Setting an inflexible rule without examining possibly trade-offs in different circumstances is an inherent shortcoming of government. It is truly appalling that the administration first refused Dutch help and then enforced an absurd rule.
McCrystal
There is something a little disturbing about the way some have reacted to the McCrystal replacement. Some of my fellow expats took a positive joy in how quickly and unceremoniously the general was dismissed. They seemed to derive enjoyment from the decisiveness of our president in asserting his prerogatives and batting down the insolent military leakers.
Perhaps this was necessary but it disturbs me how little I have heard about the real question, was McCrystal the best man for the job or not? That seems to be the most important question and the few expats that I have talked took a deliberate pleasure in dismissing that concern as irrelevant. Civilian control of the military is the sacred point.
Even granting that that was the issue, it leaves me uneasy to dismiss the question of generalship so cavalierly. Having the right general could easily mean the difference between victory and defeat in Afghanistan. 10 years from now no one will care if the President's entourage was given its due respect. Some one may care whether girls are able to walk to school without having acid thrown in their face.
It is a particularly striking example of how we use our foreign affairs as resources to play out our domestic political culture wars. Has his oneness been disrespected? That is the question. The nation of Afghanistan? Our soldiers lives? Mere details.
David Brooks has a great column on this. Also, check out the Churchill Centre's take.
More evidence that the real dividing line is between the public and the private sectors. I think these aggregate figures help get past the appearance that the relatively small number of direct federal employees creates of a relatively small public sector. Add in all the subsidized and the sub-contractors and the public sector gets much larger.
McCrystal
There is something a little disturbing about the way some have reacted to the McCrystal replacement. Some of my fellow expats took a positive joy in how quickly and unceremoniously the general was dismissed. They seemed to derive enjoyment from the decisiveness of our president in asserting his prerogatives and batting down the insolent military leakers.
Perhaps this was necessary but it disturbs me how little I have heard about the real question, was McCrystal the best man for the job or not? That seems to be the most important question and the few expats that I have talked took a deliberate pleasure in dismissing that concern as irrelevant. Civilian control of the military is the sacred point.
Even granting that that was the issue, it leaves me uneasy to dismiss the question of generalship so cavalierly. Having the right general could easily mean the difference between victory and defeat in Afghanistan. 10 years from now no one will care if the President's entourage was given its due respect. Some one may care whether girls are able to walk to school without having acid thrown in their face.
It is a particularly striking example of how we use our foreign affairs as resources to play out our domestic political culture wars. Has his oneness been disrespected? That is the question. The nation of Afghanistan? Our soldiers lives? Mere details.
David Brooks has a great column on this. Also, check out the Churchill Centre's take.
More evidence that the real dividing line is between the public and the private sectors. I think these aggregate figures help get past the appearance that the relatively small number of direct federal employees creates of a relatively small public sector. Add in all the subsidized and the sub-contractors and the public sector gets much larger.
No comments:
Post a Comment