War Planning

*******

America fights wars differently from other countries. This essential fact is missed by many people, especially since this comes from both a unique national character and perspective, but also a different mind-set in planning for war. To understand how we got where we are now, and to prepare for upcoming conflicts, it is important to study the base assumptions and adjustments made in U.S. War Planning.

A 1996 research paper presented to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force examined the most likely scenarios for the coming three decades. The paper, titled “Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise”, defined the “drivers” of American worldview, technical means, and world dispensation of power, and from that combination derived future conditions and conflict causality.

This was an indicator of interest in forecasting likely needs and threats, in a JCS project dubbed “Joint Vision 2020”. This combined the planning in 1999 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard for the next two decades. The different services made projections to different degrees, the Air Force projecting as far as 2025, while the U.S. Army projection was only forecast to 2010.

The different services took different approaches to the task of planning and preparation. The Air Force paper took the widest approach and addressed issues in broad terms. The Army paper was the most specific in doctrine advances and material commitments. The Marines Corps produced an eye-catching PDF presentation in full color, which addressed readiness and doctrinal policy only in a general sense, but emphasized a scalable USMC, from Marine Expeditionary Forces for major operations all the way down in size to specialized units tagged 'SPMAGTF's, or “Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces”, for anything from Rescue to Incident Response missions. As for the Coast Guard, their brochure was weak on specifics but essentially anticipated no change of priorities or mission from the job they have done since the end of World War II.

Some specific papers shed light on the direction military theories were heading in the days of Clinton. Michael Renner published a disappointing paper in 2000 for the U.S. Navy, titled “ALTERNATIVE FUTURES IN WAR AND CONFLICT”. The paper gave far too much credence to unproven claims of environmental impact and further presumed that planning should depend more on the United Nations, although he admitted “the international community would do well to build some redundancy into the conflict-prevention apparatus”, which amounts to an admission that the UN has a poor record in preventing or addressing conflicts. Renner endorsed the Clinton Doctrine of sending in small, essentially token forces, to many places, to send a political signal of U.S. interest, in the hopes that this would influence regional actors to refrain from violence. Renner included no case studies from actual events, in all likelihood because the actual situations would demonstrate the fallacies of his assumptions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, where U.S. presence inspired gunfire rather than negotiations, and the small size and lack of support created conditions of high risk against poor opportunity for the men on the ground.

A similarly poor set of assumptions was made by Dr. Peter Dombrowski, whose 2000 paper titled “Alternative Futures in War and Conflict; Implications for U.S. National Security in the Next Century” essentially played the ‘focus group' game with war planning, so that “Participants felt that conflict between major powers was increasingly unlikely but that wars between lesser powers would continue”, and also that “In strategic terms the United States might simply “muddle through”—an approach which some participants favored or at least did not object to given America’s preponderance of power in the international system for the foreseeable future.”. This sort of thinking helps to explain why key warnings about Al Qaeda were not examined when they could have prevented the growth of the terrorist group into a major threat. Dombrowski’s study is useful, however, in that it displays the variety of threats to consider, and also displays a window into the mind of the National Intelligence Council, who advise the President through the PDB documents of threats and concerns. Dombrowski’s group, for example, went so far as to suggest that “the U.S. Marines could play more of a constabulary function” instead of preparing for war as they have always done. Such an essential blunder by men so close to the top of the decision chain reflects a serious problem in the Academic circles, even when studying warfare.

Also of interest was the late-20th Century self-appraisal of the Intelligence Community. The 1996 document titled “Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence”, noted that the Intelligence agencies for the United States need to work more closely with the people they serve, especially policy makers and those who need specific information for action decisions. The paper also correctly feared that “administrative barriers often prevent or impede cooperation between agencies”, and that the Intelligence Community needs cooperation and interaction with Law Enforcement agencies.

