Wednesday, February 23, 2011

20th Anniversary of Operation Desert Storm

Today marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Desert Storm, the blitzkrieg that ejected Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and restored the Kuwaiti government.

This past Sunday Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began a good will tour of the Mideast, largely to assure U.S. allies in the region of the American desire to see peaceful resolution of the street protests that have now spread from North Africa through the Persian Gulf. Adm. Mullen's trip coincides with the anniversary of Desert Storm.

Across this country, various groups are commemorating how the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition allies turned the "mother of all battles" into 72-hour rout. Saddam's most enduring legacy may be turning a hyperbolic boast into a popular culture punch line.

The coalition forces had been preparing for the operation since August when Saddam brazenly stormed across the Kuwait border and annexed Kuwait as the 19th province of Iraq. While Kuwait pleaded its case before the United Nations U.S. President George H. W. Bush patiently worked the phones.

Pres. Bush had a long and distinguished record of government service and international relations. Twenty years before the invasion he had been the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. So he knew first hand the frustrations of dealing with that body on issues of international crisis. He went on to become the chief liaison of the U.S. to China in the '70s as well as C.I.A. director. He spend the 1980s as vice president under Ronald Reagan as the U.S. won the cold war against the Soviet Union. Perhaps no president was ever as prepared for an international crisis of this magnitude as George H.W. Bush.

While debate droned on at the UN, Pres. Bush "worked the phones." During his tenure in China, the UN and the C.I.A. in the 1970s he had met many young diplomats, international careerists, and politicians all over the world. He had built relationships with many of them. By the time Saddam's troops were in Kuwait City, many of these acquaintances had been promoted through the ranks to positions of power and authority in their countries. While Saddam boasted, Bush quietly worked his Rolodex, putting together an international coalition with these leaders, and ultimately an expeditionary force not seen since the beaches of Normandy.

Since August the allies had been building an air bridge to new bases in the Persian Gulf.  Muslim leaders swallowed hard and agreed to let Western powers establish bases in their countries. They knew if Saddam's invasion were to stand, they could probably be next. The bombing started in mid-January. It was unrelenting and devastating.

By February 26 it was all over. Twelve years later it was all over for Saddam, deposed by Bush's son.

Totalitarian regimes celebrate military victories in their own inimitable way. In the U.S. we generally have a more respectful and quiet way of remembering these events. For example, in January a group of coalition leaders, including Pres. Bush, presented a "lessons learned"  symposium on the war at Texas A&M University.

This month a Framingham, Massachusetts veterans group has a display of memorabilia set up at their local library.

Meanwhile, down in Columbia, South Carolina the state's military museum has its own exhibit, called Shield and Storm, on display.

And Berea, Ohio will commemorate Desert Storm with its recent designation as "Patriotic City of the Year." Berea's accomplishments in that area? Its annual Veterans Day memorial, its Memorial Day services, and its rememberance of those who have died at the hands of terrorists.

Not a rolling tank or goose-stepping division among them.

As we look at one international crisis after another today, it's hard to imagine that a war-weary world could come together with one purpose. But it did just that 20 years ago today.

Just thought you might like to know.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

The Great Communicator


Today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States. Earlier today a stirring memorial of the President was held on the grounds of the Reagan Presidential Library in California. Throughout the next 12 months there will be various commemorations of the Reagan Presidency.

It may be difficult for anyone under the age of 35 to understand what President Reagan meant to the United States and to the world. Much of what we know about the President, and what we find in history books has been filtered through the prism of a media industry and education establishment that were largely unfriendly, if not downright dismissive, of Ronald Reagan during his lifetime.

If you would like a short course on what type of president and what type of person Ronald Reagan was, I recommend the Feb. 5 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan, who worked for the President in the mid-1980s.

If you would like to know what he meant to those who knew him up close, you could do no better than to click over to a recent syndicated column by Linda Chavez, who worked for the President at the Civil Rights Commission in the 1980s.

But I have my own reminiscence of what President Reagan meant to this country.

Ronald Reagan took office at what was arguably one of the worst periods in American history. The economy was in shambles, a mixture of high unemployment, inflation and double digit interest rates. Abroad, the U.S. had been humiliated by revolutionaries in Iran, who had held a large group of Americans hostage in Tehran for over a year. The Soviet Union was in an expansionist mode, fomenting with impunity international communism by proxy in several African countries and invading neighboring Afghanistan with the Red Army. Bleak, perhaps, understates the American outlook in 1981.

During the transition from the feckless Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan I was unemployed--not once, but twice. With little hope of finding a job. It was a scary, depressing, time. And bleak. Finally, in 1986 I was able to land a job. Not just a job, but a career -  the same career I enjoy today, 26 years later.

It took me some time to connect the dots between President Reagan, his economic program, and my landing a good job. It didn't hit me till the following year when I was driving to work one morning and I passed a Burger King. Outside the fast food store was a sign that read "Help Wanted." It was then that I realized that was the first "Help Wanted" sign I had seen since I was in my early years in high school. The Reagan economy was creating more jobs than there were people to fill them. And my job was part of that creation. Twenty-six years later that's what Ronald Reagan means to me.

