I couldn't pass up the pun, although I admit that the Nazi rampage against Jewish shops during the CristalNacht of the 1930's was far more nefarious than President Obama's sacking of General McChrystal. What is now clear is that Afghanistan is Obama's war.
The best comment I have read about the situation appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 23: a think piece by Elliot A. Cohen who presently teaches at the Johns Hopkins University and who has been a student of wartime leadership issues.
While McChrystal has erred and Cohen opined that he would have to go, he wrote that the problems were not the General's fault. Cohen believes that the Obama administration made three large errors in the conduct of the Afghan war.
First, it assembled a dysfunctional team of McChrystal, Eikenberry and Holbrooke, three quite able men but who, as anyone who knew them would have predicted, could not work together effectively, to carry out the agreed policy. General Eikenberry is a former Army commander in Afghanistan and holds views on the war very different from those of McChrystal. He also loathes Afghan President Karzai. Holbrooke, a diplomatic powerhouse, added yet another layer of command into the already difficult relationships.
Second, the Administration engaged in an excruciating strategy review last fall during which its internal dissensions became public. The leaks from the process revealed that Vice President Biden's view of how to conduct the war differed strongly from those of Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton. The process was unnerving to the military staffs charged with conducting the war.
Third, and the most damaging, was President Obama's speech at West Point in December 2009 in which he put his own ambivalence about the war on public view and announced that troop withdrawal would begin in July 2011. This blunder demoralized the American side while elating the enemy. They now only have to hang in for another year or so and the Americans will be gone.
General McChrystal's forced resignation perhaps moves to reinstate an American tradition of military deference to civilian authority. But it certainly does nothing to enhance the conduct of what is at best a difficult attempt to bring peace and civility to a badly damaged expanse of territory. Under the best of circumstances Afghanistan presents a difficult situation. It is essentially a failed state with little central authority, little and poor infrastructure, very low levels of human capital and almost nothing that resembles a national identity.
Efforts to build a nation from this melange and at the same time defeat a well established insurgency would tax the resources of any nation. I fear that the results of American efforts will not be pretty. Afghanistan should not be the sole conceern of the US, but I see no movement on the part of NATO allies to become further involved, instead, there appears to be a lessening of support. I do not believe that the American public, especially Obama's liberal supporters, have the patience to put up with a long, difficult and costly exercise for what I think is perceived as little gain.
The countries most at risk are not actually the US but Afghanistan's neighbors, especially Pakistan. Attitudes in Pakistan are clearly ambivalent as the governmenmt strives to contain insurgency and loss of control along its western border, but at the same time resentful of American influence (the US is perceived as anti-Muslim as well)and so it positionins itself to be a factor, at least in southern Afghanistan, when the Americans move out as expected.
Islamic extremists and the export of drugs are no bargains for the "Stans" to the north nor for Russia, but this commonality of risk hasn't evoked much in the way of support for the US, some but not much. A past "cold war" mentality and Russian resentment of its lowered status in world affairs seem to overcome a more realistic view of its true interests in the region.
And so what will be the final output? Who knows, but I can foresee the possibility of a gradual phase out of support from the US and the evolution of some sort of political settlement in Afghanistan that provides cover for a Western exit but leaves Afghanistan essentially unchanged.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Accleration
I've not blogged for awhile but would like to restart! In the meantime events seem to have accelerated rapidly leaving a host of prospective topics but with the danger of moving too rapidly really to pin down. Since February developments in general don't seem to have improved, but rather to have deteriorated.
In foreign affairs the same cast of characters prevails:
Afghanistan - still a mess and I fear that the trends are not favorable.
Iraq - we're not out of this country yet and the poltitics still don't seem especially stable.
Iran - the repressive mullahs seem firmly entrenched and hell bent on exporting extremism and building nuclear capacity.
Venezuela - one could think that Hugo Chavez is in difficulties but he's still in charge and still an enemy.
North Korea - the regime seems fragile but China will prop it up to avoid having 25 million starving Koreans head north while South Korea, Japan and the US sort out an appropriate approach.
China - where is it going politically and economically and what does the US do about it, assuming it can do anything.
Japan - its new political party in power has stumbled and the country still lacks a coherent policy to overcome economic stagnation and an aging population.
Pakistan - is this country for real, or is it a failed state. Should the US just bank on India as the leading partner in South Asia?
In terms of US domestic issues events seem even more confused. We have a very unhappy electorate that seems determined to "throw the rascals out" even though we're not sure who they are. It does seem clear that Barack Obama has lost a lot of traction. Many, many citizens are unhappy with the ever rising public deficit. They're also stressed out by continuing high unemployment and the housing crisis. I suspect that the Health Care Reform legislation as it enters into force and begins affecting people's health care, often in negative ways, could well generate a back lash against this administration and its adherents. The administration is also conflicted between the need to show some signs of fiscal probity but at the same time maintain a level of fiscal stimulus and pay offs to its liberal constituents. Bank and financial regulation is another potential land mine. Forced reductions in bank fees may well lead to other charges, like fees on checking accounts. And finally there is the little matter of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that threatens the lives of people in four states. The Obama administration's response has not been especially adept - admittedly it has been a disaster on an unprecedented scale - but using the crisis as a crutch for a "green" approach to energy conservation including carbon caps and oil drilling moratoria is not likely to play out well. This doesn't seem to be a particularly good time for America. It must be all those illegal aliens causing the problems.
As I find time I'll try to spend more time on selected issues not that I have any solutions either. So until later, I leave you to watch the accelerating world events.
In foreign affairs the same cast of characters prevails:
Afghanistan - still a mess and I fear that the trends are not favorable.
Iraq - we're not out of this country yet and the poltitics still don't seem especially stable.
Iran - the repressive mullahs seem firmly entrenched and hell bent on exporting extremism and building nuclear capacity.
Venezuela - one could think that Hugo Chavez is in difficulties but he's still in charge and still an enemy.
North Korea - the regime seems fragile but China will prop it up to avoid having 25 million starving Koreans head north while South Korea, Japan and the US sort out an appropriate approach.
China - where is it going politically and economically and what does the US do about it, assuming it can do anything.
Japan - its new political party in power has stumbled and the country still lacks a coherent policy to overcome economic stagnation and an aging population.
Pakistan - is this country for real, or is it a failed state. Should the US just bank on India as the leading partner in South Asia?
In terms of US domestic issues events seem even more confused. We have a very unhappy electorate that seems determined to "throw the rascals out" even though we're not sure who they are. It does seem clear that Barack Obama has lost a lot of traction. Many, many citizens are unhappy with the ever rising public deficit. They're also stressed out by continuing high unemployment and the housing crisis. I suspect that the Health Care Reform legislation as it enters into force and begins affecting people's health care, often in negative ways, could well generate a back lash against this administration and its adherents. The administration is also conflicted between the need to show some signs of fiscal probity but at the same time maintain a level of fiscal stimulus and pay offs to its liberal constituents. Bank and financial regulation is another potential land mine. Forced reductions in bank fees may well lead to other charges, like fees on checking accounts. And finally there is the little matter of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that threatens the lives of people in four states. The Obama administration's response has not been especially adept - admittedly it has been a disaster on an unprecedented scale - but using the crisis as a crutch for a "green" approach to energy conservation including carbon caps and oil drilling moratoria is not likely to play out well. This doesn't seem to be a particularly good time for America. It must be all those illegal aliens causing the problems.
