About FDD
FDD Team
National Security Network
Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation
Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab
Center on Economic and Financial Power
Center on Military and Political Power
FDD's Long War Journal
Barish Center for Media Integrity
China Program
International Organizations Program
Iran Program
Israel Program
Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program
Turkey Program
Flash Briefs
Foreign Podicy
Generation Jihad
Overnight Brief
Subscribe Invest
January 25, 2007 | FrontPage Magazine
Symposium: Iraq – The Challenge Ahead
Bill Cowan
Carlton Sherwood
Ralph Peters
Andy McCarthy
FP: Bill Cowan, Carlton Sherwood, Jim Woolsey, Ralph Peters and Andy McCarthy, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
I want to get your views on Saddam’s execution, but let’s first crystallize what our main strategy should be in Iraq.
Bill Cowan, let’s begin with you. What do you make of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations? And what, in your view, must we now do in Iraq?
Cowan: I guess I could best characterize the Iraq Study Group's effort as a noble endeavor, but at the end of the day it's political theater. People here in Washington from both sides of the spectrum will use whatever parts they agree with to further their own agendas. As a quick aside, I spent many years living overseas. From my own experience, if I wanted to influence events in a foreign environment I would spend most of my effort asking the locals how I could achieve my goals. I'd get a diverse range of opinions from which I could pick and choose, but I'd at least know they might be implementable and might result in what I wanted. In this case, most of the effort involved asking 'experts' here in the U.S. or in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Many of them are the same 'experts' who got us where we are now.
As to what we can do now in Iraq, I do agree that our options are very limited. One problem is that we are fighting an unconventional war with conventional forces, and it's probably too late to try to shift now. Historically, military might has never been the ultimate deciding factor in an unconventional war. It's about the people themselves – who they support, and how and why they support them. It's clear at this juncture that too many people support the insurgency, and conventional military force isn't going to change that. What might change it is jobs, the economy, social services, infrastructure, and the like. Those aren't the responsibility of the military, and the other elements of the U.S. presence that are responsible aren't doing well in any of them.
Finally, on the military side a more robust advisor program might help to some degree. But it won't help if the advisors are only at high levels, meaning battalion and above. We need young officers and NCO's out with the front-line Iraqi units, participating directly in the fight. That U.S. presence at the lower level brings with it intelligence, communications, and quick access to firepower. It also builds confidence in young Iraqi troops who see us engaged at their level, and it allows our military to help identify leaders within the Iraqi Army. Is there danger associated with a program at that level? Of course, but we did it extremely well in Viet Nam with great success. If we want to win in Iraq, we have to continue to take risks.
Sherwood: My opinions of the Iraq Study Group are not dissimilar to Col. Cowan's. Perhaps, our biggest differences rest with the intent, the true purpose of the ISG. In that respect, I am far more skeptical, perhaps, cynical.
The very existence of the Iraq Study Group signaled an abrogation of war-time leadership by the White House: the ISG's recommendations and admission, if one more is needed, that U.S. military operations are being driven solely by craven, self-serving political considerations.
Battlefield realties are irrelevant when command decisions are relegated to politicians devoted to compromise and accommodation, whose entire focus is the next election cycle or today's poll. They are simply unfit to make hard life or death combat decisions. Appeasement is their stock and trade, “victory” a four-letter word.
In that regard, the ISG report provides ample “political cover” for failed or absent leadership, both on the Right and Left of the political spectrum. Even some of ISG's more patently absurd recommendations will now be fodder for serious “public debate,” all designed to obscure the real and deeply rooted causes of the current situation in the Middle East — amoral, incompetent American political leadership and cowardice.
Historically, we already know the price that will eventually be paid in blood and national treasure, never mind the lasting damage to the America psyche, if we resurrect and follow the Vietnam template the ISG report surely implies.
