THE DANGER OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY MEN
Smithsonian Magazine is always an excellent read. It doesn’t get much play in the blogosphere because the contents are usually as eclectic as the Smithsonian itself and are not as partisan as the usual online suspects that bloggers love to quote or fisk. But it came in the mail today and the article ” Presence of Mind: Man of the Century” on the 100th anniversary of The Education of Henry Adams immediately caught my eye.
Henry Adams 1838 -1918
Many readers of this blog have already read this classic work (or, if in college or grad school, it is probably on the bookpile) which is notable for its depth of introspectively minded, societal and historical commentary by a man who today would be called a” public intellectual” though Adams no doubt would have eschewed such a term. Henry Adams had a discerning eye in part, as the author Peter Hellman relates, because like his brother and fellow historian Brooks Adams, Henry Adams was a man out of his time:
“And even as the information age sweeps the world, Adams’ book remains a compelling self-portrait of a man trying to keep his feet as the ground shifts around him.
Henry Brooks Adams’ great-grandfather, John Adams, was the second president of the United States; his grandfather, John Quincy Adams, was the sixth; his father, Charles Francis Adams, was a congressman and U.S. minister to Great Britain during the Civil War. Education, which Adams wrote in the third person, begins its chronological march with the author’s privileged birth on Mount Vernon Street in Boston on February 16, 1838. But it also notes his feeling that his lineage conferred no head start “in the races of the coming century.”
But as the 20th century approached, Adams worried that, by inclination and education, he was better equipped to be a mid-19th-century man. Among his concerns were the 1905 Russo-Japanese War over Manchuria, rioting against the czar in St. Petersburg and whether Germany would align itself with Russia or Western Europe.
Wondrous, but still worrisome, were such new sources of energy as radio waves and radium (though his narrative goes through 1905, he does not mention Einstein’s publication that year of the theory of relativity). He was not religious, but technology made him devout. He pondered the “great hall of dynamos” at the Paris exhibition of 1900, where he felt the mighty machinery “as a moral force, much as the early Christians felt the Cross.”
The earth itself, he writes, “seemed less impressive, in its old-fashioned, deliberate, annual or daily revolution, than this huge wheel, revolving within arms-length at some vertiginous speed and barely murmuring—scarcely humming an audible warning to stand a hair’s breadth further for respect of power—while it would not wake the baby lying against its frame. Before the end, one began to pray to it; inherited instinct taught the natural expression of man before silent and infinite force.”
Adams had the self-awareness to sense his alienation with the major trends of his age, a quality that is lacking in most people who are disconnected from the flow of events. Adams, unlike his famous forbears, never sought high office though he was in the circle of those who did, including Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred T. Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt, early partisans of of America as a world power. Unlike Adams, they were ahead of the curve on the approaching spirit of the times that would later be called ” the American Century“.
If only some our politicians, statesmen and foreign policy elite had some of Adams’ self-reflective humility today. Reading Foreign Affairs is often a depressing sojurn into the expositions of men who are anachronisms before their time, left behind by globalization and war in the prime of their careers and yet are unwilling to recognize that their comfortable old ideas provide few solutions to new problems. Dr. Barnett wrote the other day about the limitations of Scowcroft-think realism which was fitted to handle the delicate balance of nuclear terror in a bipolar Cold War but not messy 4GW insurgencies:
“The real problem with Rice is that she came from the Brent Scowcroft school of realism and national security advising. After Iran-Contra, the Brent Scowcroft school of national security advising came into vogue: the national security adviser and the NSC staff became super-apolitical. Instead of being the government-wide advocator of national security policy and an active player in its own right, the NSC and its boss became foreign policy super-clerk to the president, the main job being protecting POTUS’s ass from any blame.
This is essentially the Scowcroft model, and it reflected his realist take on things: no advocacy and no idealism from the NSC. It doesn’t lead, it merely coordinates.
That became the preferred mode post-Iran-Contra, and it survived the Bush 41 administration nicely, segueing into the emasculated NSC of the Clinton years, when the NEC (national economic council) was actually more powerful because Rubin at Treasury topped any of the unmemorables at Defense.
