Are Liberal Concerns Extending U.S. Wars Overseas and Boosting Budget Deficits?

 
 

 

Perhaps the saddest part of the tale of deceit by Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Deceit, is not that he stole money from his charity, lied about his charming story of being nursed back to health and didn't buid the schools he claimed to have built.

The saddest part of the story is that he made us believe we could win the cultural war in Afghanistan if only we would do good works like build schools. He played on our sentiments, in particular, by insisting we could change the nation's culture by educating its young girls.

Every U.S. soldier in Afghanistan was expected to read the book, and our mission changed from getting the bad guys to liberalizing Afghanistan.

It was a fool's errand that has cost us many lives and has contributed to many deaths and instability in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has also cost us a lot of money and mired us in a war that can't be won.

That is the danger of idealism. On person spins a pretty story about how we can change the world. A whole nation buys it. Now we are in trouble.

Nobody in America would disagree that it would be better if Afghanistan were to have a more tolerant culture. But you don't teach tolerance by occupying a country. You don't change a culture through force of arms. We should know that by now. Our pacification efforts in Vietnam only served to alienate more and more of the population while hardening our enemy. Once we left Vietnam, the government no longer had a reason to support such a militarist approach and the government today continues to move toward being a more open society.

Perhaps it will take much longer for societies like Afghanistan's to become more open, to protect women's rights than we would like. But that is not something we can accelerate through use of force. That change must come from within the culture.

Meanwhile, spending so much on defense weakens our ability to spend on important needs here at home.

We simply have to admit that we cannot be the policeman of the world. We don't have the resources or the authority, and we don't have much of a track record of success.

 

Final Analysis: Won’t You Come Home, Bill Boeing?

Final Analysis: Won’t You Come Home, Bill Boeing?

How can we celebrate such a momentous birthday when the honoree doesn’t even live here?
FROM THE PRINT EDITION |
 
 

Elsewhere in this month's issue you’ll find congratulatory notes honoring The Boeing Company on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. Allow me to add my own felicitations.

I just wonder if we all might get a little more jazzed about this upcoming centennial — the actual date is July 15 — if Boeing were still an honest-to-goodness Seattle company.

Sure, it still employs nearly 80,000 people in the Puget Sound region and helps drives our economy. But the day 15 years ago when Boeing announced it was going to move its corporate headquarters to Chicago is the day it essentially placed thumb to nose and said, “Buh-bye. We’re bigger than Seattle.”

I remember thinking at the time, “This makes no sense.” It still doesn’t. It was a move calculated by a CEO more interested in expediency than in legacy. Former Boeing CEO Phil Condit said it wasn’t unusual for a big corporation to have its headquarters distant from its factories. “What we are doing is being done for the benefit of the corporation,” Condit told shareholders at the time. “We want to grow The Boeing Company. If headquarters is to do its job, it must stand separate from any one of the business units.”

Seriously? Boeing is hardly a conglomerate. Despite the acquisitions of recent years, Boeing is and always will be a maker of airplanes and other things that fly through air and space. Condit wanted Boeing to be another United Technologies or another Textron, but it was really more of a true conglomerate in the 1930s, when it operated airlines, engine makers, propeller companies and other enterprises before the feds put the kibosh on all that vertical integration.

Boeing has prospered — and has helped thousands of Puget Sound families prosper — for generations. To suggest that the company is better off by having its corporate headquarters 1,700 miles from its main factories and most of its employees is just silly. What’s more believable is that Boeing wants to isolate itself from the fallout as it continues to ship jobs from Washington to less union-friendly states like South Carolina and Oklahoma. Since November 2012, Boeing employment in Washington state has declined by more than 10 percent — around 8,600 jobs — despite spectacularly generous tax incentives extended by the state Legislature to persuade Boeing to keep production of the 777X airliner in state.

It’s this kind of “thank you” — and the decamping of the corporate HQ staff to Chicago — that rubs Seattle the wrong way. We should be jumping up and down, waving balloons and having parades in Boeing’s honor next month. But am I the only one who gets the feeling that Boeing is still doing business in Washington state because it simply doesn’t want to spend the stupid sums of money it would take to move its Renton and Everett operations to cheaper “right to work” states?

Condit changed the culture at Boeing, and, judging from the difficult launch of the 787 Dreamliner, it’s a culture change that didn’t take. I’m inclined to believe his predecessors from Bill Boeing on would never have moved the company headquarters to Chicago, and I’d be willing to bet that the people who run the commercial airline business here would rather have the 500 or so headquarters people back in Seattle where they belong.

Whether that ever happens depends on what Boeing’s future CEOs value more: being proud of Boeing’s remarkable history or being fearful that its remarkable history somehow diminishes its opportunities.

John Levesque is the managing editor of Seattle Business magazine