But, who will be responsible for the genocide this time? Who will be held accountable for the millions of innocents slaughtered if our military is drive from the battlefield $ prematurely? What do we say to those we abandoned, who we betrayed with false promises of freedom and America's resolve to liberate them?
Will we again allow our political leaders to blame their self-inflicted defeat on those who cannot speak, Americans whose names line the wall of the yet-to-be-built Iraq War Veterans Memorial?
The same forces that caused the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Southeast Asia are firmly in play now in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Winning” is no longer the objective, there are only “outcomes.” And, those will be defined by political leaders and the media without regard for U.S. military successes, or, its capabilities to bring both conflicts to a quick, decisive close, even now.
Indeed, many of the same American political leaders in the forefront of engineering our “defeat” in Vietnam are at the controls again four decades later. Those paragons of self-loathing Americans everywhere, which include the leftist Senators from Massachusetts, are among the many who would revel in a replay of Vietnam. Their unvarnished contempt for our military is, perhaps, second only to their abiding admiration for, and, collaboration with America's enemies.
Doubtless, they've already made travel plans to Tehran and Damascus to negotiate with terrorists, as per the ISG's recommendations.
President Bush would do well to ignore the ISG and try something completely different. Put his political advisors on vacation and turn this war over to those in command on the battlefield … with only one order — “Win.”
FP: Jim Woolsey?
Woolsey: I see the ISG report similarly to Col. Cowan and Mr. Sherwood. The document doesn't present a coherent strategy. Most importantly, it's bizarre to treat Iran and Syria as if they are trembling on the verge of being helpful and promoting a stable Iraq if we will but talk to them.
I've participated in or led five sets of East-West negotiations between 1969 and 1991, and the act of opening negotiations is always itself a political act. Three and a half years ago when Iran and Syria were newly impressed by our having taken Baghdad so quickly it might have been different, especially if we had been reinforcing to stop the early looting. At that point if we had opened negotiations we would have been doing so from a position of strength and, with adequate forces along the borders, we might have got something useful in the way of commitments not to interfere in Iraq. We would have had to enforce such commitments, of course, but such Iranian and Syrian pledges could have been of some diplomatic use to us.
Today we would be opening negotiations from a position of weakness (it might have been different if the Israelis had done us the favor last summer of using their Air Force to level a bunch of Syrian military facilities instead of Lebanese targets). We would be pressed to pay Iran in the coin of easing our pressure on their nuclear weapons program and Syria in the coin of easing pressure against their interference in Lebanon.
We need to establish different facts on the ground, via some of the steps suggested by Cowan and Sherwood — e.g. putting advisors into Iraqi units all the way down the line, not just at battalion level — before we consider such discussions. Proposing negotiations with them now, and assuming that Iran and Syria want stability, is like the thirteenth chime of a clock: not only is it strange in and of itself, it calls into question all from the same source.
Peters: I'm about 80% in line with Jim Woolsey and Carlton Sherwood–especially in my skeptical reading of the Jim-Baker-made-in-Riyadh ISG report; on the same count, I must respectfully disagree with Bill Cowan (whose views I so often share): The ISG was not a “noble endeavor” in any respect, but a classic Washington default–when things go wrong, bring out the dead from the political mausoleum and let them pontificate.
Usually, this is just bread-and-circuses, pass-the-blame theater, but Secretary Baker demonstrated brilliantly how a veteran infighter with prestige and a personal agenda can hijack such a commission. I believe that Baker knew what his key conclusions would be before the group's first meeting and he artfully loaded the panel with respected (or at least well-known) public figures who, whether Republican or Democrat, shared one characteristic: Not one could claim Middle-East experience or contacts to rival Baker's.
Note that Baker also excluded retired general officers from the panel–even though we're in the middle of a series of wars. Baker didn't want anyone with uniformed military experience to challenge his views (Secretary Perry is a brilliant bean-counter, but no strategist). Thus, for all of the “79 theses,” I see this as Baker's report, from start to finish.
