Why we need to stay in Iraq

The Left's Iraq Muddle
By BOB KERREY
May 22, 2007; Page A15
At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.
But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "democracy cannot be imposed with military force."
What troubled me about this statement -- a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq -- is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.
Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically, "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified -- though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.
The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Food For Thought

I've been thinking. (Yes. I am aware how dangerous that is.) What do we really know about ourselves? What I mean is, we know some of human history and we can speculate on time before that, but have we changed much over the millenia? Are our emotional responses and thought processes consistent over time?

There may be no way to know but here is why I ask:

We control or attempt to control so much of our environment today. I don't mean our tree hugging, Al Gore loving environment, although that is part of it. I mean our means of travel, our intake of food, our health, our births, and even our deaths. We live in a media frenzy, 24 hour a day world of celebrities and bling bling. I wonder if the Western world has lost touch with....well, life. Are we really better off now that we all can expect to live to 75+? Are we happier than we were 200 years ago? 2000 Years ago? Does anything we do and experience have any real meaning and substance behind it?

Were we happier when life was about living day-to-day?

Management 101

I do not profess to be a management expert. And, no, I am not a HR professional. However I know common sense and I am amazed at how many companies do not use any when handling their employees.

A company's employees are its greatest asset yet so many organizations view their employees as disposable, something that is to be used up and thrown away when "no longer useful". Have these company's stopped to think that maybe the "usefulness" of the individual employees is linked to the way their employers treat them? That maybe, the employee would be a better producer if they just were given some slack and less stress?

I have worked for some very large companies and at least a couple of small, family owned businesses. I have worked for slave driving contractors, and for sales divisions I would only hear from once per quarter. Regardless of pay, the best companies have been those with a family like atmosphere where the employer understood the pressures of work and family and did not add to the stress.

So, for what it is worth, here are some suggestions:

1) Don't mess with paychecks. If an employee deserves a raise in pay then give it to them. If the employee just doesn't measure up, then let them go. People need stability in life and far too many of us live paycheck-to-paycheck. A cut in pay can be like a knife through the heart. This is unfair and unethical.

1A) Don't mess with benefits. (See item 1) If you hire an employee and are giving them a certain level of benefits DO NOT later shift the burden to the employee. If benefit costs increase then absorb them or pass them on to the customer. DO NOT make your employees make up the difference. This too is unfair and borderline unethical.

2) If an employee is sick then leave them alone! I am not suggesting that you look away when you have someone who is constantly taking sick leave. I am saying give the employee the peace of mind that they can relax and get well without fearing you. And, whatever you do, NEVER dock pay. Again, it would be better to just let them go.

3) Inclement weather happens. Don't blame your employees if they are not comfortable driving in snow or ice. I have always felt that if an employee doesn't want to drive then the world is better off if they don't. It is not necessary to make the individual feel any stress over the situation. They will get enough of that when they come in the next day and face those who did make it in.

4) Employees actually do have lives. The best thing an employer can do for an employee is be understanding. Many of us have kids. We have spouses. We have homes. We have cars. We need time away from work. Life is stressful enough. If their water heater springs a leak or if their car breaks down, WORK WITH THEM. Charging them a vacation day or docking their pay is just wrong!

I could go on and on and maybe I have rambled a bit. I suppose what I want to say is that I value those who work for me and I respect them as individuals. I want my employees to know that I understand that work is just a part of their lives and I appreciate the time they give me.

Thank you!

Venice Italy !!!

Ahhh Venice. This great city of interlaced canals is one of the most romantic places in the world. One can find young couples being serenaded while drifting along aboard a gondola, or enjoying a romantic dinner at any one of the dozens of cafes that dot the city.

If you have ever seen a picture of Venice then you basically know what it looks like. The only thing that is not obvious is its size. Venice is not a large city. The population of the historic section is about 62,000 people. However, it is crowded.

There really are no streets in Venice. The canals substitute quite well. What would be considered streets are actually wide sidewalks, or narrow alleys. As you might imagine, they become difficult to traverse when tourists are out in force. Of course, there are always thousands of tourists so it is always crowded.

The easiest way to get around is by water taxi. These can be found along the Grand Canal and can drop you wherever you like. The smaller, romantic, gondolas are intended for leisurely rides and are quite a luxury. Do not expect to pay less than $100 for a short gondola ride. In reality, you will likely pay double for you and a significant other for this experience.

Should you consider bringing young children, don't!! Well, actually, Venice is a great place for kids and we have fond memories of our two angels chasing pigeons in St Marks Square. The problem is that strollers don't like the endless maze of alleys and thousands of steps on the bridges. The same problem goes for older kids who just get abused by the endless walking. Think twice before bringing young children...