As I find time I'll try to spend more time on selected issues not that I have any solutions either. So until later, I leave you to watch the accelerating world events.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Military Doctrine
The fiscal 2011 Department of Defense budget proposal totaling $707 billion has just been presented to Congress. At the end of the Clinton Administration the DOD budget was running around $300 billion. Things have changed for us since 9/11/01. Among the changes is an effort to revise standard US military doctrine.
During my high school years - I graduated in 1949 - the immediate Post World War II world was fracturing into blocks. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) extended its zone of control westward into Central Europe and by 1948 had made clear that its hegemony included the Baltic states, eastern Germany, a part of Austria, and Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. A civil war in Greece was brought to an end with the Communists losing and Communist unions in Italy were also unsuccessful in assuming full political power. But Communist control over Europe was a close thing and in 1949 in response the US spearheaded the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to support western European defense collaboratively against the threat posed by the USSR. It gave up control over Iranian Azerbaijan, but the USSR fully occupied the formal Imperial territories of Central Asia and Siberia, including those southern Kurile islands that had belonged to Japan. The USSR's client states included North Korea and it was an early supporter of the Chinese communists. In sum the USSR was a major international power with a strong military presence.
The year 1949 also saw the forced departure of the Nationalist Chinese Government from mainland China to Taiwan. The People's Republic of China as the political manifestation of the Chinese Communist Party assumed control of the mainland and was not a friend of the United States. This became abundantly clear when the PRC intervened in the Korean conflict late in 1950 with harsh consequences for the US forces engaged. Another large, if impoverished, international power had thus come into being, and also one with a large military establishment.
Thus early on in the post WW II environment the US found itself confronted with serious potential enemies capable of engaging in war to the east and to the west. Resulting US military doctrine was to prepare to conduct two major wars simultaneously. Equipment procurement, force levels and force positioning were all tailored to meet this requirement. As part of a general "containment" policy to keep its enemies from expanding, the US entered into war against the North Vietnamese communists, who initially were supported mostly by the USSR but later by the PRC. During the period of the conflict, 1962 - 1975, the US was careful, perhaps too careful, not to risk an open intervention by the PRC.
A decade or so after US departure from Vietnam world conditions were changed. The USSR had engaged in a war in Afghanistan that was failing and simultaneously highlighting the failure of its economy to keep pace with the west. China and the US had diplomatic relations and Premier Deng was pushing China to get rich, which could only be done by attracting foreign investment and export markets.
The USSR abandoned Afghanistan in 1989, the government changed and in 1991 the USSR imploded. Not only did the satellite states of Eastern Europe become truly independent and non-communist, but Socialist Republics like Belorus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the "Stans" of central Asia also became independent. The European boundaries of the successor state, the Russian Federation, were pushed eastward to limits not seen in 300 years. Today's Russia is resentful and strives to restore some of its lost glory as an international power, but its population of 141 million, and declining, and it economic dependence on oil and sales of other commodities, shielding a weak industrial base make very unlikely that Russia can or will mount a serious military threat to Europe. This suggests that NATO may well have lost its validity: thousands of battle tanks rumbling across the plains of northern Europe are now, I think, pure fantasy.
In contrast to the USSR, the People's Republic of China has, especially since the late 1990's, become the 800 pound gorilla of the global economy. A large number of its 1.3 billion people are not poor, as attested by 2009 automobile sales of around 11 million vehicles, and its emergence as the world's largest exporter and soon to be second largest national economy can only reshape global order. Incidentally, its holdings of a trillion dollars in US debt instruments implies a serious interrelationship between China and the US which neither side can discount in policy decisions.
So Defense Secretary Robert Gates' pitch that the two war scenario no longer holds and that US military doctrine needs to adjust is surely based on a logical reading of today's world. We now have close to 200,000 troops engaged in combat over a wide swath of the middle east without a single battle tank or self-propelled long range cannon employed. The single most important cause of death to American forces is the improvised explosive device put together from cheap ingredients in isolated houses and hidden alongside roads used by our forces. We are obviously engaged in asymetrical warfare.
That China represents a potential, if not actual threat, to its neighbors if not directly to us, is sound doctrine. But what the current situation requires is not lots of supersonic jets, immense tanks, nuclear powered battle cruisers but auto-piloted drones, helicopters, armored but agile combat vehicles and an emphasis on small force operations. There also has to be a focus on community outreach and civil government. So a military doctrine of preparation for maybe one war and a lot of anti-insurrection brush fires would seems logical.
Unfortunately logic runs into politics. Every item and services procured by the DOD involve somebody's congressional district. National interest and logic be damned! Members of Congress will fight tooth and nail to preserve every bit of cash flow destined to their respective districts. And this ignores all those "earmarks" that tailor additional funds for truly "special interests". To be fair, not only politicians resist change but senior members of each of the military services look askance at changes in relative status in total funding flows, threats to funding of strongly desired new systems or equipment and threats of a reduced role in future military operations. Everybody guards their turf!
Secretary Gates and allies were successful in the 2009 budget cycle in sharply reducing expenditures for the F-22 fighter plane. It was a tough battle that they barely won. This year's targets for removal include an alternative engine for the F-35 at a cost of a billion or so and $2.5 billion for new C-17 transport planes the USAF says it doesn't need. Small potatoes in a 700+ billion budget, but every bit counts. The "military-industrial" complex has fewer major players these days what with mergers among the giants, but its capacity to battle for money from Congress remains unparalleled.
Progress in reforming US military doctrine will not doubt be slow but it is clearly necessary.
During my high school years - I graduated in 1949 - the immediate Post World War II world was fracturing into blocks. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) extended its zone of control westward into Central Europe and by 1948 had made clear that its hegemony included the Baltic states, eastern Germany, a part of Austria, and Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. A civil war in Greece was brought to an end with the Communists losing and Communist unions in Italy were also unsuccessful in assuming full political power. But Communist control over Europe was a close thing and in 1949 in response the US spearheaded the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to support western European defense collaboratively against the threat posed by the USSR. It gave up control over Iranian Azerbaijan, but the USSR fully occupied the formal Imperial territories of Central Asia and Siberia, including those southern Kurile islands that had belonged to Japan. The USSR's client states included North Korea and it was an early supporter of the Chinese communists. In sum the USSR was a major international power with a strong military presence.
The year 1949 also saw the forced departure of the Nationalist Chinese Government from mainland China to Taiwan. The People's Republic of China as the political manifestation of the Chinese Communist Party assumed control of the mainland and was not a friend of the United States. This became abundantly clear when the PRC intervened in the Korean conflict late in 1950 with harsh consequences for the US forces engaged. Another large, if impoverished, international power had thus come into being, and also one with a large military establishment.
