US to probe new S Asia strategy

By Brajesh Upadhyay BBC News, Washington

As the Bush presidency nears its end and a deadline for the US troop withdrawal from Iraq is inked on paper, the focus now is back on the Pakistan-Afghanistan region - an area President-elect Barack Obama has repeatedly referred to as the first front in the "war against terror".

For now, a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan looks imminent before spring of 2009 and a rigorous effort is on towards formulating a comprehensive approach for the entire region.
The diplomatic crisis triggered by the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks has further added to the urgency.

At least two policy reports on the region, one of them by Gen David Petraeus, who is credited with turning the tide in Iraq to a certain extent, are expected before an Obama administration takes charge in Washington on 20 January.

Gen Petraeus, who now also has Afghanistan under his command, is a known advocate for regional diplomacy as a key counter-insurgency tactic.

A former Pakistan analyst at the US state department, Marvin Weinbaum, says the new regional approach will be to bring in China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia - but above all Pakistan and India.

'Broad approach'

Mr Obama has talked about looking at Afghanistan as "part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, India and Iran''.

His top South Asia adviser, Bruce Riedel, who has also counselled three US presidents on South Asia and the Middle East, advocates the India-Pakistan normalisation route to solving Afghanistan.

The basic premise of this thinking is that normal relations with India, particularly resolving the Kashmir dispute, will let Pakistan focus more on the fight against al-Qaeda and Taleban along the western border.

However, not many South Asian experts seem to agree with this strategy.
Stephen Cohen, a well-known expert on the region, says he forwarded the idea 20 years ago that you cannot deal with Afghanistan without dealing with India and Pakistan.
"But it will be simplistic to say let's solve Kashmir and everything will be good in Afghanistan... That's going too fast and too much,'' says Mr Cohen, who has authored several books on the region including The Idea of Pakistan.

Ashley J Tellis, who specialises in international security, defence and Asian strategic issues, has even stronger words.

"It was a bad idea before the Mumbai attacks and a bad idea after the Mumbai attacks. The faster we get away from it, the better it will be not only for the US but for peace in South Asia,'' says Mr Tellis, who is with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think-tank.
He says the real problem is a weak Pakistan that is unable to control its national territory and must be assisted to control it effectively.

"The other half of the problem is the elements of the Pakistan state that are complicit with groups that pose a threat to Pakistan and the international community. The incoming US government will have to confront these issues directly,'' says Mr Tellis.

Envoys

There is also a thought emerging that militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or other jihadi elements within Pakistan are no longer just looking at Kashmir but aiming at turning the entire south and central Asian region into an Islamic state on the lines of a caliphate.

But nevertheless, the theory that Kashmir could be the solution to Afghanistan has resulted in murmurs regarding a US envoy for Kashmir.

Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says Barack Obama's assertion that the US should help resolve the Kashmir issue so that Pakistan can focus on the Afghan border is misguided.

"This could raise unrealistic expectations in Pakistan and encourage Islamabad to increase support for Kashmiri militants to push an agenda it believed was within reach,'' says Ms Curtis.
She says instead of narrowly focusing on Kashmir, the incoming Obama administration should assume a much wider view of the region's challenges.

"Such a broad approach would recognise that Pakistan's focus on Kashmir is a symptom of broader issues, including the impact of India's emergence as a global power and the Pakistani army's continued domination over the country's national security policies,'' says Ms Curtis.
She suggests appointing a US envoy for South Asia as a whole.

The other strong push for normalising Indo-Pakistan relations in order to stabilise Afghanistan is based on the proposition that it is the rivalry between the two countries that is playing out in Afghanistan.

Pakistan looks at Afghanistan as its strategic backyard and there is a serious concern that growing Indian influence in Afghanistan will rob it of this advantage.

India is now Afghanistan's largest trade partner. It has reportedly invested $750m and pledged $450m more to Kabul and opened consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar.

"So there's a thinking here that Pakistan is not acting as much as they should against the Afghan Taleban to keep their advantage intact against India,'' says Marvin Weinbaum.

But more than the "exaggerated paranoia about Indian presence in Afghanistan'', he says, Pakistan is concerned that the international community will not stick for too long with President Hamid Karzai and Afghanistan could disintegrate.

"That's why they don't want to give up on the Afghan Taleban who could keep the country intact,'' says Mr Weinbaum.

"The new administration must realise that India is not the reason why insurgents are winning in Afghanistan.''