When Rice came in with George, the NSC embraced the Scowcroft “we’re-just-here-on-background” model. The staff I interacted with were all the same. I called them the “Joe Fridays.” They’d come, they’d take notes, and that was it. They had no ideology to speak of. They were responsible for nothing. They just coordinated.
We won in Iraq–the war, that is.
What we continue to lose in Iraq in the peace. That loss occurs primarily because we’re under-allied and under-coordinated interagency-wise. You place that blame on State and NSC. Rice ran NSC through the disastrous “lost year” following the invasion’s successful conclusion (when Saddam’s regime fell). Rice has been in charge of State for the last two years, during which our under-allied approach has proven quite isolating for us and quite invigorating for the insurgency and now sectarian warriors. “
The foreign policy elite that includes Rice, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Albright, Christopher, Holbrooke, Berger ad infinitum are upstanding, patriotic, deeply serious, often intelligent but at times, seem no more ready to tackle the realities of the 21st century than did Henry Adams at the close of the 19th. Not enough attention is being paid to fundamental shifts in military and economic power devolving downward from the hands of the state. Hamstrung by their own mistakes in Iraq, the Bush administration has regressed toward paralysis. The Democrats offer no alternatives except the non-solution of unilateral withdrawal. The refusal to make any strategic choices that might allow the U.S. to regain the initiative has set in, rejected in favor of papering over problems and muddling through, the default stance of the foreign policy elite since the Vietnam War.
We are being ruled by twentieth century men.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:13 am
“…the Bush administration has regressed toward paralysis”
Perhaps, but I am not so sure.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
to say Rice is a realist is preposterous. she ASSEMBLED the whole neo con foreign policy team. and to say Clinton was a realist is even more ridiculous. we had like ten interventions during his presidency. Barnetts own globalist NAFTA for the third world via the military is to blame for Iraq’s unfortunate state.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Why do you think that realists are non-interventionists per se ?
Rice assembled nothing. She’s a protege of Scowcroft and Robert Blackwill, who vaulted upwards on her personal connection with Bush. She’s at the point of her career now to push her own people but not back in 2000. She was tapped by the seniors,including Bush I and Baker, not the reverse.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:46 am
“…seem no more ready to tackle the realities of the 21st century than did Henry Adams at the close of the 19th. Not enough attention is being paid to fundamental shifts in military and economic power devolving downward from the hands of the state.”
Exactly. And devolving downward from the hands of the state to the individual citizen and the social organizations that he creates. The 20th century was characterized by government-directed social organization, and the 21st will be characterized by entrepreneur-directed social organization. In the same way that Industrial Age organizational theory informed liberal technocracy, Information Age organizational theory will inform liberal entrepreneurialism. Those time periods that straddle these kinds of cultural shifts are fascinating and we have the fortune to be living in one. Henry Adams was conscious that a shift was taking place. But he didn’t quite grasp what was going on. We today have a larger perspective of what that kind of shift means and we have the opportunity to choose to participate in that shift and drive into the unknown. Are we willing to abandon outdated 20th century ideas and venture into an unexplored, fertile 21st century? Are we willing to pursue the opportunity we have to create the ideas that will inform the next century of cultural innovation? Absolutely. We are extremely fortunate to be alive in this time and we must take advantage of the opportunity to dream civilization forward.
“We are being ruled by twentieth century men.”
Indeed. Watching our boomer politicians and aparatchiks trying to solve 21st century problems is incredibly frustrating. They don’t know what they are doing and we are going to have to work overtime to fix their solutions and pay for their retirement. Their worldview is exhausted. It’s time to generate another one.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:25 am
I’m glad to have stumbled onto this blog.
The info re: Adams is welcomed. I’ve got to explore.
I’ve felt a bit anachronistic myself these last years, but struggling nonetheless to create a future vision of my own.
I blog at http://www.statecraftinformer.com
and each, in its way, reflects my frustrations and hopes, a la Phil’s comments here.
I agree, I agree, I agree.
Please help me find potential leaders able to discern a responsible new paradigm for human beings over the next 1, 2 or 300 years!
