Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--A Modern Morality Play

THE ENTERPRISE

A MODERN MORALITY PLAY--24
In a moment of rare frivolity I decided to do something I never imagined I'd do.  I confess.  I ordered the entire past 5 years of the Fox TV Series "24" on DVD.  (Yes, I did the math--that's 80 hours of "boob tube" time.)  I had an unusually busy Nov. & Dec. this year, but Jan. turned quiet.  With little business going on from Jan. 1-18, all I had to do was grieve Ohio State's humiliating loss to Florida in the BCS National Championship and become a "couch potato" catching up on what is critically acclaimed as the most successful  and compelling continuing TV series over the past 5 years.

Those of you who know it and have watched it are probably hooked, like I am now.  Those who don't,  I don't know what to tell you.  There is a web site that will let you catch up on the series, but you'll miss the fun and the suspense.  The current season premiered 2 weeks ago, and on one of those 2 episodes, terrorists set off a suitcase Nuke in Valencia, CA.  Wow.  Chilling.  If you like suspense, you'll like 24.  If you like morality in the face of terrorism and politics, you'll love it. (http://www.tv.com/24/show/3866/episode_listings.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=episodessh&tag=episodes;more)

Most of all you can watch a superbly done modern "morality play" in which the hero, Jack Bauer,
(a Counter-Terrorism-Unit agent, played superbly by Kiefer Sutherland) and other protagonists are constantly faced with decisions about "right vs. wrong" and "good vs. evil."  The most devilish decisions weigh the "greater good--many lives at risk--versus one or a few--or Bauer's).  The President, played by Dennis Haysbert in the early seasons, particularly faces some vexing problems, a very realistic scenario.  If you haven't seen it, try it.  If you have, keep enjoying it.  I'll catch up to this year by spring sometime.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE--OR AT LEAST "LESS-DEPENDENCE"
The President's State of the Union Speech and the reaction of his opponents on the Democratic side of the aisle showed us all what we face in the future.  Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, life will be hell for Bush.  Even his most important, sensible, middle-of-the-road proposals were (and will be) greeted with a complete rejection--unless they happened to hit a particular legislator's hot button..   Why?  They all still hate Bush.  And the Democratic credo for now anyway is a strange version of the phrase "first, do no harm"--FIRST, DO NOTHING IF YOU COULD BE BLAMED FOR IT GOING WRONG!"   The "First 100 Hours" rush of House legislative activity was all show, with little of substance, and less of it likely to actually pass the Senate.

"Energy Independence" for the US is one of the most important programs the President covered.  Sure it falls way behind "what to do in Iraq" on the importance meter, but for the US future, it's critical.    Bush's  opening proposal was not all that strong, but it was a move in the right direction.  For those who have not thought about this topic a lot.  Here are a few points.  The US four largest sources of Imported Oil are (in order) Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and (mostly unfriendly) OPEC countries.  The last 2 are the problem.  We buy their oil and fund the rebellious regimes in Iran and Venezuela.  The "tree-huggers" enlist Democrat allies to block drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge--a vast wasteland populated with lots more oil and "vast nothingness" than it is  with wildlife.  Better to drill for oil there and disturb a few moose and elk than be under the thumb of Chavez' Venezuela and Iran.

GLOBAL LUKE-WARMING
Saving oil by reducing auto usage has a second benefit.  Two of the larges sources of greenhouse gases are vehicle emissions and coal-fired power plants.  If anybody is serious about the US contribution to reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions, they will support two efforts.

--1)  Crack down on gas-guzzling cars and trucks--hard--faster than Bush's plan.  The auto industry and American public could cut car and light truck emissions by 20% in 3 years, not ten.  How?  Stop soccer Moms from taking a 5000 lb. 400 HP truck to take a 60 lb. 10-year-old from home to school to soccer practice.  How?  Add $1/gallon tax on gas for starters.  Penalize car makers for missing new, tougher CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, and reinstate BIG  "gas guzzler penalties on purchase and licensing both.  Rush Limbaugh will fuss, but let him.

--2)  Cut back use of coal fired power plants. Encourage use of Nuclear Energy and bring as much as capacity on line as fast as possible..  Cut through the red-tape and nonsense to finish the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for storing and disposal of nuclear waste too.  Face the fact that it will be radioactive for centuries, and deal with it.

Every form of energy has consequences.  It is a matter of "picking your poison."  Buried radioactive waste in an unpopulated area or "global warming."  And by the way, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade will be dirty facilities in underdeveloped countries like India, China, etc..  Forcing them to "clean their act up" is next to impossible, but then US importers cracked down on child labor with some beneficial effect, so why not choose this campaign next.

CHINA'S SPACE SHOT
OK, China can make almost everything we use cheaper and just as well as we did.  Why are we surprised that they could shoot down a satellite in low earth orbit?  And what group of pacifist "boobs" forced us to stop developing our capabilities in that area?  (I don't know...but I bet I could make a short list.)  Reagan was right in pushing his missile defense system.  Now where did we keep those plans?

GIVE THE UNIONS THE OPPRESSIVE BENEFIT PLANS THEY NEGOTIATED
Smartest move I've heard lately:  GM and Ford handing over the ridiculous pension & health care plans negotiated with the UAW--to the UAW--and with funding fixed at current levels.  Good idea.  Let the Union officials who helped create the mess explain to their members why it can't just keep growing and growing and growing.

NIX ON AIRLINES THAT TREAT CUSTOMERS LIKE DOGS--OR WORSE
I only fly United Airlines when there is no other viable option.  In my experience, United's people are inconsiderate and the airline's policies are ridiculous.  Delta is vying for a place next on my list.  I could fill pages with stories of United's screw-ups and their "we don't really care" attitudes.  If they keep saying they are the "Friendly Skies" somebody ought to sue them for false advertising.