Vision As Well as Troops Needed to Heal Afghanistan

Before taking office, President-Elect Barack Obama is keeping one promise – sending more troops to Afghanistan while working to reduce American deployment in Iraq. The Pentagon says some 20,000 additional American troops will be deployed to Afghanistan by spring 2009.

News of Obama’s decision was greeted with support. A December 3 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 55 percent of Americans backed Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq while 52 percent “favored” the war in Afghanistan.

In the absence of a broader vision, this is not the real change promised.

Though predictable, the public support for continuing the Afghanistan war is troubling. Perhaps Americans believe we dropped the ball in the “good war” we started to break Al Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, we initiated the “bad war” in Iraq, letting Al Qaeda and bin Laden remain at large. The result is a resurgent Taliban, (Some estimate it has a “permanent presence in 72% of the country: see http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4B70YB20081208),
a growing insurgency among Afghanistan tribes, and an uncontrolled border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 was understandable, though perhaps short-sighted. The response of the incoming Obama administration may be just as short-sighted. Obama’s response thus far is rather limited to holding out the stick.

The result is a new threat from the Taliban issued December 8: An increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan provides incentive to kill more Americans. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD94UI5901).

On December 7 we learned that the additional American troops will be deployed around Kabul. New York Times reporter Kirk Semple said this deployment is “a decision that reflects rising concern among military officers, diplomats and government officials about the increasing vulnerability of the capital and the surrounding area.”

Are American troops sitting ducks?

A glance at a map of Afghanistan points to a volatile area. Iran, Russia, and China, not to mention Pakistan and India, all come together in south-central Asia. If Iran, Russia, and China all fear being surrounded by what they perceive as hostile troops (historically each does), Pakistan is doubly so if you add India to the mix.

Other ingredients making South Asia volatile include heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, continued killing of Pakistani civilians during U.S. military operations, a Pakistani government unable to come to terms with its own military and intelligence services let alone control its own border, and an increasingly corrupt Afghan government unable to deliver basic goods to its citizens.

Clearly, a broader vision is required to reduce the tensions in South Asia. Relying only on additional U.S. troops is not prudent.

There are two basic goals in Afghanistan. First, prevent the use of Afghanistan for training terrorists and mounting terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. This is certainly an immediate and mid-term goal and should be pursued.

Second, provide stability in South Asia, especially considering that Pakistan and India are both nuclear-power states. The too is an immediate but also a long-term goal and certainly should be pursued.

So what should be done?

The first goal is partially military. The U.S., with NATO, can provide Afghanistan enough security while its army and police are trained.

The first goal is also partially political. The Taliban has reportedly severed relations with Al Qaeda (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/). Talks between Afghanistan and the Taliban, brokered by Saudi Arabia, have gone nowhere yet, but the parties are talking. Under the right circumstances, the Taliban might be persuaded to honor the Afghanistan constitution that does away with most of the strict Islamic restrictions used during its rule in the 1990s. This presents an opportunity for the U.S. (with Saudi Arabia acting as go-between) to explore what it would take to cease the Taliban-sponsored insurgency.

The second goal involves easing the fears of seven countries with interests in South Asia. Currently, there is no political framework in which such fears can be mutually understood and alleviated.

Such a framework could be established through an on-going United Nations’ sponsored Seven-Party Talks similar to the Six-Party Talks that have eased tension in the Korean Peninsula. The seven parties are the United States, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran.

For each country, fear abounds.

The United States sees the potential of Afghanistan becoming a staging ground for terrorists envisioning a new attack on the scale of 9/11.

Afghanistan sees itself being taken over by foreign troops, a brew that historically forced the country’s many tribes to continue fighting.

China fears American and NATO troops seeking a permanent presence in South Asia. As well, China has made considerable investments in South Asia. At stake is a $3.5 billion investment in a cooper mine at Aynak south of Kabul, expansion of the Karakoram Highway linking China with northern Pakistan, construction of access roads in Afghanistan, a north-south energy and trade corridor that envisions oil and gas pipelines running to China’s Xinjiang Province, and up to a reported $13 billion investment in construction and operation of a deep-water port at Gwadar, Pakistan, on the Arabian Sea.

Russia’s main fear is that the United States and NATO plan a permanent military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Talks could provide mechanisms whereby Russia’s legitimate trade and investments in the region would be protected. If necessary, the Seven-Party Talks could ease Russian fears further through cooperation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an inter-governmental security forum founded in 2001 that includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

India is concerned about instability in the region and, after the Mumbai attacks, any resurgence of Islamic terrorism.