I’m one person, but I’m willing to carry water.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Hi Phil & Tim,
Great comments as always. We could get off on to an entire analysis of the paradigm of Croly, Taylor, Veblen,Keynes etfc. model but I think your remarks were spot on. Which brings me to..
Glad you like the blog. Gracias !
In a nutshell, I think we are seeing a decentralized, open source, networked civilization emerging that acts as a complex adaptive system, more like an ecology than a machine.
As far as ” thought leaders” go, I’m close to and supportive of the work of Thomas Barnett and Steve DeAngelis and suggest you start there, but I think you would find much food for thought also by digging into the following thinkers/futurists/writers/strategists:
Colonel John Boyd
Martin van Creveld
Arthur K. Cebrowski
That’s enough to get you started ;o)
November 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
“That loss occurs primarily because we’re under-allied and under-coordinated interagency-wise. You place that blame on State and NSC.”
Great article (you have an amazing breadth of knowledge), with a nice change of pace at the end — a little Barnett humor. Yep, no mistakes in Iraq by DoD, no delusional thinking by neocons & T. Barnett — just a lack of memo traffic from State and NSC.
Where did you get this fun quote? Now that his folly has been tested at such great cost, is Barnett working as a Jester for the Bush Admin?
November 30th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Much thanks. I try to learn what I can and share what I learn.
Heh. Pithy. Here’s my response on a serious level as I know that’s really your intent:
Fairness check, Fabius, Tom has leveled much criticism at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld, Bush, the senior generals and named names on his blog and in his public talks, has he not ? And has Barnett also focused on some of the (few) generals who “get” that warfare has changed and we need to change ?
This is one post about the flaws of the impartial “honest broker” approach to running the NSC which focuses on “coordinating” the principals. The NSC staff used to ( Kennedy through Reagan) offer the president policy alternatives from what State and Defense ( and at times, the CIA) were presenting.This used to be considered a critical function and reason for having an NSC in the first place. It didn’t have to be great alternatives either, the simple fact that SOP assumptions were being challenged forced State and Defense to give the president sharper, better thought-out, options.
( arguably, Bush does not want to hear alternative viewpoints and unlike his father, lacks the bureaucratic experience to reliably estimate the value of the advice State and DoD have to offer )
That generative model stopped with Bush I. who was his own secretary of state and DCI, at least on a p/t basis, and who wanted an NSC that was a follow-through mechanism ( enforcement of PDD/NSDD) for the bureaucracies.
As for Iraq, there could hardly be a clearer example that conventional, politically tone deaf, 2nd generation, Leviathan force can smash a state but not win over a society.
Sys Admin is a concept, it doesn’t exist yet as a force. For that to happen, the military would have to intellectually grapple with much of the problems posed by 4GW and achieve operational ” jointness” with an array of civilian political and economic agencies while being able to phase in the private sector and NGO’s. That while respecting the need to create space for civil society to grow.
This will be hard – and we are not ready yet. Baby steps at most toward recognizing the paradigm shift.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
it’s not rumsfleds fault that Iraq is what it is. we had de-talabization in afghanistan and, though some decent people got caught up in it and some morons let in, it wasn’t nearl as disasterous as de baathification. Rory Clarks new books the prince of th marshes talks abuot this. all the mistakes that were made in Iraq have been made in afghanistan, haiti, kosovo ad inifitum. the problem was invading a country with a modern non -rural economy that DIDN”T ATTACK US and DOESN’T LIKE US.
and your characterization of rice is perposterous. she’s the one who said “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and called this summers bloodshed in Israel and lebanon the “birth pangs of the new middle east”. that’s not realist talk
barnett is the one who is clinging to the OLD rotten paradigm of the US as benevolent global hegemon. that ended on 9/11 and it ain’;t coming back
December 1st, 2006 at 1:02 am
This post also fits into my critique of academia. Lots of state on state action in that sector.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:40 am
I trust your judgement, so I’ll take your comments as given and move to a deeper level on this.
“Sys Admin is a concept, it doesn’t exist yet as a force.”
Barnett advocated aggressive international action, but with full knowledge of our National Security systems (State, Intel, DoD). If they did not meet the requirements of his Sys Admin etc forces, he should have protested strongly BEFORE the invasion.
