Spinning the war -- off to the state level (barf alert)

The Oregonian ^ | September 16, 2005 | David Sarasohn

[crazyhorse691]

A high-level White House official explained today that problems in the war in Iraq have been largely caused by state and local government failures.

"All the Americans over there come from a state," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There are real limits to what you can expect the federal government to do."

The idea that having a U.S. Department of Defense makes war an exclusively federal responsibility, he noted, is as mistaken as the impression that having a Federal Emergency Management Agency means that a federal agency should manage emergencies.

"Look at the problems we're having in Iraq," he said. "Public safety, utilities, running elections. Those are state and local responsibilities. The federal government has been trying to help out, but those things aren't really our job."

The official, who insisted that the initials of the country he works for not be published, noted that the Bush administration has not wanted to stress the failures of state and local governments in Iraq, which he called "Fallujah finger-pointing." But, he pointed out, "People talk about all the garbage in the streets of Baghdad, but collecting garbage is a state and local responsibility.

"And I don't want to even get into the question of who's fallen down on Iraqi mass transit."

Understanding where the responsibility lies, explained the official, is vital in deciding what to do next.

"Some people say we should send more troops to Iraq," he noted, "but that's just applying another big government solution. Besides, if you send more troops into combat, you have to provide more health care, and we need to cut back on the federal role in that area."

The administration figure -- who insisted he not be identified as a senior official, since that would suggest that he wasn't a junior or sophomore official -- also cited Hurricane Katrina as an example of the shortcomings of state and local government. Local authorities, he says, were very slow getting their troop transport helicopters, naval vessels and armored personnel carriers involved in the rescue effort. They also missed clear public-private partnership opportunities. With 30,000 people in the New Orleans Superdome, he noted, nobody thought to contract for concession stands selling hot dogs, beer or T-shirts reading "I survived Katrina -- without federal interference."

Instead, he argued, "the whole expectation was about federal dependence. Everybody just assumed that the levee issue meant the Army Corps of Engineers. Why not local volunteers, getting some people out in jeans on weekends? The problem should have been dealt with by the people closest to the lake -- and now is the ideal time to do that, since the lake is now a lot closer to the people."

It's that kind of new thinking, declared the official, that's needed in Baghdad.

"People talk about getting the United States out of Iraq, which would send the wrong signal to the people who read our signals," he warned. "But we should work on getting the federal government out of Iraq. We know this can work. The Civil War, one of our greatest military successes, was fought largely by the states. Some of them may even still have their Gatling guns around."

The change, he noted, would free the federal government to concentrate on its primary constitutional responsibility, cutting taxes.

For that goal, many Washington think tanks think the hurricane response has raised exciting possibilities.

"We think we could do a lot more with paying for war with private fund-raising and telethons," proposed the administration strategist, who asked to be identified only as someone who can see the Washington Monument from his office if he leans far out the window and twists just a little. "Maybe we couldn't pay for the whole thing, but we could cover some of the interest on the loans from the Chinese."

And the idea could lead to bigger possibilities.

"Ideally, of course, war would be entirely conducted by the private sector," said the official, who declined to confirm his actual existence, "and in Iraq, although you'd never know it from the media, we have made great strides in that direction.

"But some of the most important aspects of warfare could be most effectively conducted by private charitable organizations, which we know are always more effective than government. For our next war, we're looking at getting federal bureaucrats out of it entirely, and just contracting it out to faith-based operations.

"Why do you think it's called the Salvation Army?"

David Sarasohn, associate editor of The Oregonian, can be reached at 503-221-8523 or davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com.

[crazyhorse691]

A parody that tries to include too many topics just becomes a bore to read. I think he has let Bush become an overriding obsession and David Sarasohn has joined the ranks of the freakazoidbarking moonbats.

[Riemann]

I saw the little prick at the theater one night. He was all excited about having just come from a combination Democratic Fund Raiser and Penis Tasting.

[CT]

This commie isn't worth the FR bandwidth. He isn't even funny, or relevant. Moonbat, he is.