The Pachyderm Post

The Pachyderm Problem has two broad phases: Growing Up and Grown.

When the Pachyderm is young and non-threatening – even cute – it is also still small enough to be led out of the bedroom and out of the house before any damage needs to be done.

But, after it is mature, it is larger than the windows and larger than the doors, and it can only be dealt with by destructive means… destructive to the house, to the Pachyderm, or both.

Belgium’s Pachyderm Problem is – this year – fully mature.

That Pachyderm – Flemish popular demands (and perhaps now, expectations) for both greater powers and fewer responsibilities in the malformed mutuality called Belgium – has now reached the point that great damage will result whether a new Belgian governmental coalition is formed or not.

The damage that results from Yves Leterme’s – and the King’s – failure to establish a government will vary, depending on the nature and outcome of that failure. It can include everything from the establishment of Brussels as a European district, to the expulsion of Flanders from the European Union and many other equally or more disastrous results (see Le Soir’s famous “Five Options” edition).

The deeper tragedy, however, may be the damage that results from a “successful” coalition.

This damage will range from the sense of betrayal – and resentment – on the part of almost half the Flanders electorate because of the abandonment of the effectively separatist objectives of the Flemish parties, to the deepened conviction on the parts of many – if not most – Walloons and French-speakers that their citizenship in the experiment called Belgium is at best a perpetual irritation and at worst an affront to a plurality of Belgium’s Flemish-speakers.

But this sad combination will not be the worst damage.

The worst effect of a deeply unsatisfying coalition will be a massive deepening of cynicism, lethargy and political withdrawal on the parts of the majority of people on all sides of the controversies.

This sapping of political energy is the bleeding of political and civic will from whatever national heart may yet beat in the majority of Belgians not yet consumed by the political, economic and cultural conflicts that have defined modern Belgium.

This situation is like a perpetual boxing match whose outcome hinges more on the mood of the spectators that it does on the blows exchanged by the combatants in the ring.

If the audience leaves the arena – whether the fight is won or lost – the match, made in 1831, will be over and done.

vb

Has no one in the main stream media noticed the breathtaking irony of U.S. “President” George W. Bush’s recent criticisms of Iraq “Prime Minister” Nouri al Maliki’s failure to resolve the sectarian conflicts now roiling the “Plain Old Disaster” known as Iraq?

One of the most – if not the most – partisan U.S. Presidential Administrations in the modern era has the unmitigated gall to directly and indirectly criticize the hobbled Maliki government for its inability to resolve the millennial differences between the deadly adversaries in the wasp’s nest that is Iraq.

The very existence of the Bush Administration depended on the ruthless partisanship masterminded by the recently departed Bush advisor Karl Rove, who viciously attacked Democrats in his efforts to invigorate and mobilize the Republican “base.”

The U.S. President has not found the decency to even refer to his opposition by its proper name: “The Democratic Party.” He consistently – and contemptuously – calls them the “Democrat” Party.

Recently, a spokesman for former Iraqi Prime Minister – and Maliki rival – Iyad Allawi criticised the Maliki government by saying “The problem is in having a political agenda that is founded on a sectarian basis.”

Really.

Listen to Bush decry The Democratic Party for its criticism of Iraq War supporter Senator Joe Lieberman (who, by the way, is still very much a member of The Democratic Party).

Over ten years ago, before I re-entered corporate management for awhile, I spent years developing and delivering management and executive development programs for IBM in La Hulpe, Belgium.

At the time, I was also working with the company at their management development facilities in Armonk, New York and The Palisades , in New Jersey. I even hosted the entire Palisades management team for three days of strategy development and team-building in Nantucket, Mass.

But I have the fondest memories of La Hulpe, which was the headquarters for management and executive development for IBM in Europe, the Middle East and Africa at that time.

I’d actually attended executive development programs myself at this location, when I was an IBM Director of Marketing and Services and Director of Consulting Services.

