About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Re: When to Leave Iraq

Posted by Josh Todd on Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:03:24 AM
The following piece was prepared for and posted on the Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog at <http://montgomerycountygop.wordpress.com/>.

During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson’s most profound flaw—tactically- and strategically-speaking—was his tendency to involve himself in every detail of the fight, including targeting.

Move forward to the Iraq War. President George W. Bush, possibly learning from LBJ’s mistake, has taken the opposite course as a laissez-faire commander-in-chief. In turn, Generals who grew up in the Clinton years, and who, subsequently, think more politically than tactically, have run the war.

Along with significant State Department involvement in country, the war has been fought in an overly political fashion. That is, the brass who decide strategy and tactics have handcuffed the US soldier with paralyzing rules of engagement and an uncoordinated national strategy (i.e. brigade A mounts a major operation in area A while brigades B and C do nothing in areas B and C, allowing the bad guys in area A to flee to areas B and C safely).

But the operative question here is: When do we leave?

I spent the year of 2005 in Iraq as an intelligence analyst and I observed a military more than capable of completing the job; however, the president’s mostly-wise laissez-faire approach combined with wobbly generals not willing to take the necessary steps to win the war have resulted in our current predicament.

When considering a timeline for our military withdrawal, we must consider the consequences of such an action.

Regardless of one’s feelings about embarking on the endeavor to begin with, it is underway and real consequences exist. Like it or not, a premature withdrawal would allow the radical Islamists a valuable victory. But perhaps a more specific question is appropriate here: What would it take to recover from a defeat in Iraq?

Such a conclusion to the Iraq venture seems more likely each day, especially with GOP political woes and possible Democrat electoral victories ahead. It seems inevitable to me, at this point, that we will cut sling load from Iraq, allowing the nation to move into greater chaos. Much like Vietnam, our credibility, not only regionally but worldwide, will suffer for quite some time and our enemies will be emboldened.

Ultimately, and assuming we do quit, we must ponder the next, say, twelve years or so. A succeeding and weak administration (or administrations) would continue the nosedive our stature in world affairs will take when we finally do withdraw. Fortunately, all will not be lost. We recovered from Vietnam and the 1970s to win the Cold War, and we can do so again.

In the end—and to actually answer the operative question—we should stay until our elected officials force us to leave. We should fight to the bitter end, for we may land a ninth-inning comeback of dazzling proportions. The seeds we plant (for our ideals of self-determination, liberty, etc.) will then persist, especially if the brass actually tries to win; and when responsible parties return to power, we will overcome our back-steps and sprint ahead to prevail. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thinking Problem

Posted by Josh Todd on Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:44:37 PM
I seriously question whether or not we as a people truly think anymore.

Certainly, we hear that our education system trains our children to be critical thinkers at both the high school and university levels. But is that so? Let us explore a few recent phenomena for an answer.

First, the most brilliant (read: educated) minds in the world insist that human beings are destroying the planet by perpetuating a warming trend. These same people have to know that, for example, Ohio was once beneath a thick sheet of ice, and that it was once an ocean floor. In those days, I don’t believe automobiles played a significant role.

Second, Elizabeth Edwards insinuated that President Bush reacted more quickly to console the Virginia Tech family than he did to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because so many white kids go to school there. Still, the brilliant minds didn’t stop to consider other possibilities—perhaps that the president learned a lesson from New Orleans and reacted sooner; or that it was a tad easier and safer to get around Blacksburg than it was to maneuver through the Big Easy.

Third, a Drudge headline reads that Socialist French Presidential candidate Segolene Royal has levied an accusation that her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, apologized to George W. Bush for French foreign policy. Thus, the French, we might presume, are dense enough to say, “Sarkozy apologized to Bush, so I can’t vote for him.”