HEALTH CARE--A BIG OPPORTUNITY
Finally there is meaningful talk about getting the health care records information systems up to the 21st century--if only the "privacy wonks" don't tangle everything up.  There is also talk about making health care prices open and transparent.  If that was ever done, it would sure open some eyes.  It's way past time for "consumers" who buy health care to be able to see the "price tags" as they are buying..

THE COMMANDER (NO MAKE THAT SENATOR)-IN-CHIEF
If "too many cooks spoil the broth" then the only bigger mess I can imagine than what we have in Iraq, is giving the Congress (regardless of the party in control) too much influence over our military actions.  I can hear it now, "Yes, Colonel, you say you are under intense enemy fire?  Just a moment, we'll convene a sub-committee or two and discuss what you should do.  We'll get back to you in a week or two, if we can reach a decision.  Or maybe we won't do anything but pass a resolution condemning the enemy that's firing at you."

2008--WHO WILL IT BE?  WHO WILL IT NOT BE?
Want to worry?  Here's the Democratic ticket for 2008.  Forget all the pretenders--they are just "noise."  It will be the 'big dogs"--Clinton-Obama, and for the GOP, probably McCain or Guiliani and Romney.  McCain's been running for years--that's his problem too--and he'd be 72 when sworn in if he won.  The Presidency ages people fast, so that's not so good for him, or us.  Rudy Guiliani has some dirty laundry in his past, but so does Hilllary, and Rudy is a smart, strong, proven leader with broader appeal than many expected.

Mitt Romney is strong, bright and should be the top of the ticket, but the mindless resistance to his Mormon religion will probably hold him back just enough to force him to the second spot.  Barack Obama is smooth as silk.  He talks well, says popular things and commits to little or nothing.  He is not quite as liberal as John Kerry--but almost.  If he holds up under pressure--real pressure--of media and opponents, (both from his own party primary opponents and the GOP) he'll take the #2 spot.  Hillary can out-spend and out-maneuver him--and assuming Bill wants to be "First Husband" (sure he does)-- she has the most brilliant campaigner and political animal ever--"in bed with her"--literally.

We could be facing 16 years of Democratic control of the White House if Clinton-Obama team up and win.  That is a disturbing thought.  But consider the "first do no harm, or at least nothing risky" policy of the Democrats.  They don't know WHAT to do, so they will lay low, and continue to blame (and subpoena and investigate) Bush for most of the next 2 years.  The Republicans, as a party are lost--a little bit like Ohio State was against Florida in the BCS title game.  Nothing they try seems to be working.  Maybe the other side just wants it too much more.  Or maybe being in power for too long takes the edge off.  Or both.

If you don't like this scenario, I suggest you get involved somehow in politics and try to make a difference.  What other choice do you have,  except to endure the consequences?  I truly hope I'm wrong on this one.

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--"Maybe, maybe not."

THE ENTERPRISE--"Maybe, maybe not."

FACTS THAT ARE DISCONCERTING:
--BAD: Probable cost of the Iraq conflict so far:  $500 Billion.  I'm glad we didn't have such precise accounting during WW-II.    Worth it?  Maybe, maybe not.  Anybody want to put a price tag on "freedom?"  I'd bet it is HIGHER than we've spent.  Now we just need to make sure we "finish things up right," that's my larger concern.

--WORSE:  Bonuses paid by top 5 Wall Street investment banks:  Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley,Merrill Lynch, Lehman, and Bear Stearns in 2007 were $36 Billion.  I wonder what value these organizations created that warranted such huge payments.  I guess they'd say "making capital available and finding the right deal partners to put it to work."  Worth it?  Maybe, maybe not.  Richly rewarded?  You bet.

--RIDICULOUS: All the flap about Steve Jobs options dating.   C'mon. The guy "saved" Apple from oblivion.   The board agreed to his options, perhaps even studied them for months, causing the need to "back date them" to when they should have been granted.  The shareholders made out famously.  Who cares how much they paid Jobs, how and when.  It was worth it.  PS:  I hardly ever attribute things to "one person" and Jobs didn't do it alone--far from it.  But he was the difference maker.  No doubt about that. 

--TYPICAL:  Al Gore made his own bed for losing the Presidency when he conveniently distorted the truth during debates and campaigning.   Now he is being admired for his movie An Inconvenient Truth..  (I do intend to watch it someday when I can stay calm.)  In it, he talks about sea levels rising 20 feet, and shows scary consequences.  The U.N. (not the greatest of sources, but an independent one) climate panel cites only a ONE FOOT rise this century.  This is also how much sea levels have risen over the past 150 years.  He also distorts and misstates the Antarctica situation showing the 2% of it that is warming and ignoring the 98% that is cooling; or the shrinking sea ice in the North Atlantic that is headlined, but nary a mention of the growing sea ice in the South Atlantic.  A "campaigner" who got caught finding the "Truth" to be "Inconvenient", does Gore always tell the whole truth?  Maybe, maybe not.

"TREES CANNOT GROW TO THE SKY"
Neither can retailers.  It is no surprise that both Wal-Mart and Home Depot are having troubles.  Both have become so big that their roots, the system and culture that made them successful, can no longer support the growth.  Some of you have read my parable of the great tree in the forest, and how it's very size, strength, and  rigidity, led to its eventual demise. (For those who have not, and want to read it email me and ask for a copy).

TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES
Wal-Mart is suffering the fate of all corporate entities that grow so large and dominant that their influence on the social scene in America is both profound and controversial.  It happened in the past in different ways, during different eras.  The eras of "Big Steel" the emergence of General Motors as the dominant industrial giant of the mid-late 20th century, the growth and influence of first IBM and then Microsoft were all examples of strength that begat problems.  Peter Drucker's legendary book, Concept of the Corporation talked about GM as a social institution (all companies are "social institutions"--some just more so than others).  If you read the introduction and opening chapters of this 1946 classic, you will swear that Drucker is talking about Wal-Mart, and not GM.