President Reagan was a believer in freedom--economic freedom and political freedom. He believed that a government that over-reaches does so at the expense of its citizens' liberty. He also believed that America's unique ability to champion liberty and show by example made it exceptional. The source of this exceptionalism? Our Constitution. As he put it so well in his 1989 farewell address:
Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which We the People tell the government what it is allowed to do.

If you have 20 minutes I ask that you watch President Reagan's Farewell Address, provided below. The President knew that he couldn't count on the media to represent his words to the American people. So he often spoke directly - and candidly - to them. This was the last of those speeches. Somewhat derisively, the media nicknamed him "The Great Communicator" - a name this common-sense, modest man didn't necessarily agree with. For Ronald Reagan gave credit for his ideas to others and for their execution to the American people:


...I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference. It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator. But I communicated great things. And they didn't spring full boom from my brow. They came from the heart of a great Nation.

Just thought you might like to know.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Super Bowl Thoughts

The drinks are chilling in the beer fridge. The wing sauce is ready to go. And the snacks are piled high for Sunday's Super Bowl. That can mean only one thing: baseball is just around the corner.

Baseball, once the nation's pastime, has taken a back seat to NFL football as the sports fan's object of desire in the U.S. While over 100,000 people will be in Texas to watch the game in person on Sunday, hundreds of millions of others will watch it on television. In fact, with outsized ticket prices the NFL has become essentially television programming. Like Bones or Mad Men.

Really, when you come down to it, the only difference between Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers on one hand and Jon Hamm or January Jones on the other is that the latter two have better tans.

When you compare football and baseball you get the impression, largely driven by Midwestern sports writers, that football is the more egalitarian, American sport, where each season every team has a chance to make the playoffs. Where on "any given Sunday," as the saying goes, a last place team can beat a first place team. This is because the NFL is the master of corporate socialism, where all teams essentially share in the same pot of money.

Baseball, on the other hand, is more like capitalism run amok, the land of the haves and have nots. A sport populated by the hated Yankees, the terminally trendy Red Sox, the uber-hip Dodgers and the lovable Cubs, who have made more money losing over the years than the Washington Generals.

Unlike in football, when the 2011 baseball season opens in six weeks teams like the Washington Nationals, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and probably six others will take the field knowing the season is already lost. Those same Midwestern sportswriters will intone gravely on SportsCenter that Major League Baseball is hopelessly flawed because of this dichotomy. Oh, why can't they be more like the socialist NFL and redistribute their wealth better so everyone gets a medal at the end of the season, they'll say.

But will that be true?

MLB writer Anthony Castrovince has a nice piece posted on MLB.com showing it's not true. That when it comes to "parity" baseball and football are, well, on par. And in some cases, baseball exceeds the forced equality of the more socialist NFL.

When it comes to Super Bowls and World Series over the last decade, for example, baseball and football have the exact same number of teams - 14 - compete for their sport's championship.

Since 1967, when Super Bowl I was contested, the NFL has crowned 18 different champions. But during the same period, baseball has had 20 separate teams make the ticker-tape parade.

[And forget about basketball. Over the last 30 years the NBA, which practices NFL-style wage controls, has seen an oligarchy of eight teams rotate the championship among themselves. Compare that to baseball. Eight teams have won the championship in the last nine years!]

"Yea," Royals and Pirates fans say. "But it's not all about championships. We'd be happy if our teams could just make the playoffs. But they can't because of those damn Yankees, trendy Red Sox and too-cool-for-school Dodgers."

Time to correct another misconception. Actually, the two sports are about equal when it comes to playoff opportunities. Over the last five years 75% of NFL teams have qualified for the playoffs. During that same period about 73% of baseball's teams have played in October - about the same percentage.

And, it's worth noting, that baseball has a better record when it comes to fresh faces being asked to the big dance. Since 2006 only 37.5% of playoff teams were able to make the baseball playoffs two years in a row. During the same period nearly half of football playoff teams were able to make it back to the tournament - a virtual hegemony.

And when you look at repeat playoff appearances over the last two years the two sports are virtually identical.

"But we're small market teams," whine the Royals and Pirates fans. "Why can't we have revenue sharing and wage controls like the NFL and NBA? We can possibly compete for players like the moneyed swells in New York or Boston or Los Angeles." Well, that's not exactly correct, either. Consider that:

  • Eleven of the last 12 World Series slots have gone to different clubs
  • Only two of the top nine spenders (in terms of Opening Day payroll) in 2010 reached the playoffs last fall
  • And, more importantly, three of the bottom 12 teams in terms of payroll made it to October last season while their rich cousins watched them on TV
Baseball will never be football for one simple reason: 162 games vs. 16. In the NFL weaker teams from the previous year have their failure rewarded with weaker schedules. In a 16-game schedule it's conceivable that some of them sneak into the playoffs. Baseball, on the other hand, plays a 162 game schedule over a full half year. A death march that only the strong survive. Few teams can get by on luck for this long. By August the weak have been killed and eaten.

Thanks to Mr. Castrovince for these numbers. If you live in Pittsburgh or Kansas City, have hope.   If your teams manage smartly and trade wisely, they, too, will be in the playoffs. Look at Tampa Bay. All the money in the world can't make up for poor player personnel decisions, bonehead trades and unstable management.

Meanwhile, leave the difference between baseball and football to George Carlin.

Just thought you might like to know.