These are only three examples of what appears at first glance irrational thinking—or perhaps a lack thereof. Still, peruse the paper each day and one will surely find a wealth of cases where appears that we as a people simply do not think anymore. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Mayor McLin's Decision

Posted by Josh Todd on Friday, April 20, 2007 11:25:18 PM
The following piece was prepared for and posted on the Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog at <http://montgomerycountygop.wordpress.com/>.

When asked why she did not agree to welcome President Bush to Dayton this past week, Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin said she simply had prior arrangements. They included, she said, a meeting and an appointment to read to schoolchildren.

The question at hand is whether or not her choice was justified.

Democrats would certainly answer with a resounding, “Of course.” The mayor was keeping her word in tending to her prior commitments. On the Republican side, the gut reaction would be an assumption: that the mayor was ditching the president in the spirit of partisanship.

GOP supporters have circumstantial evidence to support the gut reaction. For example, Governor Ted Strickland has thrown two jabs at the president this year, the first being his refusal to take refugees because it would bail the president out.

Still, we must take the mayor at her word and give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, we on the right have been de facto bigots, racists, sexists, and deprivers of children for decades; that and we have little evidence to support the gut reaction.

If the mayor decided to skip out on an opportunity to represent the Miami Valley—not just Dayton—as mayor of its largest city by deciding not to welcome the President of the United States of America, then I see it as her loss. Rhine McLin is probably at the apex of her career (unless she seeks higher office and wins) and opportunities such as these don’t come around very often (she has been mayor for most of Bush’s six-plus years and this is the first visit of this kind).

On the subject of justification, I will allow the mayor to make that decision. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Since 1947

Posted by Josh Todd on Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:00:37 PM
700 WLW sports talk show host Paul Daugherty held an entertaining discussion about the events revolving around Jackie Robinson over time, including today’s anniversary. At one point, Daugherty proclaimed that not much progress has been made since Jackie Robinson’s time. His evidence? Don Imus.

Frankly, one can draw two conclusions from the talk show host’s remarks. One, he knows little about American history, or two, he is a demagogue.

Have the United States of American come full circle—100%--since 15 April 1947? Certainly not; however, progress has indeed been made.

For starters, let us review the conditions two years after the Second World War concluded. A Cincinnati Enquirer piece online republished a series of articles about Robinson’s debut from major papers (such as the New York Times) on this fated day sixty years ago. None of them grasped the significance of the day and most of them referred to the man as the “Negro Jackie Robinson.” One piece didn’t event mention him.

In other words, it seemed an event of little significance.

Now, let us imagine what occurred at some (or all) of the games. Racial slurs were hurled at Robinson. Death threats were issued. And little was done about it.

Fast-forward to 2007. Don Imus makes ridiculous remarks on the radio about a college basketball team. Sixty years ago—no big deal. Today, the entire media establishment and most of the country circled wagons around Imus and attacked him.Hhe is fired in short order. Again, had the same event occurred in Robinson’s day, it would have been accepted and forgotten. But not today.

Ultimately, to say that no progress has been made is to render Jackie Robinson’s feat meaningless. To do so would be wrong. He not only broke a barrier with courage and class, but he was also an outstanding ballplayer.

There will always be people like Don Imus, but their existence does not mean that Jim Crow and Jefferson Davis still rule the day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Frenchman to Support?

Posted by Josh Todd on Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:18:52 PM
 Few Americans care one way or another that there is a presidential race in France. Certainly, most Americans may dislike the French—and vice-versa—for, frankly, unknown reasons.

Yes, Americans have great reason to suspect the French, in general. On a personal level many of us feel they are pompous and ungrateful (for our assistance in two world wars). In terms of national interest, France has been a thorn in America’s side more than once: quitting NATO in the midst of the Cold War; their reluctance to ally with us in the so-called war on terror; the refusal to allow US jets to fly through French air space during the Libyan air strikes in the 1980s; etc.