Home Depot has grown in sheer size and apparent profitability, but lost favor as a place to shop.  Consumers notice the lack of "service orientation."  Employees are disgusted and demotivated.   People are what make--or break--a business.  Home Depot's size per se is not the problem.  It is the insensitivity Nardelli brought to the culture.  New, poorly trained and unmotivated store people can't find things in the huge stores; often not as well as customers.  They give it a half-hearted try (whereas Lowe's people collaborate to hunt down an elusive item.) What a sad state of affairs, and what a task the new CEO faces.

GREATNESS IS TIED TO ERAS AND CULTURES
Wal-Mart's greatness evolved from a combination of Sam Walton's philosophy of always offering better and better value to its customers and treating its employees--associates--as true partners.    Its growth and success were underpinned by Mr. Sam's compulsive interest in what was being offered at retail and how that could be done better.  He was always in stores--his own and competitors--until Wal-Mart became too large and he became too infirm to be there.  But his legacy was clear--pay attention to your customers and fulfill their wants and needs.

His two "'lieutenants” during Wal-Mart's pivotal growth era were David Glass (who succeeded him at the helm) and Jack Shewmaker (who left the company but remains on its board to this day--decades later.)  David and Jack led Wal-Mart to develop the culture and the systems/infrastructure that would dominate retailing for decades, and some of that remains a major competitive advantage today.  Where Wal-Mart has lost it is in two areas--both involving "outside" attention.

When Wal-Mart was smaller, but growing rapidly, it was treasured by shoppers as a place for great value and Mr. Sam's legacy of being a "true merchant" was maintained.  As it grew into a global behemoth, its buyers became just that--"buyers."  They are young, smart, analytical, and well educated.  But too many of them are not "merchants."  Merchants care most about what the customer wants, and how to present it, not about just how great a deal they can get on it.  When this happens, buyers become power-drunk and dictatorial.   The company thinks it can do things better than its suppliers, each of which is a specialist in some product category or market segment.  That is the beginning of the end.

The second Wal-Mart  mistake was to underestimate how its growth and power as a social institution would conflict with its profit motive and come under attack from a different kind of attacker.  It was not competitors but social activists and union organizers that caused Wal-Mart's recent problems.  Like an army of Lilliputians attacking a mythical giant Gulliver, these groups keep tugging Wal-Mart down, in the media, in local zoning disputes, and in reputation.  The isolation that was so desirable in its growth stages can no longer isolate Wal-Mart from its role as the nation's leading employer and social institution.  One of Wal-Mart's latest ads tries to remind consumer of its roots and its mission.  Will it work?  Maybe, maybe not.

Now, Wal-Mart has gone through a spate of trying to be something(s) it is NOT--fashion forward, radical and upscale.  Hiring marketers who neither understood nor reflected it's core values and enduring a revolving door of key executives (over the past 3-5 years) caused by scandal and missteps (usually the promoting person's mistake).  The "great tree" is breaking down.  Broken limbs from the storms of competition and social pressure lay everywhere.  The big question is does Lee Scott have what it takes to return Wal-Mart to its core values and its key success factors.  Maybe, maybe not.

ONE COMPANY'S HERO CAN BE ANOTHER'S "GOAT"
Bob Nardelli was a star in the tough, no nonsense culture Jack Welch built at GE.  Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank built an entirely different culture at the Home Depot and it grew into a Wal-Mart-like leader in its retail markets.   Then Nardelli came, and everything changed.  There was no doubt that Marcus' and Blank's completely decentralized Home Depot had to change.  The issue was how, and in what cultural style.

The answer is now clear.  Nardelli may have known what to do, but his hard-nosed and heavy-handed way that worked so well at GE, didn't at Home Depot.  The turnover in executive ranks was huge.  Some was appropriate, but was it all?  I doubt it.  Could someone else have done it better?  Perhaps.  Could a different approach have worked?  Probably so.  The real question for the Home Depot board now is, "Why choose a CEO whose roots, value systems and experience base are as alien to Home Depot his predecessor's?  Will this one really do much different or better things?"  He also has zero retailing experience. He is not a "merchant" or a "partner" either. Is Frank Blake up to this task?  Maybe, maybe not.

As the next few years unfold, Wal-Mart will gain in social consciousness that is already evident.  It must make a larger, harder change if it is to maintain and grow from its lofty perch. It needs to reinstate into its merchandising and buying organization the "merchant mentality" and the "servant leadership" principles of Sam Walton.   If it doesn't do that, nothing much it does will work better.   It grew by finding strong suppliers and treating them in a tough, but fair, partner-like manner.   Can it--and will it do these things?  Maybe, maybe not.

Wal-Mart has retained the "tough", but fallen from grace in the two important ones--"fair" and "partner-like."  Wal-Mart has ceased to be fair with its suppliers.  And it has ceased to believe that it needs them as partners.  That one will fell the mighty tree---not tomorrow, or next year--but over the next decade.   Both of America's retailing giants are suffering from a near terminal case of "toughness" and lacking the "firm, but fair" approach that makes suppliers celebrate when chosen.  The best suppliers will slowly find more deserving and grateful customers for their best ideas, and best partnerships.

Even the greatest trees can fall from too much stiffness and rigidity, rot from within, and attack from parasites and sheer size.  Those that survive manage to prune the dead parts, send out seeds to start new trees, and claim not just one place in the forest, but an entire area of the forest.  Home Depot Supply may be too far from the parent's core to serve it well.   Wal-Mart is already giving up on some of its far-flung, one-size fits all expansions.  Both would be wise to remember that "trees cannot grow to the sky” BUT, "forests can grow to the horizon."  Look back at Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward, giants of an earlier era.  Watch to see if the contenders will learn new lessons, or fall prey to the same old failures.   Maybe, maybe not.

