George Will: Rubio Will Beat Crist
GMAC “Needs” More Taxpayer Help
American taxpayers, who have already bailed out GMAC (a consumer finance company partially owned by General Motors) twice, may be hocking over more money very soon. The company is in talks with the government to get the money without letting the government have too much control of the company. According to The Wall Street Journal, at least $2.8 billion is likely to be injected. GMAC is formerly the financial holdings arm of General Motors, and is currently a bank holding company.
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I’m all for government not having control of much. However, this stance by GMAC is going too far. If they wants another bailout, the executives will have to eat some humble pie and stop pretending they have a leg to stand on with negotiations. Despite what Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow said last year, the $25 billion that slipped under the radar during the TARP debate wasn’t small, nor was the bailout GMAC received last December from the Bush adminstration. GMAC should have two choices: government control or bankruptcy.
I say this for two reasons; first, the board members and executive leaders of the company would be in serious danger of losing their jobs if the government took over. Thus, they would be hesitant to let the government step in. Additionally, since the government has (hopefully) learned its lesson about specifying payments in contracts with companies being bailed out, after the AIG bonus debacle this past spring, their pay cuts and bonus cuts would be absolutely substantial IF they were allowed to stay on. As George Will said in a speech I saw last year, executives should sign a contract stating they make no more money than the President of The United States during the time they are using American taxpayer money.
The second reason only two choices should be offered is that if the executives and board members cannot push their egos down enough to accept full government takeover and readjustment, bankruptcy would allow specialization of resources to kick in. At that point, Toyota, Honda, Ford and the other auto companies (and their respective loan organizations) that have actually done a market-satisfactory job of making vehicles would immediately receive the market share opened by a GMAC bankruptcy, given the influence the company has on the automobile industry. This would decrease the amount of resources- including taxpayer money- used to make cars in this country substantially, and allow greater economic growth to take place as the unused resources are used elsewhere. In what is being called “The Great Recession,” this could be a great boon to hard-working Americans as well as Americans who want to be hard-working but can’t due to the recessionary times.
Personally, I prefer bankruptcy for businesses that can’t succeed. Let’s put the pressure on our legislators to do the same.
George Will: ‘Vain Obama’
Obama?s National Security Strategy is NO LONGER FUNNY
A few weeks back, I joked with friends about Secretary Hillary Clinton?s explosion over a mistranslated question from a young man who was asking how the President felt about a particular situation, but the Secretary thought he was asking what Former President Bill Clinton thought.? What I found to be particularly funny about that situation was the fact that it was the first time that the Obama Administration was willing to take a strong stance on something regarding foreign affairs.? No strong stance when Iran killed Pro-democracy demonstrators; no strong stance when North Korea launched missiles after being asked not to by the international community; hell, our President claims to need to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and now he can?t even decide on that!? Nevertheless, this administration will NOT tolerate the degrading of our Secretary of State by inquiring as to her husband?s thoughts? though that wasn?t even the case.
So my friends and I shared a few laughs: It is no longer funny now.