Thus early on in the post WW II environment the US found itself confronted with serious potential enemies capable of engaging in war to the east and to the west. Resulting US military doctrine was to prepare to conduct two major wars simultaneously. Equipment procurement, force levels and force positioning were all tailored to meet this requirement. As part of a general "containment" policy to keep its enemies from expanding, the US entered into war against the North Vietnamese communists, who initially were supported mostly by the USSR but later by the PRC. During the period of the conflict, 1962 - 1975, the US was careful, perhaps too careful, not to risk an open intervention by the PRC.
A decade or so after US departure from Vietnam world conditions were changed. The USSR had engaged in a war in Afghanistan that was failing and simultaneously highlighting the failure of its economy to keep pace with the west. China and the US had diplomatic relations and Premier Deng was pushing China to get rich, which could only be done by attracting foreign investment and export markets.
The USSR abandoned Afghanistan in 1989, the government changed and in 1991 the USSR imploded. Not only did the satellite states of Eastern Europe become truly independent and non-communist, but Socialist Republics like Belorus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the "Stans" of central Asia also became independent. The European boundaries of the successor state, the Russian Federation, were pushed eastward to limits not seen in 300 years. Today's Russia is resentful and strives to restore some of its lost glory as an international power, but its population of 141 million, and declining, and it economic dependence on oil and sales of other commodities, shielding a weak industrial base make very unlikely that Russia can or will mount a serious military threat to Europe. This suggests that NATO may well have lost its validity: thousands of battle tanks rumbling across the plains of northern Europe are now, I think, pure fantasy.
In contrast to the USSR, the People's Republic of China has, especially since the late 1990's, become the 800 pound gorilla of the global economy. A large number of its 1.3 billion people are not poor, as attested by 2009 automobile sales of around 11 million vehicles, and its emergence as the world's largest exporter and soon to be second largest national economy can only reshape global order. Incidentally, its holdings of a trillion dollars in US debt instruments implies a serious interrelationship between China and the US which neither side can discount in policy decisions.
So Defense Secretary Robert Gates' pitch that the two war scenario no longer holds and that US military doctrine needs to adjust is surely based on a logical reading of today's world. We now have close to 200,000 troops engaged in combat over a wide swath of the middle east without a single battle tank or self-propelled long range cannon employed. The single most important cause of death to American forces is the improvised explosive device put together from cheap ingredients in isolated houses and hidden alongside roads used by our forces. We are obviously engaged in asymetrical warfare.
That China represents a potential, if not actual threat, to its neighbors if not directly to us, is sound doctrine. But what the current situation requires is not lots of supersonic jets, immense tanks, nuclear powered battle cruisers but auto-piloted drones, helicopters, armored but agile combat vehicles and an emphasis on small force operations. There also has to be a focus on community outreach and civil government. So a military doctrine of preparation for maybe one war and a lot of anti-insurrection brush fires would seems logical.
Unfortunately logic runs into politics. Every item and services procured by the DOD involve somebody's congressional district. National interest and logic be damned! Members of Congress will fight tooth and nail to preserve every bit of cash flow destined to their respective districts. And this ignores all those "earmarks" that tailor additional funds for truly "special interests". To be fair, not only politicians resist change but senior members of each of the military services look askance at changes in relative status in total funding flows, threats to funding of strongly desired new systems or equipment and threats of a reduced role in future military operations. Everybody guards their turf!
Secretary Gates and allies were successful in the 2009 budget cycle in sharply reducing expenditures for the F-22 fighter plane. It was a tough battle that they barely won. This year's targets for removal include an alternative engine for the F-35 at a cost of a billion or so and $2.5 billion for new C-17 transport planes the USAF says it doesn't need. Small potatoes in a 700+ billion budget, but every bit counts. The "military-industrial" complex has fewer major players these days what with mergers among the giants, but its capacity to battle for money from Congress remains unparalleled.
Progress in reforming US military doctrine will not doubt be slow but it is clearly necessary.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Iraq
I have just completed a biography of Gertrude Bell, essentially the founder of Iraq. Gertrude was born in Middlesbrough in 1868. She was the granddaughter of Isaac Lowthian Bell, a polymath who studied physics and chemistry in Scotland, Denmark, Germany and France. Joining his father's iron works, Lowthian Bell developed new and better steel making processes and in 1844 established Bell Brothers which became the largest and most influential iron, steel and limestone enterprise in Yorkshire. He was also a noted scientist and served as a Liberal Party member in Parliament for five years as well as having been Mayor of Newcastle twice and Sheriff of Durham County.
His son, Thomas Hugh Bell, was equally bright and also educated in France and Germany with emphasis on Chemistry. He took over the family enterprise and enhanced its business. He was also a strong advocate of public education and spoke around the country pushing for education, health and military reform. Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell carried on the family tradition of being extremely bright and very energetic. While accepting of many of the Victorian strictures on behavior she never accepted that women couldn't do anything they wished and in this she was encouraged by her father. She was a voracious reader and got away from home to attend a girls' college in London. She then moved on the Oxford where in 1888 she was the first woman ever to receive a "first" in Modern History.
At 20 she was a snob, an aristocrat, very self assured and one who did not suffer fools glady. She had no suitors and had failed in her primary Victorian duty of finding a husband. The family shipped her off to Bucharest where a relative was the British Ambassador and she spent a social season there ending with a trip to Constantinople which she found fascinating.
Still unmarried at the age of 23 she was sent off to the relative's household now in Tehran where he was ambassador. She learned Persian and enjoyed the country. She met a man she wanted to marry but the family found him unsuitable. She returned to England, published a translation of the Persian poet, Hafiz, that is still considered one of the best. Her love interest had died of pneumonia. Gertrude had always been strong and she took up mountain climbing, mostly in the Alps, at which she became world class. She and her father took a trip around the world but without much else to do she decided in 1899 to travel to Jerusalem to study Arabic.
There with some German friends she began to travel in the desert. Among the places visited was Petra, the ancient cliff city. On one trip she went to the north to Druze-controlled territories. Despite their fearsome reputation she made friends with the tribal leaders. After returns to England, more world travel and more mountain climbing she returned early in 1905 to Palestine. This time she traveled for several weeks, accompanied by only a handful of locals, as far east as Palmyra, a former major capital. For Gertrude that was the beginning of many trips into the desert. By 1911 she had traveled through Baghdad and far to the south, becoming increasingly knowledgeable of both the people and the geography. By November 1913 she was back from England and anxious to travel even further. She undertook to leave from Damascus and with only a handful of locals to travel into what is now Saudi Arabia to meet with Ibn Saud, the head of a leading tribe of the Nejd. After two months on the road Gertrude and her party got as far as the Rashid capital in the northern part of the Arabian desert where she was held captive for some weeks and then found it expedient to return to Damascus.
In the course of her travels during which she compiled detailed accounts of archeological sites, terrain and especially the tribal makeup of the region, including detailed geneologies, she had developed enduring friendships and acceptance from a large number of the leading Arabs in the area in which over meals, coffee and cigarettes - usually in their tents - she was able to converse in fluent Arabic about a host of topics. So by the advent of World War I she was a leading if not the leading British human respository of knowledge about the Arab middle east.
