More Optimism

I heard this on the radio yesterday and laughed out loud.

(Pulling the text from this post on Salon.com's War Room.)

George W. Bush on whether there's a disconnect between the president's newfound tough talk on Iraq and Dick Cheney's claim that the United States has had "enormous success" there: "Oh I don't think so; I think the V.P. is a person expressing a half-glass-full mentality. And that is, he's been able to look at -- as have I and I hope other Americans have -- the fact that the tyrant was removed, 12 million people voted and an Iraqi constitution is in place that is a model for -- and is unique for -- the Middle East."

---
I like the quote because Cheney seems like such a half-glass-full kind of guy. I bet he was at least half a glass full when he shot that lawyer in the face.

Optimism

That last post was on the pessimistic side. This time I'll try to help out.

The executive summary of the AEI proposal includes a note that, "The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation."

This is probably because the U.S. is running out of, you know, armed services. Also from the AEI summary: "The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period. ... Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying active-duty, National Guard, and reserve units to those about to deploy. Military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently."

As a country we haven't been asked to change our lifestyle one bit yet, except maybe for longer lines at airports, so we should all know that a call for enlistment just won't happening. As such, a more creative solution to generate military personnel is needed.

Here's an alternate source of additional troops -- prisons. There are approximately 2 million people currently incarcerated in the U.S., and what are they doing? Nothing, that's what.

A prison recruitment program could start small, presenting an early release option to individuals incarcerated for non-violent minor drug offenses. I'm completely certain the Army would be in favor of this, and that no poor result is possible from training and arming a population of one-time drug users and convicts. Just like how there's no downside to older recruits, high school drop-outs, a larger percentage of individuals scoring in the lowest range for intelligence on Army aptitude tests, or any poorly chosen population based on slipping standards.

We're so winning this thing.

Yeah, I guess the Surge is playing tonight...?

As I read and listen to the news... Here's something I've been thinking about lately.

The Bush administration seems to care less about policies than names. As long as they have a good name for whatever they want to do, they don't seem to worry too much about the underlying policy, planning, or logistics required. (Examples: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clear Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Modernization Act.) Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, though my theory is that they're either simply better at political marketing than governing or there's some fundamental confusion which substitutes one for the other. A more sinister possibility is that actual policy goals aren't publicly discussed.

The not-quite-yet-proposed new Iraq policy has so far been referred to as... "The Surge." The president is considering a surge, future plans in Iraq may consist of a surge of troops, troop levels may be increased to allow for a surge, etc. You know, you've heard it too.

Here's what strikes me about the surge: It's not even a good name.

It sounds like a bad high school garage band.

It sounds like an American pro soccer team.

Catchy, sure, maybe a bit. But that's mostly from simplicity, as it's basically one word. Descriptive? Informative? Hardly at all. Usual incorporation of goals or an obvious good is plainly missing. So what does this mean? Technically, as it hasn't been announced by the president, it may be that the official policy name hasn't been put forward. (This AEI press release gives a model for renaming -- or rebranding -- with "Choosing Victory" as a title and "surge" in the text.) But since just "surge" has been floating around for so long, I think it's going to stick as the policy referent, and the administration should realize this too.

I'd like to think that the poor name choice means that more consideration went into exactly what's going to be done, how it's going to be handled, where the additional troops will come from. But to be as cynical as usual, I'd say it's more likely that this is a sign of how things will be with what I'll call "The Bush White House: The Lame Duck Years."

They've just stopped trying.

Welcome to 2007, America

Prepare for a weird year.



Really, who thought this was a good idea?