To their credit, the writers of these reports and their agencies have not tried to hide away these embarrassing documents, but left them unclassified and available for review and study, which I recommend to students of History and Military operations. It is interesting, however, to notice the radical changes in military doctrine under the Administration of George W. Bush, which may help to explain the broad support “Dubya” enjoys from the military demographic, to the continued bafflement of the Left. That is to say, where President Clinton seems to have bought into the advice of the focus group advisors, Bush trusted men with actual battle experience and a clear plan for victory. And Bush knows his history.

A cursory overview of American military history should, if nothing else, show an important lesson in American Psychology: Americans go “all in” when they fight a war. Nothing but victory is acceptable. Also, Americans do not begin wars with a desire to pick a fight, but once committed to the action the resolve is sure and strong. This must be emphasized, when confronting some of the more pernicious myths presented by the Left. When the American colonies broke with England, the initial intent was to bring about honest negotiations and reform of the arrangement between Crown and Colony. Only when this was clearly impossible, did open revolt and revolution come into action, and the United States born of necessity. Before the War of 1812, it was the sincere desire of the United States to negotiate issues with England to avoid conflict. Once this was impossible, the United States resolved to demonstrate that they could not be invaded with impunity. Before the debates over Slavery and States’ Rights finally boiled over into violence, the South would have done well to study the then-short history of our country, and so understand that the conflict would be forcefully resolved – either the South would completely overwhelm the North and so reshape the structure of the country, or else the North would overwhelm the South and impose a stern control, as came to pass. The Southern hope to force a partitioned existence dividing the United States into a Federal Union to the North and the Confederate States to the South was one which the nation refused to accept, at any cost. In the Spanish-American War, the decision to fight Spain led to a complete campaign to bar the Old Hemisphere from building any more colonies in the West, which also reshaped control of territories in the Pacific Ocean . As for the wars of the 20th Century, many observers have failed to note that public support has actually been strong for American objectives, and unforgiving of half-measures. The borders of the United States were never threatened during the Century, by Germany under either the Kaiser or even Hitler, by Japan under Tojo or Italy under Mussolini, or by North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung, or Saddam Hussein. But we went into war in all those places, and we either won or should have. And where the political will was too weak to finish the job, the people reacted and demanded a price. Truman lost his chance to run again in 1952, because he was seen as the man who gave up on Korea. LBJ could hardly have handled Vietnam any worse, and GHW Bush will always be remembered as the man who didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq. And returning to Vietnam for a moment, this was a war we could and should have won. The opinion of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid notwithstanding, the American people supported the war when we were serious about it, as when Nixon finally bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, and looked like he meant to invade. We only lost because the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to keep its agreements, and essentially invited the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to roll into Saigon. The American people do not like losses, and there is a segment of the population which opposes even the most just and necessary of wars, but the people in general are not about to give up on our troops. Our whole history is one where the people appreciate the troops, and our troops do a magnificent job, and a complete one.

The threat of Global Terrorism is not a police matter. And very few people who study the problem are fooled into thinking that terrorist groups do not receive training, support, and protection from countries which find their tactics useful for their own agenda. It is in the most basic interest of the United States’ National Security, to wipe out any base of operations which is used by a significant terrorist organization, or which is likely to become one. Al Qaeda has run a number of operations which have earned them attention from the U.S. Military, including the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. The Taliban in Afghanistan sheltered and supplied the terrorist group, which is all the justification needed to invade Afghanistan and establish a nascent democracy, which is precisely what has happened there. Intelligence showed that Iraq’s support for terrorist groups made them a likely next stop for Al Qaeda, which created a functional need to take action; the justification was already established by chronic breaches of the terms of the1991 Cease-fire to the First Gulf War. The additional offenses of firing at Coalition observation aircraft, as well as the attempted assassination of a former United States President, certainly meet the standard as acts of war themselves. Strategically, invading Iraq was an obvious choice as well. Besides the elimination of a rogue regime as mandated in 1998 by Congress, the invasion of Iraq made the Middle East the theater of operations against the most formidable networks of terrorists, far superior to waiting for them to build forces and attack U.S. installations and personnel. And this point requires a necessary stop, to examine the nature of Global Terrorism.