That's enough ranting for a wintry, snowy Ohio day.  When you don't need to go anywhere, and are in a warm, safe place, the "winter storm" is beautiful, so hold the calls to FEMA.  (See below :-))

Best, John

DENVER WEATHER BULLETIN (not the most recent storm, a prior one)

Up here, in the "Mile-Hi City", we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government.   No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.  Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.  Our Mayor and our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else.   Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.  No one looted.  Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.   Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.  Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.  The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.  Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.  Families took in the stranded people - total strangers. We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.  We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a  mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.  Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.  "In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."   It does seem that way, at least to me.  I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.

THE ENTERPRISE--Understanding Iraq

THE ENTERPRISE--Understanding Iraq

I am writing this lengthy edition of THE ENTERPRISE in a very somber state of mind.  IF you will read it ALL, you will share that state of mind.  I watched President Bush stiffly address the nation and all I could think was "who is this Bush impersonator reading from the tele-prompter?"  Our President and his administration are lost, doubling down on a bet that has already proven to be a loser.  One definition of insanity is "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome."  Does that ring ominously appropriate here?

Bush's opponents, whether they are the new Congressional controlling Democrats or people like me--Republicans who are astounded at his actions, don't have many better ideas.  That is the scary part.  The US' staunchest allies, the Brits don't know what else to do either.  Our opponents was the US to get out of Iraq (and perhaps lots of other places) so they can pursue their own self-interests and agendas.  The problem is that when things really fall apart, they will look to us, and condemn us if we don't use our massive resources to somehow "fix it."

Here is where I am, and I hope after you read this, you will be of a similar mindset.  There are two steps to solving any problem, large or small (and Iraq is a biggie--ignoring that it is largely self-inflicted).
1)  Define the problem; 2) Solve the problem.  There is a step that precedes step number 1--understand the nature of the problem.  The remainder of this edition of THE ENTERPRISE will consist of material I came across through a distant relative.  I will not--indeed I cannot--vouch for the author's political agenda nor specifically for his knowledge of the subject.  What I can say is that he has been there, in the midst of this mess, and seems to have taken a far more insightful approach to understanding why we have such a messy problem.

I would say that understanding at least provides a platform for defining the problem accurately.  Once that is done, solutions can be developed.  What I am asking all readers to do is to forward this material ot anyone you know in a position to influence government policy and the search for solutions--Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Lobbyists, Congressional Staffers, Ambassadors, prominetn news media--in other words--blanket those who might help make wise decision on how to proceed when this latest move doesn't work either (like the ones before it).

PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS--IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY--AND TO YOUR FUTURE.  Whether you agree or not, the thoughts it contains will stimulate you to form your own opinions.  THEN ACT ON THEM.  And may God Bless America--we certainly need it.

Best, John

Understanding Iraq
Excerpts from materials written by Craig T. Trebilcock, edited for THE ENTERPRISE

It has been said that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.   Clearly the stability of Iraq is degrading, insurgent and criminal violence is increasing, and yet, the US continues the same policies of the past, but with a larger force as the primary change.  Perhaps not quite “insanity” but close to it.  Clinging to the belief that more military force is the answer to Iraq's internal political struggles, despite four years of failings, reveals a fundamental weakness in the Administration's understanding of Iraqi politics and culture.

The wrong questions are being asked in the Administration on how to create stability to Iraq, and thus, the answers to  will not improve the political outcome in Iraq.  The policy question most frequently asked is, “How can we use military means to stop increasing sectarian violence?” Under that narrow view, the logical answer is increase the amount of force in the unstable areas.  However, if the question posed were - “How can we attain the strategic goals of political stability and democracy in Iraq?” a different set of answers would be required.  Many of these answers, may be politically undesirable to the civilian leadership, and thus the default is to the US military forces to fix an internal Iraqi cultural and political problems.

The answer to how to attain political stability and democracy in Iraq requires a political course change from Washington DC, not a greater military build-up.  During a one-year deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), I (Trebilcock) was in daily contact with pro-Coalition Iraqi officials, uncooperative Baathist officials, Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) bureaucrats, and most importantly, the average Iraqi in the streets.  The mission was to coordinate reconstruction of Iraqi legal institutions which required leading convoys throughout southern Iraq six days a week and to then traveling to Baghdad to report developments to relatively isolated policy-makers in the Green Zone on the seventh day.  This experience taught me that policy makers from Washington, during their short Green Zone tours, had little sense of Iraqi culture and priorities, and did not realize how this lack of understanding might adversely affect the success of their plans.

In working with the Iraqis from the street to the Ministerial level a series of principles about Iraqi culture became evident.  These principles dramatically explain and alter the impact of our reconstruction and Iraq's stability.   In order to have a chance for success, US policies and tactics cannot be based solely on more military force, but must incorporate the understanding of these principles:

• Societal Values:  Iraqi society is built upon strict patriarchal hierarchy under which the sheikh has absolute power over the tribe.  The concept of civil government centralized at the provincial and national level is relatively new (a few decades) to Iraqis, whose social structure is still tribal.  The Western concept of democracy and the value of sharing power are almost meaningless in their society.  It is only important to Iraqi officials while the US officials are in the room dispensing benefits.
• Loyalty: The major concern of Iraqi officials is not democracy or the political evolution of an Iraqi nation-state.  It is the use of their position to gain personal wealth, as well as benefits for their extended family and tribe. This observation is not a character attack; it simply reflects the reality that in a Bedouin society, where the foundational social unit is the tribe, primary loyalty is to that tribe.  Saddam's government was packed with family and tribal members because they were loyal and it was expected of him, within the culture, to bring benefits to his tribe by his prominence.  Other Iraqi officials are no different in this regard.
• Defending What Is Valued: If Iraqis do not value something, they will not fight for it.  If they don't, they won't.  This is one reason why the Iraqi army put forth a poor showing in the Gulf War and in OIF1.  They melted away, as they were being asked to fight for something in which they did not believe.  And yet, these same Iraqis are tenaciously fighting the world's predominant military power in their tribal areas and cities.  The difference?  The insurgents are now fighting for something they believe in - expelling foreign troops and sectarian enemies from tribal areas that they hold dear.
• Historic Bedouin Origins: In a society that is evolving from a harsh Bedouin desert existence, where water and other staples of life are in short supply, the Iraqis have learned that the group who controls the resources lives, and the one who does not, dies. Individually, Iraqis are a warm and generous people.  As the size of their group grows, however, whether that be a family unit, tribe, or an entire sect, their generosity to those not within their social circle wanes.   The historic sense that one only takes care of his own - borne of their harsh desert life - minimizes their collective willingness to compromise or share resources or power.  The lessons learned through centuries of desert survival are that only the strong get the resources and survive.  Sharing of resources or power outside ones' own tribe is an unfamiliar and foreign concept.  Armed struggle for power, not compromise and.or democratic style debate, is the norm.
• Conflicting Values: Trading for personal or tribal gain is part of the Iraqi/Bedouin culture.  Self-sacrifice for general welfare is not.  Thus, frustration with “Why don't the Iraqis just try to get along for their mutual benefit,” is a Western, culturally based value judgment applied to a society, where violent conflict to gain advantage is the norm.  If the current Sunni insurgency is to be stopped the Iraqi insurgents must come to believe that the personal benefits of a peace with the Shiites clearly outweigh the gains by continuing to fight for dominance.   Increased US military operations will inflame this struggle for political dominance, not diminish it.
• Time & the Concept of “En Sh'allah”: Iraqis do not share Western concepts on the use, passage, or value of time.  They sincerely believe that if a matter is truly important that Allah will control the outcome and the personal efforts of individuals are merely tangential to that outcome.  This is the source of the frustration every US soldier who has served in Iraq and seen lack of resolve, follow-through, or reliability from his Iraqi counterpart.  The concept of “En Sh'allah” (Only if God wills will it happen) overshadows all aspects of Iraqi life, including reconstruction and political evolution.  As such, the political resolution, if any, in Iraq will be done according to the glacial pace of Iraqi society, not based on a US timetable.  This point is critical to recognize in setting realistic timetables for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq. 

Under these cultural principles, relying simply upon foreign military force to impose a lasting political stability or democracy upon Iraqis will not work.  In fact, a military victory was won in 2003.  It is the peace and the post-conflict stability that is being lost by civilian leaders' attempts to use the wrong tools (military force) to change Iraqi cultural anda societal values.   Lack of understanding of Iraq's culture and politics by the US civilian leadership has brought the US back to the brink of “losing Iraq.”

The weakness of Iraqi security forces is pointed to as a justification for maintaining or increasing US troop involvement.  However, considering principles 1, 2, and 3, it's apparent that the weakness of the Iraqi security forces (police & military) and their lack of reliability (in our eyes) are normal under the political circumstances we've imposed on the Iraqis.  As the concept of democracy does not have value in their culture, the willingness to fight and die for its success is virtually nonexistent.  Instead, consistent with their cultural norms, Iraqis will use official or security positions to gain personal and family advantage, even if Baghdad burns about them. 

Thus, the Iraqi troops we are training will be enthusiastic while they are being fed and clothed, as opposed to joining the 80% unemployed young men in Iraq.  However, it is misguided to believe their willingness to serve is to preserve democracy or a US-backed central Government.  We can provide all the military training we want, but only the Iraqis themselves can provide the will to rid their country of foreign fighters and internal insurgents.  Iraqi Army troops fought for Saddam (albeit ineffectively), as death was the consequence for failing to do so.  Under US tutelage that is no longer the case. Whether enthusiasm for food and a paycheck is a strong enough motivation for the fledgling Iraqi security forces to stand toe to toe with a zealous enemy remains to be seen.

The above history does not mean that Iraqis are not capable of stabilizing Iraq eventually.  It does mean that it has to be done by Iraqis, on Iraqi terms, in Iraqi time frames, and based on values for which they are willing to fight.  Self-preservation may be one of those values - democracy is certainly not.  Promoting the integrity and power of their respective tribes within a new Iraq is definitely such a cultural value.  US policies built upon the premise that Iraqi officials and security forces will rally to Western political values if only we “stay the course" a while longer are naive  and underlie our repeated misunderstanding about how to reconstruct Iraq.

It is against these deeply ingrained cultural principles that we can now evaluate the strategic merit of US policies that rely upon US military forces to fight their way to a political stability or democracy in Iraq.  Without a doubt, the iraqi people rose to the opportunity to vote in elections that might help determine their future.  Also without a doubt, theiy lacked or failed to understand of how this "democratic" process might unfold and how deeply parts of it conflicted with cultural traditions The logic runs, apparently, that the Iraqi forces are not ready quite yet, but that with a few more months and an additional tens of thousands of US troops, all can yet be solved militarily--either by defeating the insurgents through force of US arms, or by buying enough time for a meaningful Iraqi security force to stand up and do so.   This supposition ignores the principles cited earlier and is based upon "hope" as a cause of action, rather than cultural reality.

The proposed military "surge" also ignores the lessons of the past four years of the limits on what a PFC with an M16 can and cannot accomplish on a street corner in Baghdad.  The US soldier or marine can secure his street corner, but he cannot make the Iraqis who walk past him care enough about their government to change deeply ingrained culture.  He can engage insurgents or criminals with effective firepower, but he cannot make the Iraqis willing to risk disclosing the locations of insurgent cells when they do not believe in the US mission.

