Baseball, Civil War, Minnick, Politics

A Very Fine Line

Posted on by christian

health careDoes Idaho’s Blue Dog Risk His Base?

There is a fundamental rule in politics – the first and most important rule, perhaps – that is ignored by any politician at considerable risk. Ask Dede Scozzafava.

Scozzafava was the Republican congressional candidate in a recent special election in upstate New York who could not hold on to a seat that has been in GOP hands since U.S. Grant was in the White House.

Scozzafava ultimately withdrew from the special election and endorsed the Democrat who eventually won. Her demise was sealed thanks to a badly fractured Republican base that thought she had strayed way too far from party orthodoxy. Her political situation was exacerbated – and fate ultimately sealed – by a third party candidate who appealed to the most conservative voters in the heavily Republican-leaning district. In short, the special election in the 23rd District of New York was a real mess, but the wreckage illustrates that fundamental rule.

Secure your base.

Republicans are still beaming over two gubernatorial victories last week in New Jersey and Virginia. In both cases, capable Republican challengers won against damaged Democrats who where unable to excite the party base that carried Barack Obama to victory in both states just a year ago. Most post-election analysis has confirmed that Democrats in both states were not terribly motivated, while the GOP core was very excited. Independents in both states helped closed the deal for the Republicans.

In short, Republicans secured and motivated their base. Democrats did not.

Idaho’s lone congressional Democrat, Walt Minnick, now confronts a similar problem as he walks the very fine line demanded of a western Democrat in a deep red state. Minnick must know that his base is restless.

Minnick’s dilemma – the line he walks – might be reduced to this: in a state like Idaho, he must be an independent with a conservative lean, but at the same time he cannot risk turning his Democratic base – small as it is – against him.

Minnick represents Idaho’s sprawling First District that runs from the west Boise suburbs, south to the Nevada border and north all the way to British Columbia. The district includes the largest wilderness area in the lower 48 named for Frank Church, the last Democrat to represent Idaho in the U.S. Senate, as well as the deepest canyon in North America. The University of Idaho, a fine research school, is in the district, as is the plot of ground where the white supremacist Aryan Nation once held forth.

Since the 1950’s, at least, the district has grown increasingly more conservative. Three GOP congressmen who once represented the First District – Jim McClure, Steve Symms and Larry Craig – went to the Senate from this reliably Republican outpost. For a Democrat, the margin of error in the First District is, well, there is no margin for error for a Democrat.

Minnick won the challenging job of representing this huge district a year ago by narrowly defeating a deeply polarizing incumbent, Bill Sali, who ran hard to the right. Before last fall, the district had not sent a Democrat to Washington since 1992.

Minnick won the way Democrats have often won in Idaho, by defeating a weak Republican – Bill Sali – who had his own problems keeping the GOP base together. Church got his start this way and so did Cecil Andrus and each found a way to keep winning with a consistent appeal to the base and a winning message to the middle.

A year ago, Minnick was able to knit together a coalition that included an energized Democratic base that came to like Obama, salted with just enough moderate R’s who couldn’t fancy more Bill Sali, and complemented by independents who typically vote for Republicans unless they find them, as they did Sali, just too far out of the mainstream. This is the very political definition of fragile territory.

To his strategic credit, Minnick also played to the middle, stressing his farm upbringing while touting his business acumen. His campaign also succeeding in showing Idahoans that he not only supports guns, but uses them. It all added up to just enough to eek out a win in a presidential election year when John McCain polled more than 61% of the Idaho vote.

Late last Saturday night, Minnick cast a vote that may go a long way toward securing his political fate. Idaho’s lone Democrat on the national stage joined 38 other conservative Democrats – the so called Blue Dogs – in opposition to the party’s health care legislation that passed the House by the narrowest of margins. For good measure, Minnick also voted against the rule that allowed the Democratic bill to come to a final vote. In other words, he went the distance in opposition to a idea – health care reform – that is as fundamental to many Democrats as FDR’s old campaign song “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

[Long-time Idaho political observer, Randy Stapilus, also suggests that Minnick may have complicated his already delicate dance on the health care legislation by opposing the contentious amendment, backed by many Blue Dogs, to restrict funding for abortion.]

