Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

August 12, 1945

WASHINGTON DC (Routers) President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office.

Over three months after a formal declaration of an end to hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical elements of the former Nazi regime who, in their zeal to liberate their nation from the foreign occupiers, call themselves members of the Werwolf (werewolves) continue to commit almost-daily acts of sabotage against Germany’s already-ravaged infrastructure, and attack American troops. They have been laying road mines, poisoning food and water supplies, and setting various traps, often lethal, for the occupying forces.

It’s not difficult to find antagonism and anti-Americanism among the population–many complain of the deprivation and lack of security. There are thousands of homeless refugees, and humanitarian efforts seem confused and inadequate.

In the wake of the budding disaster, some have called for more international participation in peacekeeping.

A Red Cross official said that, “…the German people will be more comfortable if their conquerors weren’t now their overlords. It makes it difficult to argue that this wasn’t an imperialistic war when the occupying troops in the western sector are exclusively American, British and French.”

The administration, of course, claims that, given the chaos of the recent war, such a situation is to be expected, and that things will improve with time. As to the suggestion to internationalize the occupying forces, the administration had no official comment, but an unofficial one was a repetition of the quote from General McAuliffe, when asked to surrender in last winter’s Battle of the Bulge–“Nuts.”

In an attempt to minimize the situation, a White House spokesman pointed out that the casualties were extremely light, and militarily inconsequential, particularly when compared to the loss rates prior to VE Day. Also, the attacks seem to be dying down with each passing month. But this statement was leaped upon by some as heartless, trivializing the deaths and injuries of young American men.

Many critics back in Washington seem now to be prescient, with their previous warnings of just such an outcome a little over a year ago.

One congressman said that “…it’s time to ask whether the German people are better off now than they were a few months ago. Yes, a brutal dictator has been deposed, but at least the electricity and water supply were mostly working, and the trains running on time. After years of killing them and destroying their infrastructure with American bombs, it seems to me that the German people have suffered enough without the chaos that our occupation, with its inadequate policing, is bringing.”

It’s not clear how much support the Werwolf has among the populace, who may be afraid to speak their true minds, given the fearfully overwhelming “Allied” presence in the country. But it is possible that, like the guerilla forces themselves, the people have been inspired by Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels’ pre-victory broadcasts, and those of Radio Werwolf.

“God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan has taken command.” Goebbels broadcast last spring. “We Werewolves consider it our supreme duty to kill, to kill and to kill, employing every cunning and wile in the darkness of the night, crawling, groping through towns and villages, like wolves, noiselessly, mysteriously.”

While no new broadcasts of Goebbels’ voice have been heard since early May, no one can be certain as to whether he is alive or dead, and continuing to help orchestrate the attacks and boost morale among the forces for German liberation. As long as his fate, and more importantly, that of the former leader Adolf Hitler himself, remains unresolved, the prospects for pacifying the brutally conquered country may be dim.

Although Grand-Admiral Donitz made a radio announcement of Hitler’s brave death in battle to the beleaguered German people on the evening of May 1, some doubt the veracity of that statement, and there has been no evidence to support it, or any body identified as the former Fuehrer’s. Rumors of his whereabouts continue to abound, including reported sightings as far away as South America. Many still believe that he is hiding with the “Edelweiss” organization, with thousands of Wehrmacht troops, in a mountain stronghold near the Swiss border.

Many have criticized flawed intelligence for our failure to find him, causing some, in the runup to next year’s congressional elections, to call for an investigation.

A staffer of one prominent Senator said, “For months, starting last fall, we were told by this administration that Hitler would make a last stand in a ‘National Redoubt’ in Bavaria. General Bradley diverted troops to the south and let the Russians take Berlin on the basis of this knowledge. But now we find out that there was no such place, and that Hitler was in Berlin all along. And now we’re told that we can’t even be sure of where he is, or whether he’s alive or dead.”

For many, marching in the streets with signs of “No Blood For Soviet Socialism,” and “It’s All About The Coal,” this merely confirmed that the administration had other agendas than its stated one, and that the war was unjustified and unjustifiable.

General Bradley’s staff has protested that this is an unfair criticism–that the strategic decision made by General Eisenhower was driven by many factors, of which Hitler’s whereabouts was a minor one, but this hasn’t silenced the critics, some of whom have bravely called for President Truman’s impeachment, despite the fact that most of these decisions were made even before he became president in April.

But some have taken the criticism further, and say that failure to get Hitler means a failed war itself.

“Sure, it’s nice to have released all those people from the concentration camps, but we were told we were going to war against Hitler, even though he’d done nothing to us,” argued one concerned anti-war Senator. “Now they say that we have ‘Victory in Europe,’ but it seems to me that if they can’t produce the man we supposedly went to war against, it’s a pretty hollow victory. Without this man that they told us was such a great threat to America, how can even they claim that this war was justified?”