One can point out the interesting infatuation America?s enemies had for President Obama?s electoral outcome.? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent President Obama a warm letter of congratulations following his election win; President Chavez made the comment at the UN this past week that the podium no longer smelled of ?sulfur? as it had following President Bush, but rather ?smelled of Hope;? and just recently Cuban President Fidel Castro praised President Obama?s climate change policy.? To be fair, criticism of the President over others? applause for him is unfair, because we can?t choose the people who root for us.? Remember the nefarious David Duke?s endorsement of former President Ronald Reagan?? Rather, Conservatives and moderates, and people with half a mind for foreign policy (which discredits failed National Security Advisor Brzezinsky and his call to shoot down Israeli jets), need to start addressing our President?s austere manner in which he seems to be throwing allies under the bus.? The Czech Republic, Poland and Israel are now starting the club for countries unpleasantly surprised by the new direction of American international relations.? I cannot help to point out that even if the United States didlegitimately believe it strategically necessary to drop the compact with Poland regarding our missile defense shield, the?timing and manner in?which we did it demonstrates our willingness to be more diplomatic with enemies, and less so with our friends.? Despite these grievances, the particular situation?that needs to be immediately addressed?is the growing hostilities in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is at its tipping point.? What happens in the coming months is going to decide the outcome of our endeavor, one way or another.? We must listen to General McChrystal?s request for more troops in order to fully exercise his comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy, we must give our forces over there all of the equipment and personnel they need and we must throw the gauntlet down onto the rocky terrain?to demonstrate?that we are willing to do what it takes to win this battle.? If we fail to do these things, then we will?fail at winning the war.? We cannot win a war based on the perception and respect of an indigenous population that knows only to follow a regime that demands respect, if we are to continue to look weak and emasculated.? Sadly, this is due not only to our soft-bellied liberal friends, but a toned-down effort in Afghanistan was fairly-recently advocated by leading Conservative intellectual George Will.? Almost everyone in favor of de-escalation (including Paleoconservatives, George Will and some liberals to name a few) advocates a replacement?policy of limited off-shore presence and limited direct action.
There is something romantic about special operations forces and the idea of limited engagement.? Special operations is what we see in the movies and read in books; the former tending to exaggerate the ease of which such Direct Action missions are carried out.? We enjoy the movies with Chuck Norris and Charlie Sheen (and one of my personal favorites, the opening scene from Air Force One) that embellish the Direct Action capabilities of our Special Operations Forces and give no regard to their more important uses.? Foreign Internal Defense, Civil Affairs, and force multiplying aspects of SOF community are considered by those in the military and in policy the most important.? General McChrystal, a prior Special Operator, knows this and that is why he is advocating a policy that turns conventional units into units that will be better able to carry out these three important missions.? You cannot do this with Navy ships, Tomahawks, and DA missions alone.
There is one more thing that should be addressed; that carries a weight of importance equivalent to the outcome of the mission through tactics.? Imagine yourself overseas in Afghanistan at this moment, or imagine a loved one there currently.? For many, the latter scenario is not far from reality.? How are our troops and their families supposed to carry out a mission when even their own President’s fortitude is flailing?? It is one thing to second guess strategy, but President Obama is second guessing intent and necessity; leaving anyone over there in a sort of?purgatory, because what has now been planted into the hearts and heads of our men and women is a feeling so dichotomous to hope, they are left asking themselves ?if I were to fall tomorrow, and the President pull out next month, what will I have died for??? Having a second-guessing President raises these doubts and makes accomplishing the mission at hand all the more difficult.? If there is anything harder than losing a loved one, it?s losing a loved one right before a withdrawal; which invariable leaves their loss feeling less hollowed and more for nothing.? Our troops deserve better than this.? They deserve a leader.? They are getting the opposite.?
-rj
The ‘Will’ to Power in Afghanistan
The hallways and tunnels of the federal government echo the clatter of everyday life very well.? When it comes to the Senate and House Office buildings, this is just the product of the acoustics of the hallways teaming with the hardened floors coupled with the soles of expensive shoes and the muffled talk of staffers and passers by.? When someone walks through the Capitol, there is something sacred about the forced penitence encumbered by everyone who graces the halls of that hollowed building.? When the mason guilds of Europe built the great cathedrals, they did so in a manner that amplified every minute sound that came to being.? One could not tread heavily or even speak softly without everyone else in the cathedral knowing, which served to promote silent reverence in the house of God.? There is a feeling that someone gets, an added burden of weight dropped upon the shoulders of someone who enters into such a room, be it a cathedral, hallway, or what have you.? There is something subliminally transcendent that one feels; we like this feeling because it is our connection with that which we respect on a separate plane.?