In the new era of post-Cold War stature, the United States has moved beyond “Superpower” to an effectively supreme position in any venture to which it acts militarily. As a consequence, nations which once felt secure in defying American intentions, either because of alliance with the Soviet bloc, Another cartel or group capable of standing against available US forces, or the belief that the US would be stretched too thin to take them on, are now uncomfortably aware that the United States may chose to act as it pleases. Where comparable force is no longer an option therefore, asymmetrical warfare gains in attraction, and for some nations, the use of terrorism offers a relatively effective and inexpensive means for fighting the United States. This is because of responses by leaders like the Clinton Administration, giving the image that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged or messy conflict, but also enjoys popularity because their supporters have long believed they could use terrorists without discovery, or at least without proof. The invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the Middle East base of many terrorist bases, networks, supply lines and communications, but also proved the lie of supporting terrorism without cost. A clear message has been sent throughout the Middle East, not only that the United States intends to pursue the dissolution of any significant force acting against Americans and our allies, but also that we will work to destabilize those regimes, by supporting popular revolt against oppression; it has not gone unnoticed in the United States, that most nations which have been willing to support terrorist groups are repressive against civil rights in their own countries. A new reciprocity is in effect; attempt to attack the United States’ citizens or our infrastructure, and we will make war against your regime, with the use of truth and a demand for justice. It is not commonly publicized, but dissident leaders in a number of key countries receive indirect help from the United States – not overtly, for a number of reasons, but the effect is still improved by the action.

It would be unreasonable to claim that the United States intends to make “clone states” in the Middle East – even were such a thing possible, the nature of any true democratic republic is such that it molds itself to meet the needs and demands of its own people. This is what happened in Germany and in Japan, and ideally will also take place in the Middle East – a network of nations which are genuinely committed to the rights and welfare of their own citizens, and for whom the rule of law will be established by a just constitution and equal access to the courts. The best way to prevent future wars is to eliminate the causes of such nations as would choose to make war against us.

Racist Gang Founder Changes Tune Now That It Is His Turn

XXZ

Governor Schwarzenegger of California is deliberating the possibility of commuting the sentence of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was convcted of murdering four people in cold blood, and who helped to found the notorious and disgusting "Crips" gang nationwide, thereby escalating a serious law enforcement crisis. The same man who laughed at watching helpless victims die in their own blood, now is reportedly crying at the possibility that the sentence he earned will finally be carried out. I wrote on this issue a few days ago, but because of the present focus, am revisiting it again.

"Of course I want to live" says Williams, which makes me wonder if he ever considered that his victims just wanted the same thing. Certainly, the available evidence demonstrates that he didn't care about what they wanted. Williams' victims were the wrong place at the wrong time, and they were the wrong color. Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin were unarmed and compliant, they were potential witnesses - and they weren't black.

Witnesses to the murders reported that Williams referred to the Asians he murdered as "Buddaheads", and laughed about murdering Albert Owens, saying "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams has never apologized to the Owens or Yang or Lin families, nor expressed a single word of remorse for the murders. Williams has also consistently refused to assist police in any investigation involving the "Crips" gang he helped to found. The full extent of Williams' 1997 "apology", was only that Williams was sorry that blacks killed other blacks, an indication that Williams' hatred and racism has in no way changed.

Think, Governor Schwarzenegger. Do you want to represent the people of California, who overwhelmingly support the Death Penalty for monsters like Williams, or do you agree with murder by a racist thug? It really comes down to that.

The PATRIOT Act

...

Well, as the week nears its end and the minds of Congress turn from camera time to tee times, the GOP has spared some attention to consideration of extending the PATRIOT Act.