From late 1914 until her death in 1927 she was connected sometimes officially and some times informally with the British Government's efforts in the Middle East. She started first with the "Arab Bureau" in Cairo but was posted to Basrah, the port at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates to serve as liaison between Cairo and the Government of British India in Delhi. In 1916 she received a formal appointment as "Political Officer", the first woman ever to be so appointed. She had met T.E. Lawrence in 1911 and they were close friends although with different views on occasion. Her mentor and boss for many years was Percival Cox, a remarkable Middle East expert who was the High Commissioner for Mesopotamia for several years after 1918. Gertrude served as "Oriental Secretary" (head of intelligence) and acted as liaison between the High Commissioner's office and the Arab leadership. She was a very close advisor and confidant to Cox.
Viewing Mesopotamia (the land between the rivers) at the beginning of the 20th century and today's Iraq reveals tremendous differences but some underlying legacies. Baghdad had been the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, at its peak 11 centuries ago, but which in some form or other had survived until 1258 when a Mongol invasion destroyed the city and brought an end to Arab self-rule. By the 14th century political authority had passed to the Turks who administered much of the known world from Constantinople. During Gertrude Bell's travels the area was lightly administered by the Ottoman Government and as long as taxes were paid and Turkish security not threatened, the locals lived in autonomy. There was no sense of nationality, people belonged to tribes, or clans or were tied to a locality. Outside of these ties there was no sense of identity. Most of the Arabs were illiterate and knew very little about anything outside their locale. Essentially the residents of Basrah and the agricultural communities of the south were Shiite, Baghdad and the central areas were Sunni while in the north around Mosul the people were mostly Kurds. There was no boundary between the settled areas and central Arabia. In the areas beyond the coast or the river valleys nomads from central Arabia wandered at will.
The navy's of the world shifted at the end of the 19th century from coal to petroluem as fuel. Ironically, none of the western European powers had oil. Britain and Germany had lots of coal but were dependent on foreign sources for oil. Britain had established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and its refinery at Abadan was a major source of fuel. In 1914 the British Indian Army seized Basrah to protect its nearby refinery and to control the Persian Gulf. Its Army moved north to take Baghdad but with poor leadership, bad logistics and no knowledge of the terrain the effort ended badly. Mid-way between Basrah and Baghdad, at Kut, the British Army surrended to the Turks and 13,000 troops were marched off to captivity.
What the British needed and eventually got was an Arab revolt against the Turks. With Ms. Bell's knowledge, Lawrence's audacity and thousands of pounds sterling, the British and Arab forces eventually got to Damascus. The Ottoman Empire surrended in the summer of 1918 leaving the British and French to squabble over dividing the spoils. The French staked out Syria despite its independent Arab Government established in 1919, leaving the British to organize Mesopotamia. Gertrude actually drew the map for the new country, to be called Iraq, and it was her decision to combine three Turkish provinces, Mosul, Baghdad and Basrah into one political unit. In retrospect her decision appears sound. There were known oil sources in the north and inclusion of Mosul secured Iraq's northern border from the Turks and the Kurds, being Sunni, helped balance the majority of Iraqis who were Shiite. Baghdad was the only major city and its Sunni leadership and urban population were needed to form a center for the country.
Getting Iraq up and running was not easy. Many if not most of the Arab tribes were opposed to the British occupation and there were a number of insurrections. The British used aircraft and machine guns but still found it difficult to bring the country under control. The British Government complained that it had cost 50 million pounds in one year to operate in Iraq. Winston Churchill called a conference in Cairo in 1921 where 40 of those involved were gathered to work out a solution. Gertrude was the only woman among the 40.
Finally the British set up a League of Nations Mandate that was somewhat disguised by organizing a local government and bringing in a King, Feisal from the Hashemite family of the Hejaz (Mecca, Jiddah and Medina). Feisal had been bounced out of his kingship in Syria by the French. He was inaugurated in Baghdad in 1921 despite less than enthusiastic support from the Iraqis. His closest advisor for a couple of years was Gertrude Bell. But by 1925 Cox had left Iraq, the new High Commisioner was polite but did not utilize Bell's services and she ended her career in Iraq as the Director of Antiquities and founder of the Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. She had personnally collected many of the artifacts displayed.
By 1927 she was severely depressed, her family's fortune had disappeared, and she had no friends or confidants. She was also in frail health. So one night she took extra sleeping pills and did not awake.
Looking at the range of her accomplishments she has to be considered one of the world's most important women of the 20th century. She probably was the single most important person in the creation of Iraq as a country. Her handiwork became independent in 1932 and has had a pretty rocky history. But through it all is has developed a fair degree of national identity, a significant degree of modernization and, it appears, may even have a future.
His son, Thomas Hugh Bell, was equally bright and also educated in France and Germany with emphasis on Chemistry. He took over the family enterprise and enhanced its business. He was also a strong advocate of public education and spoke around the country pushing for education, health and military reform. Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell carried on the family tradition of being extremely bright and very energetic. While accepting of many of the Victorian strictures on behavior she never accepted that women couldn't do anything they wished and in this she was encouraged by her father. She was a voracious reader and got away from home to attend a girls' college in London. She then moved on the Oxford where in 1888 she was the first woman ever to receive a "first" in Modern History.
At 20 she was a snob, an aristocrat, very self assured and one who did not suffer fools glady. She had no suitors and had failed in her primary Victorian duty of finding a husband. The family shipped her off to Bucharest where a relative was the British Ambassador and she spent a social season there ending with a trip to Constantinople which she found fascinating.
Still unmarried at the age of 23 she was sent off to the relative's household now in Tehran where he was ambassador. She learned Persian and enjoyed the country. She met a man she wanted to marry but the family found him unsuitable. She returned to England, published a translation of the Persian poet, Hafiz, that is still considered one of the best. Her love interest had died of pneumonia. Gertrude had always been strong and she took up mountain climbing, mostly in the Alps, at which she became world class. She and her father took a trip around the world but without much else to do she decided in 1899 to travel to Jerusalem to study Arabic.
There with some German friends she began to travel in the desert. Among the places visited was Petra, the ancient cliff city. On one trip she went to the north to Druze-controlled territories. Despite their fearsome reputation she made friends with the tribal leaders. After returns to England, more world travel and more mountain climbing she returned early in 1905 to Palestine. This time she traveled for several weeks, accompanied by only a handful of locals, as far east as Palmyra, a former major capital. For Gertrude that was the beginning of many trips into the desert. By 1911 she had traveled through Baghdad and far to the south, becoming increasingly knowledgeable of both the people and the geography. By November 1913 she was back from England and anxious to travel even further. She undertook to leave from Damascus and with only a handful of locals to travel into what is now Saudi Arabia to meet with Ibn Saud, the head of a leading tribe of the Nejd. After two months on the road Gertrude and her party got as far as the Rashid capital in the northern part of the Arabian desert where she was held captive for some weeks and then found it expedient to return to Damascus.
