Giving Thanks Never Goes Out of Style

As I sit here waiting for the turkey to be table - ready, with the smells of apple pie and oyster dressing wafting in the air, I realize how fortunate I truly am. In a few minutes I will join with my greatest blessings, family and friends, to celebrate with food, a warm fire and good conversation. All of these elements of our joyous feast sound so basic, so simple, yet they are so precious. More than this, they are more scarce than we may care to acknowledge.

Barack Obama and family were caught by the media yesterday..... they were caught doing a good deed. A local Catholic church hosted Thanksgiving dinner for Chicago's south side residents, providing a much welcomed meal to many hungry souls. Obama did not invite the press to come cover his participation in this event. To my knowledge, the national media did not pick this story up. Yet there it was, for his constituents to see and admire. The best part is, Obama didn't appear to do it for the admiration; he did it for the sheer joy of helping his fellow man. He was also quoted as saying he did it with his daughters to show them how blessed they are, and how important it is to give back when one has a dime, or some time, to spare.

Before my grandfather passed away he, my grandmother and I had a rotating tradition. Every even year we would go see a blockbuster movie Thanksgiving evening, after dinner had been well savored and digested. Every odd year, however, we would go after Thanksgiving dinner and serve at one of the local Soup Kitchens. As a child I preferred serving at the Soup Kitchen,even though movies were a special interest. I used to look in the eyes of the people as we'd serve the turkey and dressing; there was usually a mixture of despair, gratitude, hopelessness, bewilderment, and spirit. I would always smile and try to touch their hand as I gave them their plate.... I sensed a brief, empathetic interaction would be as nourishing for them as the food. Even at ten, eleven, twelve years old, I instinctively understood the need for human dignity, the need to feel cared about. No condescension, no "charity" handshakes; no, a genuine connection, from one human to another. I also instinctively understood I had to take a different approach with children, even the ones my age, than I did with adults. I would ask them about things I knew they would surely have some knowledge of, to establish a common foundation, then just hang for a bit after they'd been served, and I got a fifteen minute break. Connection to nourish the spirit, food to nourish he body.

As you sit around your table today, feeding your mind, body, and soul, feel good about how blessed you are. Give thanks to whom/whatever you feel has a hand in ensuring your blessings. Look around your table and quietly thank each person who is there, thank them for filling the spaces in your heart. Then, as everyone walks out the door, and you return to your kitchen to scrub down the cabinets, and clear the table, reflect on how many blessings you can count, just for today. The delicious meal, the delightful warmth of companionship. These are the things we hold to in life, the blessings we hold so dear. Then, as you thank whom/whatever you feel has brought these things into your life, think of those who aren't as fortunate. What could you do to share your blessings? No grand gestures required; sometimes, the clasp of a hand is good enough.

Obama's Job Plan

Watch it here

So this is the 'New Deal' of this era.......Not a bad idea. It parallels Roosevelt's plan, but obviously has modern tweaks to it.

It worked once, it can....and hopefully will.....work again.

I hope workforce education and training for 21st century jobs is cornerstone of the plan. We need people who can design and manufacture microchips and infotech, not know how to run a machine in a sock manufacturing plant.

A Quick Observation

I was sitting in church today wondering how many people actually believed. This is something that has plagued me over the years....when I was Catholic, agnostic, now presumably Episcopalian.....Do people TRULY believe? Or do they go every Sunday out of habit?

The great Richard Dawkins opened my eyes to the world of evolutionary biology, the selfish gene, and memetic theory. Was God truly a delusion? Who knows? I thought that for awhile, but now it seems like the empty void just keeps getting "emptier"....

There's got to be some middle ground for us who are not truly sold on the idea of virgin birth, resurrection, etc. I'm not saying I am an atheist or anything, just a 'questioner'. Atheism is fine for those who prescribe to it. So is Islam. So is Hinduism. So is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care what faith (or lack there of) anyone holds on to as long as they don't hurt anyone or forcefully convert people.