Apparently, the Republicans have agreed amongst themselves that, at least for the next four years, it would be a good thing to continue to give Intelligence and Security agencies the same tools we use to catch mob bosses and child kidnappers, and to allow wiretaps to follow the suspects if they switch phones. It would also be nice to lock the bank accounts of people who fund terrorists, and to provide protection for the victims of terrorism in the United States, all of which is addressed in the Act. The de riguer hysteria from the Democrats is, no doubt, being scheduled as we speak.

For those curious as to what the PATRIOT Act really says, read this.

We’re Number One. Some Folks Think That’s A Bad Thing

::

Fred Kaplan at Slate thought it was time, back in January, for a “brave” politician to step up and declare that America is a “declining power”. It seems Kaplan believes the United States is on its way out, to be replaced by a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. is just one player among several.

Kaplan says that this is a fact, because of an early-2005 report from the CIA. In Kaplan’s mind, the CIA has no political agenda, and therefore must be taken as unvarnished truth. Apparently then, in Kaplan’s mind Joe Wilson is a dedicated public servant who had no axe to grind, and Valerie Plame was truly a deep-cover secret agent, whose life was put in danger by evil political forces, and not by her press releases and photo ops, her CIA parking sticker or her suggestion that hubby Joe should be sent on a classified mission then talk to everybody on the planet about it afterwards. No politics at the CIA here, just ignore the weasels with the Washington Post number scribbled on sticky notes next to their work stations.

The favorite section of the report cited by Kaplan reads:

“The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.”

In this age of global strategy, it’s important to keep out focus on the challenges and stakes. We are number one, and for a very good reason. Sure, China and India, and for that matter Brazil and Venezuela and Indonesia too, will be chasing after us and looking for ways to get ahead, but we saw that from Japan, from Russia, from the European Union back when you could say “EU” with a straight face. We saw that from OPEC and many of our fair-weather allies, and of course, regularly from the United Nations and the World Court. But we won anyway, time and time again, despite setbacks and outright collaboration by other nations.

We have won militarily, economically, and socially. The United States is able to fight anyone, anywhere that becomes necessary. The dollar, whatever its ups and downs, is readily accepted worldwide and is the most-favored means of currency, especially as security; even Cuba and China hold U.S. dollars and bonds for reserves. And even a short trip outside the United States reveals the impact of American media, films, music, and social icons. Sure, the French hate us for it and Anarchists everywhere see it as a broad conspiracy, but closer examination reveals that besides its seductive side, the American Dream holds tremendous appeal on the universal level. Who wouldn’t want to own their own home, to choose their career and elect leaders who feel responsible to the population? Who wouldn’t want to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all? Who wouldn’t want to be able to trust that the electricity, water, police, fire, and medical services are truly public servants, and not wholly based on the ability to bribe your way ahead in a long line? The people who think America is trying to make clones of the rest of the world have it backwards – while everyone wants to protect and revere their own heritage and culture, many billions of people want what Americans have, and see no reason why they should not rise to that level.

We’re winning, and not everyone can deal with that fact. In many ways, the whole problem with the Left comes down to that essential point.

Regimes and Change

-- yuan --

Now that I am back in the good old USA, I feel free to note a few things about the government presently in custody of Hong Kong. Not that my opinions won’t be thoroughly predictable, but it is important for people to understand why, while is indeed the Pacific Centuryt, it bodes better for America than China in that regard.

Hong Kong has a less than perfect birth story. In short order, when the British Empire found it difficult to import Opium into China in exchange for the goods it desired, because of opposition from the Celestial Court, the Crown set up the island of Hong Kong as a port city under its firm control. The Chinese Emperor was unable to dislocate the island fortress, and summarily a treaty was drawn up, which made Hong Kong a British protectorate until 1997, when it reverted to China. It should be understood, however, that there essentially was no such city as Hong Kong before the British built it up, and this has everything to do with the character of the island.

