i shot a man....

During my rounds of Reno and greater Northern Nevada the whole real estate crisis become oh so clear. I'll get to that is a few minutes.

Here is the oath that every commissioned officer takes upon entering the military, I've added in a name for clarity:

"I, Ricardo S. Sanchez, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)

Seems clear enough, doesn’t it? The oath of enlistment is a bit different in that there’s allegiance to the President, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the officers appointed over us/them/we. I only took it four times. Anyway, there are tons of people out there, Mr. Sanchez and various other retired generals, who apparently believe that stars on their shoulders, political expediency, and marching behind a President was part of their job description. It's either that, or he was too afraid to make a stand and tell the truth - I've no idea which is worse. He was no doubt afraid they'd treat him as that did Eric Shinseki when he testified by telling the truth. Somewhere in his mind he thinks that his belated confession (and future book) will somehow exonerate him from responsibility; even greater reason to doubt his sanity. I sure hope Sanchez sleeps well at night. Well done, General - keep up with the Japanese spiritual quotes.

On to Reno. When I moved there in 2003 the entire area was busting at the seams - real estate prices skyrocketing along with a severe housing shortage even with the eye-popping building of endless subdivisions. All of Nevada led the early 2000s boom, at least two or three years ahead of the rest of the country, and I got in just as things began to fever pitch. When I put my house on the market in the spring of 2005 I was about two months too late. It sat empty for a year and I had to lower the asking price by $40,000 and pay the buyer's closing costs just to sell - but I got out just in time. That was summer of 2006 and the market is far worse now than it was then. The city of Fernley is swapped with empty homes for sale and rent. Prices have plummeted – 2400 sq. ft homes are now selling for the 2006 price of my 1500 sq. ft house. Downtown Reno has empty condos and townhomes in beautiful new buildings on the river. It’s ugly. My real estate prediction is this: Reno is at least a year away from riding out the problem. Consider the collapse as starting in spring 2005 and I can see it will last until at least the fall of 2008: count that as a run of 3 ½ years. For the rest of the country; it didn’t get real bad until spring/summer 2007 so the end will be nearer the end of 2010. Those are the facts on the ground – don’t believe anything you read from economists and real estate associations.

Such light discussion today.

I’ll get off my rantings and railings…

T.

that reminds me of 2001

I waited for Esquire to publish the name of the Sexiest Woman Alive because I refused to believe the hype, and Poiret-ish detective work, put forth by some I know. I didn’t really believe the idea that it would be Charlize Theron because she’s about five years ago. Charlize Theron? What? I’ll have to read the article/results to figure out just what she’s been up to lately, I know of absolutely nothing, but isn’t currency part of the sexiest thing? There’s certainly a voting chunk that is aligned with popularity as the contest winner is discussed. Charlize Theron? Shocked. Of course, based on my belief that the Employee of the Month shouldn’t be a rotating award so other workers don’t cry or quit, the fact is – if the contest is Sexiest…Alive, what happened to last year’s winner (Scarlett?)? If she was sexier than Ms. Theron last year, what happened? Did I miss something? Is she sans sex this year? Is she dead? Even if you dispatch that argument there are at least four that far overshadow Theron: Blanchett, Ricci, Wiesz, and Swinton.

Cate


Christina


Rachel


Tilda


and last year's winner Scarlett


This has been way too much effort in addressing a wholly unimportant issue. Ooops.

On a more serious note - there's an Christopher Hitchens article in the new Vanity Fair that's unbelieveably thought provoking. As I've said before, Hitchens is one of the great philosophers and writers of our time, I often feel like I want to strangle him and point him to his words. He can make the most persuasive argument, he can use parts of brain that I don't have, yet I see into what's wrong with his push. This is one of the first articles I've read where he acknowledges that it's gone awry but there's no inclination on his part to figure out just why. I remember riding the Metro about six months ago and seeing a very young guy missing the bottom of his leg. I assumed then, and I still believe it now, that he was en route or returning from a vetern's hospital and that he'd been wounded in Iraq. He sat as I, he watched the world through the windows, he seemed settled. But for me it clawed at every bit of whatever soul I have - his live forever changed and his ability to live on was far too shocking to my system. You know what's funny? He isn't a hero - he's someone who served is country and made a great sacrifice greater than anything I'll ever know. I could see his pride, I could see that service was a duty; duty isn't courage. In this day and age it's something that someone else does. That doesn't make his life any greater or less amazing - it makes it sadder because he'll never know just how much I admired and respected him - but as a country there is no respect. Measure Hitchens' article against the jackassery of questioning whether a candidate for President is wearing a lapel pin; or if a Hummer 2 has a yellow ribbon proudly displayed on its bumper. Think. We know nothing - it's horrible.

esquire.com doesn't have the article online; the newstand is worth the purchase price. You also get some great Annie Liebowitz shots of great folk singers. Damn Liberals!

You can't be more psychotic than this mess...

Love to all.