Some say that Venice is expensive. I will agree only when it comes to room rates. You will pay better than $250 per night for a small room within the historic section. Other than that, Venice was very reasonable. The restaurants and shops are very competitive and many will negotiate prices so bargains can be had.

Back to the historic section rooms.....I would avoid them. The reason for that is there is no easy way to navigate your way on foot and add to that all of your luggage, etc and you have the makings of a disaster. We stayed outside the city in Quarto d'Altino and took a train in. The 30 minute ride was well worth the peace of mind. You do not want to drive. First of all, you can't get a car into the historic section. And, parking is twice as much as it cost to train my entire family in to the city. Just watch for transit strikes. These apparently can occur at any time and we experienced a spontaneous strike our first day there.

So, if you are going to Venice:
1) Leave the kids at home
2) Stay outside the city
3) Ride the train
....And
4) Bring loads of money.
Although Venice was not super expensive there is plenty of shopping and eating to be done!!!

Ciao!!!

Where is Chris Cherubin ???

Wow! I cannot believe how long it has been since my last post. Basically, I have been busy with my work and with projects at home.

My wife and I have been looking for a new home for some time now and are beginning to wonder if we will find what we are looking for. It is more likely that we will have to create our dream home and thus the lack of time lately. We need to find where first and that eats up a ton of time.

In between working and house hunting I have been busy fixing up our home for resale. The way I see it, even if we don't sell anytime soon we will at least have fresh paint and decorating to look at. In addition, I have been slowly weeding out all the crap we have accumulated. We will be having a yard sale/moving sale in the Spring.

I'll keep you posted.

The Underground

If you find yourself in London and think how nice it would be to take a drive around town, DON'T!!! I have seen hell and it is the city of London or, more specifically, the streets of London.

London is well known for its sites. Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Westminster Abbey, these are all well known tourist destinations. Equally well known is the London Underground which is the Subway system in London. There is a reason why. No one in their right mind would want to drive in this city.

London is big, real big! Greater London has a population exceeding seven million people and the city sprawls over 609 square miles. That information in itself is not enough to portray the daunting task of navigating the city by car. New York, Rome and Paris are also big cities but are much , much easier to get around for three simple reasons. Their roads are, for the most part, straight, they have street signs, and pedestrians don't control the traffic.

The first thing you will notice when driving in London is that there is a shortage of street signs. It is not that there are none because that would be better than the fact that you are teased by marked streets only to have them suddenly unmarked. I spent two and a half hours exiting London by car only because I never knew what street I was on. And, because, they have no grid system, the streets meander and curve and seem to go in no direction and all directions at the same time. Adding to the frustration is the fact that pedestrian crossings appear every few feet and they have lights that are controlled by the pedestrians. Any one person can stop traffic at the push of a button.

In the center of London there is a congestion toll levied on cars driven into the city. When coupled with the lack of signs, it begins to appear to be a conspiracy against drivers. There may be some truth to that because the taxi industry in London is a very powerful lobby. Taxi companies want you to need them.

The obvious conclusion is to "ride the tube". This is not the title of an adult film but rather a term that means take the subway. The London Underground is extremely efficient. There are few stoppages, the trains cover the entire Greater London area, and they are prompt. If nothing else, the Brits pride themselves on keeping to time tables.

So, if you ever find yourself in London, forget the car and ride the tube. You will thank me.

Cheers!

Major Dick Winters

His name often comes up in conversations about leadership and ethics, especially within military circles. Many of you recognize the name as that of a "character" from the book and HBO series "Band Of Brothers", but Dick Winters is a real live person. Although now an old man (he is 89) the central Pennsylvania resident is a living icon.

I have a new found respect for Major Winters and his "Band Of Brothers, Company E, 2nd Battalion, 506 PIR, 101st Airborne Division. What Major Winters and the rest of "Easy" company accomplished, not to mention millions of other men at the time, still affects our daily lives. It can even be said that I can write this blog because of the efforts of people like Dick Winters.

We, as Americans, should be thankful for the sacrifices of men and women in the U.S. military. Sacrifices of yesterday and of today. One way we could express that thanks is to visit the official Dick Winters website http://www.majordickwinters.com/ and sign the petition to have this great man recognized for his efforts that fateful day back in June 1944.

For more information about Major Winters and "Easy" company, there are several books that are must reads; "Band Of Brothers" by Steven Ambrose, "Biggest Brother" by Larry Alexander, and "Beyond Band Of Brothers" written by Dick Winters himself along with Cole Kingseed.

Thank you Major Winters.