China wanted Hong Kong back for two main reasons; pride and profit. Pride, because a foreign foothold on Chinese soil was perceived as an insult, and profit because Hong Kong was a shining diamond among Asian cities for commerce, banking, commodities, and all manner of investment. Even the Politburo in Beijing understood the value in holding Hong Kong, which is why Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region, which in practical terms just means that Beijing still runs things, but differently than other areas.

The first five years back under Chinese rule were abysmal. The mainland government very nearly killed the golden goose, with heavy restrictions on business and even heavier taxes. It is no surprise that many businesses moved the bulk of their capital into Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand, where the governments were more welcoming and better eductated in business priorities. But China gradually came around. Using Shanghai as an economic laboratory of sorts, lessons were learned and the Beijing government set up offices to approach targeted businesses directly, trying to lure strategic industries and investors to the city which once represented the pinnacle of business in Asia.

But the Midas touch has a problem for the Communists. You cannot handle large amounts of money at close hand without considering what it can do, and money has always bought a sort of perspective which clashes with the sort found in the Little Red Book. Beijing has discovered it is all but impossible to give people access to computers, faxes. and satellite reception on a wide scale, and still expect to control the flow of information and communication. The next Tienemen Square will not take place in a stone plaza, but across a network of chat rooms, and there is no way to get a division of tanks there.

Sister Cities and Jet Lag

## zzzz ##

Well, I’m back home in Houston again, which means, besides the jet lag and the future shock of credit card bills, I can sit at my desk, and in between attempts to regain control of my e-mail and deadlines, reflect on the similarities between Houston and Hong Kong.

Houston and Hong Kong could be sister cities, if they had the mind to make the connection. First off, there is the fact that many Hong Kongese now live here in H-town, and there are more than a couple Houstonians who have taken up residence in the Big Lychee. Also, there are other obvious similarities which make the cities very much like each other; friendly people, all kinds of cultures represented in the town, many malls and businesses, some top-rate medical and scientific facilities, and a lot of truly excellent restaurants. Two things Cantonese cooking and Texas cuisine have in common is a rich and wide use of sauces, as well as large portions. It’s also worth noting that Hong Kong is part of the South portion of Asia, Canton province which has always maintained a special identity within China, and Houston is located in Texas, which is, well, Texas.

The weather is even the same, slightly humid but generally warm, with rain coming in from the coast. There is a lot of fishing, for business and sport, in both towns. And just as there are many people in Houston who speak Cantonese, there are many in Hong Kong who speak perfect English, which allows to them to generally understand Americans.

There are also differences, of course. Hong Kong’s public transportation actually works, includes a subway, and unlike Houston’s Light Rail is on-time, under-budget and generally does not hit passenger vehicles. Personal firearms are generally unknown to the civilian population in Hong Kong, as is gangsta rap. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a lot of Gambling businesses, and in places looks a lot like Atlantic City. Hong Kong also has parts of town which are basically controlled by Organized Crime; the OCTB stays much more busy than HPD’s Gang Unit, and hopefully Houston can keep it that way. And of course, trying to use Hong Kong dollars in Houston is a futile effort, but American dollars are readily accepted in many Hong Kong businesses. And finally, Hong Kong pays little attention to sports, unless there is gambling involved, while in Houston it is generally foolish to bet on the local team these days.

Did I mention how long it takes to get back on a regular sleep cycle after spending time in Hong Kong? The sun is up, but I’m dead tired. If you see snoring in the text later this week, you’ll know I’m still not all the way back.

San Tan Far Luck!

An Open Response to Tom Tancredo

[]<>[]

The Immigration and Borders debate is finally starting to get going. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get people to engage in debate. Rather, far too many people like to shoot down positive suggestions with real merit, simply because they are not perfect. And because the President, while clearly superior in many elements of his job, is something less than eloquent when he explains his programs and ideas, so I am doing what I can here to eludicidate.