And what's the bottom line of that report? “Let's all go back to the good, old days of stability at any cost, of supporting the likes of Saddam and the Shah. Chuck all that human rights and freedom nonsense–bring back the Cold War clarity, when any thug would do as long as he was our thug. Trade long-term advantage for short-term quiet. Stability ueber alles!”
Of course, Baker and his generation gave us 9-11, playing into the hands of Islamist fanatics by associating the USA with oppressive (often monstrous) regimes. By artificially “keeping a lid on” the Middle East, they only delayed and intensified the boil-over. The Shah always falls; Saddam always turns on you in the end. Meanwhile, you've alienated the population and empowered religious fanatics.
Even Baker's proposal to embed 16,000 to 20,000 trainers is divorced from reality. To embed that many quality troops, we'd have to strip our combat units of their cadre of officers and veteran NCOs–crippling combat readiness. And Baker would withdraw combat units, leaving only the dispersed advisers and support units ill-equipped to defend themselves–an invitation to our enemies to encourage a “teach-the-Americans-a-great-lesson” uprising that could kill or take hostage thousands of our troops. Without combat power to back them up, our advisers would be a blood sacrifice to nothing. But, then, Baker's set despises those in uniform, as do most members of the Washington “elite,” who are, of course, far too important to serve, as are their children (personally, I think Barbara and Jenna Bush would look hot in Army or Marine combat uniforms).
On the positive side, Baker's infighting finesse ultimate wrought nothing. After all the fanfare, the elephant gave birth to a (still-born) mouse. No one in Washington takes the ISG report seriously at this point–it's dead. The White House was furious, key Republicans felt blindsided, the Dems were just confused (big surprise there, of course…)–and our military got another lesson in willful civilian arrogance. Really, just think about that: The great panel to solve our wartime problems didn't have a single retired general officer. Sure, several members had brief junior-officer service back in the days of the horse cavalry. But we all know that, for military problem-solving at the strategic level, you need people who've operated at the strategic level. An honorable approach would have been to ask General (retired) Eric Shinseki, the man who was right, to joint the panel. But Baker wanted total control.
He got it. But he made the classic Washington old-timer's error of failing to understand how dramatically the world had changed since he last occupied center stage. Baker's long ties to the Saudis (not least, financial) appear to have dominated the report–much of it's the Sunni-Arab-Wahhabist view from Riyadh, including the lunatic suggestion to tie Iraq to solving the (insolvable) Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is akin to arguing that Mexico's problems are made in Argentina.
So…the ISG report was an ethical and moral disgrace. And Jim Baker, the spotlight hog who never met a dictator he didn't like and who tried to convince a defeated Soviet Union to stay together, who tried to convince the Yugoslavs to remain together, who abandoned the Shia to Saddam and delayed protecting the Kurds…has finally got his comeuppance. His public failure should be welcomed by all honorable Americans.
And just by the way: The notion that insurgencies are never put down through military force is an urban legend that takes into account only the brief historical period since WWII (even then, it ignores many success military destructions of insurgencies). Over three thousand years, the overwhelming majority of insurgencies–including religious and ethnic revolts–have been defeated. And they've been defeated by the ruthless use of conventional forces. There is, indeed, usually a military solution–but you've got to have the guts to do what it takes to win. Our deficit doesn't lie in capabilities, but in the spinelessness of our leadership. Our country shouldn't rush into wars–but when we have to fight, we need to fight to win. We aren't being defeated–we're defeating ourselves with our political correctness.
FP: Thank you Ralph Peters. So let’s fight to win then.
But do we need not to be honest with ourselves about how we can win? Is the Sharansky thesis (that all peoples’ yearn for freedom) really applicable here, especially in terms of what has occurred over the last year in Iraq?
