The Consequences of Words

"Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." --George W. Bush, interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006

In my end of weekend/day perusal of the web, the headline on CalCon Murtha in Full Denial Mode caught my eye. I'd just read an email from a new customer -- of which I have never done business, never heard of, and do not know -- in which he said that he was "Sick of being abused by vendors who always want it their way." I pondered what he meant and how I would respond, given the conditions upon which he demanded that I deal with his order. It hit me that often, people project their issues on others, expecting the result that they would themselves offer when presented with a series of conditions. My customer had had a poor experience with another vendor, and even though we had never conducted business, he presumed that I would treat him similarly, or worse, that I would treat him like he treats his customers (having said that he was in a position to deal with customers himself). The tone and content of my customer's email was very similar to Gary Gross' post: condescending, incredible, and so full of self-importance, that I could not help but see the similarities, and that further, Gross is merely projecting his issues onto Jack Murtha, based on what he said on CNN's Late Edition this morning.

So, let's parse what Murtha said, and examine: whose words do you want to believe?

Murtha: They’ve mismanaged this war. They talk about us micromanaging. They’ve mismanaged the war so badly, they put the commanders in impossible positions.

No one can argue with Murtha's statement of mismanagement of this war. Thankfully, Rumsfeld is gone. Thankfully, the Democrats took back control of Congress, and are at least attempting to oversee this out-of-control administration. But the impossible positions that Murtha speaks of, from stretching the troops so thin, the Army is about to break:

General Joulwan: And so we are stretched thin. And I think it's very difficult to meet the sort of commitments we have, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but globally.

to having tired, wounded and improperly trained and equipped soldiers:

Reserve and Marine Corps tours have lasted longer than a year (shorter tours had been the norm)
• Many military personnel have come under “stop-loss” orders that have barred them from leaving the service, have been extended in their tours, or have anticipated multiple combat tours
• No Army division has been available as a strategic reserve (air and naval forces have been shifted to cover key contingencies)

Murtha continues "look, they're going to ask for a trillion dollars" which is, actually, a low estimate. Truly, the war without end.

But where Gross goes berserk is over his contention that Congress is attempting to micromanage the war, and is in violation of the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers clause. Interesting that Gross chooses to look Constitutionally at this issue, given two facts: this administration regularly chooses to ignore the Constitution, and that there is no verbiage in the Constitution that specifically declares "that the powers of the three branches of the federal government shall be separated." A seeming paradox, but one that George W. Bush has successfully exploited. See: Alberto Gonzales' declaration that there is "no right of habeas corpus in the Constitution". To paraphrase, Gross' assertion that Congress is violating the Constitution does, in fact, ring hollow.

But where Gross reveals himself as truly projecting his beliefs onto Murtha comes when he says "Murtha’s saying that casualties in Baghdad have shrunk but the 'incidents have increased outside Baghdad' is proof that the surge is working. [emphasis mine]" How is increasing violence proof that the surge is working? Did Gross not watch the previous segment Blitzer did, or at least read the transcript before he wrote this blather? Gen. Joulwan specifically says:

"what we are seeing now is what even the commanders on the ground will tell you is a very adaptable enemy. This enemy has adapted over the last four years to every tactic or strategy that we've come up. And I think you're going to see an adaptability to this one, to what we call the surge. And I think it's going to be interesting to see what's going to happen, not just in three or four months like some politicians want the surge to end, but in months or years that I think it's going to take to bring some sort of stabilization to this country."

How many brain cells does it take to see that if the insurgents will just wait for us to leave Iraq if we make a firm, date-certain commitment to leave, they will wait for us to leave even if we don't say we're going to leave? It is as though these thoughts have never occur ed to Gross, or anyone else, specifically on the right.

We have a choice to make: either we redeploy and get the troops out of harm's way now, or "kick the can down the road" and wait to do it another day... loosing lives, treasure, and time.

So just who is in denial?

I'm going to reply to my customer's email, and ask him to go elsewhere for his needs. I don't need to deal with demagoguery at the outset of a relationship. I'm not going to put myself in the position of having to deal with a problem that I know can be avoided, right here and now. Do I lose out on the sale? Sure. I also know I avoid setting myself up for failure. But just like Iran and North Korea are out there, rattling much more real sabres, there are more customers out there, and I know I can successfully work with them. Sometimes you just have know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em.