I've been reading Fiasco, the Thomas Ricks book about the Iraq war, off and on for about a month now (at the gym, a little at a time), and I found this interesting:
To enforce the no-fly-zones over Northern (Kurdish) and Southern (Shiite) Iraq for the decade between the end of the first Gulf War and 9/11 (to keep Saddam contained, among other things) it cost about $1.5 billion per year. And we didn't lose a single manned aircraft. The current occupation in Iraq costs almost that much per week, and the casualties are still piling up.
Almost $1.5 billion per week!?! Is that a current number? I feel a bit like Dr. Evil... having a hard time even fathoming that much money.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Midwest Blinders?
With regard to the questions in my last post... it seems I haven't been looking hard enough. Or maybe it's just here in the Midwest that we're not seeing much about the additional costs/ numbers of this surge? Like I said, a blurb on CNN and something on NPR, but not much since then (besides on blogs, naturally). But it has been in the Boston Globe and SF Chronicle.
And this on a military website.
And this on a military website.
Friday, February 23, 2007
British Troop Withdrawal
The national security advisor Stephen Hadley said earlier this week that the British pulling their troops out of Iraq is, "an indication that progress is being made". The sentiment has been bouncing around all week, most notably repeated by Dick Cheney ("it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well").
Who, exactly, do they think they're kidding?
It's a good thing the British are leaving 'cause that means we're winning... and, oh yeah, we want to send 21,500 more of our troops. Huh?
Nancy Pelosi summed it up rather succinctly, "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
I wonder if the administration- as chummy as they are with Tony Blair- knew well before announcing this troop surge that the British were going to pull out, and the 21,500 are meant (in part) to be a stopgap measure? But because it was suggested before the public knew about the Brit pullout it looks less like a desperate ploy and more like... I don't know? Crossed wires? In any case, it doesn't look good.
There are 7,200 British troops in Iraq now, soon to be reduced to 4,500. Taking up their duties won't take a huge bite out of the 21,500 additional American troops (assuming they get sent at all), but any bite is too big considering the common wisdom that 21,500 isn't nearly enough to make the kind of necessary impact to (maybe) make Iraq managable.
And they keep saying 21,500 more troops, but don't those troops need to be fed? What about paperwork? Transport? Security? That many troops means an awful lot of additional support personnel. There's some discussion to that effect, but not nearly enough. I remember seeing a blurb on CNN a few weeks ago, and hearing about it on NPR, and, naturally, on a few blogs, but not much otherwise. I'm willing to bet the majority of Americans have "21,500 troops" in their head and haven't considered that it will actually end up being twice that many (or more), with all the attendant costs. Obviously it behooves the administration to keep people thinking it's only 21,500, but shouldn't the newspapers be shouting "40,000! maybe more!"
Who, exactly, do they think they're kidding?
It's a good thing the British are leaving 'cause that means we're winning... and, oh yeah, we want to send 21,500 more of our troops. Huh?
Nancy Pelosi summed it up rather succinctly, "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
I wonder if the administration- as chummy as they are with Tony Blair- knew well before announcing this troop surge that the British were going to pull out, and the 21,500 are meant (in part) to be a stopgap measure? But because it was suggested before the public knew about the Brit pullout it looks less like a desperate ploy and more like... I don't know? Crossed wires? In any case, it doesn't look good.
There are 7,200 British troops in Iraq now, soon to be reduced to 4,500. Taking up their duties won't take a huge bite out of the 21,500 additional American troops (assuming they get sent at all), but any bite is too big considering the common wisdom that 21,500 isn't nearly enough to make the kind of necessary impact to (maybe) make Iraq managable.
And they keep saying 21,500 more troops, but don't those troops need to be fed? What about paperwork? Transport? Security? That many troops means an awful lot of additional support personnel. There's some discussion to that effect, but not nearly enough. I remember seeing a blurb on CNN a few weeks ago, and hearing about it on NPR, and, naturally, on a few blogs, but not much otherwise. I'm willing to bet the majority of Americans have "21,500 troops" in their head and haven't considered that it will actually end up being twice that many (or more), with all the attendant costs. Obviously it behooves the administration to keep people thinking it's only 21,500, but shouldn't the newspapers be shouting "40,000! maybe more!"
Monday, February 19, 2007
PTSD denials
The March issue of Playboy has an article worth reading about how the Dept. of Defense and Pentagon are severely under representing (and, by many accounts, under diagnosing), as well as failing to provide treatment for, the estimated 15-20% of soldiers serving in Iraq (and returning home) with post traumatic stress (PTSD).
As much as this administration harps on supporting the troops, and continues to characterize those who disagree with the war as "anti-troop", I find it disappointing (but not surprising) that they're actively undermining the health and welfare of those same troops- even beyond the obvious dangers of sending them into war- by limiting their access to mental health resources for political reasons.
The article's author (Mark Boals) makes a good point about the political ramifications for those who supported (and continue to support) the war if it were made apparent just how many soldiers are coming home profoundly damaged psychologically. He says, "Healthy, happy soldiers bespeak a just war... A ruined soldier bespeaks a ruinous war," and he uses the examples of WWII and Vietnam to good effect.