T.

h-e-double toothpicks

Sen. Obama was strong in the Senate hearings today. Aside from the fact that he felt the need to spell A-S-S instead of saying the word, he spoke well. He didn’t rehash the same questions and blather that most of the panel put forth – he hit the main issue: at what point, or at which benchmarks, do you see the U.S. deciding to withdraw. I like Gen. Petraeus and his testimony (both days) as a whole has been straightforward. I don’t much care for the graphs and charts he presented because numbers can be wholly manufactured to fit any situation. The problem with what Petraeus faces is the limits on what he can or cannot do on a battlefield; affecting strategic thinking. In the greater view, the strategic planning (nation-building, withdrawal, more/less troops) is held strictly by the President and his administration. The tactical issues (Al Anbar, sectarian violence in neighborhoods, prosecuting foreign and insurgent fighters) fall directly to Petraeus. In the areas where he has enough troops due to the surge (Al Anbar) there may be some progress, such as “sitting on the [sectarian] fault lines”, as Petreaus testified. The general is doing the job he’s been tasked to accomplish but the fact is that the job (strategically) cannot be accomplished with troops. Both the ambassador and the general readily admit that the only way for Iraq, and this war, to succeed is via political rock breaking. And that’s the rub: he’s a military man doing a military man’s job well but fighting a futile mission. The greatest fault in the entire vignette is that Petraeus refuses to make any determination or estimate on how long it would take to complete his mission: securing the entire country in order to allow the political process to gain a foothold. As the author of the Army’s counterinsurgency manual he knows in his heart just how long and how many troops it would take to quell the violence and allow politics in Iraq to become a factor. If he can’t answer that question with any level of fidelity then we’re simply toiling down the same endless path. I disagree with him on this fact – providing an idea of a timeline wouldn’t be debilitating to U.S. force in Iraq.

The idea of having Ambassador Crocker present at the hearings was misinformed. His comments and strength of knowledge about the military affairs, which is the point of these hearings, were unhelpful. I know he can’t really do his job (strategic/political) until Petraeus can do his.

I think moveon.org needs to back off.

Here’s my suggestion for future House and Senate hearings. The chairperson can open the proceedings with the following:

“The entire committee, and our country, thanks you for being here and for your service to your country. Now that I’ve passed along those comments for the committee, and the American people, the next member that utters anything about thanks or service will be summarily kicked in the A-S-S.”

T.

cup of joe

Sen. Biden is giving it with both barrels on the Senate floor.

"This administration has not made one correct decision on Iraq. Not one."

T.

the power of one

A few weeks back Sen. Hagel (I’m name dropping again) was asked something along the lines of “how easy will it be for you to run as an anti-war candidate?” He paused as he always seems to, and then answered thusly, “who said I’m anti-war? I’m not anti-war, but I don’t support the execution of this war.” And there it is.

What reminded me of the press conference was some talk in the car the other day as we were heading out to buy Easter Egg Hunt goodies for the kids (my idea; there will be four here on Sunday). And we don’t need to go into any discussion about holy days and candy; I honestly don’t think much about it…so there. Anyway, my stance when it comes to this point of war/anti-war classification is similar: I’m neither. In the case of Afghanistan – fire away, in the case of Iraq – I wasn’t onboard. Either way, the die was cast and we end up in Iraq…now what do we do? Well, as a jumping off point, we should have done what we did 15 years ago and sent in 400,000+ troops. The U.S. military is a machine and it's not too caught up in the politics of 'invade or stay home', or the worries of international support; it doesn’t care, nor does the enemy. The military does what it’s told to do, but the one thing you can't do is handcuff it by not supplying the overwhelming force needed for a given mission. The inability to manage the after-effects of the conventional combat mission (how did no one think beyond 5-10 days?) was criminal. Who plans for ten days when they decide to invade a country? This very first mistake laid the path to where we are right now. Four years later, innumerable opportunities to at least attempt to fix things, and what we get is 20,000 additional troops in Baghdad? Gen Petraeus, who’s now the commander of combat troops in Iraq, rewrote the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual in 2004, here’s basically what it says:

“The new field manual recommends a troop density of at least 20 combat troops to every 1,000 people in Iraq. There are 6 million people in Baghdad, which means the manual would suggest 120,000 combat troops to effectively secure the city. Right now, there are about 130,000 U.S. troops in all of Iraq, and of those 60,000 are support troops or personnel, American officials say.” (pbs.org)

My Nebraska math says that we had (pre-surge) about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq. That leaves a shortage of 50,000 troops IF we move all of them to Baghdad. Let’s say we do that, and we bring in 50,000 more; what do we do about Mosul, Tal Afar, the rest of the Sunni Triangle? We just ripped all those troops from the rest of the country so we’d need to backfill in order to continue to secure the country – in fact, based on the training manual we’d need a total of over 530,000 combat troops (July 2006 Iraq population estimate 26.7 million [www.cia.gov]) – so I’m at a total of nearly 450,000 additional troops if we really needed to secure the country, or a minimum of 120,000 if we were just securing Baghdad and backfilling in other areas. I’ll make this easier:

120,000 additional combat troops if you want to get off on the cheap
450,000 additional combat troops if you want to get the job done

Our answer: 20,000+.