Is it really that foolhardy to start focusing more on stability rather than on “democracy” in an environment which has proven that the notions of individual liberty and the separation of Church and State are not, to say the least, looming that greatly on peoples’ minds? Is it that wise, in the context of this war, to try to introduce Jeffersonian principles into an environment where a high priority among many seems to be to submit one’s total being to a religious deity and to butcher one another over religious interpretations?
Or is it a failed military strategy that has facilitated the sectarian violence and if we had done things right, somehow, Sharansky’s thesis might have materialized into earthly incarnation?
Andy McCarthy?
McCarthy: Jamie, I’ve been skeptical about the administration’s vision of democratizing the Muslim world since its inception. I am not as certain as some scholars of Islam that democracy – in the modern, Western sense – is so antithetical to core Muslim principles that it could never take root; but I am persuaded it would mark such a profound change in a society committed to remaining culturally Islamic that we must view this effort as the work of generations – it is not a hocus-pocus function of a few elections and some vaporous constitution-writing.
That’s why I criticize the democracy project even though I share the ultimate view of its proponents that we must give young, impressionable Muslims an alternative vision – something different from a bleak choice between political dictators and religious totalitarians. Saying we have to make a choice between stability and democracy is a false dichotomy. Democracy (whether it’s achievable or not) should be our long-term aim, but stability is a necessary precondition for the transition toward a functioning democratic society – and it may be a very, very long transition depending on how much work must be done to sow and grow the prerequisite institutions and ethos.
Returning to our original topic, the Iraq Study Group, this brings two observations to my mind. They seem contradictory on first blush but I’ll make them anyway.
First, my presence in this august company brings home powerfully one of the chief failings of the ISG, alluded to by Col. Peters in particular. Though I like being a lawyer and have a great respect for the discipline that stems from good legal training, I do not for the life of me understand Washington’s penchant (or, for that matter, the penchant of our litigious society in general) to assume that every problem in life is a legal problem best addressed through study by panels predominantly comprised of prominent lawyers. The same flaw applied to the 9/11 Commission. With due respect to James Baker and, say, Justice O’Connor, why should anyone think they would have better insight about what is to be done in Iraq than Bill Cowan, Carlton Sherwood and Ralph Peters? Why would anyone crave the assessment of Vernon Jordan – to be sure, a quite accomplished lawyer – versus, say, an evaluation by Jim Woolsey, who aside from being an accomplished lawyer also has mounds of practical experience in the arenas of intelligence and foreign relations, two disciplines that are imperative to success in the war?
These are not idle questions. I am hardly saying there is no role for lawyers here. Fact-finding is essential, and it is among the skills of lawyering. But we lawyers are supposed to know that we are often incompetent to arrive at the facts without input from people with relevant expertise. It was a lot more important, in assessing Iraq, to have the insight of military, intelligence and diplomatic professionals than prominent lawyers. I assume when the president wants to know what’s going on there, he is not ringing up the Justice Department or the White House Counsel’s Office.
More to the point, much of lawyering is about conflict resolution in the domestic peacetime context. This necessarily involves compromise and consensus. National security, to the contrary, is not about consensus. It is about getting it right, since lives hang in the balance. The ISG was so obsessed with reaching – indeed, celebrating – bipartisan consensus, this was elevated above all else. But if ten people are asked what two-plus-two equals, and five of them say four while five of them say two, it is not something to be celebrated that the ten finally agree to say the answer is three just so they can reach consensus. And there is nothing at all admirable in their consensus if what’s at stake is life-and-death.
The second observation relates to this elevation of consensus over the right answer. The only way the democracy project or stability has a chance to succeed in Iraq and the greater Middle East is victory in the war – something the ISG did not mention. That means the war has to be conceptualized properly. I mentioned that this observation would seem contradictory to my first observation because, while I have national security experience, I am primarily a lawyer and I don’t pretend to have military experience. But I think the aims of war are political. The means, of course, are military, and I would not presume to debate this panel on them. But what we must try to achieve is accessible to the ordinary citizen as well as the soldier.