The times that I spent developing and delivering personal and professional development programs in that environment were among the most rewarding of my professional life.

This was certainly so because those were times of great turmoil and ferment at IBM.

But it was more so because of the incredible opportunity to work with people of such different cultures and backgounds.

Developing and delivering programs for such an international audience tapped my knowledge of international relations, politics and cultures in ways that simply weren’t required in the U.S. alone.

Since so much of what I did was grounded in the professional and social realities of the participants, it was incredibly exciting to connect with Germans or French or Saudis on terms with which they were already familiar, and with references which already meant something to them.

So, it was sad for me to learn, in 1993, that IBM was dissolving their training and development operation in La Hulpe.

But I was thrilled to discover, over a year ago, that an American company – Dolce International – had acquired La Hulpe (as well as the other properties that I have mentioned) and planned to reopen it as a hotel, resort and conference center.

They are in fact reopening just this month.

It is an incredibly beautiful place now, particularly in comparison to the austere IBM esthetic of yore.

Apparently, they will offer first class hotel and resort services as well as conference and executive development programs, for which there is a keen need these days…more than ever.

I can’t wait to see how they do.

I wish them luck.

For the sake of the future of personal and professional development in Europe.

And for the sake of my memories…

VMB

Could we all just slow down a minute in our rabid tooth-gnashings about the Iraq War?

And – as we decelerate – could we just briefly answer one question:

How will we know when the Iraq War is won – or lost?

Put another way:

What would constitute victory, exactly?

I say “exactly” because a very great deal rides on this determination.

Obviously the deployment of U.S. and “Coalition” troops depends on whether and when the war is won or lost, and by whom.

So too does the apportionment of credit for victory or blame for defeat.

If the U.S. “wins” for instance, clearly George Bush’s “dogged, Truman-esque determination” in the face of popular and Congressional opposition will be front and center when the medals are distributed.

If the U.S. “loses”, Iraqi President al-Maliki will share center stage blame with Gold Star Anti-War Mother Cindy Sheehan and just plain old Anti-War Mother Jane Fonda (“There [she] goes again!”).

To my fairly attentive knowledge, no one – NO ONE – has clearly articulated the fairly important definition of victory in this, the central and largest theater in the “Global War on Terror.”

To paraphrase President Bush, this victory will not be marked by a ceremony on a battleship. Or an aircraft carrier…

For some time now, violent fatalities in Iraq have averaged about one hundred a day. Would victory be none? Or ten? Or twenty?

For how long? A day? A week? A month? Three months?

And for how long after U.S. and Coalition forces departed would this reduction in death and destruction need to hold for victory to be confirmed?

A year? Six months? Six weeks?

There must be a task force working on this thorny problem, somewhere deep in the bowels of the Pentagon or of Karl Rove’s bunker.

But it is clearly a top secret mission, something even Valerie Plame would not have been allowed to know.

Nor Tim Russert, nor Bob Woodward, nor even Katie Couric.

So, what indications should we seek…that victory has been won?

For many, the famous kiss, captured by Alfred Eisenstadt, marked the true end to World War II.

First there was the ceremony on the U.S.S Missouri…

Then, that visual evocation of love, not war, sealed the conclusion: the war was over.

What will do it this time?

What will be the marker for the cessation of hostilities; for ticker tape and bunting on mid-western tree trunks; for post-war public displays of affection?

The answer is that there will be no marker.

There is no fleet to destroy…no Emperor to surrender…no territory to claim.

We now find ourselves in mankind’s first truly Perpetual War, with a clearly defined beginning – the invasion of Afghanistan – and no end at all.

Which is both a dilemma and a benediction for the Bush Administration.

It is a dilemma since even the most positive – and necessarily temporary – outcome of the Iraq War is purest ambivalence, which only the most cynical observer could call “victory.”

And therein lies the benediction.

Because the most cynical observer will do just that.

George Bush will never admit defeat, and he will declare victory with the same conviction with which he declared democracy in Iraq, and he will do it with less evidence.