Nor can he cause the Iraqis to forget hundreds of years of cultural hatred, to accept that peace with ones' enemy is better than watching him die.  Each of these goals is a necessary component for political stability in Iraq and must come from within, not from additional US combat brigades.  It is not the insurgency with its roadside bombs or criminals perpetrating mass kidnappings that are defeating the US mission.  It is the fact that our civilian leadership has defined “victory” in Iraq as a stable, democratic government--a potentially unachievable goal in any near-term time frame.  Building the parameters for success upon values and goals that the Iraqis themselves do not share is leading us toward failure, despite our strength of arms.   Accordingly, the disconnect between a non-democratic Iraqi culture and US political goals will not be repaired by sending more US troops.

We have been "squeezing the balloon" with anti-insurgent operations for four years, clamping down on one area only to watch it bulge elsewhere.  Today's theory is that enough force exerted upon Baghdad and Al Anbar province will win the day or buy enough time for the Iraqis to “stabilize” and provide their own security.  The fact that it has been tried and failed in Fallujah, Najaf, and a variety of other Sunni Triangle hot spots is not deterring the Administration planners.  This deadly game of the US military playing “Catch the Insurgent” will continue until it is the Iraqis who are controlling their streets and have decided that they no longer wish to fight, based upon values important to their culture.   There will be much more bloodshed before this happens-a hard fact the politicians are unwilling to face.  Before stability can be restored it may require engaging our strategic enemies in discussions and deal making--another hard fact the Administration is unwilling to face.

It may even require partitioning the country into autonomous regions-a solution fraught with complexities, but a potential reality given the de facto cultural partitions that currently exist  There is no easy solution in Iraq, but the discourse in Washington that considers no diplomatic, cultural or political avenues to resolve a political and cultural problem stands an excellent chance of seizing strategic political defeat from the jaws of the 2003 battlefield victory.
One conclusion coming out of Washington that is directly on point comes from Recommendation 41 of the Iraq Study Group Report:

The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned changes.  America's other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.   

This simple paragraph succinctly captures the most important lesson learned in Iraq.  Our troops, while battling a largely Sunni dominated insurgency, are the insurance policy for those same Sunnis that the Shiites, with their 3:1 population advantage will not simply wipe the Sunnis from the map.  Our continued presence provides a rallying point and Arab street credit for a violent insurgency killing its own people, as their efforts can be wrapped up in a “defeat the American occupiers” wrapper.

Our continued presence is also the insurance policy for the lives of the Iraqi government bureaucrats who have sided with the Coalition.  Despite public pronouncements that they wish to have US forces depart, these Iraqi officials have little desire to see US forces disappear over the horizon, leaving them alone with a weak government, uncertain military, and a combative civil population.  In short, our continued (or the proposed expanded) presence has outlived its usefulness and benefits both the insurgency and the weak Iraqi government, but does little to promote the long-term political stability in Iraq that is in our national interest.

Our civilian leadership is desperately seeking to avoid the embarrassment of political defeat in Iraq by proposing to send in its military reserve, calling it “a temporary surge” for political consumption.  From a military operational standpoint this will enable us to secure more territory-but only in the short run.  From the strategic political standpoint this will highlight the inability of a weak Iraqi government to rule its own people.   It will create more civilian casualties amongst an already embittered populace.  In the end, by ignoring the cultural and internal political realities of Iraq, in favor of a one-dimensional approach based upon military intervention, the US is increasingly likely to “win the battle and lose the war."

Someone in charge in Washington needs to realize this!

Craig T. Trebilcock is a Lieutenant Colonel (promotable) in the US Army Reserve, who served in Iraq during 2003 reconstructing the Iraqi legal system.  He is author of a novel on that experience titled "One Weekend A Month."

THE ENTERPRISE-Special for the 2007 New Year

THE ENTERPRISE-Special for the 2007 New Year

PEOPLE WE LOST IN 2006 THAT I'LL MISS
Don Knotts, for his always funny, wonderful bravado as a shaky sidekick to Andy Griffith--and more...
Louis Rukeyser, for his artful presentation of the vagaries of Wall Street...
Mickey Spillane, for inventing the "tough-guy-private eye" novel (along with Raymond Chandler)..
Steve Irwin, for his nutty joy of taking risks, even though it ultimately cost him his life...
Jack Palance, for his "Western bad guy" portrayals and one armed-pushups at age 72...
Peter Boyle, for his many lines on "Raymond" that every guy wants to say but doesn't--"Holy Crap"...
James Brown, for his boundless energy and making the musical line "I Feel Good" a legendary one

A FEW KEY EVENTS OF 2006
In case you forgot:
--January--We quit "interfering" in Palestinian elections and Hamas, the suicide bomber organization ends up in charge--the "inmates have the keys"--for now anyway.
--February--The Islamic radicals don't think we should mind them beheading people, but get mightily upset over some cartoons that portray their Prophet in an inappropriate manner--and riot and kill people!!!
--April--Illegal immigrants don't go to work, and demonstrate because they sneaked into the US and we must not be treating them as well as they hoped???
--July--Mexico has an election and can't decide who got elected.  Did they go to the Florida election commission training program or what?
--Summer--Hezbollah "spits in Israel's face" by abduction people and firing rockets.  The Israeli do the logical thing and blast them...and for some reason most of the world  (including too many in the US) thinks Israel is wrong--which tells us how screwed up things have become.
--August--An al Qaeda terrorist "planes plot" is foiled in Britain, but is a somber warning that future threats may come from within both the UK...and the US.
--Oct.-Nov.-Dec.
The crazies get crazier--North Korean tests nukes--too bad one of them didn't blow up on the launch pad.  Chavez gets re-elected in Venezuela keeping at least part of South America under the influence of a  power-hungry fool.  Saddam Hussein is convicted of mass murder and sentenced to death (surprised?)  Bush begins re-staffing his adminstration culminated by Rumsfeld's resignation, finally--only a year+ too late.