On that score, I just don’t see the “war on terror” as Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a much larger war, involving intersecting tentacles of radical Islamic networks – both Sunni and Shiite, often working together. The center of the problem is Iran , which has a long history of facilitating both Hezbollah and al Qaeda, the two most prominent networks. I find it simply astonishing that the ISG would look to Iran and its oft-time sidekick, Syria , as part of the solution in Iraq when they, in fact, are essential, implacable cogs of the enemy in the real war. In the short term, they are plainly committed to destabilizing Iraq. Whether the administration decides on a surge-of-troops strategy, or a strategy that embeds our military with Iraqi units, or what have you, I don’t see how Iraq can be “solved” without addressing Iran and Syria.
FP: And “addressing” Iran and Syria ultimately means regime change in both no?
Bill Cowan, we’re back to you sir. What do you make of the round table discussion?
Cowan: My first thought about this round table discussion is to express my gratitude for being here. Even if we don't all agree on every point, the fact is that we can get our thoughts out, debate with each other, and let the readers form their own opinions. Of course, it seems we all agree that the ISG report itself was a basically wasted effort.
To the issue of Iran and Syria, I think the real question here is why this Administration has refused to address them directly. For well over two years now, US intelligence has had detailed information on sites, locations, and personalities inside Syria who have been directly involved in supporting the insurgency and in the killing of Americans. Yet we've done absolutely nothing about it. For we Viet Nam veterans, it's absolutely reminiscent of the sanctuaries inside Laos and Cambodia, where the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese took safe harbor, stored massive amounts of supplies, and planned and launched operations into the South. The same is absolutely true of Syria.
Now, I'm not proposing sending US forces into Syria. But I would definitely say that we should have long ago trained some special Iraqi teams which could run cross border operations against insurgent-related targets in Syria. These would be Iraqis fighting against Iraqis, and the fact that the fighting was happening inside Syria would be a wake up call to the Syrian government. Nothing goes on inside Syria without the knowledge of Syrian intelligence. Our Administration knows that, yet we've done virtually nothing to abate the activities of those supporting the insurgents from within Syria. It's my belief that a direct line can be drawn from the death of any American serviceman or woman in al-Anbar province right back into Syria.
As to the Iranians, the Administration has been woefully slow to acknowledge the strategic threat posed by Iran's influence in Iraq. It's only over the past six months that the light seems to have come on. Yet most knowledgeable observers were harkening the call well over two years ago, while the Administration muddled along focused on the nuclear threat. Either issue should be sufficient justification to support regime change, yet we don't seem to have our own strategy or plan to support same. The fact is that over half of Iran's 70 million people are under the age of 30, and many are students involved in overt or covert resistance. There are at least six separate political resistance movements working against the Mullahs, at least one of whom wields considerable influence in Iran. Many of those involved in the resistance are routinely arrested, and still others are tortured and killed. Yet the Administration has steadfastly refused to take any meaningful action to publicly support the resistance groups, collectively or individually. Failing to do so obviates a powerful tool which could potentially threaten the stability of the regime and cause them to focus time and energy elsewhere.
In sum, as Jim Woolsey and others noted, the Iranians and Syrians could care less about discussing Iraq with us except in so much as it furthers their own goals and objectives. We have no leverage whatsoever with them on the issue of Iraq. And no one to blame but ourselves.
Sherwood: We can hope the Iraq Study Group report is dead-on-arrival for all the reasons cited by the learned members of this panel. In fact, in some circles the ISG report has already been eclipsed by far less publicized meetings between the President and military leaders who have proposed implementing key programs which proved successful during the Vietnam War.
Nonetheless, it's likely the ISG report will be resurrected many times during the upcoming Presidential election cycle to thwart and discredit any new Bush Administration military initiatives in Iraq. The laundry list of unrealistic, unattainable and just plain silly recommendations contained in the ISG report is manna from heaven for the Democrat leadership and their handmaidens in the Mainstream Media. It provides both with a near limitless supply of pie-in-the-sky objectives to argue the war is “unwinnable,” or, “lost,” even if it is won, especially if it is won.