While health care legislation might be the vote that most of his constituents remember the longest, Minnick has also been at odds with party theology over the last few months on the stimulus package, climate change legislation and some aspects of financial services reform. He may well have succeeded in becoming the most independent Democrat in the House, but that label hasn’t kept him from making every list of most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. He and two potential Republican challengers are amassing war chests and this figures to be a dog fight – blue or otherwise – in the months ahead.

For his part, former Congressman Sali continues to flirt with a potential re-run, a situation that could end up being the best case for the current incumbent.

A year out from his re-elect, here are the questions worth pondering: Will Minnick pay a price among hardcore Democratic supporters for his independence on issues like health care? Or, as he must believe, will he be able to thread the electoral needle once again; re-assemble the Democratic base, again add enough moderates from the GOP and pull a sizable majority of independents?

To be sure there are a world of votes ahead, including presumably the ultimate vote in Congress to reconcile the House and Senate versions of a health care reform bill, and Republicans in Idaho’s First District are still months away from selecting Minnick’s challenger. Lots of things can – and probably will – happen.

Still, as New York, Virginia and New Jersey show most recently, and as successful politicians know instinctively, the party base needs to feel the love. Your friends hate to be taken for granted.

In Minnick’s district, I’m going to peg the dependable Democratic base – it has consistently dwindled since 1990 – at something north of 30%, perhaps even 35%, of the voters. These are the folks that show up at fundraisers, put up yard signs, man phone banks and walk parade routes handing out a candidate’s literature. They also talk to their friends about politics and politicians. You want the base working and voting, not restless and wondering.

There are never numbers enough among the base to elect a Democrat in Idaho, but if these folks decide – even in modest numbers – to sit one out, there are numbers enough to defeat a Democrat.

This is Walt Minnick’s dilemma and it requires walking a very fine line indeed.

Andrus Center, Baseball

Wait Until Next Year

Posted on by christian

BaseballIs It Spring Yet?

While I wait for the warmth of spring and the baseball fan’s certainty that opening day (148 days away by my count) brings all things new again with every team in first place, I content myself with thougths like these:

“As I think back and look forward, I see how nothing is straightforward nothing is unambiguous. Salvation does not come through simplicities, either of sentiment or system. The gray, grainy complex nature of existence and the ragged edges of our lives as we lead them defy hunger for a neat, bordered existence and for spirits unsullied by doubt or despair.” ~ A. Bart Giamatti

‘A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores.” ~ Corporal Klinger from MASH. (He was a fan of the Toledo Mud Hens if I recall correctly.)

“That’s baseball, and it’s my game. Y’ know, you take your worries to the game, and you leave ’em there. You yell like crazy for your guys. It’s good for your lungs, gives you a lift, and nobody calls the cops. Pretty girls, lots of ’em.” ~ Humphrey Bogart

“Being with a woman all night never hurt no professional baseball player. It’s staying up all night looking for a woman that does him in.” ~ Casey Stengel

“There have been only two geniuses in the world. Willie Mays and Willie Shakespeare.” ~Tallulah Bankhead

“From here on in, I rag nobody.” ~ Henry Wiggen, the pitcher in Mark Harris’ classic book “Bang the Drum Slowly.”

“People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” ~ Rogers Hornsby

Exactly.

Andrus Center, Baseball

It Might As Well Be Winter

Posted on by christian

Bart Giamatti“It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart.” – A. Bartlett Giamatti

The late, great Commissioner of Baseball, Bart Giamatti, while serving as President of Yale, said: “All I ever wanted to be president of was the American League.”

He ended up heading the National League and somehow – what were baseball owners thinking – they made this brilliant, big hearted man of unflinching integrity the boss of baseball in 1989.

Giamatti, a real commissioner back when baseball owners fleetingly thought they wanted a real commissioner, had a writer’s sensibility and a fan’s devotion to the great game. A Renaissance literature scholar, Giamatti was also a street smart ethicist who knew Pete Rose had to be the example of baseball’s zero tolerance for a lack of integrity. I have often wondered how as Commissioner Giamatti would have dealt with the drug scandals of recent years. I think I know. The owners wouldn’t have liked it.

Shortly after his very premature death after just a few months as Commissioner, Joe Garagiola, the broadcaster and one-time backup catcher, summed up the Commissioner: “One thing you can be sure of, you’ll never hear anyone say I knew someone exactly like Bart Giamatti.”