A FEW KEY PREDICTIONS ABOUT 2007
--The mid-year recession may not happen--it might just be a slowdown to a lower rate of growth (2%).
That means the Fed will probably  leave interest rates alone until or unless either inflation jumps or growth slumps.
--Oil probably stays in the $60 unless some global event disturbs the economic balance (like an Iranian "blow-up?")  If oil stays "calm" so will gas prices leaving some money for consumers to spend.
--Housing stays soft, but doesn't collapse as excess home inventory  is worked down.  Those who speculated are hurt, those who over-borrowed are hurt, but most people muddle with too-big mortgages and no more "easy money" from home equity loans.
--The Big 3 auto companies fall further from their historic glory.  GM does best--but it's reputation still hinders it, as does its awful legacy costs  It has to stop paying thousands of people for not working--sooner or later, Mullaly starts fixing Ford--painfully, but by doing the right things--and Ford ends up a much smaller company.  DaimlerChrysler fixes up Chrysler (again) and looks to sell it to a private equity buyer  Toyota and Honda rule, Ghosn's magic at Nissan doesn't work so well at Peugeot.  Hyundai and Kia's progress slows and Korean currency goes the wrong way (for them).
--The stock market value keeps growing, although not so fast.  Value rules, as large "blue-chips" are favored.  Google, eBay and Yahoo, et. al. begin to "return to earth" from stratospheric valuations that were neither warranted nor sustainable.
--Christmas turns out OK in sales, and not OK in profits as promotions to drive volume hurt profits.  For years people have asked "who can stop Wal-Mart and Home Depot?"  Now we know the answer--Wal-Mart and Home Depot (with an assist from Target and Lowe's).  Web retailing will keep growing, but like all things that get big, the growth rate will slow as it gets bigger.
--Somebody, in fact probably several people from each party will start running for President, even though the election is about 22 months away.  The question is who?  And the bigger question is WHY?  Congress will start trying to make its (Democratic party) mark on America.  The questions about how and what are posed in the email I received recently that I posted below, it is titled: WHY I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER in 2007.  Form your own opinions!

IDEAS, DISCOVERIES, NEW THOUGHTS AND MISCELLANEOUS STUFF I FOUND INTERESTING

--WASH HANDS, SAVE LIVES--DUH--WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO REALIZE?
Wow.  What a profound discovery.  If medical staff would just wash their hands after (or before) each patient interaction, it could save as many as 40,000 lives each year.  Now WHY DON'T THEY DO IT?

PARC-INVENTING IT IS ≠ TO PERFECTING IT--CREATIVITY IS NOT INNOVATION
Many of the breakthrough discoveries and innovations (the mouse and icon/desktop system for computers) were first found at Xerox Corp.s PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), but Xerox didn't commercialize or benefit financially for any of them.  Ditto for Philips N.V., the huge Dutch company, whose past is littered with firsts, but who also failed to commercialize them successfully.  The message:  creativity is different from innovation.

TREND MINING MATTERS-DO IT--LOOK OUTSIDE
If you want to know what's coming, it helps to look around.   Obvious?  Sure.  But too often companies are so internally focused (because they can control internal stuff) that they get ambushed by startups who just take the time to look, ask, and explore what trends seem to be developing.  Can anybody spell YouTube?

CHINA'S PEOPLE REVOLT-POLLUTION, SAFETY, ETC.--TROUBLE IS COMING
The Chinese people are being poisoned by their own economic and industrial development and the government doesn't know what to do about it.  If the government mandates tighter environmental controls it could cost jobs and slow down growth--which will also be very unpopular.  How do you say  "Catch 22" in Mandarin?

NO WIN IN IRAQ & THE MIDDLE EAST--LEAVE IT BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT AND GET OUT
I am at odds with the Bush Administration's apparent plan to send more troops to Iraq.  ( think it is a big mistake.  Years ago, I had an assembly line that was producing too many defects.  So, we added more inspectors and quality got worse!  Why?  The assembly workers took even less responsibility for quality--let the inspectors catch the defects.  More US troops are only a Band-Aid on a bleeding wound.  Unless the Iraqi take control of their country, and enforce discipline, we can't (and shouldn't) send enough American troops over there to "stabilize it."

These people have fought, hated and killed each other for centuries.  A few thousand of our brave young American troops cannot change that.  We need to clean up what we can, this year and try to leave it better than we found it.  That would be the best "win" we can hope for.  But, we do need to  swallow our considerable pride and meet, discuss, and perhaps even "negotiate" with those Iraqi neighbors that we abhor...like Iran and Syria. Why?  I think the answer is hidden somewhere in the old cliche' "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

WHAT WE NEED IS A NEW KIND OF MILITARY AND MISSION(S)--NOW, NOT LATER
Why do we need tens of thousands of American military scattered about Europe, and especially in Germany?  Last time I looked, that war ended about 60 years ago.  We need to massively re-configure and re-task our military to "fight different battles" than in the past.

We also need the "bleeding hearts" to realize that there is no such thing as a "fair fight" when the combatants don't observe the same rules.  IF the US is to survive as a free nation and a world power, we need to quit fighting fist fights where the other guy has, and can use a gun or a knife.   If that bothers the sensitive American psyche, they we need to do it covertly, and not apologize where the ever-present media learns about it and tips off our enemies in the name of freedom of the press.  maybe if our enemies knew we are willing to fight them according to their rules (no rules), they'll think twice  before they mess with the USA.