Tom Tancredo, a strong proponent of Immigration but unfortunately not known for giving Dubya any credit for his initiatives, once again failed to see the purpose and value in Bush’s ideas, and essentially played the Democrat’s lackey by shooting at the program before its Congressional debate. While Mr. Tancredo is free to exprses his opinions, I must comment that it is he, and not the President, who has things “exactly backward”.

I will start with the obvious, Mr, Tancredo may be well-educated in many aspects of Immigration, but he gets an ‘F’ in perceiving the difference between a desire for perfection, and a plan that works in the real world. If there is one glaring error Tancredo makes, over and over agin, it is that he disparages President Bush in terms that suggest Bush is unaware of the nature and magnitude of illegal entry into the United States. Given that Bush is a former Governor of Texas, I would contend that his knowledge and experience are actually far superior to Mr. Tancredo’s. This must be considered when weighing why Bush supports one action over another alternative.

Mr. Tancredo makes a series of false statements in his article, which I feel demand a proper response. The statements are here, along with my response:

“But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution“

Find a dictionary, Mr. Tancredo. An “amnesty” forgives wrongful and criminal acts of whatever nature and frequency. That is not what the President has suggested. What Bush wants is to separate people who are already here into two groups - those who show they are willing to begin the legitimate process, and those who are not. This reduces the stress on the enforcement measures, and stages the actions to address themost serious threats first. You and your side have yet to propose a functional plan in detail, instead demanding “perfection now”.


“What proponents of true border security have proposed in several bills now before Congress is a comprehensive system of border security that will include a fence, added sensors and cameras, airborne surveillance, and a doubling of Border Patrol manpower. These proposals also include new resources for interior enforcement beyond the border region, including vigorous enforcement of our labor laws.”

If you had bothered to pay attention to the President, Mr. Tancredo, you would have observed that the President’s plan does almost all of those things alreasy, and beyond that establishes liason between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community to address border concerns directly.


“If we follow the president's plan and authorize a new amnesty for another 10 million people who came across our borders illegally, it will only encourage the next wave of illegal aliens on the hope and expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted amnesty. That has been the sorry history of the last 30 years, and it is time to call a halt to that nonsense.”

That sir, is a lie. In the first place, no one is suggesting we simply let in “another 10 million people” illegally, and I should also note that the “last 30 years”, while problematic, has hardly been a showcase of Congress or the President trying to protect the illegals, but unfortunately necessary corrections have failed, because various groups and high-profile names have refused to support anything that was not both a perfect answer, and their own proposal. I contend, Mister Tancredo, that attitudes such as yours are not only adding nothing to the solution, you are distinctly prolonging and worsening the problem, because no one is ever good enough by your lights.


“The president's temporary worker proposal is also lacking in realism. He asks Americans to believe that after six years on a temporary worker visa, these workers will go home voluntarily. Who believes that? Citizens in Europe can tell you that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”

More evidence that you have not paid attention to how this will actually work. Rather than, say, the French method of issuing a residency card and forgetting about the alien, hoping for the best, this plan registers individuals with a series of identification measures designed to make their location and (if necessary) capture more feasible. Bearing in mind these are people who are already in the country and would have to come forward of their own volition, this does not increase illegal entry by even a single person, but identifies a key demographic within the community - individuals who are willing to become legitimate, given the chance. This is critically important for two reasons - first off, every person already in the country who demonstrates a desire to begin abiding by the law must be encouraged to do so. Providing a way for someone to work here temporarily then leave or begin the formal application for permanent residency or citizenship, is always going to be better than reinforcing the status quo of unknown numbers in unknown places, with no incentive for cooperation. Also, the worst illegals, the career criminals, the coyotes who traffic in smuggling of humans, drugs, and various contraband, and potential cells for terrorists, are known to hide in communities of illegal aliens. If even one person in that community begins to cooperate with law enforcement, that community is denied the criminal element, and it becomes easier to find and intercept that element. I have never yet heard how you intend for DHS to capture illegal alien criminals already in the United States, Mister Tancredo, so in my book you are out of line for trashing a feasible plan for addressing the greatest threat, when you have none of your own.