Iran fears that any American and NATO military presence in Afghanistan would be used to force regime change in Iran.

Pakistan worries greatly about a perceived U.S.-India-Afghan alliance bent on dismembering Pakistan. It is especially suspicious of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement that allows trade of nuclear fuel for peaceful use.

On-going and regular talks would provide a political mechanism that is currently lacking in the region for a host of problems, including bilateral relations. For example, the United States has pledged $750 million for Pakistan’s Federally-Administered Tribal Areas. At present, no mechanism exists for delivery of this aid.

The Seven-Party Talks could also provide a mechanism easing tensions between Pakistan and India. As well, they could lead to improved relations between all the parties and Iran, including resolution of Iran’s nuclear arms ambitions.

Some might argue the United States should not negotiate with Iran until it gives up its nuclear weapons ambitions. This was not the case with North Korea: The Six Party Talks concerning its nuclear program continue with full participation of the United States and North Korea.

Seven Party Talks in South Asia would be an ambitious undertaking, but it is a change we can believe in. Military action alone is unworkable. What can work is a road map for ongoing dialog that serves to reduce fears and anxieties among different countries and people. Only with such a real change in our foreign policy can real progress be made.

Can He Sleep at Night?

George W. Bush told ABC News recently that his biggest regret of his presidency is the intelligence failure that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush told interviewer Charles Gibson that "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."

Bush basically was saying the Iraq war was unnecessary.

But his concern was for reputations (presumably of public officials), not the unnecessary deaths of more than 4,200 Americans and countless Iraqis who were killed once we set foot in their country.

As the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, I have some questions:

What kind of madness is this?

Where is his morality?

What is wrong with Americans who voted for him?

Can he sleep at night?

Recognizing Folly

Like so many unnecessary wars, Iraq will end in a whimper. There will be no martial parades and big kisses captured on film in Times Square, just a seeping of troops out of what had been the war zone.

The end is near for the Iraq War, that much seems clear. The irony is that the Iraqis are asking us to leave. George W. Bush is considering when, not if, we should leave.

Iraq begs many questions, mostly the why. Thinking about all the death (American and Iraqi), destruction, cost, and physical and psychological trauma, each American needs to ask larger questions.

Recognizing error, cutting losses, and altering course are not things governments do well. Changing course requires leaders to show considerable self-confidence: Often they are unable to ignore the next election and put their constituencies first.

Most of us who disagreed with the war were marginalized until the fall of 2005. Speaking out was reserved for “peaceniks.”

My son, Marine Lance Corporal Edward “Augie” Schroeder, was killed August 3, 2005, near Haditha, Iraq while deployed with the Third Battalion, 25th Marines, a reserve unit based in Brook Park, Ohio. He was one of 20 Marines from that unit killed within 48 hours. The shock of losing so many troops from one unit in such a short time helped convince “regular” Americans to openly question the validity of the Iraq War.

Cindy Sheehan’s protest in Texas, which she later told us started then because of the sheer magnitude of the Ohio loss, amplified the media noise.

The confluence of these events caused a shift in public opinion and put the onus on the U.S. government to find a way out.

After a good media run focusing on the battle between proponents of “hold the course” and “out now,” the war is now fading from public consciousness as Americans focus on the 2008 presidential election. The death rate has decreased, and people seem to consider the resolution of the conflict to be a done deal.

Even so, American troops continue to be maimed or killed in Iraq. The media largely ignores this part of the war, but the families and friends of the 140,000 or so Americans remaining there -- and those of others about to be deployed -- live each day with anxiety for their loved one’s safety.

Augie’s KIA number was 1,824 if we go alphabetically (he died with 13 comrades in a single explosion). As I write, the number is 4,155.

Some 2,331 deaths ago, Augie told us he didn’t think the efforts in Iraq were worth the cost. Survival for American Marines and soldiers in Iraq was “just a crap shoot,” he said, especially upsetting to the troops in the field because poor execution of the war plan caused their friends to be killed without showing any gain.

Was the Iraq War necessary? With 20/20 hindsight, many Americans believe it was not. It is very sad, then, that additional American lives have been and continue to be lost long after a majority of the American public, the American military, and members of Congress came to that opinion.

In the last three years, my family has given a lot of thought to one question: Why did our son and brother die? We don’t mean the manner of his death, the reasons he joined the Marines, or why and how the USA got involved in Iraq in the first place.

We’re trying to get at the larger Gestalt, the historical, perhaps even the philosophical reasons that prompted his death.

Augie is part of that long line of ghosts whose lives were taken by the folly of governments. Sadly, the lessons of history are seldom heeded. “Passion and party blind our eyes,” Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote, “and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us.”

Barbara Tuchman, in The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. (1984) wondered why governments pursue policies that are clearly not in the best interests of their nation or their people.

She identifies three stages of folly:

First is a standstill, when principles and boundaries governing a political problem are fixed.

Second, failure and criticism begin to appear, which in her words “rigidify” those principles and boundaries.

It is here that changes in policy are possible, but Tuchman calls them “rare as rubies in the backyard.” More typical in this stage are increased investments along with an increasing need to protect egos that make a change in course next to impossible.

In the third stage, the pursuit of failure enlarges the damages until it causes the fall of Troy, the American humiliation in Vietnam, or our current morass in Iraq.

How sad that we haven’t come any further than the Trojans, who let that horse into the gates.

-30-

More Knee-jerk Foreign Policy

Since Iraq’s American-installed Prime Minister asked us to set a date for departure, the focus has shifted back to Afghanistan. The Afghan War has been going on longer than the one in Iraq, and many Americans see it as the "good" war by comparison.

The Decider’s decision to wage the “bad” war was knee-jerk foreign policy. Now that we are putting that one behind us, we can concentrate on the “good” war. We went to Afghanistan, after all, to capture Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, the culprits of 9/11.

Have you ever read Rudyard Kipling's short poem about Afghanistan?

"When you're wounded and lying on Afghanistan's plain,
And the women come out to cut up your remains,
Just role to your rifle and blow out your brains,
and go to your God like a soldier."

In short, a ground war in Afghanistan is hopeless. The Russians didn't learn from the 19th Century British experience there, and our government hasn't learned from the Russians or the British.

There has been too much knee-jerk foreign policy, and Sarah Palin, running for Vice President on the GOP ticket, continues the twitch.

Roger Cohen writes about all this in the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/07/opinion/edcohen.php .

Americans need to pause to consider the goodness of our efforts in Afghanistan and Sarah’s knee-jerk foreign policy prescriptions.

Sarah brought down the GOP house when she criticized Barack Obama’s approach to international terrorists. “He’s worried,” she said, "that someone won’t read them their rights.”

McCain knows better about the treatment of captives because he’s been one. She hasn’t, and from all accounts, hasn’t thought much about Iraq, other than to tell a church group that America was following “God’s plan” by going to there.

Sarah is just another warmonger on the campaign trail.

-30-

Impaling Palin

At the grocery just now, I admittedly lost my cool when the woman in front of me complained that the media is not being fair to Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin.

"Why do they lie about her," she asked out loud.

"First," I said, "she put herself into the national spotlight. Second, who's to say they're lying about her?"

The woman and I argued about politics (she didn't care for either party) and the media (she was reading National Enquirer while waiting to check out).

We parted on friendly terms, but the encounter prompts this piece.

Sarah Palin's nomination is supposedly targeted at disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. If that is true, it seems rather patronizing TO THINK JUST ANY WOMAN POLITICIAN WOULD DO.

While one can applaud Sarah's decision to have her latest child, she did have the right to choose, a right she would deny other women. Further, she has joined a presidential candidate who has voiced an opinion that would deny a woman's right to choose.

Taken from his campaign website, John McCain "believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."

Sarah ridicules Barack Obama for being a community organizer. That doesn't wash. Anthony Fossaceca at Blue Ohioan -- http://www.blueohioan.blogspot.com/ -- provides a fairly complete list of community organizers, including Jesus Christ (see his piece "The Fresh, New Face of Hate). I would add the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and Moses to name just a few others.

Sarah also ridicules Obama and her vice presidential counterpart Joe Biden for having no executive experience. This begs incredulity! LET'S SEE: What executive experience did Abraham Lincoln have?

Sarah seems to think that being mayor of a small town with SOME 5,000 souls (WHEN SHE WAS ITS MAYOR) and being governor (for FEWER than two years) of a state with fewer than 1 million people -- no wonder she doesn't need focus groups -- gives her a leg up in the executive experience category. One only needs to point to Obama's managing a national campaign with millions of volunteers to put the kibosh on that claim.