Despite attempts to conjure some connection with Nazis and fascists, in this war there is no clearly defined enemy and, really, no shared principle for soldiers (or the population at large) to rally around. The war on terror is a war on an idea, a concept- and it's not even a concept everyone can agree on. The word "terror" (and all of its manifestations) are starting to become nonsense- semantically satiated and sufficiently indistinct in definition that the words have begun to sound like gibberish. They might as well be telling us we're on a snipe hunt.
This war is a messy, complicated political chess game, but the pawns are real people with lives and families. That the administration would be ostensibly looking out for these people (and criticizing those who disagree with sending them to fight in the first place) while simultaneously undermining their access to the mental health diagnoses and resources many of them need (as a direct result of this war) is one hypocrisy too many. The administration doesn't appear to know what they're doing, and their reasons for continuing the war seem increasingly spurious. The American people are, by and large, fed up. The majority of soldiers serving in Iraq are being exposed daily to direct combat and, unlike in past wars, are unable to escape the anxiety even in guarded bases, or to spend enough time at home to decompress between deployments. Under those conditions it's surprising that the numbers for PTSD aren't higher. And absurd and embarrassing that those soldiers who are suffering are not being given accurate diagnoses and care.
As much as this administration harps on supporting the troops, and continues to characterize those who disagree with the war as "anti-troop", I find it disappointing (but not surprising) that they're actively undermining the health and welfare of those same troops- even beyond the obvious dangers of sending them into war- by limiting their access to mental health resources for political reasons.
The article's author (Mark Boals) makes a good point about the political ramifications for those who supported (and continue to support) the war if it were made apparent just how many soldiers are coming home profoundly damaged psychologically. He says, "Healthy, happy soldiers bespeak a just war... A ruined soldier bespeaks a ruinous war," and he uses the examples of WWII and Vietnam to good effect.
Despite attempts to conjure some connection with Nazis and fascists, in this war there is no clearly defined enemy and, really, no shared principle for soldiers (or the population at large) to rally around. The war on terror is a war on an idea, a concept- and it's not even a concept everyone can agree on. The word "terror" (and all of its manifestations) are starting to become nonsense- semantically satiated and sufficiently indistinct in definition that the words have begun to sound like gibberish. They might as well be telling us we're on a snipe hunt.
This war is a messy, complicated political chess game, but the pawns are real people with lives and families. That the administration would be ostensibly looking out for these people (and criticizing those who disagree with sending them to fight in the first place) while simultaneously undermining their access to the mental health diagnoses and resources many of them need (as a direct result of this war) is one hypocrisy too many. The administration doesn't appear to know what they're doing, and their reasons for continuing the war seem increasingly spurious. The American people are, by and large, fed up. The majority of soldiers serving in Iraq are being exposed daily to direct combat and, unlike in past wars, are unable to escape the anxiety even in guarded bases, or to spend enough time at home to decompress between deployments. Under those conditions it's surprising that the numbers for PTSD aren't higher. And absurd and embarrassing that those soldiers who are suffering are not being given accurate diagnoses and care.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Edwards Health Care Plan
I see one glaring omission.
The text of the plan says that only about 55% of patients get appropriate care, and goes on to mention medication errors and delayed or mistaken lab results. Seems to me these things are usually the result of under-staffing. Likewise the long wait times, impersonal care and the simple mistakes made when the doctor or nurse has only 10 minutes to talk with and diagnose each patient.
We already have too few nurses and doctors to meet current needs, with no signs of relief on the horizon. Increasing the number of insured people without taking corresponding measures to bolster the health care infrastructure will only ensure that everyone gets substandard care. While substandard care is certainly an advantage for those who currently have no care, it's likely to create resentment among those who are currently insured. They are already experiencing longer wait times for a doctor, fewer nurses, and decreased availability of certain types of specialized practitioners. Adding 40 million plus people to the ranks of the insured will only exacerbate the problem. Longer wait times and diluted care could potentially alienate much of the middle class (for whom the quality of care is likely to suffer most), and keep them from embracing the real advantages of Edwards plan.
I'd like to see a provision within the plan to offer more grants to those interested in studying medicine and nursing, as well as some programs for exposing junior high and high school kids to careers in medicine. Some incentives for adults to study nursing, and for experienced nurses to transition into retirement by way of teaching would also be useful. Federal grants to help community colleges develop more nursing programs, and help existing nursing schools to recruit faculty and increase classroom space makes good sense, since tens of thousands of qualified applicants are being turned away every year.
It also wouldn't hurt to work up some ideas for reducing medical malpractice insurance. Tort reform wouldn't be a bad place to start. Although Dems tend to avoid it (and largely vote against it each time it comes up), it does seem a necessary issue to tackle.
A good place to read about tort reform:
The text of the plan says that only about 55% of patients get appropriate care, and goes on to mention medication errors and delayed or mistaken lab results. Seems to me these things are usually the result of under-staffing. Likewise the long wait times, impersonal care and the simple mistakes made when the doctor or nurse has only 10 minutes to talk with and diagnose each patient.
