• Chicago Tribune, on the safety of the food supply • The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, on the Pentagon and war deaths • Chicago Tribune, on coping with the surprises of war Chicago Tribune, on the safety of the food supply
• Chicago Tribune, on the safety of the food supply
• The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, on the Pentagon and war deaths
• Chicago Tribune, on coping with the surprises of war
Chicago Tribune, on the safety of the food supply
By Associated Press
Departing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson set off alarms last week, saying he worries “every single night” about the possibility of a bioterrorist attack on the nation’s food supply. …
That sounded to many people like an invitation, and the Bush administration moved pretty quickly to dampen any anxiety.
After all, it’s much more likely that Americans will get food poisoning by not properly cleaning a cutting board used to chop raw chicken. But it’s worth knowing what risks there are that someone could tamper with the food chain, and what’s being done about it. …
Critics say the new FDA rules are insufficient. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is pressing for the government to consolidate food oversight within a single group. …
Thompson’s blunt comments last week underscore that, given the vast size of the food distribution system, it may be impossible to prevent a bioterrorism attack of some form. But the new FDA requirements should at least help protect the public against threats to food safety. A quick response through the improved tracking of food could save lives.
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, on the Pentagon and war deaths
Jessica Lynch, an unassuming young Army private from West Virginia, and Pat Tillman, the defensive back who gave up his $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals to become an Army Ranger, made sacrifices serving their nation that needed no embellishment.
But by committing sins of omission and addition, the Pentagon foisted off storybook versions of Army Pfc. Lynch’s capture and rescue in Iraq and of Cpl. Tillman’s ultimate sacrifice in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The misrepresentation of Tillman’s death, however, is more egregious.
Tillman, already a hero to many Americans for walking away from a dream career, was reported killed by enemy fire on April 22. Shortly after, military officials said Tillman likely was hit by friendly fire, a not-uncommon tragedy in combat. But the full story is only now coming to light, and it is one of botched communications, a highly questionable order to split up Tillman’s platoon during patrol and too-quick-on-the-trigger reactions by young Rangers.
It’s insulting to all Americans.
This nation has lost sons and daughters in many wars, and Americans have shown resilience in accepting the bitter truth of combat. But for the Pentagon to stonewall and obfuscate about such sacrifices is dishonorable.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, on inaugural balls for President Bush’s next term
Thank you, Claire Gawinowicz of Oreland. Her letter in yesterday’s Inquirer made this excellent suggestion: Cancel inaugural balls for President Bush’s next term as a show of sacrifice during a time of war. The President would make a powerful statement if he did so. …
FDR knew the dissonance of holding galas in Washington when the nation’s sons and daughters in uniform were fighting in hostile lands.
That surely will be the case next month as Bush takes his second oath of office: U.S. forces in Iraq will still be battling (with insufficient armor and other supplies) a surprisingly strong insurgency.
No, these parties are not paid for with great stashes of public dollars. Soldiers won’t get bulletproof vests paid for with the money saved — unless the private donors want to use their dollars that way.
But inaugural festivities have little to do with the substance of democracy. They’re all about symbolism.
Bush would show a keen sensitivity toward the situation of his soldiers by finally acknowledging that wartime demands true sacrifice — a notion betrayed by his insistence on tax cuts.
That symbolism would be far greater than the grandest of balls.
Durango (Colo.) Herald, on the questioning of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
… Rumsfeld was visiting an Army base in Kuwait when Army Spc. Thomas Wilson asked him why his unit was short of needed equipment. …
The secretary of defense responded with what amounted to a verbal shrug. “You go to war with the Army you have,” Rumsfeld said, “not the Army you might want or wish to have.” …
But few armies are organized and equipped for the wars they end up fighting. That is what is so glaringly wrong with Rumsfeld’s response to Wilson.
The U.S. Army is its own best example. The Army that existed at the start of World War II was equipped largely with a mixture of antiques and wishful thinking. Maneuvers were carried out with trucks filling in for armor with the word “tank” painted on their sides.
But in less time than U.S. troops have been in Iraq, the United States changed that into the best-equipped military in the world. …
In 2004, however, Rumsfeld is essentially saying the United States cannot put armor on cars and trucks.
After the episode, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., wrote to Rumsfeld, calling his response to Wilson “unacceptable.” That kind of congressional involvement is exactly what is needed. There should, and perhaps now will, be more of it. …
Chicago Tribune, on coping with the surprises of war
War is an inherently unpredictable enterprise. History is replete with examples of tactics and weapons that work well in one conflict, only to prove fatally obsolete in the next. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld struggled last week to make that point to soldiers in Kuwait in explaining why, among other things, many Humvees headed for Iraq lack sufficient armor for the counter-insurgency war being waged there.
The Pentagon is scrambling to adjust to the unforeseen hazards of the Iraq occupation. …
The basic mistake in this instance was expecting an orderly aftermath, a speedy handover of power to Iraqis, and an early American withdrawal. When Rumsfeld said last week, “You go to war with the army you have. … not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” he might have added that the force that invaded Iraq in March 2003 was perfectly equipped to destroy the Iraqi army and topple its dictator.
But a military designed for tank battles in the desert against a traditional enemy is not necessarily ideal for a guerrilla war in alien territory, which is what Iraq has become. …
… With better planning and more attention to uncertainties by civilian leaders, maybe it won’t have to do so much adapting in the next war.…