However, there are Frenchmen to like, or at least support (as much as support for a foreign politician really matters). In fact, Americans can—and possibly should—pay attention to the current presidential race as it may point to a new, more American-like direction for the folks many of us believe we dislike.

Currently there are three main contenders. First is Segolene Royal, the female socialist candidate who is all about government control and intervention of and in just about everything. Next is centrist Francois Bayrou, who is what we would consider a liberal populist—i.e. just a hair to the right of Royal.

Finally we have Nicholas Sarkozy, the center-right candidate whose economic politics are along the lines of George W. Bush or Bob Dole (if we must compare to our politicians, as bad as the comparisons may be). He supports a more capitalistic economy than his main opponents, but with a touch of government intervention.

According to The Economist, Sarkozy is pushing for radical reform, which is badly needed in France, for the French have the lowest economic growth rate among major European powers. In spite of his shortcomings (Who doesn’t have shortcomings?), Sarkozy may be what the French need to climb out of its socialist economic malaise.

Sure, we as Americans may dislike the French in general, but should we wish them ill? I don’t think so, especially if their next president might be pro-American (which Sarkozy is) and may make life on the international scene at least marginally easier. Likewise, a little economic freedom—an American value—should be viewed as a positive development, even for our European friends.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Three Biggest Concerns for Montgomery County

Posted by Josh Todd on Friday, April 06, 2007 9:42:20 PM
The following piece was prepared for and posted on the Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog at <http://montgomerycountygop.wordpress.com/>.

The question at hand here is, “What are the three issues that most concern you regarding the future of the Montgomery County region?” and Why?

First among these concerns is the family culture of the region, particularly in Dayton. While teen birth rates have dwindled and, along with them, child poverty rates, the city of Dayton still struggles. One look at graduation and crime rates tells the story.

Second—and in line with the family culture—is the deterioration of the city of Dayton. The Gem City, for better or worse, creates the prevailing perception for the Montgomery County area. In spite of new developments like Fifth-Third Field and the Schuster Center, downtown remains dirty and crime-ridden.

Lastly is the flight of jobs and the best and brightest citizens from the county. The culprit? Along with crime, taxes and regulation. For example, excluding Preble County, the immediate surrounding counties (Greene, Warren, Miami) have lower sales tax rates than Montgomery.

This is only one factor, but it is emblematic of the larger issue of excessive government taxation and regulation within the county. With an unfriendly job climate, jobs and—most importantly—the most capable youngsters will pour out of Montgomery County and into places like Springboro.

These three conditions result in a void of traditional, conservative leadership that stands for strong families and personal responsibility. Ultimately, we have what is now deemed as the inevitable decline of yet another once-mighty American city.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Boys Will Be Boys

Posted by Josh Todd on Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:08:14 PM
Fighting is generally prohibited in school. In fact, some schools teach conflict resolution methods in order to prevent fights between students, mainly boys.

But boys will be boys, of course. They will fight. Thus, why not take a new view of school fighting. Instead of prohibiting fighting, let’s prepare the kids—we’ll just say boys—for the inevitable.

In fact, the governor should say something like: “There is some evidence that [rules against fighting] may delay the onset of [the activity], but over the long term, there's not data there that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, [any fighting].”

The result: Let’s scrap the rule against fighting and teacher and administration statements against the act. Secondly, we should teach, even encourage, our children to fight. Thirdly, let’s strip funding for conflict resolution and anti-bullying programs.

Why? Boys will be boys.

Of course they will, but that’s no reason, in reality, to frown upon fighting. Nor is it a reason to stop teaching boys that fighting causes black eyes, broken bones, suspensions, and jail time.

Still, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio has proposed slashing state funding for abstinence programs. Likewise, he will not request federal funding for such programs either.

Recall the quote from the notional governor above. The real quote was a Strickland bit from the Akron Beacon Journal: “There is some evidence that they may delay the onset of sexual activity, but over the long term, there's not data there that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, sexual activity outside of marriage.”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »