Time is Running Out

"It is time for us to act. It is time for us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and get this done" said president Obama recently. He was not speaking of addressing the exploding national debt or the still flagging economy. He was speaking in regard to his plan to overhaul health care in the United States. He not only wants national health care reform passed, he needs it passed. The failure of his health care plan would deal a major blow to his presidency. The action he was referring to was in regard to the use of parliamentary maneuvering to circumvent opposition in the Senate. It is a maneuver that even some of his allies are warning him against.

President Obama is growing increasingly irritated at those who are standing between him and destiny. His ambition to enshrine government as the single most salient force in the lives of Americans and himself in history is at risk of being thwarted by 41 Republican Senators. Obama went on to say somewhat ominously that "we cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks time or six week's time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, that is what elections are for."

He is very much correct. That is what elections are for. Of course, Obama was referring to the election 17 months ago, not the election 7 months from now. I suspect it is his apprehension regarding the upcoming elections that underlay his growing impatience. Polls are showing that, not only is Obama's Health Care plan steadily losing support among the public, but that the Democrats can expect to lose a considerable number of seats in the House and the Senate this Fall. While they may not lose their majority, they very well may lose enough seats that they will no longer be able to muscle their agenda through Congress. Significant losses would chasten surviving Democrats in Congress and make their support less reliable for Obama as well as embolden Republican opposition. On the other hand, if it turns out the Democrats fair well in the elections, Obama can claim his policies have been vindicated. Not only that, but Republican intransigence would undoubtedly be softened. But Obama doesn't want to take a chance. Which is to say, he doesn't really want to put his health care plan up for a vote, not to the American people anyway.

In the contest to move his agenda forward and keep the support of the American people and Congress, time is not on Obama's side. That, perhaps, is the true cause of Obama's sense of urgency. If Obama and his allies in Congress are so convinced that this bill is what the American people want, why can't they wait seven months to see if they are correct? If they are, surely the American people will still want national health care reform in November. Moreover, the public frustration with those obstructing it would only increase in the intervening months which in turn could only work to Obama's and the Democrats' advantage in the Fall.

The stakes are indeed high. We should put health care to a vote. But we should put it to the American people for a vote, not the U.S. Senate. It is the people, after all, who will have to pay for it. They will also have to live with it. They ought to have a say. It is not often when an election occurs amidst heated debate over a major policy issue. We should not waste the opportunity. Why not wait seven months and let emotions cool. Then we can see what the people have to say about national health care. With so much invested in its existence, it is unlikely the health care issue is going to go away. If it gets worse, so much the better for the Democrats in the Fall. In the mean time, there are plenty of other things to keep Obama and Congress busy.

As for Washington living up to its responsibilities to the American people, whether and to what extent those responsibilities include providing health care is precisely what the debate is about.

Health Care Push.

President Obama refused to be chastened by the recent election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the U.S. Senate. On Monday, he revealed his proposal to push his health care plan through the Senate by using the procedure of reconciliation. The maneuver would allow a simple majority vote that would undermine any filibuster by the GOP. Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's information director stated that "the American people deserve an up or down vote on health care reform." GOP senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said using the procedure would be a "big mistake." The reason for the urgency on the part of Obama is that, according to administration officials, reconciliation is "the last, best hope for comprehensive health care reform."

This is most likely true. If the election of Scott Brown is any indication of the sentiment of the American public, the Democrats are facing significant losses in the upcoming elections. Reconciliation could very well be the "last best hope" to get the bill passed before anyone, including the public, can do anything about it. Waiting seven months for the next election to see what the public really thinks about health care reform would not be the end of civilization as we know it. But waiting seven months very well could be the end of Obama's health care plan. There is little indication that the public is clamoring for a quick passage of health care reform. The parliamentary maneuver of reconciliation would reflect the administration's urgency to get health care reform enacted, not the public's.

Hurling Lead in Afghanistan

The President of Afghanistan pleaded to the United States and Great Britain that their troops make a greater effort to stop killing civilians. The plea came recently after 16 civilians, including a family of 12, were killed accidentally in a western offensive in Marja. "We've been hurling lead all day" said a Marine lieutenant involved in the assault. In a recent NATO air strike, 27 civilians were killed. The planes did not know that the convoy they attacked consisted of civilians. Last Thursday, 7 Iraqi policemen were killed in an air strike after they were suspected of planting a bomb. Last Monday, 5 more Iraqis were killed in another mistaken air strike. NATO commander, U.S. General McChrystal apologized. The U.S. said it will see what it can do to prevent civilian casualties. On the bright side, of the 2,412 civilians reported killed last year, only 30 percent were attributed to NATO. It is unclear how many Afghans accepted McChrystal's apology.

While the death of Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians is "regrettable" to Western military officials, it is tragic to the families of those killed. Moreover, civilian deaths and the destruction of property and livestock do little to endear villagers to the Western troops responsible for those deaths and damage. The death and destruction remain long after the insurgents are dead and soldiers and Marines are gone. Western officials say the civilian casualties cannot be helped when enemy insurgents hide among civilians and ambush troops. But is it necessary to launch a determined military assault on a village because some insurgents are holed up there, or launch an air strike to destroy a car or a handful of men lurking suspiciously beside a road? To the military it is. That is their job. They are trained to assault villages and drop bombs. They are not police. They have artillery, tanks, and aircraft. When a village is bombarded and assaulted by soldiers and Marines, it is near certain that civilians will be harmed and killed and property will be damaged. The Taliban know this. Indeed, they count on it.

In regard to the mistaken air attack, a NATO official stated that "a group of suspected insurgents driving SUVs, believed to be en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit was engaged by an airborne weapons team." What is disturbing is that there were no Afghan forces operating in the area. Neither was their any record of Afghan soldiers requesting an air attack. Dutch soldiers responsible for the area denied requesting air support. If an air strike had not been called for and there were no reports of Afghan insurgents in the area, let alone insurgents driving SUVs, why would the aircraft take it upon themselves to attack two vehicles driving down a road? Who, besides the pilots, suspected that the occupants of the vehicles were insurgents and believed they were on their way to attack NATO forces?

Despite using technology and adopting measures to limit civilian casualties and property damage, civilians are still dying and property is still being destroyed. Once a village is surrounded, the insurgents have nowhere to go. It becomes a matter of ferreting them out; a task better suited the Army or even the police than the Air Force. If it is a case where only a small number of insurgents are suspected of holding out in a village, or planting a bomb, air strikes should not be needed. Air strikes and machine guns may be the surest and safest way to attack a target, but if one wants to win the hearts and minds of the locals, "hurling lead" and dropping bombs on villages and cars is probably not the best way. Bombs and missiles cannot see inside houses or know who or what is in them. Neither can the see inside vehicles or know where they are going. Less impersonal methods may take more time and entail higher risks, but the pay off would be better in the long run.

War is a violent business. People get killed and property gets destroyed. When fighting takes place amidst civilians, it is inevitable that civilians will be killed and injured. Nevertheless, we should give them a chance. Civilians can find refuge from small arms fire. If all else fails, they can come out with their hands up. You cannot surrender to missiles and you cannot hide from bombs.