To put Sarah's executive experience into perspective, read Rosemary Palmer's "Palin passes the teleprompter test" at http://reclaiminghope.blogspot.com/

Sarah also does a good job (or at least her handlers do) of ridiculing the media. Sorry Sarah, the media is doing its job. People have a right to know who you are. By accepting the nomination for vice president, you have no right to stop them. Indeed, the more you try to stop them, the deeper they'll dig.

The media, however, does fail to mention that a McCain/Palin victory will likely result in two or three new conservative members of the Supreme Court.

So to those disgruntled women who supported Hillary Clinton, take a closer look because (from his website) "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

-30-

Like Scratching a Blackboard

America has a plethora of broadcasters who can’t correctly pronounce anything in Chinese.

This is evident as the Olympics in Beijing continue. That is Bei as in Bay, Jing as in J-ing. Everyone seems to think they are in the know when they say Beizhing.

Reporters (on air and in writing) take this a bit further. A Chinese athlete whose name is Li Xiaopeng automatically becomes Mr. Xiaopeng to many American journalists, who believe that a family name always comes last.

Well, “last names,” are not really last names. Rather they are surnames that come first in Chinese. If reporters don’t know, they should ask: Which of the names Li Xiaopeng is the surname?

When Deng Xiaoping visited the United States in 1979, too many reporters referred to him as Mr. Xiaoping. The mistake continues 30 years later.

One further point. When China and the United States formalized relations in 1979, many publications had a note on pronunciation. Instead of adopting the Chinese pinyin Romanization for Beijing, many publications said they would continue with the better-known Peking.

Peking is in the Wade-Giles system of Romanization. In Wade-Giles, Ps are pronounced as Bs and Ks are pronounced as Js. So the correct pronunciation of Peking is Beijing.

While these are simple errors, the troubling aspect is the lack of thoroughness on the part of American journalists. When a broadcaster says Beizhing, he loses credibility. When a reporter writes Mr. Xiaopeng, he loses credibility.

Pronunciation and word order are not rocket science. You don’t need an advanced degree in international relations to get this right.

One might say the word order issue isn’t all that important. Yet it is. What kind of culture would put the surname first rather than last? It is the difference between understanding a collectivist culture (China) as opposed to an individualist culture (the U.S.).

The danger is that, without the credibility that comes from a more thorough knowledge of even these basics, reporters help their audience lose the understanding of another culture. That understanding is so important in avoiding conflict.

For the sake of just my nerves, not to mention cultural understanding, I hope broadcasters learn to say Beijing and not Beizhing.

-30-

Black Pots, Black Kettles

Cleveland, Ohio August 18, 2008. We have been peppered since Aug. 7 with news about Russia invading Georgia. In stern voices, the Bush Administration has decried the invasion.

On Aug. 11 President Bush said: "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."

On Aug. 10, Vice President Dick Cheney said "Russia's military actions in Georgia must not go unanswered."

Sadly, the American media is playing to the Administration's lead.

"What's troubling about this war, fought in a relatively unknown region, is that none of the suffering here is about the enclave of Ossetia," CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reported August 17. "This war is all about Russia and the message Russia's sending to the world. This is Putin's announcement that Russia is back as a great power."

And the Neocons, looking for something to resusciate their murderous policies, are back at it: "We have to understand, these Russian troops didn't materialize out of nowhere," said political analyst Robert Kagen. "This is the culmination of Putin's efforts to pull Georgia back within Russia's sphere and exert control over it."

In 2002 and 2006 the Bush Administration made it official U.S. policy to launch pre-emptive war without warning. Sounding reasonable, the Bush Doctrine states: "To forestall or prevent ... hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."

The fine print elaborates: "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. " National Security Strategy, March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

When the Bush Doctrine was unveiled, many clearer and brighter minds than those populating the Administration warned that any country anywhere could justify going to war on the basis of pre-emption.

So the question the American media is ignoring: Has Russia done this? If so, who will do it next?

While CBS News ranted about Russian actions and the implications for a renewed cold war, ABC News may have hit closer to the truth. While Russia claims to be helping break-away Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian's real intentions may be about -- you guessed it --oil.

Deja vu.

We all know about Iraq. We know that our so-called war of pre-emption was a major policy blunder. And we know that Iraq was the first instance in this century of one sovereign nation invading another. That's right, the United States did first what we complain Russia has done.

So on what moral basis does the Bush Administration stand in making demands on Russia?

What credibility does the Bush Administration have in the world in making its demands?

Very little considering that we need Russia to help us with Iran.

