Not since Gen. George Armstrong Custer before the Battle of Little Big Horn has a leader seemed so sure he was right as President Bush about his new strategy for victory in Iraq. I do not suggest that a massacre of American troops is likely. Far from it. But the strategy appears doomed to failure in the sense that it assumes the beleaguered and recalcitrant Iraqi government will act decisively in a maelstrom of conflicting interests. Who said there is no exit strategy?
Mr. Bush sounded much more persuasive in his interview with Scott Pelley of CBS Sunday night than in his formal speech on Jan. 10. But his repeated goal of achieving a functioning democracy in Iraq among factions that have been antagonistic for hundreds of years is about as realistic as a belief that Vladimir Putin is Santa Claus. The president also continues to regard all opponents of the continued American presence as terrorists and to demonize Iran and Syria without acknowledging that they have legitimate interests in what happens in Iraq.
Meanwhile Mr. Bush challenges his critics to come up with a better plan. Few responsible analysts think that there should be an immediate troop withdrawal. Rather, in my view, the aim should be to induce other nations to share the responsibility through a conference of all Iraq’s neighbors that would work to internationalize the responsibility. One of the worst aspects of the Bush policy is that it is so unilateral — the United States alone in the world.
Plainly, whether it is wise or not, Bush has the constitutional authority to send more troops to Iraq. The only legal recourse of opponents is to withhold funds. But critics ought not to let themselves be put in the position of seeming to undercut American troops. Rather, they ought to say that they vote for additional funds on the understanding that the administration will genuinely seek an international conference to consider the problems of a settlement in Iraq.
u u u
Connecticut U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd has many of the qualities that would make a good president. He has wide experience in a branch of government, broad familiarity with foreign affairs and with Third World problems, and a compassionate voting record on domestic issues. Whether his position as essentially a moderate gives him enough appeal to offset that of the more flamboyant competitors for the Democratic nomination remains to be seen. As the father of two young daughters, does he really want to relinquish his family life? Does he really have fire in his belly?
Connecticut’s other senator, Joe Lieberman, who is obviously President Bush’s favorite Democrat, is in a position to hold his party hostage. Listen to me or I may join the Republicans. The war aside, that could make an unfortunate difference on some close votes in domestic affairs.
u u u
As a onetime boater on Long Island Sound, I believe in keeping that treasure as pristine as possible. Thus I am concerned by the plan to moor a floating liquefied natural gas terminal about the length of two football fields in the middle of the sound at its widest point south of New Haven. The terminal would serve needs in Connecticut as well as on Long Island.
Other things being equal, I would rather not have this artificial impediment to the serenity of the sound. But if we are serious about wanting to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and diversify our energy sources, we are going to have to make some compromises. On matters ranging from the location of electrical transmission lines (Connecticut has the most congestion of anywhere in New England, which acts to increase prices) to the location of windpower facilities on or near Cape Cod, the greater good of the greater number ought to be the criterion.
As with the location of moderate-income housing in Salisbury, Sharon, Millerton and Pine Plains, the interest of neighbors always must receive consideration. Ideally the final decision probably should be made by a disinterested outside body strictly weighing merits and objections. That may not always be possible, but what should be clear is that, if NIMBY (not in my back yard) were to govern such decisions, not much would get done.
u u u
When our kids were young, they somehow thought that the frisky little beasts that frolicked on our trees and lawn were called "squirriels." Well, it’s time for a report on the "squirriel" problem as it affects our bird feeder, which I dutifully take out each morning and take in at night to evade bears.
I hope I am not in the position of General Custer on the eve of a disaster, but I must acknowledge that for the moment, at least, the problem is solved. A patented inverted plastic bowl with a hole in it is fastened just under the feeder on the pole that holds it up. I have watched a succession of gray and red squirrels give up in frustration when they cannot get around the bowl above their heads as they try to climb the pole.
So the device works admirably, although I don’t suppose it would deter a determined bear. By the by, where are the bears that were so much in evidence last year?
u u u
Would you believe? Our neighbor, Muriel Young, goes me one better on my report about a 94-year-old man who lamented that his dog had eaten his hearing aid. She recalls that the late Frank Battin of Low Road in Sharon had a black lab that was so exuberant in greeting its master that it knocked out his hearing aid on two separate occasions, consuming it each time.
Tiffany Lemelin, shelter manager, brushing Marsala upon arrival.Provided
Michael DeBarba, certified dog trainer working with Marsala.Jennifer Almquist
Marsala wins a heart.Jennifer Almquist