As did Lind, for example.
It’s useless telling us far after the fact that the military we went to war with did not meet his theoretical requirements. I doubt any real world force does or will in our lifetimes.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:48 am
You are avoiding my question :o)
On Rice, I’m arguing career pedigree and you are talking rhetoric. Fine. We can disagree.
If anything, Barnett moved in BFA to a transnationalist position, though an atypical one. The Core pushing globalization is the higher value than narrow American interests ( I wouldn’t go so far but I get his point)
Iraq was invaded for strategic advantage and to neutralize a totally intransigent regime that would make trouble as soon as it was able. The administration used any issue they could to sell their policy politically. Then they proceeded to blow it, drip by drip.
Agree with you on Rummy.
You should pose that question to Tom rather than me.
However, my best recollection is that Tom wrote that he expected that if Iraq turned into a debacle, it would ultimately force the military to commit to the structural transformation to deal with failed states/4GW/Sys Admin that they were avoiding with all their strength.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
As resident historian, is there any historical precedent for war bringing about a better mousetrap designed for the next war?
December 1st, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Certainly. WWII yielded the atomic bomb.
So successful a leap into “the next war” that everyone has had to reevaluate how to fight one.
Less dramatic examples:
Cromwell’s New Model Army.
“The Military Revolution” thesis of historian Geoffrey Parker
Victor Davis Hanson would argue for the shift to the phalanx coupled with free citizen-soldiery of the polis among the Greeks
December 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
The Tokugawa Shogunate banning and destroying firearms to artificially extend the primacy of the sword.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:23 pm
mark, first of all i don’t understand barnett language. believe it or not, he’s not an important person in society. so speak english if you can thanks.
second, I don’t know that either rices pedigree or her rhetoric are exactly what we would base her philosphy on, but her rhetoric is what she is saying NOW whereas her education is in the past. and she is a hawk who supported a pre-emptive war. I don’t know many realists who are doing that these days and the people we genericly think of as realists, leon hadar or pat buchanan, are not. here’s condi feb 03: “Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and furthermore, the American people wouldn’t accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we’re naive and so on, but we’re not Europeans, we’re Americans—and we have different principles”
pure bill kristol.
and I was told we invaded iraq because of WMD and links to al queda not any strategic whatever. there was never any idea I was aware of to spread democracy via iraq. this ,again, sounds suspiciously like NAFTA: we’ll solve our terrorism / immigration problem by helping modernize their economy. of course, bot h NAFTA and Iraq have been stark failures for the people of the nations involved besides a few elites.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Sorry for the jargon. Thought you were more familiar with Barnett’s books.
No, in society in general Barnett is not important. In a narrow niche in the national security and military community he is a voice that is listened to at SOCOM, the CIA, USAID, various schools for military postgrad education and with journalists like Ignatius who cover that beat. That niche is one that interests me as it relates to implementing foreign policy, so I blog on it a lot.
Part of this discussion is bogging down because I don’t think we agree on what constitutes a realist. To me, it’s someone who measures events primarily in terms of power relations between states – a Kissinger or a James Baker for example ( people whom Pat Buchanan once attacked). That can be a quite hawkish frame of mind but expediency is often a deciding factor.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:28 pm
well, that he’s allegedly “listened too” isn’t really a comment on his merit. the neo cons, who i would group barnett, were until recently very much listened too and still are in some strange circles such as dick cheneys office and americanfuture.net
There isn’t going to be another american war or intervention for the enxt hundred years. all you have are going to have to do is put a picture of george bush on the screen and the debate will be over. I don’t see where that leaves guys like barnett. particularly when he backed the Iraq war.
and I was sort of conflating realist with libertarian I guess. those are the sites I usually see people associated with that label. it’s a flexible word at the moment
December 1st, 2006 at 11:54 pm
is there any historical precedent for war bringing about a better mousetrap designed for the next war?
In addition to Mark’s examples, what about German development of infiltration tactics at the end of WWI?
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 am
” is there any historical precedent for war bringing about a better mousetrap designed for the next war?”
The various OSS units that operated in occupied Europe, China, Indochina, and Burma were prototypes for what became the Army’s Special Forces.