In the course of her travels during which she compiled detailed accounts of archeological sites, terrain and especially the tribal makeup of the region, including detailed geneologies, she had developed enduring friendships and acceptance from a large number of the leading Arabs in the area in which over meals, coffee and cigarettes - usually in their tents - she was able to converse in fluent Arabic about a host of topics. So by the advent of World War I she was a leading if not the leading British human respository of knowledge about the Arab middle east.
From late 1914 until her death in 1927 she was connected sometimes officially and some times informally with the British Government's efforts in the Middle East. She started first with the "Arab Bureau" in Cairo but was posted to Basrah, the port at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates to serve as liaison between Cairo and the Government of British India in Delhi. In 1916 she received a formal appointment as "Political Officer", the first woman ever to be so appointed. She had met T.E. Lawrence in 1911 and they were close friends although with different views on occasion. Her mentor and boss for many years was Percival Cox, a remarkable Middle East expert who was the High Commissioner for Mesopotamia for several years after 1918. Gertrude served as "Oriental Secretary" (head of intelligence) and acted as liaison between the High Commissioner's office and the Arab leadership. She was a very close advisor and confidant to Cox.
Viewing Mesopotamia (the land between the rivers) at the beginning of the 20th century and today's Iraq reveals tremendous differences but some underlying legacies. Baghdad had been the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, at its peak 11 centuries ago, but which in some form or other had survived until 1258 when a Mongol invasion destroyed the city and brought an end to Arab self-rule. By the 14th century political authority had passed to the Turks who administered much of the known world from Constantinople. During Gertrude Bell's travels the area was lightly administered by the Ottoman Government and as long as taxes were paid and Turkish security not threatened, the locals lived in autonomy. There was no sense of nationality, people belonged to tribes, or clans or were tied to a locality. Outside of these ties there was no sense of identity. Most of the Arabs were illiterate and knew very little about anything outside their locale. Essentially the residents of Basrah and the agricultural communities of the south were Shiite, Baghdad and the central areas were Sunni while in the north around Mosul the people were mostly Kurds. There was no boundary between the settled areas and central Arabia. In the areas beyond the coast or the river valleys nomads from central Arabia wandered at will.
The navy's of the world shifted at the end of the 19th century from coal to petroluem as fuel. Ironically, none of the western European powers had oil. Britain and Germany had lots of coal but were dependent on foreign sources for oil. Britain had established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and its refinery at Abadan was a major source of fuel. In 1914 the British Indian Army seized Basrah to protect its nearby refinery and to control the Persian Gulf. Its Army moved north to take Baghdad but with poor leadership, bad logistics and no knowledge of the terrain the effort ended badly. Mid-way between Basrah and Baghdad, at Kut, the British Army surrended to the Turks and 13,000 troops were marched off to captivity.
What the British needed and eventually got was an Arab revolt against the Turks. With Ms. Bell's knowledge, Lawrence's audacity and thousands of pounds sterling, the British and Arab forces eventually got to Damascus. The Ottoman Empire surrended in the summer of 1918 leaving the British and French to squabble over dividing the spoils. The French staked out Syria despite its independent Arab Government established in 1919, leaving the British to organize Mesopotamia. Gertrude actually drew the map for the new country, to be called Iraq, and it was her decision to combine three Turkish provinces, Mosul, Baghdad and Basrah into one political unit. In retrospect her decision appears sound. There were known oil sources in the north and inclusion of Mosul secured Iraq's northern border from the Turks and the Kurds, being Sunni, helped balance the majority of Iraqis who were Shiite. Baghdad was the only major city and its Sunni leadership and urban population were needed to form a center for the country.
Getting Iraq up and running was not easy. Many if not most of the Arab tribes were opposed to the British occupation and there were a number of insurrections. The British used aircraft and machine guns but still found it difficult to bring the country under control. The British Government complained that it had cost 50 million pounds in one year to operate in Iraq. Winston Churchill called a conference in Cairo in 1921 where 40 of those involved were gathered to work out a solution. Gertrude was the only woman among the 40.
Finally the British set up a League of Nations Mandate that was somewhat disguised by organizing a local government and bringing in a King, Feisal from the Hashemite family of the Hejaz (Mecca, Jiddah and Medina). Feisal had been bounced out of his kingship in Syria by the French. He was inaugurated in Baghdad in 1921 despite less than enthusiastic support from the Iraqis. His closest advisor for a couple of years was Gertrude Bell. But by 1925 Cox had left Iraq, the new High Commisioner was polite but did not utilize Bell's services and she ended her career in Iraq as the Director of Antiquities and founder of the Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. She had personnally collected many of the artifacts displayed.
By 1927 she was severely depressed, her family's fortune had disappeared, and she had no friends or confidants. She was also in frail health. So one night she took extra sleeping pills and did not awake.
Looking at the range of her accomplishments she has to be considered one of the world's most important women of the 20th century. She probably was the single most important person in the creation of Iraq as a country. Her handiwork became independent in 1932 and has had a pretty rocky history. But through it all is has developed a fair degree of national identity, a significant degree of modernization and, it appears, may even have a future.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Brand Nostalgia
When we moved to Arizona we bought new, front-loading laundry equipment. The units carried the brand name of Frigidaire. This boggled my mind! Frigidaire, as a division of the General Motors Corporation, had been a pioneer in the refrigerator business and had been a leading brand for perhaps 50 years. I don't recall when GM abandoned refrigerators, but the current manufacturer is Electrolux. Another shock: Electrolux is a Swedish company that pioneered the use of tank-type vacuum cleaners in America shortly after World War II. Prior to Elextrolux it seems that all vacuum cleaners were uprights made by Hoover. In England Hoover became a generic term and one cleaned house by "hoovering". And so now we have a washing machine made by a Swedish vacuum cleaner maker and featuring a refrigerator brand name. Incidentally front loading washing machines were made in the forties and were popular among laundromats. They were made by a company called Bendix.
Our new refrigerator is not a Frigidaire, but a Samsung. Now we have Samsung, LG and Haier in the market, a market dominated some decades back by the likes of General Electric and Westinghouse. The GE brand is still around, it's just that GE doesn't own it. Westinghouse, once a large industrial conglomerate, has largely disappeared. There is a Westinghouse company involved in nuclear power, but it is foreign-owned, Japanese I think. The original George Westinghouse invention, an air brake for railroads, soldiers on as WABCO, the Westinghouse Air Brake Company.
As to automobile name plates, another story of lost brands. General Motors invented the nameplate for each market niche technique and by World War II it had Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, LaSalle, Cadillac and GMC for trucks. In the 1920's when the American industry made over 80% of the world 's automobiles and exported product worth billions of dollars, GM expanded abroad by buying Vauxhall in Britain and Adam Opel in Germany. It also had the Holden company in Australia. LaSalle didn't survive WWII but under attack from Japan GM developed a supposedly alternative car line, Saturn. It also bought into the Isuzu company in Japan and more recently bought SAAB in Sweden. Now as it struggles to survive, Oldsmobile has already been jettisoned and Pontiac, Saturn and SAAB are on the block. I don't think it is tied to Isuzu anymore but it did buy the manufacturing assets of a Korean company, Daewoo (Aveo). GM's most attractive market opportunity may well by China where it has done well.
