Napablogger

Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance

I have started the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance, and won't be posting here much for a while at least. I do have several essays I want to write in mind, but I dont' know when I will get to them. When I do I will post them here.

Please visit the web page of the Taxpayers Alliance and help us promote good government in Napa.

www.napataxpayer.org

thanks, Michael

Actual New Ideas for Iraq and Fighting Terrorism

From George Packer who has ferreted them out. If you don't know George, he wrote "The Assassin's Gate" on what is actually happening in Iraq, or was at the time he wrote it. He gave the best, most immediate and coherent explaination for why the Rumsfeld/Cheney plan failed that I have read, and I read a lot, especially about that subject.

In this rather lengthy article  in the New Yorker he lays out the ideas of mainly David Kilcullen, an Australian who has been advising the Pentagon and State Dept. about counter terrorist insurgency operations. The guy is nothing short of brilliant, and although it is clear he does not have a partisan axe to grind, he makes it clear what the shortcomings of the Bush administration have been in fighting the global war on terror.

And even more than that, he gives actual, concrete ideas for how best to fight the war that I think are the best I have read. The Democrats would do well to listen up and use some of his ideas.

Here's a few key paragraphs to wet your appetite, but read the whole thing, this little bit doesn't do justice to the whole strategy he lays out:

"Last year, in an influential article in the Journal of Strategic Studies, Kilcullen redefined the war on terror as a “global counterinsurgency.” The change in terminology has large implications. A terrorist is “a kook in a room,” Kilcullen told me, and beyond persuasion; an insurgent has a mass base whose support can be won or lost through politics. The notion of a “war on terror” has led the U.S. government to focus overwhelmingly on military responses. In a counterinsurgency, according to the classical doctrine, which was first laid out by the British general Sir Gerald Templar during the Malayan Emergency, armed force is only a quarter of the effort; political, economic, and informational operations are also required. A war on terror suggests an undifferentiated enemy. Kilcullen speaks of the need to “disaggregate” insurgencies: finding ways to address local grievances in Pakistan’s tribal areas or along the Thai-Malay border so that they aren’t mapped onto the ambitions of the global jihad. Kilcullen writes, “Just as the Containment strategy was central to the Cold War, likewise a Disaggregation strategy would provide a unifying strategic conception for the war—something that has been lacking to date.”

By speaking of Saddam Hussein, the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Taliban, the Iranian government, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda in terms of one big war, Administration officials and ideologues have made Osama bin Laden’s job much easier. “You don’t play to the enemy’s global information strategy of making it all one fight,” Kilcullen said. He pointedly avoided describing this as the Administration’s approach. “You say, ‘Actually, there are sixty different groups in sixty different countries who all have different objectives. Let’s not talk about bin Laden’s objectives—let’s talk about your objectives. How do we solve that problem?’ ” In other words, the global ambitions of the enemy don’t automatically demand a monolithic response.

Gitmo Detainees Released

The AP has a story today about the 300 or so Guantanamo Bay Prison inmates who have been released. This prison is usually known by its military euphamism of Gitmo, where the US has detained the "worst of the worst terrorists" according to Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.

The Democrats claim that this prison along with numerous Bush policies has made us a pariah in the rest of the world and severely damaged our reputation. Republicans respond that all those people hated us already anyway, and the proper course is to fight them and ignore their protests as they are not on the side of what is right, anyway.

It appeared though that the information coming out on the fate of the released Gitmo detainees favors the Democrats view. One detainee who was returned to Afghanistan claimed to be a low level member of the Taliban who was innocent of any terrorist behavior. From the article:

"Mohammed Aman, a 49-year-old Afghan who describes himself as a former low-level member of the Taliban, said he initially wasn't worried when U.S. troops detained him.

"I was relaxed because I was innocent," he said. "I was sure I would be freed. I was always thinking that today or tomorrow I will be free."

He spent three years at Guantanamo until he was finally put on a plane at the base, blindfolded and with headphones covering his ears. When he made it back to his home in Malaik Khail, Afghanistan, villagers streamed out to greet him, many weeping."

There are similar stories with many of the 250 that AP tracked, and it raises clearly the ethics of keeping people in jail without a trial, with scanty evidence that would not hold up in court, and also being treated with torture or at the least torturous conditions.

"The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83 Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries."

Can you imagine the affect on local communities where these men are now released to? It has to increase the hositility toward America, Afghanistan is our friend, not enemy.

The problem is that America has never been in this situation before, where we have a low level, seemingly never ending war that could last decades. What do you do with prisoners of war in this situation? In previous wars you could lock them up til the end of the war then when a few passed and the war was over let them go home. Now because some of them may go back and engage in new terrorist activity, and there is no clearly defined battlefield or army,  taking a prisoner in this situation poses new challenges.