“Another red herring is that the only alternative to amnesty is to have a mass deportation of 10 million people. That is nonsense. All we have to do is to begin enforcing our laws and establish genuine border security. When the jobs slowly disappear because employers prefer to raise wages and attract legal workers instead of going to jail, most illegal workers will go home voluntarily. That strategy is called "enforcement first," and it is better than amnesty.”

Ever hear of Prohibition, Mister Tancredo? If a law is not supported by the people, it will fail. While everyone is concerned about violent criminals coming across the border, and people generally support the notion of enforcing immigration laws, it’s a different thing entirely when you suggest we can solve basic problems without addressing the cause. The problem with illegal immigration, you are correct, is that many laws are not enforced, but that reflects a social version of laissez faire for people who are willing to live and work peacefully. There is no public support for higher prices without a clear benefit, or for more punitive laws without a clear explanation for why this is necessary, and why it is consistent with our Constitution to treat people differently on the basis of their appearance and culture, as will be necessary in actual practice to enforce the laws. That is not to say such actions are not necessary, but to remind you that neither the President nor the Congress has any power to change these perceptions, but it must begin at the local and county level. Your harangues against the President are doing nothing to address this grassroots issue, which suggests to me that you are more about the image of a fighter, than a true general seeking victory in a crisis. The President is working on the base problem, by separating the gentle immigrant, legal or not, from the violent one, and the one willing to begin obeying the law now, from the one who has no such intentions. With proper support, Bush’s plan will make it simpler and easier and more popular to pursue the worst of those crossing our borders, which should be everyone’s first objective.


“An honest debate on immigration reform must start with that fact, and only people who don't really want to stop illegal border traffic can propose such amnesty with a straight face.”

I agree we need an honest debate. I would therefore like to see you put away your false claims, support the good ideas Bush has presented, and work to propose specific and realistic solutions for the future.

PFL Week Thirteen

** grunt **

Week Thirteen Scoreboard

Eisenhower (13-0) 43, Cleveland (7-5) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (13-0) 61, Clinton (0-12) 12
Washington (13-0) 55, Van Buren (3-9) 3
George W Bush (12-0) 31, Wilson (7-6) 3
Reagan (12-0) 28, Lincoln (8-5) 9
Polk (10-3) 18, Monroe (10-2) 15 (OT)
Jefferson (11-2) 41, Hayes (5-7) 3
FDR (11-2) 30, Taft (7-5) 9
Grant (11-2) 24, B Harrison (4-9) 15
JFK (10-3) 38, LBJ (1-11) 0
Truman (10-3) 30, McKinley (6-6) 10
John Adams (7-5) 23, Madison (7-6) 22
JQ Adams (7-5) 18, Jackson (6-7) 12
Nixon (6-6), idle
Taylor (6-6), idle
Arthur (6-7) 25, Pierce (2-10) 0
GHW Bush (6-7) 37, Harding (2-10) 10
Ford (5-8) 24, W Harrison (2-10) 21
Tyler (4-8), idle
Coolidge (3-9), idle
Carter (3-10) 30, A Johnson (0-12) 12
Fillmore (2-10), idle
Garfield (2-10), idle
Hoover (2-11) 30, Buchanan (0-12) 15

STANDINGS

Division A
[03] Washington (13-0)
[09] Monroe (10-2)
[11] Polk (10-3)

Division B
[01] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (11-2)

Division C
[05] Reagan (12-0) Division Clinched

Division D
[07] FDR (11-2)
[10] JFK (10-3)
[17] Taft (7-5)

Division E
[02] Teddy Roosevelt (13-0)
[08] Grant (10-2)

Division F
[04] George W Bush (12-0)
[12] Truman (10-3)