What are your 'entitlements'?

I am among those who think the President's budget proposal is a bit cynical. It leaves tough decisions to the GOP. I even agree with Obama's critics who accuse him of "kicking the can down the road," as he famously commented in one of his books.

I think it would be fine to touch the "third rail" of politics. I think it's logical to raise the age of retirement; it was set when the average life expectancy was about 67. The average American (even given our best efforts to kill ourselves with lousy diets and lack of exercise, and counter this with high-priced healthcare ... a story for another day) now lives to be 79.

But let's look at the meaning of "entitlement." When does war become an entitlement? Is healthcare a right or a privilege? (I maintain it's a right, but that all rights require equal parts of personal responsibility.) What about education -- is it a right or an entitlement that I believe my kids should receive an education that prepares them for a successful 21st-century future, IF they work hard to succeed?

'Seriously, whatever works at this point ...'

OK, I would've fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, too. In a heartbeat.

But what's far more interesting than the punditry (or today's Wall Street Journal editorial -- what do they do there, sit around and think of what the President must do then say that's wrong?) are the comments on the news websites.

Among the more noteworthy:

• The Rolling Stone reporter should have "reminded" McChrystal he was on the record. Oh...
  
  
• Obama's "body language" at the press conference was "mean." (Did this writer ever catch a glimpse of Dick Cheney?)
  

But, I think there's some reason out there. This, from Slate.com, by David Colburne (wish I'd have written most of this):

I'm not a big Obama fan by any stretch of the imagine, but I have to admit, this was a really shrewd move on his part. This successfully accomplished three things:

1. It communicated to Karzai that we really don't give a damn what he thinks. He went to bat for McChrystal and we ignored him. Good. Now he needs to deal with someone that's used to politicking with local leaders (or buying them off - seriously, whatever works at this point) instead of someone trying to force a top-down approach on Afghanistan. COIN just says you need to build a stable government; it doesn't say it has to be run exclusively from Kabul.

2. It puts the advocates of COIN on notice. This is their last shot. They have the one who literally wrote the book on COIN in charge - if Petraeus doesn't turn it around, nobody could.

3. If Petraeus doesn't turn it around, nobody could, which means that, if he doesn't, Obama can safely walk away while saying we gave it our best shot. That's powerful political cover right there.

Honestly, I really hope Petraeus finds some way to pull this off, whatever this is, exactly. Iraq, for all its present faults, is in much better condition now than it was before Petraeus took over, and that's given us the political cover we need to "declare victory" and start pulling out from there. If he can get Afghanistan to "good enough" in a fairly short time, I can live with that. Though I don't think we should be in Afghanistan at all, I'd rather see us leave on terms that everybody can agree with than deal with another few decades of Vietnam-style "what if", with one side reflexively deriding anything military-related and the other side declaring that we need to "double down" on every little skirmish our troops get into.

Having said that, McChrystal was a classic Patton-style general. He had a flair for the dramatic, only followed the rules when it was convenient to do so, was much more comfortable in the field than he was in socially high status situations, never knew when to shut up, and was known for "getting stuff done". Such generals are fantastic on the field, but miserable failures when you need political acumen along with a solid understanding of strategic and tactical skill. Unfortunately, leading a theater is less about strategy and more about politics - you have to balance the needs of your generals, your allies, the civilian leadership on the ground, and Washington, and hope and pray that you can craft something that everyone can agree or tolerate. You can't do that if you openly disdain your allies, the local civilian leadership and Washington. You also can't do it if you view policy and procedure as an impediment instead of as a tool.

They that go down to the sea in ships

I tell ya, it's getting to the point where a guy can't take an afternoon off with his boat to enjoy the simple pleasures of life.

Maybe an invasion would help

I wish I could take credit for this, because it says fairly succinctly what I've been grasping for.

From Anne Applebaum on Slate.com:

Here is the hard truth: The U.S. government does not possess a secret method for capping oil leaks.

Even the combined wisdom of the Obama inner circle — all those Harvard economists, silver-tongued spin doctors, and hardened politicos — cannot prevent tens of thousands of tons of oil from pouring out of a hole a mile beneath the ocean's surface.

Other than proximity to the Louisiana coast, this catastrophe therefore has nothing whatsoever in common with Hurricane Katrina. That was an unstoppable natural disaster that turned into a human tragedy thanks to an inadequate government response. This is just an unstoppable disaster, period. It will be a human tragedy precisely because no government response is possible.

... most Americans in recent years have come to expect a strong response — an invasion, a massive congressional bill — from their politicians in times of crisis, and this one is no exception.

We want the president to lead — somewhere, anywhere. A few days ago, the New York Times declared that "he and his administration need to do a lot more to show they are on top of this mess," and should have started "putting the heat" on BP much earlier—as if that would have made the remotest bit of difference.

Can't he just make it all better?

What do we expect the president -- not this president, but any president -- to do about the Gulf oil crisis?

We want him to get angry. OK. Maybe he's just not a real hothead. I could show him a thing or two about losing one's temper, but I'm not sure that would solve anything. He did talking about kicking ass. Maybe he could have modified that with a choice expletive. Maybe he could pound the podium. With his shoe. Or throw something at his TelePromTer.

We want him to promise help. Done. 30,000 workers; 17,000 National Guard.

We want him to beat up on BP. I suspect tomorrow's meeting with BP's CEO (the nightmare of communications directors the world over) will be something other than a love-fest.

We want him to create a new form of energy so we aren't reliant on fossil fuels a mile and more below the earth's surface. Maybe he could work with Congress to create a law to that effect, or something. Wishing doesn't make it so. Meanwhile, I drive my 17mpg (on a good day) Jeep every day.

I'm as appalled, and as steamed, about this crisis as most people I know. (For the record, I don't know any Gulf Coasters who make their living from the water, and I understand how they are beyond anger.)

But what do we want the president to do?

No 'big government' -- until we need it

It amazes me how we profess to "hate big government" until something goes horribly wrong, and we want the government to make it right. I'm as cynical as the next guy, and heaven knows government has made its share of mega-blunders. But in America, we ARE the government.