Unfortunately, we’ve got a shortage of troops these days and somehow believe that we can only rotate x number in-country on yearly tours. But, if as it's claimed, this is the most important war since WWII, and if we must contain the region and secure Iraq, then you send in every troop you have, you tell them they’ll be there ‘for the duration’, and you finish the job. Would that suck? Yes. Did WWII suck? Yes. If the guys in suits running this war want to win then they have to flood the country in order to secure it. At that point, and only at that point, can we talk about the political solution that is buzzing around the big blue sky. How does anyone expect Iraqis to be happy (or even content) with the security situation when daily life is so shitty? Never mind what John McCain says about ‘walking around Baghdad’ as if all is peachy…he’s lost his train of thought. I’ve read somewhere that Baghdad averages about six hours of electrical power each day…six hours! My bathtub backs up and I'm thoroughly pissed off. Power. Water. Security. According to Pentagon spokespeople the cost of the war started at $4.4 billion/month in 2003 and is up to a forecasted $8.8 billion/month in 2008. More math for me, and I’ll be generous to the Administration, says that by the end of 2007 we’ll be in this thing for upwards of $360 billion – we can’t get the power on in Baghdad? I’m pretty sure that in Todd’s Top Ten Ways to Prevent Hatred and Insurgency, infrastructure is pretty high on the list. If you want your money to fight the war, Mr. Bush, then make some hard decisions.

Here’s my support for the situation in Iraq: send in everyone or get the hell out. Throwing an additional 20,000 troops into the situation is putting 20,000 more military members in harm’s way for no good tactical or strategic mission. None. You want my anti-war stance? More troops. There you have it.

Now the 29% of Americans who still support this Administration can go back to reading Us Magazine, debating about Britney Spears' breakdown, and watching Fox News.

I’m done.

T.

fine leaders

The House Resolution (H.R. 1591) and paired Senate Resolution 965 (S. 965) that are crashing down the halls of the capitol represent a excellent look into just how much hasn’t changed when considering the incompetency of our elected officials. The titles of the two resolutions, respectively, are: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and; An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. Such straight-forward titles for what should be a straight-forward bits of legislation. Both bills are allegedly supplemental spending allocations for Iraq (military and reconstruction funds) that were requested by the President. The total that came from the White House was just under $100 billion dollars – remember, this is supplemental spending, not part of any budget (gotta keep the money on the down low…). The house, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, added $40 billion dollars in spending to the resolution along with a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq; two sides of the same dirty political coin. The deadline will obviously force the President to veto the bill and the money (on the other, dirtier side) is simply to bribe Dems and ‘Pubs to at least initially support the bill…deadline and all. What may happen down the road when the President finds his “VETO” stamp (psst...it’s in the bottom drawer under the Christmas party pictures with Rove playing Santa) is a whole seperate issue. I don’t know if either the House or Senate has the votes to override a veto but we’ll certainly be in for some crappy political theatre. Here are a few things that will no doubt be said by the politicos across the river:

“The President vetoed the bill for more spending to support our troops in Iraq…hater!”

“The House, and the Democrat majority, submarined spending and support for our troops in Iraq by appending a deadline to withdrawal…traitors!”

Of course, support for the troops and the money needed to get that done is not the real issue; it’s the spending and bribing that gets done under the auspices of being patriotic. The spending amendments are merely buying off anyone needed to support the bill: for $50 million dollars to your state you’ll apparently vote for anything. If you look at the Senate resolution and the amendments that are proposed you’ll see the following sponsors:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) x 2
Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)

You can read at CNN or MSNBC or Fox to get details of some of these amendments: insect research? Katrina relief? Tree saving? Milk? All a bunch of garbage that doesn’t belong in the bill. At least Sen. Cochran showed some onions – I can read the text of his amendment at the Library of Congress website prior to the vote: he wants to strike the deadline from the bill. Good for him. The other amendments are tagged as “Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.” Of course it will be…but I’ll have to dig through mountains of text to see just how much you’ve spent and just how much I despise your actions. And just so we can fully enjoy these ideals set forth by our representatives in Washington, bear in mind that each of these spending amendments ($283,000,000 for Milk Income Loss, $74,000,000 for Peanut Storage Costs, and Sen. Reid’s $20,000,000 for insect research, etc.) in the Senate resolution can be cited, under emergency designation, by using the bill’s title: U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Nice.

I’ll bet that Hutchinson and Sessions will fall in line with Senate Democrats on the resolution vote…you think? The Dems will play it as Republicans breaking from the party in order to show solidarity with the Iraq withdrawal deadline. But what we really know is that Sens. Sessions and Hutchinson just want to get paid. Reid, Byrd, and Landrieu look worse on the day - they are simply taking money because they can.

No more politics.

T.