Giamatti’s little book – A Great and Glorious Game – contains some of the best writing ever about baseball.

At this time of year, with the World Series decided, with NFL and college football dominating the sports page, with the warmth and green of another spring a far distant thought, I always think of Giamatti and his superb, poetic little essay The Green Fields of the Mind.

“The game begins in the spring,” he wrote, “when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone.”

Put another log on the fire. It will be a damn long winter. I hope I can wait until once again those glorious words are spoken in the spring: “pitchers and catchers report.”

Baseball, Politics

The Morning After the Morning After

Posted on by christian

Election 2009What Are The Lessons From Election ’09?

Are Republicans poised for a comeback? Sure.

We are a two party nation and – with apologies to the 1840’s Whig Party – the party out of power always finds a way to claw back to relevance.

Does the GOP have some challenges? Absolutely.

Former Virginia Congressman Tom Davis sums it up well when he says the party out of power has a chance now to catch a wave of voter anger about the economy and spending: “The challenge for Republicans is to catch that lightening in a bottle and build a coalition that can lead you to huge congressional gains,” Davis said. “But it’s easier said than done.”

Do the elections of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia signal danger ahead for the Democrats? Perhaps.

I tend to think gubernatorial races normally turn on more local issues – taxes, roads, and schools – but the party in power is due for a gut check. The message from the two statewide races Tuesday may simply be that “it’s the economy, stupid.” Are Democrats listening?

The most interesting races, with potential national implications, took place in New York. The upstate congressional special election illustrates the tensions in the GOP. And the Big Apple’s mayoral contest proves, well, I don’t have any idea what it proves. Money buys happiness, perhaps.

As Governing magazine notes: “The race cost [Michael] Bloomberg an estimated $90 million. In his three races, Bloomberg has spent more of his personal fortune on campaigns than any candidate in U.S. history. Now, Bloomberg and the city face a $5 billion budget deficit.”

So, let the Republican and Democratic message machines spin Tuesday’s results as they will. The election that will tell us more about the longer term direction of the country will take place next November.

As CQ notes: “The governing party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, when the voter turnout is lower and the bulk of the energy and enthusiasm is with the opposition party. With 257 House seats, Democrats are nearing the maximum number of seats they could conceivably control under the current Congressional maps. Surveys show the 2010 elections could be unfriendly to incumbents.”

Many things are in play for both parties, primarily the economy. Will things be a good deal better next summer or fall? Will the GOP be able to unite behind something (or someone) positive as an alternative to Barack Obama? Will Afghanistan be front and center as a kitchen table issue?

Could this be an historical parallel? In the mid-term elections in 1934, Franklin Roosevelt’s party actually expanded its margins in the Congress even as the economy remained in the ditch. Voters concluded that FDR had an optimistic plan and was both trustworthy in carrying out the plan and focused on the concerns of most Americans.

Congressional Republicans in the 1934 mid-term elections were unable to articulate an effective alternative to FDR’s still emerging plans and they simply had no counter to his likable disposition and communication skills. Many shrill voices took to calling the president a dictator, a socialist, or worse, but the vast majority of Americans simply didn’t buy it.

We know Obama has read this history. But knowing history’s lessons and applying them is only part of the challenge of political leadership. My guess is the president can still tap a reservoir of patience among most Americans, but by next summer voters will really be judging him.

Civil Rights, Film

Dame Helen

Posted on by christian

Can’t Wait For This Film

Is there a better actress in the world than Helen Mirren? OK, maybe Meryl Streep, but it would be a close contest…or a tie.

Ever since Mirren seemed to inhabit the role of the hard living, chain smoking, hard luck British Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison in the superb Masterpiece Theatre series on PBS, she has been better and better in each succeeding television or film role. Now she is poised to open in Boise director Michael Hoffman’s new film – The Last Station – about the life of Leo Tolstoy. Dame Helen plays Tolstoy’s wife, Sofia.

She won the best actress award at the recent Rome film festival for her role in Hoffman’s new film and the Daily Telegraph has an interview on Mirren’s return to her family roots in Russia.

The film opens in January next year. I’m sure the film will be great, but Helen Mirren, well – she’s just the best.