But anyway, back to my observation. I was literally staring at people today trying to figure out why they were sitting in the pews. I'm sure most were there for the right reasons. Maybe 'right' is not the right word to use. Maybe I'm being confusing, but religion is inherently confusing. Right?

So why are these people coming every week? Why am I? My story is a tad different than most, but I guess we all have the same motives down deep. We're just trying to figure it all out.....

Right? Maybe not?

Finally! Ready, Aim, Fire!

By all appearances, the American people did a very smart thing on November 4. We finally elected someone who is disciplined, yet adaptable; firm, yet not rigid. Team Obama is demonstrating very good judgment as it prepares to transition into the White House. All appearances indicate we have a president-elect who recognizes the balance between transparency and folly.

At the moment Obama is in a unique position; his every move is scrutinized for clues as to how he will govern, yet he is not quite in a position of governance. Obama clearly sees his station in this temporary no-man's land. He is, wisely, keeping all major decisions close to the vest, even as juicy, titillating bits are "leaked" to keep the media feeding frenzy well oiled. Hillary as Secretary of State? This story has sufficed as fodder for the weekend, giving Team Obama more time to fill in more gaps, without the hot lights of the camera squarely on them. Obama is also taking cues from the Lincoln playbook; Hillary has the chops to fulfill this role, she is a power player in the party, and keeping her so near, yet so far is good strategy. Obama is obviously a man who doesn't take it personally, a crucial characteristic in governance. This one example summarizes the apparent Obama strategy : Team of Rivals, distracting red meat (with reality based substance), tight restrictions of information not ready for prime time (in terms of comprehensive strategy.) If Obama can maintain this operation, he has great prospects for swimming with the sharks.

What does this all mean for the American people? It seems we now have a leader who is the ultimate pragmatist; where Bush has been an antagonistic, secretive despot, Obama

appears to be a practical realist. He wants transparency, but only after the entire map is drawn. He wants to govern for the People, but he is asking the People to give him some latitude to chart the waters before he puts his oars in the water. He is a man of vision, but many times vision can be deceptive; in order to get a completely clear picture, one needs time to bring it all into focus. Obama seems to understand this principle. He is patient, and he will, most likely, ask the American People to marshall all the patience they can muster. Conditions dictate this is going to be a bit protracted; no magic bullets will rescue us, but disciplined, consistent leadership, with a foundation of respect for the "bottom up" nature of some of the problems we face, these components will eventually return some light to a very dark situation. Again, Obama appears to understand the chess element. We have to make deliberate moves, our values in tact, our optimism balanced, our perseverance undeterred. Most importantly, we must commit to remaining undistracted.

Obama seems determined to actually "stay the course." He is not in a sprint; all actions on his part point to him being fully aware of these conditions. Obama appears committed to a ready, aim, fire approach, with full disclosure after the first shot goes across the bay..... but not before. This is the measure of a focused, disciplined leader, our best hope in a time of great uncertainty.

Spaghetti Against the Wall

Okay, everyone, what is up with our economy? I mean, really, what is truly up? Hank Paulson came out six weeks ago telling us we HAD to get on board with a Congressional bail-out for the financial systems, otherwise liquidity would freeze, leaving small businesses and ever-beleaguered home owners out in the cold. Now, Paulson comes out and tells us " Meh, my bad. We're not buying 'bad assets' (read : troubled mortgages) with the bail-out money after all. We've decided we are going to do something entirely different." Mr. Paulson defended his position late last week by asserting "changing facts" led him to revise his original plan. The sudden burst of adaptability from this administration is welcomed; however, it's a day late, a dollar short, and, frankly, with this cause, seemingly a political two-step swagger.

We now see the auto industry in dire trouble, a predictable turn of events, given the American auto downward spiral we've plainly seen over the last two decades. Some argue that GM should be allowed to fail, they have a poor business model, and that's the way things go in a Capitalist society. There is some validity in this theory. GM has refused to adapt, much as our government has refused to adapt, leaving it vulnerable to implosion, much as the G.O.P. name brand imploded after years of leaders plushly sleeping at the wheel. Should we reward faulty practices through a commitment of more tax dollars, particularly after we've seen a clear abuse of that trust with a recent ploy into our pockets? The answer is mixed, at best. We know we can't trust the current government to implement a plan as proposed; the excuses for revision abound, but the bottom line is this: the recent Bail-out, under Paulson's present direction, is not going to assist the average American. So, we are now told that we are in a fight for our lives, we either commit to helping out the Big Three American auto companies or face dramatic consequences.