CYBER-PIRATES/TERRORISTS ARE OUT THERE--DANGER
Protect your system.  Protect your data.  My novel, THE SILENCE, is now 4, going on 5 years old, and it is as prophetic as ever. (and still on sale at amazon.com last time I checked).  Somebody is going to do what I predicted or something very much like it.  If your company or clients don't have a strong security and disaster plan, then it's time they develop and implement one.  Just imagine operating for a week with no phones, no computers, no email, no cell phones and no broadcast radio/TV or cable TV...and that is just for a start.  It would be a VERY QUIET WEEK.

WOMEN STAY IN SECOND CLASS--UNFORTUNATELY
As long as the major business magazines run features listing the highest ranking women in business, we will know they are still a distinct and unique minority.   Women can do the job.  Why more of them don't get to the top isn't completely clear, but I suspect it is a combination of history, discrimination (the "old boys club), the fact that they are the ones who must bear children to sustain life on earth, and the fact that they are "wired a bit differently" (which is what makes them able to bear, nurture and raise children better than men). 

Women may in fact be more sensitive, more perceptive and more collaborative leaders, but genetics are an insurmountable issue.  Remember, for millions of years, men were the hunters and women stayed back at home, keeping the family safe and the home fires burning.  No matter that we intellectually know it need not always be that way, social cultures change slowly, and only over decades.

B-SCHOOLS DON'T TEACH BUSINESS--DUH
I don't know exactly why this is either, but perhaps it is because they are run by educators and not business people, and many classes are taught by teachers and not business practitioners.    It's sort of like learning to swim by reading a book. It just doesn't prepare you for the first time you jump in the deep end of the pool and get a nose and eyes full of water.  The problem is that the business world is changing faster than ever, making the likelihood of B-Schools "catching up"  worse, not better. 

Suggestions:  B-Schools should have active and aggressive curriculum advisory groups made up of current business people.   There should also be rosters of "guest lecturers" made up of people who are either currently active in business or have been active within 3-5 years preferably less.  Lots of these people either retired early or are looking for jobs, and can be recruited via alumni networks.  Will any school lead the way?

BRANDS = PROMISES; KEEP THEM, KEEP CUSTOMERS
As more and more companies switch to private labels, house brands and "no brands" consumers will search for the famiiar, comfortable promise of value and performance offered by a recognizable brand.  If the brand is a "trade brand" it may not matter to consumers, but may be a difference maker with the intermediate customers (gate-keeper).  If the end user/.consumer makes the buying decision, then brands must pay more attention than ever to understanding what their brand means, what promise it makes, and what relationship it has with those who are loyal to it.  Then protect those at all costs.

Often,brands are the only difference--and are enough of a difference to justify a price difference (premium).  As the behemoths like Wal-Mart and Home Depot grow so large and in-bred that they delude themselves that they can "do it all"--create the product, the brand, design it, source it, procure it, merchandise and sell it.  They can't "do it all" at a world-class level.   The only way many of them will learn this is through competitors who do the parts of the entire innovation and value network better.  Observe closely and you will see this happen.

MY NEW YEAR GIFT TO YOU: SWITCH TO A MAC:
There are few reasons most people can't or shouldn't switch from PCs to Macs (unless they are hard-core gamers, or are locked in by corporate systems which leave no option.    Once you have used the Apple Mac and its iLife suite (iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, etc.) you'll wonder why you ever used anything else.  And the new dual core Macs can run Windows (with all its attendant virus risks, of course) and using a 3rd party software named Parallels  a user can switch back and forth from Mac to Windows desktop. 

Before I'd tangle with Microsoft's new Vista and its radically redesigned Office 2007 with all of the typical "new software bugs," I'd run to the Apple store and get an iBook and equip it with the Student/Teacher version of Office X.  Almost everything else you'll need comes already on the Mac. 

Here is a site that gives many tips to those who want to switch.  You'll  be delighted you did.  (The Wall Street Journal's expert, Walter Mossburg, and Business Week's expert Steve Wildstrom have said this too, in print, repeatedly.)
http://www.lifehacker.com/software/mac/hack-attack-a-guide-for-switching-to-a-mac-224674.php
(And I have no financial interest in Apple.  I just know what works and life is too short for a computer that doesn't work--simply.)

Finally, shown below are two emails I received recently.  One is titled WHY I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER in 2007 and the author is anonymous.   The other is titled  Made in the USA : Spoiled brats By Craig R. Smith.  Perhaps these will leave you wondering what to think, what to conclude, or what I was thinking of when I included them.  That is just what I hoped for. 

Happy New Year, John

WHY I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER in 2007
The Democrats new promise "A New Direction For America"
o    The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Unemployment is at 25-year lows.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Taxes are at 20-year lows.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?
o    The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3-5 years.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?
o    Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.  A new direction from there means what?
o    Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:
o    The economy to go south.
o    Illegals to go north.
o    Taxes to go up.
o    Employment to go down.
o    Terrorism to come in.
o    Tax breaks to go out.
o    Social Security to go away.
o    Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone.
But what the heck!

I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K,
Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive
-National Security Plan, -Health Care Plan, -Immigration Reform Plan, -Gay
Rights Plan, -Same Sex Marriage Plan, -Abortion On Demand Plan, -Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, -How to Return all Troops to the U.S. In The Next Six Months Plan, -A Get Tough Plan, (adapted from the French Plan by the same name) and a -How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan…. whoops,  I forgot the -No More Katrina-like Storms Plan.

Now I know why I feel good after the elections. I am going to be able to sleep so much better at nights knowing these dedicated Politicians are thinking of my welfare and me.

Author Anonymous

Made in the USA : Spoiled brats
By Craig R. Smith
November 20, 2006
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way.

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did … insane!

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for?  More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.'  Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage.  Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''

I suggest we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy.

<http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53028>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53028