The 'Common Good' or Every Man for Himself?

How do you feel about the “common good?”
Democrats seem to be uniting on it as the way to describe their stand on social and economic issues, such as health care, tax policies, the environment.
Of course no one exactly agrees what it means. In general, it means a vision of “broader opportunity and equality,” John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal.
That would be in contrast to Republican pro-business, free-market views and to what some perceive as increased selfishness on the part of Americans.
A 2006 poll by the Center for American Progress, a liberal group, found that 68 percent of Americans agreed that “the government should be committed to the common good and put the public’s interest above the privileges of the few.”
Tied to Roman Catholic social teaching, the “common good” is said to have strong appeal for Catholic voters.
Among Democratic presidential candidates who have used the phrase lately: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson.
Here’s the problem, If policies favor the common good, Sen. Clinton acknowledged, that may require “people giving up a little bit of their own turf...”
What does the common good mean to you? Do you believe in it as a policy, and would you, or others, be willing to “give up a little bit” to achieve it? Or are we in fact a bunch of selfish louts?

Blackwater and the Krongard Brothers

We can all stop worrying about those U.S. Foreign Service officers who were upset about the possibility they would be “force-assigned” to Iraq.
Our government has filled 48 upcoming vacancies strictly on the basis of volunteers.
Some of those who did not want to go called it “a potential death sentence” and also indicated that they didn’t think much of our being in Iraq in the first place,
But, as pointed out here, and by several who commented, when one joins the Foreign Service, one agrees to serve wherever needed, and whether or not one agrees with policy.
In Iraq, State Department and government officials most often are protected by the mercenaries of Blackwater, a security contractor currently under investigation for recklessly endangering Iraqi lives and in particular for an incident in which at least 17 Iraqis were killed.
Funny thing about that investigation. Howard J. Krongard is the State Department inspector general involved in the probe. His brother, Alvin Krongard had just joined, and just as quickly resigned, from Blackwater’s board of directors.
Howard Krongard last week recused himself from any matters having to do with Blackwater.
Alvin Krongard was with the CIA from 1998 to 2004 and concedes to a “routine role,” according to the New York Times, in helping Blackwater gets its first big security contract from the CIA for guards in Afghanistan,
He’s tight with Blackwater founder Erik D. Prince and admits connecting Prince with CIA officials, but says he did not exert pressure on Blackwater’s behalf.
At the CIA, Alvin Krongard was a counselor to CIA Director George J. (It’s a slam dunk!” he told President Bush of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) Tenet.
What’s the saying — you couldn’t make this up?
Blackwater’s Iraq contract: $1.2 billion.
This will make a great book, after the Congressional hearings, of course.

A Prosecutor Blocked from Discussing Torture

In this space in April, I reported on the case of Marine Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a pilot and veteran prosecutor assigned to prosecute a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay believed to be con-nected to the 9/11 attack.
After nine months of preparation, the Wall Street Journal reported, Col. Couch declined to prosecute Mohamedou Ould Slahi on the grounds his confession came as the result of torture and was inadmissible under both U.S. and International law.
Upon leaving that post. Col Couch received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a ci-tation that referred to his “moral courage.”
Col. Couch was back in the news last week. As part of the debate on waterboarding, he was slated to testify before Congress about techniques employed by U.S. interrogators.
His superiors had had no objection to his testifying, but the Pentagon general counsel told him not to appear.
Col. Couch is now a member of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.
Last week, he received the Minister of Justice Award given annually to a prosecutor by the American Bar Association.
It is Couch’s belief that “...human beings are created in the image of God and as a result we owe them a certain amount of dignity.”
It would have been good for the Congress and the nation to hear his views. What was the Bush administration afraid of?

Diplomats Declining to Go to Iraq

Several hundred U.S. foreign service officers gathered at the U.S. State Department in
Washington on Halloween to remove their masks of obedience.
The diplomats were responding to announced plans to “force-assign” a number of them to Iraq.
There are about 250 serving there now, all volunteers, but about 50 will be needed as replacements and volunteers are lacking.
Some 200-300 have been identified as “prime candidates” because of their skills.
The remarks of Jack Crotty, 36-year veteran Foreign Service officer, were applauded by many.
He said force-assigning to a place like Iraq was “a potential death sentence, and you know it. Who will take care of our children if we’re dead or seriously wounded? At any other embassy in the world, the embassy would be closed with all these incoming rockets...
“It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers,” he said.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice replied that “people need to serve where they are needed.” And Ambassador Ryan Crocker said that any who “put their personal safety over the national interest are in the wrong line of business.”
Depending on how long they’ve been with the Service, foreign service officers make several times what our soldiers, sailors and Marines in Iraq are making. Most of the latter probably did not volunteer to go to Iraq. And they are at considerably more risk.
It is difficult to have much sympathy for the diplomats.