I ache for the poor workers and their families, the ones who truly will suffer if GM ultimately goes down. It's not fair, it's not just, it's a complete betrayal of the loyalty they have shown " the company" for so many years. Yet, I can't bring myself to support a measure that would sink more tax payer dollars into an endeavor that fails to under gird the greater good. What is the national benefit if we agree to another bail-out? We know we can't trust the current stewards, we hope and pray we can trust the new guard. Can GM file for protection under bankruptcy, sparing the poor worker, saving the company, while also preventing the country from assuming another debt? If so, why are we having this discussion, with terms set forth to further sink the American economy?

We, the People, need to become better informed on large scale economic issues, as they increasingly affect us all to the same degree. We are no longer in a position to view "politics as local", as former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously once said. Politics are local, but they are also national, and international. The well being of our families, communities, and beyond are at stake; we no longer have the luxury of thinking local. GM's bottom line has become inextricably connected with the government's bottom line, which, we have seen, has become irremovable from our kitchen tables. The time has come where we each, optimally, have an educated answer to the question " Hey, so what's up with the economy?" Throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping a strand will stick, is no longer an option.

Meltdown Indeed

As President Bush prepares to "govern" for the duration of his term, legacy concerns seemingly abound. The president is rushing around sucking air out of all kinds of venues; today, he is offering his economic thoughts at The Manhattan Institute. Never one to waste an opportunity, Bush is currently pushing his latest trade agreement, insisting the only way out of our present financial debacle is dependent on forging yet another questionable trade agreement, a measure completely unrelated to the housing and credit crisis. Meltdown indeed.

The meltdown consists of a logical leap we all see takes us off a cliff.... Bush is a master at the Republican tactic of staying on message, delivering said message in a way which confuses the listener into agreement, leaving one without knowing why one lends support. Bush began his speech detailing the economic woes we currently face, seizing particularly on the housing crisis, expressing his shock and dismay over the situation we find ourselves in. He deftly transitioned into why this crisis wasn't due to deregulation, and, further, why government intervention was NOT necessarily the answer! Considering he and his appointed Treasury Secretary authored the largest government bail-out in American history, this rings a bit hollow.

Government has turned a blind eye to corporate greed and excess; this fact, nobody can deny. Yet Bush is trying to run around, shore up his "legacy", and convince the American people that his administration's policy of coddling corporate interests, with the typical neo-con disdain for regulation of any sort, is GOOD for the country, good for the economy in general. I'm not sure about you, but this makes me mad as Hell. After the American people soundly rejected this top heavy style of governance, Bush has the audacity to rub it in our faces that regardless of what conditions on the ground tell us, regardless of what we see in our gas bills, our mortgages, our grocery bills, our friend's faces as they lose their jobs, our grandparent's despair as they choose between groceries and prescription medicine, our sadness as we see our neighbors face foreclosure..... he has the temerity to run around and tell us that despite all this evidence to the contrary, we aren't seeing things correctly. He, obviously, is STILL RIGHT! Can't we see that?

No, actually, Mr.President, we can't. We don't see things your way.... at all. We demonstrated this a week and a half ago at the polls..... we demonstrated this two years ago during the Mid-term elections. The "thumpin" you alluded to? The woodshed Mr. McCain has spoken about since the 2008 election? Those are the new reality for the G.O.P. if the party refuses to change course. The president does his party no favors by adamantly defending policies which clearly have this country in ruin.

I like gracious W. much better. W. on the defense, telling us to suspend our disbelief and buy into his version of the miserable new reality, is more of a pill than most of us can swallow. We spit it right back at him a week and a half ago; please, in service to your country Mr. President, quit trying to force-feed this bitter, deceitful pill most of us are unwilling to stomach.