Campaign Finance, Health Care

Health Care Reform

Posted on by christian

hospitalStates May Still Call the Shots

Here is the opening graph of a Washington Post piece that ran on November 1st:

“The debate over whether to let states opt out of any government-run health insurance plan overlooks a key facet of the health-care measures being assembled in Congress: When Washington is done, the shape of any new health-care system is likely to be finalized in Lansing and Boise and Baton Rouge.”

The full Post story is here.

Will states be up to the challenge? Indianapolis may be an example of what local initiative can accomplish. Emergency responders in the Indiana capitol city now have wireless access to medical records.

According to the publication, Federal Computer Week, “The goal is to help the medics provide more effective emergency care to patients by having real-time access to a digital record of the patients’ pre-existing medical conditions, previous treatments, allergies, current medications and other information.”

Like almost all big changes in American public policy, much of the detail and implementation in health care and insurance reform- regardless of the overheated rhetoric out of Washington, D.C. – will take place under the eyes of part-time, citizen legislators. Depending upon your point of view, that could be a very good thing or not. We will find out, piece by piece, state by state.

Civil Liberties, Poetry

All Souls

Posted on by christian

yeats UpdikeA Day of Remembrance

On All Souls Day, a remembrance of those we love and live among us in memory, two poems by John Updike and W.B. Yeats.

I can’t get this little Updike poem – one of his last – out of my head and, on this crisp fall day of remembrance, it once again seems particularly appropriate.

It came to me the other day:
Were I to die, no one would say,
“Oh, what a shame! So young, so full
Of promise – depths unplumable!”

Instead, a shrug and tearless eyes
Will greet my overdue demise;
The wide response will be, I know,
“I thought he died a while ago.”

For life’s a shabby subterfuge,
And death is real, and dark, and huge,
The shock of it will register
Nowhere but where it will occur.

– John Updike
from “Endpoint and Other Poems”

And Yeats’s – All Souls’ Night

Epilogue to “A Vision’

Midnight has come, and the great Christ Church Bell
And may a lesser bell sound through the room;
And it is All Souls’ Night,
And two long glasses brimmed with muscatel
Bubble upon the table. A ghost may come;
For it is a ghost’s right,
His element is so fine
Being sharpened by his death,
To drink from the wine-breath
While our gross palates drink from the whole wine.

The rest of the All Souls’ Night is here:

Cities, Weekend Potpourri

Weekend Potpourri

Posted on by christian

In No Particular Order

Crapo Draws “Opponent”

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, occupying (and defending in 2010) what is perhaps the safest seat in the Senate, has an opponent. Sort of.

Betsy Russell in the Spokesman-Review has the story of a New York resident – always a part of a winning political resume in Idaho – announcing that he’ll take on the two term GOP incumbent. Other than not living in the state, the new challenger may have other issues with Idaho voters. He’s never been west of Buffalo, for example. And not Buffalo, Wyoming, either

Here is a key paragraph from Betsy’s story: “(William) Bryk, for his part, has run for offices including district attorney, state legislature, city council and Congress, but has never been elected. He ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1980; and eight years after his New Hampshire win on the GOP ticket in 2000, ran again for vice president there as a Democrat, and lost.”

Last time, Crapo gathered in 99% of the vote against various write-ins. I think you can safely keep this one in the “leans overwhelmingly GOP” column.

A Udall Comes Out for Nuclear Power

Here is a man-bites-dog story from Colorado.

Democratic Senator Mark Udall delivered a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week saying it was time for the nation to reconsider nuclear power. Udall said he hoped new nuclear facilities could be constructed over the next decade and then added: “For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark – and perhaps unpleasant – surprise.” Udall’s father – Mo – the great Arizona congressman, campaigned for the White House in 1976 in opposition to nuclear power.

There was immediate speculation that Udall’s stance would draw serious environmental push back, but his positioning on the issue could also have a “Nixon goes to China” quality in that it may prompt other Democrats with environmental credentials to re-examine long held positions on nuclear power.

The Times on “The Big Burn”

New York Times on-line columnist Tim Egan – his new book is called “The Big Burn” – will be featured in the Sunday Times Book Review. The Times offers a generally strong review, something the book deserves as I’ve noted here before, but it wouldn’t be the Times if the review didn’t offer a bit of snark, even for one of its own. Egan was also a great interview this week on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terri Gross.