We already have too few nurses and doctors to meet current needs, with no signs of relief on the horizon. Increasing the number of insured people without taking corresponding measures to bolster the health care infrastructure will only ensure that everyone gets substandard care. While substandard care is certainly an advantage for those who currently have no care, it's likely to create resentment among those who are currently insured. They are already experiencing longer wait times for a doctor, fewer nurses, and decreased availability of certain types of specialized practitioners. Adding 40 million plus people to the ranks of the insured will only exacerbate the problem. Longer wait times and diluted care could potentially alienate much of the middle class (for whom the quality of care is likely to suffer most), and keep them from embracing the real advantages of Edwards plan.
I'd like to see a provision within the plan to offer more grants to those interested in studying medicine and nursing, as well as some programs for exposing junior high and high school kids to careers in medicine. Some incentives for adults to study nursing, and for experienced nurses to transition into retirement by way of teaching would also be useful. Federal grants to help community colleges develop more nursing programs, and help existing nursing schools to recruit faculty and increase classroom space makes good sense, since tens of thousands of qualified applicants are being turned away every year.
It also wouldn't hurt to work up some ideas for reducing medical malpractice insurance. Tort reform wouldn't be a bad place to start. Although Dems tend to avoid it (and largely vote against it each time it comes up), it does seem a necessary issue to tackle.
A good place to read about tort reform:
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Mother Hillary
Hillary Clinton is dull. In the best possible way. And that's exactly why she could win the next election. And also why she might be just the sort of president the country needs.
The past 6 years of Bush have been like staying with a crazy uncle while your parents go on a cruise.
He delights in telling you that the terrorists, er, boogeyman, does indeed live in your closet and will jump out and grab you the moment you close your eyes. He shouts BOO! every time you turn a corner, and rattles your doorknob while you sleep.
He tries to buy your friendship with promises of no chores, limitless junk food, all the X-Box you want to play and no consequences... but after awhile your clothes stink, you have to wade through pizza boxes and you've got a headache.
You get a sneaking sense of unreliability with everything he says, but after awhile you're too immersed in his world to escape. The paranoia and shifting sense of right and wrong creeps in, despite your attempts to hold it back. "Maybe the boogeyman IS trying to get me... maybe borrowing cable really isn't stealing... maybe playing video games and eating Doritos really IS good for me... Holy shit! Maybe he really DOES have my nose!"
After a few years of this, Hillary in the White House would feel like mom coming home.
Sure, mom still tells you lies, but they're the benevolent kind. The world is full of monsters, but she wants you to sleep at night and wake up ready to face them, not cower under your covers and spend your days paralyzed with anxious fear. She knows that there are things you don't want to do, and that you might whine and say you hate her, but she'll stand her ground because she wants what's best for you.
She returns you to sanity and familiarity. Sets you back on a positive path; a more mature and productive path. She smoothes your hair and reminds you that crazy uncle can be such a kidder... as she glares at him over your head. She won't let you play X-Box until your homework is done, chores are finished and you've eaten all your green beans. And you might resent it, for a minute, and it certainly doesn't make mom as enticing as crazy uncle, but it settles your mind and restores some order and routine in a chaotic world.
And order and routine... as well as sanity and some soothing... is exactly what this country needs right now.
The past 6 years of Bush have been like staying with a crazy uncle while your parents go on a cruise.
He delights in telling you that the terrorists, er, boogeyman, does indeed live in your closet and will jump out and grab you the moment you close your eyes. He shouts BOO! every time you turn a corner, and rattles your doorknob while you sleep.
He tries to buy your friendship with promises of no chores, limitless junk food, all the X-Box you want to play and no consequences... but after awhile your clothes stink, you have to wade through pizza boxes and you've got a headache.
You get a sneaking sense of unreliability with everything he says, but after awhile you're too immersed in his world to escape. The paranoia and shifting sense of right and wrong creeps in, despite your attempts to hold it back. "Maybe the boogeyman IS trying to get me... maybe borrowing cable really isn't stealing... maybe playing video games and eating Doritos really IS good for me... Holy shit! Maybe he really DOES have my nose!"
After a few years of this, Hillary in the White House would feel like mom coming home.
Sure, mom still tells you lies, but they're the benevolent kind. The world is full of monsters, but she wants you to sleep at night and wake up ready to face them, not cower under your covers and spend your days paralyzed with anxious fear. She knows that there are things you don't want to do, and that you might whine and say you hate her, but she'll stand her ground because she wants what's best for you.
She returns you to sanity and familiarity. Sets you back on a positive path; a more mature and productive path. She smoothes your hair and reminds you that crazy uncle can be such a kidder... as she glares at him over your head. She won't let you play X-Box until your homework is done, chores are finished and you've eaten all your green beans. And you might resent it, for a minute, and it certainly doesn't make mom as enticing as crazy uncle, but it settles your mind and restores some order and routine in a chaotic world.
And order and routine... as well as sanity and some soothing... is exactly what this country needs right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)