Declaring “democracy” required only the purple fingers of Iraqi voters.

Declaring “victory” will require only the upraised thumb of “The Decider” himself, raised in welcome to our returning, crippled military at some future land-bound ceremony.

This ceremony will not record or reference the saddest and most tragic truth of this war: that we lost it the minute we invaded Iraq without a plan for making and keeping peace.

Not “democracy”…just peace.

In doing so, we broke an elemental – perhaps the elemental – tenet of counter-insurgent warfare: do not kill or injure, or cause to be killed or injured, more “good people” than “bad people.”

If you make this one, huge mistake, you will drive “good people” away (physically, spiritually and emotionally) and you will make more – a lot more – “bad people.”

The former consequence is why the middle class of Iraq has left or is leaving the country and why a majority of Iraqis apparently feel it is justified to kill American troops.

The latter consequence is why the name “civil war” only partly describes the incredible chaos and violence that has paralyzed the country.

The final finger, the one that the Bush Administration is trying to jam into the violent breach in the Iraqi dam, has a name: General David Petraeus.

Is he not wise enough to realize that this war was lost by the U.S. long ago, regardless of any success that he may have in temporarily suppressing the present violence?

Sadly, the only “victory” he can enable is the ceremonial, digital one.

vmb

I listened to a caller on CSPAN this evening, who has been in general supportive of Barack Obama and his possible Presidential candidacy. He’s had doubts, however, about Obama’s realistic chances to be elected.

The caller’s doubts were dissolved today as he saw the sea of people of all sorts who filled a gigantic space in Springfield, Illinois to hear Obama enter the race.

The 17,000 or so faces and voices were stunning to see and hear. The scene was more like a party nominee’s late October election year rally than an announcement almost two years before. And the wind chill factor was five degrees fahrenheit.

In the midst of this massiveness, it was details that told the tale:

The bodyguards, who seemed particularly vigilant, perhaps sensitive to the grim reality that there has not been a presidential campaign with such potential for political violence since that of Bobby Kennedy.

The family…impossibly right for the White House…all waving like practiced professionals, including the little girls…as if they know.

Goodness, they’ll give John Edwards a run for the money in the photogenic family race.

And, speaking of family, think about Mrs. Obama. Michelle’s poise and beauty (and the hairstyle on their website) remind me of Jackie. Her intelligence and professional accomplishment remind me of Hillary.

Those who hesitate to deny the country its first woman President by voting for Obama may come to believe that Michelle could do what Jackie and Hillary might have done, if they could have been genetically fused: captivate the country and then lead it too.

There were many more such details, but the one that transfixed me (and perhaps the CSPAN caller as well) were the Two Women.

Two apparently completely average, “Middle American” white women stood with each other and proudly held portraits of Obama.

I have not seen a display of affection and pride for a politician since I last saw pictures of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King on the mantels of similar women of a generation before.

When have you last seen such a display?

And they were far from the only ones. Others included men and families with images of the candidate held aloft.

I do not believe that these were political functionaries, and though the campaign may have provided the pictures (I simply don’t know), nothing could make attendees at such a political rally hold such images aloft other than unabashed affection for and belief in the candidate.

These women aren’t Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg, revolutionaries of another era.

They are Laverne and Shirley.

They are factory workers in one context; soccer moms in another; revolutionaries of today, empowered as such by the mere ability to support and vote for Barack Obama.

Or at least they seem to be, which is most of what matters to observers of this incredible scene.

Look at that picture again.

Look at their faces.

Obama can win.

vmb

Sometimes, the funniest things are the most profound, and sometimes the other way around.

This cute little video will help you to remember that the most sincere efforts to communicate can have the most disastrous unintended results.

The Pachyderm Problem here is that it happens all the time, without our realizing it.
This example is uncharacteristically obvious…at least to us.

Watch this commercial for Berlitz Language Training, about the “German Coast Guard.”