Henry Ford was only comfortable making Model T's in the color black. But Ford Motor followed the trend in settting up Ford England and buying Taunus in Germany. It also came out with more upscale nameplates in Mercury and Lincoln. In Japan they tied in with Toyo Kogyo KK the maker of Mazda automobiles and went into upscale European companies by buying Jaguar,Land Rover and Volvo. Now things are looking pretty good as it avoided bankruptcy and has dumped its British affiliates. Volvo may well be the next to go.
Walter Chrysler put together the third ranking US automobile company starting with Dodge Brothers and eventually producing under five name plates: Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Overseas Chrysler bought the English Rootes Group maker of Hillman automobiles and a French company, Simca. In Japan they bought an interest in Mitsubishi Motors. DeSoto and Imperial disappeared some years back but Chrysler bought American Motors, makers of the Jeep. The company's European operations were closed some years ago also and a few years back it became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. I think the ties with Mitsubishi ended and today's Chrysler is owned by the US Government with a minority interest and operational control held by Fabrica Italiana Automovilistichi de Torino (FIAT).
But when I learned to drive 60 plus years ago there were lots of American automobile brands. Willys-Overland made small sedans in the 1930's but it's claim to fame came from successfully developing a general purpose (GP) vehicle for the US Army. Jeeps were made in the millions and made the transition to civilian life but the company didn't. Nash made small and medium sedans as well. It had one model in the 1950's that looked like an inverted bathtub. If I remember correctly it merged with Willys and possibly Kaiser to form American Motors, later acquired by Chrysler as noted above.
Packard was a well regarded luxury car that competed with Cadillac but in the 1940's it developed a defective engine and it just couldn't keep up with the costs of new car development given its small revenue base. It merged with Studebaker. This company had begun life in Indiana making "Conestoga" wagons. It tried to capture market share in 1949 with a Raymond Loewy designed car that had a pointed front end that looked like an aircraft nascelle. There were jokes about not being able to tell which end was which. But Studebaker-Packard didn't survive.
In college I drove a 1949 Hudson and the family had a 1952 model. My dad had liked Hudsons in the old days but this make didn't survive either. An Oakland, California industrialist, Henry J. Kaiser decided he could break into the automobile business and along with a partner, Fraser, set up Kaiser-Fraser. Kaiser was the lower priced nameplate with Fraser a bit more upscale. My Uncle Hank and Aunt Joyce bought a 1950 Kaiser which I drove on occasion. This company didn't survive either as none of the smaller firms could compete with the big three in terms of development and marketing money.
In contrast to the shrinkage of American made car brands, in Japan the same 9 nameplates that were in the market 50 years ago when I first went there still survive. These were Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda (Toyo Kogyo), Subaru (Fuji Kogyo), Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Suzuki and Hino for trucks and buses. Toyota dominates the local market with Honda probably second now. Nissan, which used to use the Datsun name plate in the US, is now controlled by Renault of France. I think there are ties now between Toyota, Fuji Kogyo,Hino and perhaps Isuzu. Japan has also dominated the motorcycle market with three brands, Honda, Suzuki and Yamaha. Of these, Honda has obviously been the most successful in transitioning from two-wheelers to cars, Suzuki is a late comer and Yamaha hasn't tried.
So brands, market players and market shares have all changed since my youth. For the better?
Our new refrigerator is not a Frigidaire, but a Samsung. Now we have Samsung, LG and Haier in the market, a market dominated some decades back by the likes of General Electric and Westinghouse. The GE brand is still around, it's just that GE doesn't own it. Westinghouse, once a large industrial conglomerate, has largely disappeared. There is a Westinghouse company involved in nuclear power, but it is foreign-owned, Japanese I think. The original George Westinghouse invention, an air brake for railroads, soldiers on as WABCO, the Westinghouse Air Brake Company.
As to automobile name plates, another story of lost brands. General Motors invented the nameplate for each market niche technique and by World War II it had Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, LaSalle, Cadillac and GMC for trucks. In the 1920's when the American industry made over 80% of the world 's automobiles and exported product worth billions of dollars, GM expanded abroad by buying Vauxhall in Britain and Adam Opel in Germany. It also had the Holden company in Australia. LaSalle didn't survive WWII but under attack from Japan GM developed a supposedly alternative car line, Saturn. It also bought into the Isuzu company in Japan and more recently bought SAAB in Sweden. Now as it struggles to survive, Oldsmobile has already been jettisoned and Pontiac, Saturn and SAAB are on the block. I don't think it is tied to Isuzu anymore but it did buy the manufacturing assets of a Korean company, Daewoo (Aveo). GM's most attractive market opportunity may well by China where it has done well.
Henry Ford was only comfortable making Model T's in the color black. But Ford Motor followed the trend in settting up Ford England and buying Taunus in Germany. It also came out with more upscale nameplates in Mercury and Lincoln. In Japan they tied in with Toyo Kogyo KK the maker of Mazda automobiles and went into upscale European companies by buying Jaguar,Land Rover and Volvo. Now things are looking pretty good as it avoided bankruptcy and has dumped its British affiliates. Volvo may well be the next to go.
Walter Chrysler put together the third ranking US automobile company starting with Dodge Brothers and eventually producing under five name plates: Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Overseas Chrysler bought the English Rootes Group maker of Hillman automobiles and a French company, Simca. In Japan they bought an interest in Mitsubishi Motors. DeSoto and Imperial disappeared some years back but Chrysler bought American Motors, makers of the Jeep. The company's European operations were closed some years ago also and a few years back it became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. I think the ties with Mitsubishi ended and today's Chrysler is owned by the US Government with a minority interest and operational control held by Fabrica Italiana Automovilistichi de Torino (FIAT).
But when I learned to drive 60 plus years ago there were lots of American automobile brands. Willys-Overland made small sedans in the 1930's but it's claim to fame came from successfully developing a general purpose (GP) vehicle for the US Army. Jeeps were made in the millions and made the transition to civilian life but the company didn't. Nash made small and medium sedans as well. It had one model in the 1950's that looked like an inverted bathtub. If I remember correctly it merged with Willys and possibly Kaiser to form American Motors, later acquired by Chrysler as noted above.
Packard was a well regarded luxury car that competed with Cadillac but in the 1940's it developed a defective engine and it just couldn't keep up with the costs of new car development given its small revenue base. It merged with Studebaker. This company had begun life in Indiana making "Conestoga" wagons. It tried to capture market share in 1949 with a Raymond Loewy designed car that had a pointed front end that looked like an aircraft nascelle. There were jokes about not being able to tell which end was which. But Studebaker-Packard didn't survive.
In college I drove a 1949 Hudson and the family had a 1952 model. My dad had liked Hudsons in the old days but this make didn't survive either. An Oakland, California industrialist, Henry J. Kaiser decided he could break into the automobile business and along with a partner, Fraser, set up Kaiser-Fraser. Kaiser was the lower priced nameplate with Fraser a bit more upscale. My Uncle Hank and Aunt Joyce bought a 1950 Kaiser which I drove on occasion. This company didn't survive either as none of the smaller firms could compete with the big three in terms of development and marketing money.