Anti-Intelluctualism and the G.O.P.

Check out this story about the G.O.P.'s disaster last week. The narrative is from a right-wing perspective. The author is a good friend of mine and someone who is neither hyper-partisan nor biased.

Buyer Beware: "Trending" Tells Little of the Story

For those of us who look to "trends" to explain why a particular region voted a certain way in a given election, we may need to reassess our data. A thorough review of past performance, across the states, in the arena of the Electoral College, reveals a few surprises.

For a prime example, look no further than California. It is always taken for granted that Californians will solidly support most Democrats in the majority of elecions, yet "trend data" backs this claim only to a certain extent. Democrats have enjoyed a favorable climate for the past five elections; however, prior to 1992, the previous five elections in California had gone RED. Ronald Reagan was an extremely charismatic, communicative public figure..... a transformational figure, bearing the cult of personality in a similar fashion to Barack Obama, with critics and supporters alike agreeing each man has an "it" quality we rarely see in American politics. Ronald Reagan was a native son of.... CALIFORNIA. California's "red" period can most likely be attributed to this one figure, a symbol, in the mind of many Californians, of the best government possible. Incidentally, most Americans agreed with them, although history has offered a more balanced portrayal of the Reagan years.

Illinois, Barack Obama's home state, is another illustration. Illinois has traditionally been..... RED! The Land of Lincoln, Illinois is now considered an automatic credit in the Democrat column, but it has only become this way in recent times. Illinois was consistently red until 1992, when Governor Bill Clinton brought a "New Democrat" approach to the table, governing more from the center than either polar opposite. Illinois voters liked this new centrist model, and have supported Democrats ever since. So, as we see, another transformational figure literally transformed the political performance of a state.

Vermont is another theoretical liberal bastion; people always assume Vermont will go for the Dems. However..... until 1992, just not true! Vermont citizens had voted red all across the spectrum until the Democratic party demonstrated it could speak to all views, not just the liberal elite.

Conversely, Louisiana is generally lumped in with the "deep south"; this is for some good reasons. However, politically, Louisiana is always a toss-up, or, at least, this used to be true. Louisiana has voted for the winner in every election dating back to 1972, and as we know, there have been both Democratic and Republican victories during this time period. Now, it could logically be argued that Louisiana does, indeed, currently trend Republican. All elections from the past ten years, minus the victory for Kathleen Blanco (D), as governor from 2003-2007, have gone in the Red Column. Still, it is worth noting that Louisiana has not been a "gimme" for any party; until 2008, Louisiana voted for the winner, both Democrat and Republican. Yet, all trends are meant to be broken, and Louisiana ended its winning streak this cycle, supporting John McCain.

The moral of this column is : Don't automatically assume one region of the country is forever branded as "this" or "that." Many factors change these scenarios, including, but not limited to, population shifts, current conditions (foreign and domestic), and, most tellingly, the personality of the candidates. We like to think personal qualities matter little in our selection of a leader, we fancy ourselves as consumers of ideas. We are, for the most part, but we can't deny the appeal of transformational figures; they have flipped the map several times in contemporary history.

We are all Americans.... with a right to change our minds.

The Cabinet and Staff

President-elect, Barack Obama, has chosen Rahm Emanuel for his chief of staff. Emanuel is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and can include in his resume as the mastermind of the Democratic Congressional takeover 2 years ago.

Widely considered to be a very intelligent and astute individual who 'works well with others' brings with him experience as he served as policy adviser to President Clinton in the 90's.

Rahm Emanuel is the first pick (and a fantastic one at that) of what I hope to be (and what I predict will be) a broad coalition of both sides of the aisle who are legit and competent individuals.

President-elect Obama will have a serious of very important and highly divisive choices to make within the first 3 months of his administration...including taxes, the war, and of course, the 500-pound elephant in the room, the economy. He is wise to surround himself with the people who will not only question him and test him, but also give him sound advice for the good of the nation, not just politically-charged opinions....ala Karl Rove.