(Copyright 2003 by Rand Simberg)

Boo Hoo

Having successfully ended live-fire exercises on Vieques, Puerto Ricans are now whining about the decision to close down Roosevelt Roads Naval Base.

It apparently never occurred to them that one of the primary purposes of Rosie Roads was to support the Vieques range.

Sila Calderon overplayed her hand. She seems to want it both ways, generally expecting the benefits of being a commonwealth, while demanding the privileges of independence, and now she wanted to end the exercises but keep the money.

The imperceptible sound you hear is the strain of a nanoviolin.

They Won’t Let Us Lie

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

They Won’t Let Us Lie

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

They Won’t Let Us Lie

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won’t air his misleading ad about Bush “misleading” the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: “Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from ‘We report, you decide’ to ‘we let Bush decide what we air.'”

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

“You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network,” she said.

Yeah, you’d think.

What a maroon. Here’s hoping that the Dems don’t come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate’s judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won’t be misleading. Ain’t that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans…

…As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I’ll have no complaint, if it’s as bad, or even if it’s not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying “enough” to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don’t believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There’s enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can’t get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they’re a political party.

Setting The Record Straight

It’s Friday, which means it’s time to go over and read Victor Davis Hanson’s latest. He puts things into perspective:

These are still perilous times. But if anyone on September 12, 2001, had predicted that 22 months later there would still be no repeat of 9/11; that bin Laden would be either quiet, dead, or in hiding; that al Qaeda would be dispersed, the Taliban gone, and the likes of a Mr. Karzai in Kabul; that Saddam Hussein would be out of power, his sons dead, and an Iraqi national council emerging in his place; that troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia, Arafat ostracized, and Sharon seeking negotiations; that new Middle East agreements under discussion – and all at a cost of fewer than 300 American lives – then he would surely have been written off as a madman…

…So far we have lost fewer lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did in a single day’s butchery in the Marine barracks in Lebanon. But unlike that terrible sacrifice, this time Americans are fighting back, winning, and changing for the better the lives of millions in the most remarkable, ambitious, and risky endeavor since the end of World War II.

Concrete Evidence

It would seem that my post yesterday (and my Fox column) were quite timely.

I’ve often discussed the chilling effect that regulatory uncertainty can have on investing in private space transportation efforts. Usually, I mean that in the sense that it makes investors hesitant, or reduces the potential pool of them. But you can’t get a more clear cut case than what happened yesterday, when Dennis Tito testified to a Congressional panel, with no ambiguity, that he’s ready to invest, and the only thing preventing him from doing so is fear of the FAA.

I hope that they’re listening.

[Update at 8:57 AM PDT]

The testimony is now on line.

Here’s Tito’s. Key graf:

Please understand me: I am not looking for government funding or technology. I don’t need an investment tax credit or a loan guarantee. I’m not even looking to escape the regulations under which other space transportation companies operate. But I would like to know which government agency, and which set of regulations, will oversee this new industry.

You see, I am willing to risk my money on a technical concept and a team of engineers. I am willing to risk my money on the customers actually showing up. And I am willing to risk my money competing against other companies in the marketplace. But I am not willing to risk my money on a regulatory question mark, on waiting for the government to decide who can give me permission to get into business, and what the regulatory standards for my business will be.

For an excellent tutorial on the history of aviation and launch regulation, and the differences between the two, I also encourage you to read the testimony of Jeff Greason, head of XCOR.

The key point is that the mature aviation industry’s goal is to protect passengers and cargo. At the state of development of launchers, we must be prepared to accept much higher risk to (informed) first and second parties, and focus regulations on protecting third (that is, otherwise uninvolved) parties on the ground, as required by the Outer Space Treaty and common sense.

Elon Musk (founder of Paypal, and now President and owner of SpaceX) also has some useful thoughts, with some specific recommendations for making government ranges more user friendly, and with an optimistic outlook for the industry based on his internet experience:

It is worth noting that the perspective I bring to the launch vehicle industry is drawn from a particularly Darwinian experience in the business world, having founded and helped build two successful Internet companies in Silicon Valley. Seldom have we seen a faster moving, more voraciously competitive business environment or one with more tombstones. However, for all the problems associated with that era, the rise and fall and perhaps rise again of the NASDAQ, it is easy to forget that the vast majority of the monumental work required to build what we know as the world wide web was done in less than a decade.

If you doubt that we can possibly see such progress in space access, please reflect for a moment that the Internet, originally a DARPA funded project, showed negligible growth for over two decades until private enterprise entered the picture. At that point, growth accelerated by more than a factor of ten. We saw Internet traffic grow by more in a few years than the sum of all growth in the prior two decades.

John Kutler’s testimony is worth reading as well, providing the perspective of the institutional investment community. Summary: they’re not ready to jump into this yet, so the startups will have to continue to rely on angels for a while.

Finally, read the testimony from Futron on their space tourism market research study.

As I said, I hope that Congress was listening carefully.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!