The airlift over the Himalayan “Hump” during WW2 was the precedent for the Berlin Airlift (yes that was a war even if it didn’t involve shooting) and was even led by the same guy, William Tunner. Later he led the airlift during the Korean War.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I second that wow, nice post Zen! I hope you don’t mind me posting now that everyone seems to be through.
“…well, that he’s allegedly “listened too” isn’t really a comment on his merit. the neo cons, who i would group [B]arnett,…”
You would be mistaken to link Barnett with the Neo-cons. While the end game looks very similar, the Neo-cons don’t want to change, they want the world to change. Barnett wants evolution. With evolution both forces have to change to enable one to slide by the other, so to speak. This seems to be what is happening in America at the present.
“There isn’t going to be another american war or intervention for the enxt hundred years.”
Unless this one doesn’t end, which is what Barnett is suggesting and the Neo-cons are going to end up with, if their level of power is kept constant. This war will not end unless the military looses its resources to carry out this war. I use military in a very generalist way here, NGOs will be just as important.
However, the US military really hates to loose. It takes the killing and injuring of its people very serious and personal. Unless congress withholds funds, which it has never even suggested, the US military will shift this war from that of a “small war” to that of a “long war”. To me this means they will take what they can get out of Iraq and move on. It will do this in a globalization or a democratization movement, Barnett or Neo-con. My guess is that the nationalistic or libertarian movement will be a force against this “long war”, although they could be used to rap this “Iraqi” thing up.
The connection between the Whitehouse and the military has always been between the vice president and Rumsfield; I think Bush was very comfortable letting the “experts” handle the military power. I believe this connection has been severed, if Gates shifts resources to the will of the president.
A legacy is equally hard to loose. I believe the connection is now between the military and Bush. Bush has more now to think about than losing control of the congress and senate. He will do what he has to, or the military will loose. The military does not like to loose.
“it’s a flexible word at the moment”
Howard Bloom says in his book “Global Brain” that, to paraphrase, reality is mass hallucination. The word “realist” is flexible at the moment because the reality that the word implies doesn’t exist at the moment; it is an undefined hallucination. Because “realist” is undefined, you would be unwise to underestimate Barnett’s influence over society’s reality, at least in a top-down sort of way.
“Their worldview is exhausted. It’s time to generate another one.”
Be my guest, as long as you know what you are doing.
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 pm
larry- you seem to feel that the military has any say in this. they don’t. they work for us. the democats can pull the plug on the funding and that’s that. and they were voted in largely on the hope that they’d do this. and not start anything similar with , say , Iran.
Then you’ve got your lobbying reform which is likely to put the kaibosh on alot of your military industrial complex business. and it’s slated to take up a good chunk of pelosis first 100 hours. it could be over that quick. KBR, Halliburton, even AIPAC. no more presence for them in DC
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
“larry- you seem to feel that the military has any say in this.”
Absolutely not. I am saying that there has been a change in the relationship between the Whitehouse and the military. If that is true whom do you think Bush will listen to? He has said time and again that he listens to what the experts say.
“the democats can pull the plug on the funding and that’s that.”
True, but I have not heard of a single person say they were willing to pull the plug on the funds for Iraq. Maybe there is support for not supporting our troops that I haven’t heard about, but until someone says they are willing to even think about pulling the plug, it is just talk nothing more. I’ve talked to one of the troops who was one of the last ones off the embassy roof during the pull-out of Vietnam, as near as I could determine they were running for their life. Pulling the plug means pulling the plug. Perhaps you are in a better position to see this withdrawing of resources as something else, but I am not. The net has commented on the “small war”; I think there is a bigger (longer) war that is at a scale we can’t see.
“Then you’ve got your lobbying reform which is likely to put the kaibosh on alot of your military industrial complex business.”
Ya right, who’s reforming this, or is it one of those self-reforming industries? The lobbyists have put a D instead of an R before their name. Pelosis couldn’t even get Murtha elected dogcatcher; who’s shrinking the funds for this war?