Si Se Puede!

Last night was a joyous occasion. I feared the morning after, lest it was all a dream. But as I walked down the hallways of the human rights organization in which I work, I was greeted with smiles, hugs, and chirping birds. OK, maybe not chirping birds, but it was surreal, nonetheless.

Do I think Obama’s president-elect status means that the world is going to change overnight? Not so much. An institution is an institution, and there is a long, arduous road to be paved to make any real improvements. But the symbolism of that single moment – eleven o’clock on a gorgeous, autumnal Massachusetts evening – pierced the bedrock of U.S. Anglophilia. I sobbed as I gazed at the expressions of hope and wonder on the faces of the rallying faction as victory was revealed on giant video screens. Faces that said my child can do anything she wants to do. I can be anything I want to be. For the first time in eight years, I was truly proud to be a U.S. citizen.

In the afterglow of an exquisite evening, I approached my career with a new, unassailable optimism that I had lost in the past several years. Of course I still fought for the preservation of human rights and social justice. But this morning, this fight seemed somehow more… possible! Si se puede!

As I sat down at my computer, my faith in the U.S. people renewed, I saw something that reminded me that despite the progress we have made as a nation, we still have a long trek ahead of us. Californians voted to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 was sponsored and backed by assorted religious groups, while opposed by secular parties. The familiar stomach-flip that I associate with the church-state overlaps of the Bush Administration began to creep back. Not today. Not when we’ve come so far.

As I type this, gay-rights advocates are steadfastly working to protect gay rights as human rights. On November 3rd, I would have sighed and longed for a different world. But today? Today we have a different world, and I embrace the fight. Because it is possible. And yes we can!

We Can All Claim Victory

I cried yesterday when I learned Barack Obama's grandmother, whom contributed a large portion of her life and resources to rearing him, passed away. The fact this happened one day before the election seemed particularly cruel. I know what this pain must feel like; the only family I have is my beloved 91 year old grand"mother", someone who reared me, a lady whom I love more than I can describe. As I achieve things in life, I thank God for giving me the gift of my grandmother, the influence she's had on me, and the blessing of her remaining with me. I am acutely aware of time these days; each milestone I can share with her bears extra meaning, just because she's here to see it. I wept for Barack Obama, on the eve of the most important day in his life.

The angels shined on him tonight..... I personally believe one very special spirit is watching as a sincere, optimistic, dynamic, charismatic, intelligent new leader will take this country toward the hope of better days ahead. After all the slogans and speeches we've heard through this campaign, we finally have reached a new direction, a new dream , a new leader . Barack Obama's grandmother began a new chapter yesterday; Obama himself started a new chapter tonight. We, as a nation, truly begin a new chapter, finding ourselves seeking something better, as a people and as a nation. We are ALL Americans...... we must return to the humility and ingenuity of our nation's promise. We see the success of one man from Illinois, a skinny kid with a funny name, whom used these virtues to prove "Yes, we can."

Once Again Scapegoating Immigrants: An Assault on Hope

The issue of immigration has once again crept onto the political scene, sadly reminiscent of the 2006 demonization of immigrants. This time, however, the immigrant in question is not one of the millions of undocumented Mexicans living on U.S. soil; rather it is the aunt of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Zeituni Onyango does not deserve to be in the “rat-in-the-hole” position that Saddam served circa the last presidential elections. The media threw a bone the U.S. in 2003 and, voila, Bush got another four years in office. Luckily, twelve years in the White House is not a possibility, but a McCain Administration is, and the person – or people – who leaked the information about Ms. Onyango’s immigration status is obviously jonesing for a McCain-Palin White House.

While the leak itself was deplorable, it was also a reminder of the unwillingness of either candidate to address immigration, despite the atmosphere of terror in which immigrants in the U.S. are forced to live. In 2006 the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency began intensifying its efforts to deal with the undocumented population by conducting a series of large-scale, nationwide workplace raids. ICE’s tactic in dealing with immigration is meant less for its effectiveness than for its dog and pony display to impress the conservative population. Additionally, the raids have served a political purpose: to pressure Congress to pass exploitative temporary guest worker legislation.