Within these halls, and outside as well, George Will?s column yesterday has encouraged an increase in muffled debate amongst conservatives.? Mr. Will has called for a pull-out in essence.? With his typical erudition, he lays out history and fact before making his prognostication:
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
Conservatives have been regarded as the avant-gardefor the status-quo; we choose the ?devil we know? over ?the devil we do not know.?? These days, I believe it is safe to say that Conservatives are the ones more inclined to point out that strategy in Afghanistan needs to change.? Max Boot, not even a week prior to George Will?s bombshell, mentioned on Commentary?s website?that it is ?only by adding more resources can Obama offer the prospect of long-term victory in a war effort that he himself has deemed a ?war of necessity.??? It is no longer the conservative population harking ?stay the course,? especially following the success of ?the surge? in Iraq.? Iraq saw dwindling public support, increased violence, and looked to be a situation worth second-guessing: only second guessing does not act as a reset button.? Few people supported the surge at the beginning, even President Bush was skeptical.? In the end, he decided to do what should have been done since the beginning which was to populate the country with boots on the ground and create a catalyst for growth and development through security.? Should President Obama accompany the present troop surge in Afghanistan with the proper counter-insurgency plan with the help of Gen. McChrystal, he can orchestrate a turn-around for the better which deserves bipartisan support like nothing else could.?
Mr. Will?s column advocating that everyone see the glass for what it is to him, which is half-empty, does not help the war effort, the conservative movement, or his own image.? While the ashes in New York were still smoldering, and cheeks of loved ones who lost that September day were still damp; Mr. Will wrote at the beginning of the Afghan excursion: ?When advocates of merely minor objectives are praised as ?cooler heads,? the pertinent attribute may be cold feet.?? His support, along with some 80% of all Americans at the time, of the war in Afghanistan was supposed to stand the test of time.? The public support for Enduring Freedom has fallen precipitously since then; in July, 36% of respondents in a Gallup poll said that going to Afghanistan was a mistake.? It was not the highest we have had, but those in the mistake camp have multiplied their numbers from 6% in 2002 to what it is today.? Mr. Will may not be in the mistake camp, but his words give them fodder.? What?s more depressing, is the number of elected officials who are questioning the mission their.? Fortunately, many refrain from doing so publicly, but their venomous pessimism spreads covertly into the mainstream American consciousness.?
Mr. Will?s article calling for pulling out is scant in comparison to many of his verbose narratives; but like many other concise exercises of thought and word (the Gettysburg Address for example) his article packs a mighty punch to the establishment.? There was one reflection that struck me in particular; it was how he ended the article:
?Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.
The esoteric now in the word knowing was an interesting touch.? His final point regards squandering valor.? Now I am quick to admit, with great humility, that I do not serve and have not served in the armed forces, despite coming from a family that did and continues to.? I remember my Senior year in high school when my father served bravely in Afghanistan, and I watched news reports and dreaded word of fatalities.? I remember being in AP US History with Mr. Lube (shortened version of his very long, Polish name) and my cell phone had gone off in class on my birthday.? I looked down in embarrassment and saw the scrambled number or the word Private or something that made me realize that my dad was calling during one of the rare times he could grab a satellite phone.? I gave Mr. Lube a look and he told me I could leave the class to take the call outside.? Dad and I spoke briefly, he wished me happy birthday over the delayed line and then we hung up.? I stood in the locker bank for a minute and stared at my phone.? Tears welled up in my eyes, and in a shameless display of weakness and futility I cried.? Nobody with friends or family overseas wishes to have more people to share their worries with in the end, because that means more people feel the cocktail of uncontrollable emotions and living with a loved one overseas.? There is something that would feel worse to anyone with a family member or friend who is overseas; and that is thinking that their sacrifice, their blood, your tears or their life went in vain.? American valor cannot be squandered unless we take the route the Mr. Will prescribes.? American valor will not be squandered when we take the route that secures the freedoms of a people, the security of our country, and sanctifies the mission for which so many gave their lives.
-rj