By way of update, Russia said it will withdraw its troops today. That makes it a two-week war.

That's a far cry better than what we've gotten out of the Bush Administration, which has yet to say when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq after more than five years and 4,143 American dead.

So the questions again: How can the Bush Administration talk about Russia with a straight face?

And for the Americans who put this nincompoop in office, what have you learned?

-30-

Video Game With Attitude

Cleveland, Ohio August 15, 2008. As a father of a fallen Marine (Iraq, August 2005) I find it contemptible that the Cleveland Air Show would sponsor a simulated killing exhibit.

And as a citizen of Northeast Ohio, where gun violence is on the rise, I find it equally contemptible that Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson has been silent on this.

At issue is a planned exhibit by the U.S. Army called the Virtual Army Experience (VAE) scheduled for this year's edition of the annual Labor Day testosterone fest at Burke Lakefront Airport.

Those 13 and older can ride in replicas of Humvees speeding through a virtual desert virtually shooting virtual machine guns at life-size pictures of virtual people. Read that, human beings, fellow men and women, albeit not alive.

The children and adults who participate in this exhibit have the luxury of walking out of it. No harm, no foul.

My son, along with 4,141 other Americans (as of this morning) did not have that luxury. These young people learned quickly the horrors of war. They learned the cost -- my son, age 23, told me the effort "was not worth it." These Americans learned about the blood of compatriots. They learned what a 50 mm round can do to a human body.

If the VAE could inject these lessons into the exhibit, I'd be all for it. But participants get only some sad sense of joy shooting at people, albeit virtual folks.

Some say the VAE is just a fancy video game. But we need to ask some questions. Does this kind of thing, game or not, breed an attitude that says if you have disagreements, it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later?

After the tragedy of Iraq, Americans should be about peace. We need to put away our John Waynes, our swaggering presidents, our reaction of reaching for guns (virtual or otherwise) first and begin to look our fellow human beings in the eye and try, just try, to understand them.

To parents who allow their children to participate in the VAE, what are you teaching your them?

-30-

The Report Debuts

Cleveland, August 11, 2008: Welcome to The Report, my attempt to give you a different set of questions with which to understand what's going on.

It is no secret that the American media is in crisis. Newspapers are ever thinner, with news "holes" shrinking as they try to compete with television and the Internet. Many American cities have only one newspaper, and the lack of competition is telling. Why hustle to get more news, more in-depth reporting (what we used to call "enterprise" reporting), or ask the tougher questions than the other guy when there is no other guy?

Television news shows grow "happier," (except in covering the latest weather scare), with on-camera anchors smiling even as they report tragedy. You know, "we're on your side."

I don't want a reporter on my side. I want a reporter who gives me the news, who asks the tough questions or, at a minimum, the questions no one else is asking.

Radio news (with the exception of NPR) has become vapid, offering just headlines and not much more.

To be sure, news is a business and the mainstream media outlets are hurting. Space and time are so severely limited that pack journalism means predictable coverage of issues and events. Editorial biases creep into news stories because reporters talk to themselves instead of several outside sources, and a disinterested public grows ever more ill-informed about issues that may soon impact their lives in perhaps dire ways.

But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Are news outlets shrinking because readership is dwindling? Or is it the other way around?

An alternative to the mainline media is a blog. Telling the good blogs from the bad is not easy, as so many anonymous comments turn news items or commentaries into arguments that have nothing to do with the original piece. Critical thinking disappears when hot heads go after one another through a blog's comment section. It is very easy to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and blasting anyone or any idea that might pose a challenge.

The Report is a blog but its intent is serious journalism, including news and commentary.

A bit of history. I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years, cutting my teeth at the Elyria, Ohio Chronicle-Telegram, which at that time (1970s) competed vigorously with the Lorain Journal. I later worked for the Sandusky Register and Toledo Blade before my wife and I started Capitol News Service, an Ohio news syndicate covering state government for 10 daily and two weekly newspapers.

The 1970s was the heyday of investigative reporting. A colleague and I won four major journalism awards for uncovering the theft of $3 million in motor vehicle registration fees.

In short, I consider myself a serious journalist and, in time, I hope you will too.

One final word. The Report welcomes comments -- not personal attacks or foul language. But to do away with the anonymity, I want to know who you are. Send your comment with your full name, city or town, and e-mail address. Only the full name and city will show online. In my view, if you have the courage to make a statement for public consumption, you should have the courage to stand up to it.

-30-