The problem? While senators and representatives spend time disagreeing on the language of bills, the human rights of immigrants are being violated. U.S. domestic policy is incompatible with its foreign policies with regard to immigration. If NAFTA destroys the agricultural industry in Mexico and unemployment rises as a result, it is unfair to punish individuals who are escaping economic hardship.

Ms. Onyango represents a subset of the immigrant population, but one that is subject to the same tyrannical policies of ICE. Tens of thousands of individuals enter the U.S. each year in search of asylum. That is, they are fleeing persecution they face for their sex, race, nationality, and/or political beliefs (among others). The denial of asylum has serious and lasting implications for individuals exposed to this Kafkaesque immigration process, the most serious of which is death.

ICE’s raids affect undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and their families. In some instances, U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens have been swept up in raids, sometimes detained for days, weeks, months. In Postville, Iowa, the more than 300 individuals arrested in the raids were held at the National Cattle Congress, a glorified fairgrounds facility. Anecdotes from those who have survived these raids include ICE officials’ mistreatment of women and minors:

“The truth is, they did treat us badly...because some of the women who had young children, who breastfed, I saw because I was near them, they even made them take the milk from their breasts to see if it was true that they had young children. They had almost all of them take milk from their breasts. They even made fun of them. They said - one of them told another to pass an oreo cookie to eat with milk, that they were milking the cows. We were in the next room listening, and the women were crying” (Witness to 2007 New Bedford, MA raids, interviewed in Detained).

Whether or not one believes in amnesty, these raids are an attack on civilization, and violate the most intrinsic, inalienable rights of individuals (the right to family, to health, to amnesty, etc) that were outlined by multiple countries – including the United States – in 1948. Obaman and Biden have stated that the raids are ineffective, while McCain has made no direct reference (and, in fact, has avoided direct questions) pertaining to the inhumane nature of acts that separate families.

The U.S. is sadly behind the curve when it comes to human rights, many believing that human rights are for people who live in other countries or, more disappointingly, that they are just UN propaganda. However, the next president has the opportunity to address yet another ugly blip in U.S. history. Perhaps the first step in respecting human rights is to respect the less fortunate who dwell among us.

"Thanks for the Memories" Appropriate Theme Song on Election Eve

Bob Hope could never have envisioned the fitting nature of his theme song for future political campaigns. With media access at a fever pitch, more and more citizens have outlets to follow campaigns, creating a collective experience for a whole nation. Indeed, we all can give thanks for the memories.

Some 2008 campaign buzz words/figures/phrases for your consideration: change, historic, Joe the Plumber and his cousin, Joe Six Pack, Hockey Mom, energy independence, mortgage crisis, Wall Street, Main Street, bail-out, SNL, Katie Couric, Troopergate,maverick, health care, "Drill, baby, drill.", rogue, Tina Fey, John McSame, middle class, "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling", Pennsylvania (which has become the new Ohio, which once became the new Florida), senate majority, apparantly, as a late dark horse entry, "Mine, baby, mine.", and, finally, pivotal.

Each of these words/terms/ figures carries one of two connotations; substanitive policy issues and/or pop culture lexicon. In a rather sad commentary, the two have, unfortunately, become hard to distinguish. However, this political season has delivered a little more substance, with a bit less style, than elections in the recent past. Yet, as a nation, we share these experiences with a collective conscience, forming a part of our history, much as many elements of this campaign have addressed historic milestones in our great experiment. We have the first viable African-American candidate for president, the second ever female candidate for vice president, and, lest we forget an important "ism", the oldest man to date to run for president. Another lady some may remember came awfully close to clinching her party's nomination. Yes, thanks for the memories.

Election 2008 is almost in the rear view mirror. However, we do have one more day of civic duty looming on the horizon.... I implore each of you who is reading this, please, if you haven't done so already, go vote! One might note the first word in my list is change; the last word is pivotal. The choosing of this sequence is no accident.

