Listen to the Generals? Gooood morning Afghanistan!

Dear editor:

Republicans are questioning President Obama’s upcoming decision on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, spouting “Listen to the general.” The general they are citing is General McChrystal, and his request for 40,000 more troops to finish the job in that eight plus year old war. On top of that, former Vice President Dick Cheney is demanding that the president stop “dithering” with his decision. Maybe if Cheney, one of the leading architects of the Iraq War, had “dithered” a little more, over 4,300 American troops would still be alive.

Yes, the hue and cry is to listen to the generals. We know from history what they mean, as we saw with President Johnson listening to General Westmoreland’s proven lies, increasing troop levels in the disaster of Vietnam. He didn’t have the guts of “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman who didn’t listen to General Patton who advocated continuing the Second World War and attacking Russia while our troops were strong and in Europe. Truman also put General MacArthur in his place and stopped the demand by this self styled Caesar to attack China during the Korean War. He listened, thought, debated, and then did what was right for America and not just for the military. That’s what Obama should do.

Our Constitution and laws set up a government and military that is civilian controlled, unlike the military dictatorships found around the globe. Listen to the generals? Listen, Mr. President, but make the decision that is best for the country and not for the men who wear the stars. Think of the brave heroes who are over in Afghanistan now, putting their lives on the line every day. Think of those that preceded them and gave their all and their lives while the generals and politicians talked of “winning.”

And remember, changing the mission from “winning” to “finishing the job” doesn’t change a thing. Bring our brave men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan, as you promised during your campaign for president. Put a stop to the waste of American lives and money. We need both here at home.

First Understand the Problem

Dear editor:

I am amazed sometimes by the one sided brain function of many people who use propaganda handed to them by politicians and media big mouths (newspapers, TV and radio) that have an agenda of their own for their own selfish reasons. It’s almost like “say the secret word” and believe it even if it doesn’t make sense. Such are the comments made in a letter to the editor which appeared Sunday, November 15th.

The writer claimed that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government has the authority to require people to have health care or offer assistance to those in need of it. That happens to be true. But, I don’t see the writer complaining about the fact that this ground breaking document never gave the government the authority to put up traffic lights that require us to stop and go, or build roads for us to travel on, or control air travel, or have Social Security and Medicare, or on and on with all the benefits we receive from federal, state, and local governments (that we are taxed and paid for) to which we have become accustomed. All those “terrible Socialistic” ideas have become the norm in a country whose Constitution says nothing about them. Times, people and needs change.

And what about the claim that government intervention would interfere and wreck the world’s most successful health care in the world? While our medical care is wonderful and many people come here from foreign countries to take advantage of it, there are a few facts we must face. With our health care the United States is number 20 in the industrialized world for longevity of its citizens and number 17 in infant mortality (up to one year old.) Those failed health systems the writer points to, I assume England and Canada, are both way ahead of us in both those categories.

And lest we forget, Louisiana is 8th in the nation in a prevalence of diabetes, 7th in heart disease, over 60% of our adults are obese, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 is 9.8 as opposed to a nationwide 6.8, cancer deaths per 100,000 is 203.5 versus 180.7 in the nation overall. Our problem is not only national but very much a local one.
So whether or not the Constitution specifically allows for healthcare we must take steps to solve our problems. Instead of claiming that we are destroying the Constitution we ought to be screaming about doing something about the health of our citizenry…..all of them.