“it could be over that quick. KBR, Halliburton, even AIPAC. no more presence for them in DC”
Yes it could be. If there was riots and a bunch of people in the streets over this, but there isn’t. The GenXer’s seem to be saying: kill as many Arabs as you want as long as I don’t have to go there. Or to quote my GenX stepson at the start of this conflict, “funk’em, nuke’em.” I really believe that the GenX don’t believe we can loose our forces in the Middle East because we have the bomb. We have lived with the bomb so long we see it as a weapon of deterrent instead of aggression.
So Lester, you seem a man of means, I wish you and our country well. All I want is to stop the killing.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:12 pm
You seem to be pushing for more killing via “stay the course” . and you don’t think there’s inertia towards pulling the troops out? john murtha, chuck hagel pretty much everyone except th president is pushing for it including the iraq and american public. and yes dennis kucinich has put forth the idea of cutting the funding. it’s indeed “pulling the plug” absolutely and patrioticly. is the meaning of the last election lost on you?
if the dems don’t take on lobbying reform they’ll be thrown out. if they don’t play hardball on Iraq they won’t be able to leave their damn houses. those are the issues they apparently won on corruption and Iraq. why would they not do this? the only dem i can think of who would be open to more iraq and continued lobby influence is lieberman
Mr barnett needs to find a real job. He should go to Iraq.
December 4th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
“You seem to be pushing for more killing via “stay the course””
I think it has been almost two years now since I first suggested a strategic withdraw. Not to get into too much detail, but it became clear that a group sympathetic to Iran had entered our planning strategy for the Iraq war. Because of this, and the need to assure a complete change in the society of Iraq, we let the people who ran Saddam’s government and the people who provided security go. These two facts should have sounded the “abort mission” call within the military. If it wasn’t called then, I don’t see much support within the military to call it now.
“…you don’t think there’s inertia towards pulling the troops out?”
Inertia is the tendency of a body to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. I don’t see any uniform motion in a straight line yet. The one person who represented this uniform motion was Murtha, so lets just say I have my doubts that this inertia develops. At least I don’t see this inertia coming from the commander in chief.
“dennis kucinich has put forth the idea of cutting the funding.”
Dennis was for pulling the plug before there was even a plug to pull, I don’t think he really qualifies as a change in inertia, which is what you are really talking about here.
“is the meaning of the last election lost on you?”
I am trying to define what that “meaning” is. So far I think it means we have become more nationalistic and more, as you say, “patriotic”. I think Americans want to support the troops by getting them out of Iraq. I am not so sure that is the support the president or the military really wants. It could be that we are at war and messing around in Iraq only kicked the hive.
“if the dems don’t take on lobbying reform they’ll be thrown out.”
Perhaps the meaning of the last election was lost on the Reps. They didn’t even change their leadership, so if we do throw the dems out, what reform will the next batch really do? I suspect the dems will try to reform the system enough to keep themselves in power and succeed at least as well as the high ethics right-wing conservative republicans did.
“if they don’t play hardball on Iraq they won’t be able to leave their damn houses. those are the issues they apparently won on corruption and Iraq. why would they not do this?”
Because we are at war, because our troops are never coming home, and because I think there is still much support for our troops here in the USA.
When you start taking away that which is keeping our troops alive in Iraq, hard cash, many of our solders will start dieing. While much of the 8 billion a month is going into corporate coffers, much of the billions is also going directly to keep our solders alive. You can bet that those forces in which our troops are imbedded with are also the best and most often paid. We are even paying the Iraqis to design better armor to combat IEDs. I bet some of that “armor” involves insurance payments for information on where the IED are and where they are not. I am not suggesting we are paying off the Iraqi population for not killing us; what I am suggesting is that a lot of our resources are going in that direction. When the congress starts “pulling the plug” these resources will be the first to go. The corporate support teams will keep receiving their cut until we are gone from Iraqi. The only way to keep our solders from dieing more often and in greater numbers is to re-deploy them and then cut the funds. I don’t see any will for the military or their commander in chief to re-deploy. Of course there is impeachment, but that is another story all together. The pressure is building against the president, but he isn’t gone yet. It is kind of late in the war, but I think the president has finally joined the military.
“Mr barnett needs to find a real job. He should go to Iraq.”
He is in Iraq, you know, the “big bang”.