Why we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden: Words from a Solider, Student, and Scholar

The following essay was written by Damian Riccitelli, a veteran of the War on Terror. He is currently a student at Temple University and is a guest author on the Rovito Review.

"It’s been roughly seven years since 9/11, so where is he? Why don’t we have him? The short answer may come from a former CIA agent who spoke with National Public Radio. He believes Bin Laden is dead. He asks why there are no recent propaganda tapes. Not to mention, never in CIA history has someone completely slipped off the radar this long. This is to say that any human being is going to be subject to at least one mistake or something overseen operationally that would hint being alive. His interview can be heard at this web address http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396

It is my understanding that Pakistan is our “ally” in our war on terror. By definition, they are certainly a friendly nation to us and provide us with at least some sort of cooperation and assistance. But is this enough? When I asked my father why the world wasn’t taking military action in Sudan in response to the genocide, he suggested that Pakistan and China get their oil from Sudan and both of them are nuclear countries. He was hinting that we wouldn’t want to make waves with nuclear countries, I suppose. So the same thought applies to the Bin Laden in Pakistan question. We don’t want to make any waves with a country that carries a really big stick?

As for the war on terror, I remember having a friendly debate with CBS “60 minutes” reporter Laura Logan at a coffee shop on a base in Afghanistan as to what exactly the war on terror really is. She said “How can President Bush declare war on an ideal”? Because it’s not the war on “Al Qaeda” or the war on the “Taliban,” at least that not what they say. They say the “war on terror.” But that’s a whole different discussion. Here I want to shed light on why we haven’t been successful in capturing Osama Bin Laden.

After 9/11 the U.S. military had an immediate presence in Afghanistan. A Delta Force commander has just written a book called “Kill Bin Laden”; he cites that he believes he and his unit had Bin Laden on the battlefield in that infamous Tora Bora region battle. He also describes how hard it was to carry out the mission when relying on strict orders from the Pentagon to give most of the operational power to local national fighters. He also says leaders at the Pentagon for reasons unknown, denied his plan to attack Bin Laden from behind over the mountains. The local national fighters quit and went home. The Delta Force commander was only left with an option for a frontal assault on Bin Laden with only about 50 of his own men. He decided to not advance in concern for being extremely outnumbered. Anyone should be able to understand that this was the right thing to do. However, the decision still haunts him. The report can be seen here at this web address http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56e_1223312875

After that initial encounter with Bin Laden, we direct our attention to Pakistan. After all, it’s the safest place for Bin Laden. Think about it, if you had the most powerful country in the world chasing you, where would you go? That’s right, the one place they’re not allowed to go! So the U.S. has a friendly relationship with Pakistan and tries its best to work with their army. But Pakistan is a deep rabbit hole with much to consider. For example, Pakistan’s version of our CIA is called the ISI. It is rumored that the ISI is corrupt and tried to assassinate the President and military dictator General Pervez Musharraf several times. So is Al-Qaeda in everything over there? How can we effectively work with the Pakistani Army if we can’t trust them?

When I was in that area about four years ago, I believe we had about a two-mile limit into Pakistan during operations. Anything past those two miles is forbidden. The demographics for that area consist of tribes, refugees, and Taliban, and Al Qaeda. But, no matter what you believe, I can tell you that no American can waltz into that area without being shot on sight or blown up. The Taliban are everywhere and Al Qaeda too. After 9/11 we smacked the beehive with a baseball bat spreading them out. But I know if I were Bin Laden, I would feel real safe in Pakistan. I also believe the strategy of the U.S. doesn’t include anything that could mirror a “Black Hawk Down” scenario. Surgical strikes like these are extremely risky. Someone suggested to me once that, “Instead of sending10 Blackhawks, why not send 100”? The point they’re trying to make is that we should somehow be granted to step into Pakistan full force. This might have been a possibility had we not gone into Iraq, but even then, the Pakistani government may not be to happy with thousands of troops in their country, and this is where the problem lies. Do we push diplomacy to try and achieve our goals of capturing high value targets such as Bin Laden? Or do we get rougher and demand more access? I say, if you can get undeniable intelligence, you can make a case to the Pakistani government and if their good on their word to help, it should work. But, solid intelligence information is the key. Commanders have said it millions of times around me, “Intelligence drives operations, not the other way around.”