In contrast to the shrinkage of American made car brands, in Japan the same 9 nameplates that were in the market 50 years ago when I first went there still survive. These were Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda (Toyo Kogyo), Subaru (Fuji Kogyo), Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Suzuki and Hino for trucks and buses. Toyota dominates the local market with Honda probably second now. Nissan, which used to use the Datsun name plate in the US, is now controlled by Renault of France. I think there are ties now between Toyota, Fuji Kogyo,Hino and perhaps Isuzu. Japan has also dominated the motorcycle market with three brands, Honda, Suzuki and Yamaha. Of these, Honda has obviously been the most successful in transitioning from two-wheelers to cars, Suzuki is a late comer and Yamaha hasn't tried.
So brands, market players and market shares have all changed since my youth. For the better?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sheep, Wolves and Would-be Shepherds
The title is not original. I've taken it from political pundit Michael Barone. His theme is one that I have thought about often through the years. It's basic thrust is that most people are stupid, or at least unable to manage their own affairs, and thus are like sheep. Wolves prey on sheep, wolves being greedy landowners, rapacious robber barons, sharp bankers, unethical industrialists and others who profit from the weakness of sheep. For them protection from the predation of wolves come from those bright and good souls who appoint themselves "shepherds" and who take the measures necessary to keep the wolves in check.
At the turn of the 20th century Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive allies assumed this role and were instrumental in the passage of legislation that reined in unethical financiers, industrialists and their ilk and provided protection to the general population. During Franklin Roosevelt's presidency he could still speak of the mass of Americans who were ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed (and who could thus be classified as sheep to be protected by New Deal shepherds.
Barone's point made recently is that things have changed. The great strides in education and material wealth have made it increasingly difficult in today's America to separate sheep from wolves, the latter being people with the means and talent to manage their own affairs. Thus the whole question of a need for "shepherds" arises.
Nevertheless there is stil a school of thought, most often held by the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, that bright and well educated people - usually them - have an obligation through government to manage the affairs of the many who may be assumed not to have the talent to handle their own affairs competently. In a word, they must be protected from themselves by people of good intentions and high intellect who understand their needs. A manifestation of this attitude was the Democrats reaction to George W. Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. It was shock! Tey all knew that if you allowed ordinary citizens access to their retirement savings they would gamble them away on slot machines or be gulled into bad investments, winding up at retirement age with few funds. Only government in the form of the Social Security Administration stands between them and ruin.
There is some truth to this concept as, unfortunately, there is a significant number of citizens who do lack competence in managing their affairs, but the concept also embodies arrogance and condescension on the part of the self-appointed guardians. It's a very old attitude. We shouldn't forget either that the United States was created not as a democracy but as a republic, with the vote restricted to white male property owners over the age of 25.
I'm not an expert on Plato but I recall something he postulated abouth the best form of government being that of rule by a "Philosopher-King" aided by a group of advisors representative of the middle class. Perhaps in technologically simpler times one could conceive of a single individual knowing most of what was known at the time, but even so it was a dubious proposition. This model, which I call the "Platonic Myth", lived on in the structure of the Roman Empire: an all powerful emperor, advised by a Senate of the worthy and wealthywith an occasional call on the "plebes". A few centuries later this became the Pope, a College of Cardinals and senior clergy, the bishops. Always top down authority imbuing the attitude that the mass below can't be trusted to think for itself, for example by reading the bible. This is the model not only for the Catholic Church but of most Latin American elites. Governments tend to be top down and possessed of the illusion that they can regulate everything. Democracy has had a hard time gaining a foothold and at best can be said to exist truly in only a few of the Latin American nations.
Woud-be shepherds are alive and well in the US today. Rules and regulations governing how we live grow apace. We have the "Nanny State". And now there are dozen of well intentioned if deluded members of Congress who are convinced they have the wisdom and capacity to oversee our complex health system and to reform our environment. Always with legislation hundred of pages in length, incomprehensible complexity and entailing a host of unintended consequences. But never fear, your friendly governmet bureaucrat will save the day!
I do fear and I do not trust the ability of the US Congress to run anything very well, least of all my life.
thisd
At the turn of the 20th century Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive allies assumed this role and were instrumental in the passage of legislation that reined in unethical financiers, industrialists and their ilk and provided protection to the general population. During Franklin Roosevelt's presidency he could still speak of the mass of Americans who were ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed (and who could thus be classified as sheep to be protected by New Deal shepherds.
Barone's point made recently is that things have changed. The great strides in education and material wealth have made it increasingly difficult in today's America to separate sheep from wolves, the latter being people with the means and talent to manage their own affairs. Thus the whole question of a need for "shepherds" arises.
Nevertheless there is stil a school of thought, most often held by the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, that bright and well educated people - usually them - have an obligation through government to manage the affairs of the many who may be assumed not to have the talent to handle their own affairs competently. In a word, they must be protected from themselves by people of good intentions and high intellect who understand their needs. A manifestation of this attitude was the Democrats reaction to George W. Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. It was shock! Tey all knew that if you allowed ordinary citizens access to their retirement savings they would gamble them away on slot machines or be gulled into bad investments, winding up at retirement age with few funds. Only government in the form of the Social Security Administration stands between them and ruin.
There is some truth to this concept as, unfortunately, there is a significant number of citizens who do lack competence in managing their affairs, but the concept also embodies arrogance and condescension on the part of the self-appointed guardians. It's a very old attitude. We shouldn't forget either that the United States was created not as a democracy but as a republic, with the vote restricted to white male property owners over the age of 25.
I'm not an expert on Plato but I recall something he postulated abouth the best form of government being that of rule by a "Philosopher-King" aided by a group of advisors representative of the middle class. Perhaps in technologically simpler times one could conceive of a single individual knowing most of what was known at the time, but even so it was a dubious proposition. This model, which I call the "Platonic Myth", lived on in the structure of the Roman Empire: an all powerful emperor, advised by a Senate of the worthy and wealthywith an occasional call on the "plebes". A few centuries later this became the Pope, a College of Cardinals and senior clergy, the bishops. Always top down authority imbuing the attitude that the mass below can't be trusted to think for itself, for example by reading the bible. This is the model not only for the Catholic Church but of most Latin American elites. Governments tend to be top down and possessed of the illusion that they can regulate everything. Democracy has had a hard time gaining a foothold and at best can be said to exist truly in only a few of the Latin American nations.
Woud-be shepherds are alive and well in the US today. Rules and regulations governing how we live grow apace. We have the "Nanny State". And now there are dozen of well intentioned if deluded members of Congress who are convinced they have the wisdom and capacity to oversee our complex health system and to reform our environment. Always with legislation hundred of pages in length, incomprehensible complexity and entailing a host of unintended consequences. But never fear, your friendly governmet bureaucrat will save the day!
I do fear and I do not trust the ability of the US Congress to run anything very well, least of all my life.
thisd
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Rest Stops
One of the nice innovations in modern highway travel has been the rest stop. Years ago when cars generally had poor mileage and highways passed through towns and cities frequently, one could stop at a convenient gas station. With the development of the Interstate Highway System and cars that can run over 300 miles on a tank of gasoline, a need for pit stops between gasoline fill-ups became a necessity, hence the freeway rest stop.
