IP: 4 on : How to Lose a War: scathing NYT Op-Ed

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

From: "Hiawatha Bray" <watha () monitortan com>
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: RE: How to Lose a War: scathing NYT Op-Ed
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:40:47 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu 
id f9RKer825744

Some of Rich's comments are justified. Others are nonsense. In any
case, the really interesting thing about this piece is that it shows
we're getting back to normal when it comes to criticizing the
government. Which is surely a good thing.
Hiawatha Bray
Boston Globe


> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:51:43 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
> Subject: Re: IP: How to Lose a War: scathing NYT Op-Ed
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu 
> id f9RIlR823774
>
> How quickly we forget.  Mr. Rich's attack on the current administration
> seems to be oblivious to the fact that *every* administration in my adult
> lifetime (and I voted for President in 1956) has had its own flavor of 
> nonsense.
> I feel the line about "an ethos that has been in place since Jan 20" is 
> totally
> uncalled for and sheds more heat than light on the current situation..
>
> While I totally deplore many of the steps the government has taken
> since 9-11, none are unexpected and almost all would have happened
> under any recent administration.  I will not belabor the point with a
> recital of government idiocies in the second half of the 20th century,
> but will suggest that what we need is a serious discussion about
> the pros and cons of each proposed government action.
>
> As to the delay in deciding whether the anthrax outbreak was a
> continuation of the terrorist attacks of 9-11 or an entirely new
> war is not yet clear.  I read informed opinion both ways.
>
> Similarly, the steps to be taken are not clear either.  I, personally,
> prefer front end dawdling to later regrets.  More mistakes seem to
> be made through hasty action than the other way around.
>
> Bob McClure

> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:43:04 -0400
> From: Dan Steinberg <synthesis () videotron ca>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: How to Lose a War: scathing NYT Op-Ed
>
> Dave,
>
> While I agree with much of what Frank Rich wrote, I have to take exception 
> of his
> chartacterization of the appointment of Tom Ridge.
> While many complain about how DC works, the strange thing about is somehow 
> they do
> manage to muddle through crises.  Although he appears to chastize Tom 
> Ridge's role
> as merely one of 'coordinating' the coordinating function has some 
> historically
> good precedents in Washington.
>
> When the White House named a Y2K czar, it became obvious that his role was 
> mainly
> one of coordination. Few remember Y2K these days, and it's because the 
> role was
> successful. Coordination and visibility, they got the job done. While some may
> poo-pooh the Y2k as fearmongering, a great deal of work was done just so 
> CNN didn't
> have anything scary to report on. There was a crisis and we all dealt with 
> it. Does
> anyone remember his name? (John A. Koskinen). I think the fact that we don't
> remember his name speaks volumes for what he did in getting the job done. 
> Had there
> been a disaster, the name John A. Koskinen would have been synonymous.
>
> Here's a quote from him to that effect:
>
> So, why did Koskinen accept this next-to-impossible task? Being
>                         asked by the President and Vice President was one big
> reason,
>                         the love of a challenge was another, Koskinen 
> said. Still,
> "you
>                         have to sort of be a masochist," he admitted. 
> After all, as
>
>                         Koskinen readily acknowledges, he'll be left 
> holding the
> bag if the
>                         software fails, but he won't get much credit if 
> the snags
> are
>                         smoothed and Jan. 3 passes uneventfully: "It is 
> one of the
> world's
>                         great bag-holder positions."
>
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0398/031898t3.htm
>
> Fast-forward to today's crisis: I think we should give Tom Ridge a chance 
> to see
> how well his role impacts the process.  After all even Frank Rich thinks he's
> extremely capable.  And let's hope that the new anti-terrorism 
> legislations gets
> used as little as the Y2K safe-harbour legislation. I remember arguing before
> congress for much more narrowly-tailored relief back then, and being 
> relieved (only
> after the fact) that it was all moot.  Hopefully reason will prevail this 
> time and
> although there is serious provision for the trampling of civil liberites 
> in the US,
> maybe we will catch a break and it won't happen.
>
> Feel free to publish this if you think it useful.


> From: "Robert Lee" <robertslee () home com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: RE: How to Lose a War: scathing NYT Op-Ed
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:09:54 -0300
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
> Importance: Normal
>
> I respectfully disagree.  The only thing I agree with has not been
> asserted---that is that the authorities reacted to the contamination of the
> Congress with more concern for the inhabitants than the concern they showed
> for the postal workers. The unions are utterly correct about that, and
> correct about the reasons: The authorities value the lives of the
> representatives and staffs more than those of the postal workers.
>
> War is a messy affair, not won in surgical straight lines.  There is a lot
> of wheel spinning and waste---as in any project (as opposed to a product).
> Thank God we do not do enough of it that it is a project for us.  But we are
> fighting people for whom it is a product.   We will win imperfectly, but we
> will win.
>
> Robert Lee



For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/