One must also consider Bin Laden’s personal security structure. It was explained to me like this: Imagine you are Bin Laden right now where you are sitting. You would have 10 of your best guards armed to the hilt around your immediate area. Then you would have 20 more guys circling that area. Then, 50 more guys circling that circle, and so on. The idea is that as soon as someone penetrates one of those circles, the information of your presence gets relayed to the center, and just like that, the whole circle begins to move. An aggressor would probably encounter heavy fire while that circle is moving as well, just a thought. I also thought to myself one day in Afghanistan, maybe Bin Laden is worth more as a free man. What if they knew where he was and we’re listening to everything he said. If we monitored that, we would learn everything about Al Qaeda because a lot would come from him. If we killed him, we would lose that pipeline of information...again, just a thought.

So, of the times that we have gotten close, I take a step back and take everything into consideration. In Southwest Asia, there are plenty of places to hide forever if you keep quiet enough; especially if you’re trained by the very organization out to get you. Terrain is grossly underestimated when considering success in the war on terror. I don’t believe at this time we should aggressively enter Pakistan. I believe we need more of our assets there to collect sufficient intelligence so that would be our ticket in. This can be done with our Pakistani ally. So long as we have the intelligence information we need, accompanied by the military assets we need and Pakistan’s help, the capture or kill of Osama Bin Laden is possible. If we don’t receive Pakistan’s help when we have good intelligence, then we might want to radically rethink our relationship with them, because then they just might be accused of “hiding something.” (Wink, wink)

The 60 minutes special that Laura did on our units can be seen here at this web address http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9eebb4f06c."

Ironic Deja Vu : Bush Team Repeats McCain Defeat

In 2000 most Americans were enjoying prosperous, peaceful times. The country's morale was definitely trending in a positive direction, with no imminent threats to our comfortable lifestyles. It seems, in times like these, Americans develop an appetite for red meat.

In the midst of this success people failed to pay attention to substantive issues; people were too complacent to fathom danger and difficulty. This backdrop provided a perfect opportunity for George Bush to step in and create a career based on fear and smear. Americans were open to embracing the smear in 2000, and, to a greater degree, the fear, in 2004.

John McCain was one of the Bush Team's casualties in 2000; below the belt political tricks sunk McCain's campaign, beginning in South Carolina, with the despicable "illegitimate black baby" accusation. Bush's tactical thugs knew exactly where their target was in each region of the country. They were perceptive and masterful, considering the times, at the game of politics. They were also unethical and immoral, but even these traits were portrayed as "direct" and "unafraid to challenge the status quo." More than half of America bought it, hook, line and, as we've unfortunately discovered, the ultimate sinker.

2008 is a much different landscape. The playbook authored by Karl Rove no longer resonates with most Americans. Yet McCain, in a stunning display of poor judgment, has chosen to use the very group of operatives who destroyed him in 2000 as the ground troops for his campaign. This failure to understand the times we live in does not bode well for McCain's leadership qualifications. We are once again confronted with an inevitable truth: McCain lacks the critical thinking skills to navigate these challenging times.

In opting to work with the Bush operatives McCain has demonstrated a complete void of political instinct. This decision illustrates how far removed McCain's thought process is from present day conditions on the ground. The unconscionable methods which worked in 2000 and 2004 no longer persuade voters; times are simply too tough. The current financial crisis may eventually yield one positive result; Americans may have been thrown overboard often enough where they comprehend the real possibility of the whole country drowning.

It's these conditions that render "going negative" a dead-end strategy. People are paying attention this time, there's too much at stake to avoid civic duty. When people are alert, distraction techniques are far less effective. John McCain has committed several lethal missteps in his campaign, but this miscalculation may be the most deadly of them all. In choosing to align with the group who once demolished his political efforts McCain has, arguably, allowed them to defeat him a second time.