Our first extended road travel took place in Europe in 1955. We drove from Pirmasens, Germany through the Loire Valley of France to the Atlantic Coast and then south to San Sebastian, Spain. Passing through Madrid, Valencia and Barcelona we again entered France along its Riviera Coast and into Italy. In Italy we drove through Genoa, Leghorn, Pisa, Florence and Venice before driving through the Alps into Switzerland and then back to our apartment in Germany. Highways were two lanes and passed through every town in sight. Rest stops were a bit of a problem but coffee shops, restaurants and gasoline stations offered relief. What we did notice in many places, especially Germany, that people stopped their cars and relieved themselves along the side of the road. Road travel was slow: in Italy the highway would climb into the mountains and wind and twist until the next important water front when we would descend to sea level and fight urban traffic until the next ascent. We damaged our car hitting a chuck hole in Spain and had to crawl to a nearby small town where a blacksmith reattached the rocker arm for a fee of $2.00 US. In a small town in northern Italy the spectators to a bicycle race politely parted to let us cross the course for a block or two to continue on our way. Climbing through the Swiss Alps the clutch on our 1953 Morris Minor got so hot we had to stop and let it cool off. With a 28 HP motor we had been traveling in 2nd gear. But we were young and adventurous.
Our first cross country trip in the US was in July 1958 when we drove from Brooklyn, NY to San Diego, CA, along with our 13 month-old twins. While President Eisenhower had launched the Interstate Highway program in 1957, there was nothing in place on our route. So stops were motels, restaurants and gas stations and travel was slowed by the need to pass through every town and city on route.
Express highways and rest stops had come into being in the 1930's, however, in limited areas of the East. New York built a series of expressways connecting the city to the suburbs. Examples include the Hutchinson River and Bronx River parkways and the Inter-Boro Parkway. One or two of these parkways had gasoline stations built into the system. Pennsylvania began its Turnpike (a toll road) in the 1930's. We used it for part of our 1958 trip and the traffic had grown enough so that there were backups trying to get through the two lane mountain tunnels that had not been expanded since the 1930's-40's. But the most traveled and perhaps best known was the New Jersey Turnpike which I believe was started just after World War II. Since the turnpikes and expressways bypassed towns and cities, bathroom and fuel facilities had to be provided as adjuncts.
The most successful model of a turnpike rest stop to my mind are those of New Jersey. Large facilities with two different brands of gasoline and an array of fast food outlets, often packed with travelers. Maryland and Delaware followed this model along their Interstate Highways and their rest stops are quite similar. My assumption is that the respective states have granted concessions to the private companies that provide the services and the rest stops are in effect profit centers for the affected Turnpike Authority or state.
In Virginia, Arizona and a number of other states a different model was followed. The rest stops are public facilities, funded with state money that offer rest rooms, picnic areas and a few vending machines. These often are pleasant places to stop. But if you're looking for food or gasoline you leave the Interstate at one of the truly built up exits where one can find up to a mile's length on both sides of gasoline stations, restaurants and motels.
The flaw in this model is public funding. In the current deep recession almost all of the states confront serious fiscal deficits and seek means of cutting expenses. Both Virginia and Arizona have closed at least half of their Interstate rest stops. I don't know the rationale for the public funding option - opposition to fast food concessionaires from merchants in towns near the Interstate, or an aesthetic distaste for the commercialization of rest stops, but the result has been facilities that cost taxpayers instead of those that contribute to state income. In today's economy New Jersey and Maryland are looking good! Cheers to private enterprise!
Our first extended road travel took place in Europe in 1955. We drove from Pirmasens, Germany through the Loire Valley of France to the Atlantic Coast and then south to San Sebastian, Spain. Passing through Madrid, Valencia and Barcelona we again entered France along its Riviera Coast and into Italy. In Italy we drove through Genoa, Leghorn, Pisa, Florence and Venice before driving through the Alps into Switzerland and then back to our apartment in Germany. Highways were two lanes and passed through every town in sight. Rest stops were a bit of a problem but coffee shops, restaurants and gasoline stations offered relief. What we did notice in many places, especially Germany, that people stopped their cars and relieved themselves along the side of the road. Road travel was slow: in Italy the highway would climb into the mountains and wind and twist until the next important water front when we would descend to sea level and fight urban traffic until the next ascent. We damaged our car hitting a chuck hole in Spain and had to crawl to a nearby small town where a blacksmith reattached the rocker arm for a fee of $2.00 US. In a small town in northern Italy the spectators to a bicycle race politely parted to let us cross the course for a block or two to continue on our way. Climbing through the Swiss Alps the clutch on our 1953 Morris Minor got so hot we had to stop and let it cool off. With a 28 HP motor we had been traveling in 2nd gear. But we were young and adventurous.
Our first cross country trip in the US was in July 1958 when we drove from Brooklyn, NY to San Diego, CA, along with our 13 month-old twins. While President Eisenhower had launched the Interstate Highway program in 1957, there was nothing in place on our route. So stops were motels, restaurants and gas stations and travel was slowed by the need to pass through every town and city on route.
Express highways and rest stops had come into being in the 1930's, however, in limited areas of the East. New York built a series of expressways connecting the city to the suburbs. Examples include the Hutchinson River and Bronx River parkways and the Inter-Boro Parkway. One or two of these parkways had gasoline stations built into the system. Pennsylvania began its Turnpike (a toll road) in the 1930's. We used it for part of our 1958 trip and the traffic had grown enough so that there were backups trying to get through the two lane mountain tunnels that had not been expanded since the 1930's-40's. But the most traveled and perhaps best known was the New Jersey Turnpike which I believe was started just after World War II. Since the turnpikes and expressways bypassed towns and cities, bathroom and fuel facilities had to be provided as adjuncts.
The most successful model of a turnpike rest stop to my mind are those of New Jersey. Large facilities with two different brands of gasoline and an array of fast food outlets, often packed with travelers. Maryland and Delaware followed this model along their Interstate Highways and their rest stops are quite similar. My assumption is that the respective states have granted concessions to the private companies that provide the services and the rest stops are in effect profit centers for the affected Turnpike Authority or state.
In Virginia, Arizona and a number of other states a different model was followed. The rest stops are public facilities, funded with state money that offer rest rooms, picnic areas and a few vending machines. These often are pleasant places to stop. But if you're looking for food or gasoline you leave the Interstate at one of the truly built up exits where one can find up to a mile's length on both sides of gasoline stations, restaurants and motels.
The flaw in this model is public funding. In the current deep recession almost all of the states confront serious fiscal deficits and seek means of cutting expenses. Both Virginia and Arizona have closed at least half of their Interstate rest stops. I don't know the rationale for the public funding option - opposition to fast food concessionaires from merchants in towns near the Interstate, or an aesthetic distaste for the commercialization of rest stops, but the result has been facilities that cost taxpayers instead of those that contribute to state income. In today's economy New Jersey and Maryland are looking good! Cheers to private enterprise!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)