On the other hand, treating them like criminals in a war situation where they are not American citizens seems to deny the seriousness of what we are confronting. They are not common criminals.

In any case, there is no way we should keep those without some kind of serious tribunal or trial to determine if they are really the big terrorist fish Bush says they are. Clearly some of the Gitmo detainees are not big fish or even terrorists. To know now that we tortured innocent people like that is an outrage, totally unacceptable. It also shows how foolish and morally wrong it is to torture any of these prisoners. All we are doing is sowing seeds of hatred against us for the future, and lowering ourselves to our enemies standards. When you become what you are fighting you have lost.

Parks Money

The meeting of the Sups on Dec 5 contained a lengthy discussion on what to do with about $1.4 million in a special project fund they set up that a portion of the TOT goes in to. They got about half that this year and saved the rest from prior years.

Mark Luce was all set to propose $750,000 of that go to Parks and the pro Parks people were out in droves. They didn't make much of a case because Diane Dillon more or less shot it down before they got rolling by saying that it ought to be handled like in a business, with proposals that are worked out coming first. I pointed out at the meeting that they hadn't even had one meeting yet of the Parks District Directors and they were already asking for more money.

The whole thing devolved into a sort of rambling discussion and nothing happened. I think it is inevitable that Parks is going to get more money, because they don't have enough money to even legally operate. Itried to point this out to all of them, including voters, before the election but they were hell bent on gaining control of this land issue. I have to hand it to Harold Kelly for at least being up front about his intentions, he said that this District is the third leg in land control of Napa County, the first two being the ag preserve and Measure J.

So the agenda is more about controlling land use, shutting down development I suppose that means. It is not about Parks, or Open space unless you mean walling people off out of it. I really don't think that is what the voters had in mind when they voted for Measure I which created this district. 

I think they ought to be forced to go to the voters for more money, like they should have in the first place. 

Democrats Off to A Good Start??

It's sure not looking that way. Pelosi made one good decision by not putting William Jefferson into the committee chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, but it is obvious that Democrats are having their own ethics issues right away. On top of that, Pelois turned down the well qualified and whip smart Jane Harmon for head of the intelligence committee, who by seniority rules was in line for the job, because she doesn't like her for some unknown reason. Instead she picks a bozo who doesn't even know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization that considers Shia heretics. This after the whole dust up with Steney Hoyer and picking the rather off the wall Murtha for 2nd in command in Congressional Democrats caucas. Murtha didn't end up with the job, lucky for Pelosi.

Reading the liberal blogs one sees that "progressive" Democrats dominate the discussion and are forcing Democrats in Congress to listen to their often inane demands. Here in Huffington Post Barney Frank is forced to respond to a blogger who he feels has misrepresented his economic positions.  Notice the comments section too, where many of them, some in a very demanding way, insist that the Democrats in Congress start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. That would be nuts, it would create a poisonous atmosphere in this country worse than the 2000 election fiasco.

The Democrats do not inspire a lot of confidence so far.

But less you think the right wing has improved, here's the latest---soy milk is causing homosexuality, according to one nutball in World Net Daily, a preacher named Jim Rutz. Key graf:

"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products."

I kid you not.

There is a real crisis in leadership in this country, decent people with common sense are afraid to speak out and we are left with the extremes of both sides gaining the megaphone. That has to change, and I am saying that about Napa County here too. People are afraid to rock the boat and disrupt, but if things are going to change there has to be some kind of disruption, some kind of leadership willing to speak out.

Election Numbers

As I mentioned in previous posts, I have been going over the election results for Measure I on a geographical basis. What stands out is that the vote was very close in Napa city and in the unincorporated county. Measure I won handily in all the cities except Napa. I find that a little ironic because the cities stand to gain the least from this Measure, as most of the efforts will be toward putting hiking trails in unincorporated areas. Obviously, people who live inside city limits can go out and use them, but from what I heard from voters during the campaign people in cities want city parks for their kids. That appeared to be the top priority, even in St. Helena where they just went through a big fight over the Boys and Girls Club recreation center.

I am wondering if the city voters think that this new District is going to deliver on some of that kind of recreation, and what the reaction will be when that doesn't happen.

It won by the biggest margin in American Canyon, there were 2336 yes votes, 1419 no votes for a 913 vote margin. Contrast that with over 22,000 votes in Napa city where the margin was only 803, or in unincorporated Napa with over 11,000 votes and the margin was only 226 votes. St. Helena had 1339 yes votes and 731 no votes, for a margin of 608. Calistoga had 917 yes to 491 no, for a 326 vote margin.