Afghanistan Policy

Everyone it seems has advice for the president on Afghanistan. Two thoughtful pieces over the last few days are worth a view: Christopher Buckley cites the reasoning of a former Marine-turned-State Department official, Matthew P. Hoh, who resigned recently over the Afghan war and Ted Sorensen, the former JFK speechwriter, offers up what may be the worst possible analogy for Obama – Afghanistan is already his Vietnam.

A Great Humanities Event

On Thursday, the Idaho Humanities Council’s 13th annual Distinguished Lecture was delivered by the superb Lincoln scholar, Harold Holzer. Holzer’s talk focused on how every president, since at least Teddy Roosevelt, has appropriated Lincoln – his words and deeds – to fit their own needs and circumstances, often unfairly.

Republicans naturally claim the political Lincoln, but Holzer’s survey made the case that Democrats, starting with Woodrow Wilson and continuing to Barack Obama, make some legitimate claims on the great president, as well.

Lincoln’s legacy clearly weaves through the political reality of the two major parties swapping positions and geography over the last century. FDR largely took the African-American vote, that had been solidly GOP since the Civil War, to the Democratic Party during the New Deal and Richard Nixon broke up the “solid south” after Lyndon Johnson picked up the mantle of civil rights in the 1960’s.

Holzer diplomatically took a pass when asked if Lincoln were alive today would he be a Republican or a Democrat. He did point out that Lincoln was a fan of big public works projects and he did push a civil rights agenda. The interesting thing to consider is that through the evolution of the two major parties since Lincoln’s day, the great president’s priorities still stay in the mainstream of American political thought.

Holzer, author of 34 books, including an award winning book about Lincoln’s coming to national prominence by virtue of his speech at Cooper Union in New York in 1860, has also had a major hand in a grand Lincoln exhibit at the New York Historical Society.

Harold Holzer is a really nice fellow and a very engaging speaker. If you get a chance to hear him talk on Lincoln and the presidency – do it.

Christie, Economy

Eighty Years Ago Today

Posted on by christian

Panic on Wall Street“Black Tuesday” Marked Slide Into Great Depression

There is some modestly good economic news this morning in contrast to this day 80 years ago when crowds gathered on Wall Street in New York sensing the economic worst had happened.

Third quarter GNP growth was at a healthy 3.5% indicating to some that the recession is definitely over and, according to the Washington Post, the stimulus efforts are having the desired impact.

Predicting the economy is, however, somewhat akin to predicting post-season baseball performance. I figured Phillies’ lefthander Cliff Lee would pitch a strong World Series opener last night, but hardly expected him to dominate the fearsome Yankee line-up. On a cold, rainy night in the Bronx, Cliff Lee was simply splendid and his one nine inning performance may – no firm prediction – have reset the Series.

So, in case you are tempted to assume an attitude of irrational exuberance over the apparently improving economic numbers, consider the following quote from the very smart financier Bernard Baruch. By 1900, at age 30, Baruch had a sterling Wall Street reputation and a million bucks – a lot of money back in the day.

Two weeks after “Black Tuesday” in 1929, Baruch consoled his friend Winston Churchill with an encouraging note. The future British Prime Minister had taken a bath in the market meltdown and Baruch, counselor to presidents and prime ministers, wrote in a cablegram to Churchill: “Financial storm definitely passed.”

That was November 15, 1929.

So much for predictions. The Great Depression would last another decade. My fearless prediction: recovery to continue, slow and steady, but don’t bet on it.

Afghanistan, Churchill, CIA, Military History

Dithering or a Strategy?

Posted on by christian

A Lesson from History

Within the stark building that houses the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa – perhaps the most anti-war war museum I’ve ever visited – is a relatively small exhibit devoted to one of the greatest blunders of the Second World War – the 6,000 man raid on the French port city of Dieppe in 1942.

Canadian bravery on the beaches of Dieppe is celebrated in the exhibit, not so the nearly criminal decision making that brought about the disaster.

As the photo nearby gruesomely explains, the Dieppe Raid – poorly conceived, horribly lacking from a strategy and planning perspective, and in no way adequately supported by naval and air forces – cost the lives of more than 1,000 brave Canadian infantrymen and British Marines in the space of a few short hours. Another 2,300 men were captured on the beaches in front of Dieppe and hundreds more of the wounded were evacuated back to England. The then-new British tank, the Churchill, saw action for the first time at Dieppe and most of the armor was left burning and destroyed as the survivors fought desperately to shed their weapons, get back to landing craft and escape across the English Channel.

