put, if you end up in a bad spot on (or off, rather) the fairway and are left with no direct shot towards the green, you have two choices. Either you take a risky shot relying on your skill to dig your way out of a bad situation, or you take a short shot to improve your approach to the green. The latter is the conservative choice and known as “taking your medicine.” It adds a shot to your score, but insures against further catastrophe.

Many pros will rely on their experience and skill to get them out of trouble. This particular pro is among them and, in the estimation of his colleague, makes the more aggressive, poorer choice that ultimately prevents his ascension into the upper tiers of PGA success.

As a child, my Sunday mornings were for golf with Dad. Now, they are for listening to the Sunday morning talk shows. Yesterday, these made me think of the golf expression in relation to last week’s developments with the war in Iraq. It is obvious there is strong disagreement over how things are going with our nation’s efforts in the region. To my mind, all sides of the issue have kernels of truth to them. General David Petraeus gave testimony this week basically stating that while the United States’ efforts in Iraq area failing to meet the benchmarks set by our government, progress is being made and success is being achieved. Pundits and politicians can haggle exhaustively over the actual definitions of progress, success, and if the goal posts have been moved so as to give the appearance of a rosier picture for political purposes. No matter what your position, few would argue that our position is not good and could better.

Taking your medicine involves changing your perspective on your goal. It forces taking a stroke or a loss towards a better score to do, but if you take it, you’re much less likely to suffer another pitfall and larger losses. This analogy is perfect for our plight in Iraq. No one wants to lose this war. No one wants to say that our military failed. But, we have to ask the question: In order to win the *ahem* War on Terror, should we retreat, regroup and rethink our strategy in how we’ve handled our affairs thus far? It could be just the thing to do our body politic good.

No one is saying that the service men and women of the United States military have not performed well. And those that want to stay surely wish to do so because they wish to see the job to its finish. That is admirable and virtuous and what any nation would hope for in its citizens in uniform. However, it makes no sense to continue on this path if it is not the best, most effective rout to win the larger *ahem* conflict.

Nor do I advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water. We did break Iraq and it is primarily our obligation to fix it. Rather, it is our national penance. We let ourselves be convinced of a situation that never existed and, in the spirit of vengeance struck out against an obvious but incorrect target in Iraq. We need to refocus our efforts. Winning for the sake of winning isn’t enough here. Democracy is laudable but if it isn’t wholly embraced by a citizenry, as is apparent in Iraq, it is wasted blood and treasure. Simply, do what it takes to involve the international community, bolster the areas of the country that are “secure” and conduct our operations exclusively from there. This is too simple and therefore an impossibility, but so is victory and the establishment of a lasting democracy in Iraq.

So, chip out from the rock we are under (Iraq), get a better lie so we can see where we need to go (back to Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan), how far off our goal really is and what it will take to get there instead just hacking away pointlessly (Bush’s efforts), determined to get that one great shot off that will get us where we want to go (a “free and democratic” Iraq) even though we can’t see it.

Must Read

From yesterday's NYT. Courtesy of TPM.

Thinking About War

It has been a while since I posted anything terribly substantive here. This is partially because I have been pre-occupied with other things. Also, chewing on the topics of our time is sort of difficult when there are so many to digest and they change so rapidly. One thing that has been bouncing around in my head of late is something that my father threw out to a discussion we had some weeks ago. The subject was the Draft.

Let it be known and not misconstrued anywhere here forward that this piece does in no way endorse or condone the re-initiation of the Draft. Nor did the Bourgeois Deviant Dad politically or otherwise tacitly endorse it. To quote Juan Cole, “I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence…” Now, with that out of the way, allow me to textually wander here for a while.

I don’t know the history of the Draft, nor do I have a strong connection to a fear of being drafted into military service as a new adult citizen having just tuned 18 years of age back in 1993. The only thing I recall is a strong objection to registering for it and, philosophically acknowledging that being drafted and dying for one’s country was within the realm of possibility, though not likely, despite the fact that I wasn’t allowed to partake of alcohol. The incongruities bugged me and still do.

What came out in the conversation with dear old Bourgeois Deviant Dad is that reinstating the Draft would actually, over the long run, create greater insurances that this country would not go to war unless there was an undeniably just cause. On the surface it does make a degree of rational sense. If you think about it, look who is serving in the U.S. Military. The demographics are leaning toward minorities and lower income class individuals in terms of who is recruited. I am not basing this on hard fact verified anywhere. This is just what I have gleaned from watching and observing. I could be wrong, but I kind of doubt it.

Assuming that you agree with the idea that there is, in fact, a substantial and growing gap between the rich and the poor, you will probably be able to discern where I am going with this. Granted that it is still the case that one person equals one vote in the United States. However, votes aside, interests, for lack of a better term, have sway in the day to day decisions that are made in places of power. Those interests have money. They have a great deal of money and they wish to keep it.

One of the rules of commerce and capitalism is that you have to spend money to make money. So, they make campaign contributions. They donate to the favored charities of those who have power. They do favors, give help in kind to initiatives that are the pet projects of legislators. They fund think tanks that research topics of interest and provide information that lend aid and credence to agendas. It’s a system that is well established and has a smell of corruption. You need look no further than Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay. Also, though it will probably never be proven, that the Vice President of the United States shows favor to the contractor Halliburton is also a bolster to this argument.

I don’t want to go off on that tangent too much. Its not the point that I am trying to make. What is the point is that those people in power and with money don’t look to military careers to make their life better. Neither do their kids. Nor do the parents and/or children of many middle class families either. They want to get a good paying job and get a big house with a yard and live the American dream.

For many poor people, living the American dream means getting a good job with good pay. The United States Military promises that. Not only do they promise that, but they promise training and loan aid for further an education. It’s a good deal. That is, it’s a good deal until politicians make the cavalier and ideologically influenced decision to commit to a war that didn’t need to happen.

The question I am driving at is: Would these politicians and wealthy, influential people be so cavalier about marching off to war if their sons and daughters, those children of privilege and entitlement, had as much chance of being conscripted into a war whose cause was in some shade of doubt? Would people who make campaign contributions and actively participate in the political process by supporting a candidate that was comfortable with drafting their sons and daughters and sending them into harms way for something that was not certain be so supportive? My guess is that they would not.

Again, this piece is not to argue for the Draft. It is to argue for the consideration of the true weight of war. It is to argue for a re-evaluation of the consequences of decisions made. It is to argue for a re-defining of what it is to be a fair and equitable society. Reinstating the Draft would be one (bad) way of achieving that overhaul. However, I don’t think it will take that, nor should it be put back on the table as an option.

“The concept of war is outdated” – H.H. Dalai Lama

Oh, and Mexico is legalizing drugs.