In fairness, it won in every area or way you could look at it. On the other hand, if you look at the ballots that were cast where the voter chose not to vote on Measure I, and assuming that they ultimately decided to vote No, it was very nearly within the margin of defeat, winning by about a thousand votes out of 43, 400 votes, or by 2 and 3/4 percent. I think it is fair to look at it that way because before the No on I campaign started they were winning by about 80%, and the No campaign was only active for about five weeks and it brought it down that much. One more week and this thing would have been toast, we almost made it. I take the lack of a vote on the issue as an indication that the voter had doubts about I, and with a bit more information there is no doubt in my mind that would have become a No vote.

If the voters had been paying more attention to what is going on this thing wouldn't have gotten close to passing, and I think it would behoove the new District and its supporters to be aware of that and tread lightly, stick to what they have promised, and try to make something happen without millions of more dollars being spent (as they promised). They are instead heading in exactly the opposite direction.

In terms of the Supervisorial Districts, they tend to go along with the city vs county numbers I just mentioned, naturally, but there are some interesting points to note. One is that in Bill Dodd's district which includes the Silverado area it was 3906 yes and 3824 no, less than a hundred votes separating the two. In Mark Luce's district 2 which includes Yountville where it won by a big margin, the vote was also very close, 4686 yes and 4520 no, for a 166 vote margin, very close for the main proponent of Yes on I.

That suggests that in Luce's district outside Yountville Measure I went down, and the surplus of Yes votes there is the only thing that carried it to the Yes column for him. It is pretty risky for Luce to be going against the voters in his own district that much, particularly when you consider that there were only about 1250 voters in Yountville and about 8000 outside Yountville in Luce's district. The same dynamics in his next re election bid with a lower turn out and he could be defeated.

In the other three districts Measure I won by relatively comfortable margins, in the 8-10% range.

Parks People Already Asking for More Tax Money

The figurative ink hasn't even dried on the election yet and already I hear that the pro Parks people in Napa are going to go to the Supervisors meeting this Tues to ask for more money. They are going to ask for 80% of the TOT tax that the county puts into what it calls a special fund. This is the 1.5% of the total 12% TOT tax that was passed in 2004. This year it was $750,000 and next year will probably be more, it went up close to $100,000 from last year due to increased tourism in Napa.

During the campaign they promised no new taxes and that they could run the District on the $350,000 they were authorized already by the county. Now before even the first meeting of the new District Board they are reneging. On top of that, in today's Register, after promising Napa City residents they would get ball fields and recreation for city folk, Dave Finigan said they wouldn't be doing that because they don't want to duplicate city services. Huh? They campaigned on it, and city residents are subject to being taxed by this group like everyone else. Measure I only passed in Napa City by 803 votes---out of 22, 397 cast, with over 1000 people abstaining. By the skin of their teeth, in other words.

Not bad, huh? They could give the Bush adminstration lessons on how to mislead voters.

Back From Vacation

And things are happening in Napa despite the holiday season---maybe because of it. Through the grapevine I hear a group of pro Parks supporters who backed Measure I are going in to the Supervisors this Tues to demand more money from the TOT for parks. This, before their newly elected Directors have even met once, this despite a campaign theme of "no new taxes". Read their lips, huh? You would never know this meeting is taking place because the agenda item on the Sups agenda says something like "review of special projects fund", no mention of parks.

I have been crunching the numbers on the election for Measure I, and there are some interesting facts that emerge. Overall there was a 7+% gap, but in the city of Napa it was only 3.5%, and a lot of people didn't vote on Measure I that did fill out ballots otherwise. They skipped that one. That suggests to me that there were a lot of people in the middle who had doubts, and if 70% of those doubters had voted No Measure I would have lost in Napa. American Canyon voted 2 to 1 in favor of I, on the other hand, and ironically they are going to have the short end of the stick on Parks the way it is going. More on this in another piece later today, I will give more details about all the numbers on Measure I.

We went from Nashville, to West Palm Beach, and spent our last day in Miami before flying back to Napa on Thursday. The day we were in Miami is when Tom Tancredo made his statement that Miami is like a third world country. I have to say, it sure seems like that when you are there. We went to the famous south beach and it was filled with street people, homeless, and was phenomenally crowded. There was so much traffic it was hard to drive down a street, zero parking anywhere except paid lots and most of them were full. And we were told it was a slow day!

Everyone spoke Spanish and it was clear that we were in a Spanish speaking town. Amidst all the squalor were phenomenally expensive hotels with the mega rich hanging out, and very high priced restaurants and designer clothing shops. A small group of mega wealthy with a huge serf class---sure sounds like a third world country to me.