In the annals of historic military disasters, Dieppe ranks high – or, perhaps, low.

What didn’t go wrong at Dieppe was the bravery of the mostly Canadian troops who went ashore at first light on the 19th of August. What did go wrong was the planning, larded with hubris, that marked virtually every step on the way to the death of so many of those brave men. No historian of the Raid has ever questioned the courage and resolve of the Canadians and to this day Dieppe conjures up a particularly melancholy memory among those who remember the sacrifice. Those who conceived and ordered the Raid have, in the fullness of time, been found wanting at every turn.

As historian Robin Neillands has written in his story of the raid: “If common sense had ruled the day rather than hubris,the Raid would either have been cancelled or the plans drastically revised. It was not one of those operations that begin well and then deteriorate. It failed from the very first moment the troops stepped ashore and got worse thereafter.”

Only later, as Neillands points out, was the Dieppe adventure justified – by Lord Louis Mountbatten, among others – as a trial run for the Normandy invasion in 1944. In none of the pre-Raid discussions had that rationale ever emerged as a reason for landing at Dieppe. Only later did it also become clear that virtually all of the assumptions made by the planners of the Raid were wrong. They underestimated German military strength and capability. They casually rejected what turned out to be the absolute necessity of naval and air support for the landings. And, amazingly, very senior British and Canadian military men and their civilian bosses dismissed the complexity of getting men and equipment both on and off a beach, under intense enemy fire, and all in the space of one high tide.

What was fundamentally wrong at Dieppe – and to draw the historical parallel to the current debate about the next steps in Afghanistan – was a sound, achievable objective. The Raid had no real purpose. At a time when British troops had suffered setback after setback, and before American GI’s were engaged in combat anywhere, the Raid would apparently prove that offensive action against the German Army was possible. As a result, the effort to put Allied troops on a French beach took on a life – and death – of its own as political and military leaders made the worst possible mistakes. They assumed that in war the best will happened and they planned for the obvious, not the possible. In the end, the planners of the Dieppe Raid failed, at any point, to stop, question, assess and ask the awkward question – including the most basic question – what are we trying to accomplish?

It is difficult to tell from the news coverage of the current Afghanistan strategy review – coverage heavily influenced by political calculations from the White House, the Congress and the last administration, particularly Dick Cheney – what is really being considered. Is our Afghan mission to destroy Al-Qaeda (and capture or kill the elusive Bin Laden), are we trying to defeat the Taliban, are we trying to prop up and then reform a corrupt Afghan regime, or are we trying to bring a 21st Century democracy to a tribal nation that, by most accounts, has never had a stable central government?

Not unlike the questions that should have confronted those who conceived the Raid on Dieppe in 1942, the questions in Washington today are simple to ask, but very hard to answer: What are we trying to accomplish and what must be done to realistically achieve success?

None of this is to question the bravery or commitment of the soldiers, airmen and Marines deployed – and likely deployed in the future – to Afghanistan. The troops will try to do whatever is asked of them without question. Leaders must have the wisdom and cold-eyed clarity to ask them to achieve objectives that really are possible and not based on fuzzy strategy or mere wishful thinking.

The great military historian B.H. Liddell Hart once wrote: “Throwing good money after bad is foolish. But to throw away men’s lives where there is no reasonable chance of advantage is criminal.”

With due respect to the former vice president, trying to get a strategy right is hardly dithering. In fact, it is altogether fitting and proper to question, debate and analyze before committing men and women to battle, or continuing battle. If there is any enduring lesson from the last half century of American military deployments it must be that asking and answering the “what are we really trying to do” question is essential.

After the Dieppe Raid had come to a disastrous end after just a few hours on the killing ground of that narrow French beach, a German interrogator said to one of the Canadian prisoners: “Too big for a raid, too small for an invasion…what were you trying to do?”

That is a very good question – always – when American troops are sent to war. What are we trying to do? A little dithering (or thinking) in the interest of developing a real strategy – a strategy with a chance to realistically succeed – can be a very good thing. Let’s hope we get it right.