What I don't get is why people don't realize that those who want to slow down immigration, like I do, are concerned about gross overpopulation, way too much growth and crowding, and the huge impacts of importing large numbers of third world people that are uneducated and don't speak the language?  It is not about race or where the increased population comes from. Every time someone starts to raise the issue of reduced quality of life and overdevelopment due to too many people, someone shouts racism, end of discussion. Miami used to be a beautiful place, do we have to let it get destroyed because of political correctness? Los Angeles is in the same boat. They have both moved toward becoming third world countries where immigration policy here greatly benefits the wealthy and destroys the middle class.

Vacation

I am going out of town tommorrow for Thanksgiving, won't be back til Dec 1. I will have my computer with me but may not have a lot of time for posting. See you then.

McCain Calls for More Troops in Iraq

The New York Times today reports that John McCain is calling for more troops in Iraq as a way to win the war. Hillary did that about a year ago, and I think it is a good idea, certainly an idea worth exploring. It may be that the situation is too far gone for it to do any good, too bad we didn't do it when it could have made a difference.

However, the consequences of just walking out of Iraq like many on the progressive left seem to want to do could be enormous, so bad that we will end up having to go back in later. Saudi Arabia is not going to sit idly by while Iran takes over Iraq and installs another Shia led Khomeini style government. For that matter, will we? Will Israel? War could easily spread beyond Iraq, even beyond the Middle East and that is one thing that those who want to just "redeploy" our troops do not address.

It would be so much better if we could get even a reasonable facsimile of a stable government with some type of democracy there before we left. It would be worth the effort and losses if McCain or anyone else can come up with a plan that has a reasonable chance of working.

The article says only one in seven Americans support that, but I think with good leadership and a realistic plan that is well presented that number could change rapidly. I am ambivalent about McCain but if he can pull that off he has my vote for President.

Rumsfeld's Problem

I find myself wanting to explain to other Republicans why there is such a big problem with Rumsfeld and the way the war was conducted. There is a whole huge part of them that remain in denial about what a disaster this is. Just check out this thread from Lucianne.com. They feel that they need to support Bush, which I understand, but you can't just go on and on and not admit the problem, because then you can never deal with it.

A brief article in the New Yorker today, a report on Ken Adelman's last meeting with Rumsfeld tells us all we need to know. Adelman is a true blue Republican, a good friend to Rumsfeld and in a position to know what he is talking about. Rumsfeld had appointed him to a high level defense dept policy board, and in that board Adelman began to point out the problems with the current Iraq policies.

From the article:

In 2001, Rumsfeld appointed his friend to the Defense Policy Board, a group of lobbyists, defense intellectuals, and politicians of once high standing, who gather periodically to give the Secretary unvarnished advice on strategy and management.

Rumsfeld had apparently come to see Adelman’s advice as a bit too unvarnished. Before the war, Adelman famously remarked that the invasion would be a “cakewalk.” He wasn’t wrong about that. Seizing Baghdad was comparatively easy; holding it quickly became the problem. “When Rumsfeld said, in reaction to all the looting, ‘Stuff happens,’ and ‘That’s what free people do,’ I was just so disappointed,” Adelman recalled last week. “This wasn’t what free people did; it’s what barbarians did.” Within the confines of the policy board, Adelman became blunt about his disenchantment with the Pentagon’s management of the war. At the board’s meeting this summer, Adelman said, he argued that the American military needed a new strategy.

“I suggested that we were losing the war,” Adelman said. “What was astonishing to me was the number of Iraqi professional people who were leaving the country. People were voting with their feet, and I said that it looked like we needed a Plan B. I said, ‘What’s the alternative? Because what we’re doing now is just losing.’ ”

Adelman said that Rumsfeld didn’t take to the message well. “He was in deep denial—deep, deep denial. And then he did a strange thing. He did fifteen or twenty minutes of posing questions to himself, and then answering them. He made the statement that we can only lose the war in America, that we can’t lose it in Iraq. And I tried to interrupt this interrogatory soliloquy to say, ‘Yes, we are actually losing the war in Iraq.’ He got upset and cut me off. He said, ‘Excuse me,’ and went right on with it.”

That's what free people do---pillage and rape their own neighborhoods? Amazing comment, and enormously out of touch with reality. What Rumsfeld failed to do was provide basic security, and that is the decision that allowed the tribal insurgencies to flourish. I especially criticize him for that because he would told this would happen before the war, and even after it started happening he remained in denial, or for some reason just refused to deal with it.