That is the predicament President Bush finds himself in now as Presidential Politics, not national security imperatives, drive every decision, every action he takes regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. From a purely political, Democrat standpoint, the most egregious, unforgivable act he could commit is to find a military and political solution to end the war and bring a majority of our troops home before the 2008 Presidential elections.
As President Nixon learned during the early 1970s, Hell hath no fury greater than Leftist Democrats proven wrong, deprived of a Presidential campaign issue. When Nixon's Vietnamization plan proved remarkably effective, combat casualties plummeted and most U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, Democrats were outraged. Anti-war protest demonstrations in Washington and on campuses around country reached their zenith in 1971 and 1972, despite the fact the draft had all but been eliminated and less than a third of American troops remained in Vietnam.
Flummoxed by Nixon's successes in Vietnam, to say nothing of his unprecedented landslide re-election in 1972, Democrats in Congress were literally forced to engineer defeat, “the only war America lost,” by cutting off all military aide for South Vietnam. That little piece of treachery came two years later, in 1974, more than a year after the last American combat units were withdrawn.
Back then, Sen. Ted Kennedy led the efforts to abandon and betray our South Vietnamese allies and, in the process, steal the “victory” paid for in the blood and lives of American soldiers. Today, Sen. Kennedy proposes doing the same thing in Iraq. With Democrats in the majority again, and, Republicans cowering in the shadows again, his chances of succeeding and unleashing a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq are even better than they were in 1974.
In a very real sense, it's 1970 all over again. Like President Nixon, Bush is reviled by the media and demonized by Democrats. But, unlike Nixon, President Bush is no closer to finding military and political solutions to “his war” than he was two or even four years ago. Moreover, he has less than two years to find one.
While some of the military tactics used in Vietnam — embedding troops in Iraqi towns and neighborhoods, for example — may prove successful breaking the back of the insurgency, any initiatives that move the U.S. closer to “victory” in Iraq will likely spawn Leftist Democrat reprisals, including Congressional votes to cut off military funding and even impeachment proceedings.
In other words, no good deed the Bush Administration commits from this point on will go unpunished.
Realizing that, and understanding that success will only result in more vilification from the Media and retaliation from Congress, the President would be well-advised to show a modicum of the courage and loyalty the men and women he sent to Iraq and Afghanistan have repeatedly shown him. Simple put, he needs to begin acting like a War-Time Commander-in-Chief.
Presidential leadership in time of war, true leadership, is no path to popularity, as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Nixon and Truman all learned. But, when thousands, even millions of lives are at stake, the President cannot afford to be indecisive or, worse, yet, AWOL, as President Bush has been for most of the last four years.
Just once, many Americans, maybe most, would like to see their President show some spine, at least clearly identify who our “enemies” are and why we fight. That list should not only include Islamic terrorist organizations and sponsor-nations but Americans who have provided aide, comfort and encouragement to these cowardly butchers — terrorist's sympathizer turncoats in Congress, in the Press and on the faculties of many American Universities.
President Bush needn't throw these cretins in jail, as Lincoln did. But, just standing up and unmasking their true intentions — America's defeat — and the direct consequences of their actions — the brutal deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and American soldiers — would demonstrate the resolve and moral courage expected of a War-Time-Commander-in-Chief.
That doesn't mean sending out Tony Snow or the Cabinet Member du jour to banter semantics with the Press. It's far too late for that.
If the President expects to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, more importantly, preserve that victory from Democrat skullduggery after he has left office, it will require his full-time attention for the remainder of his term. Anything less than a daily dose of reality to the American public, directly from the Leader of the Free World, over the heads of the press and Congress, will result in another Vietnam, no matter how bravely our men and women fight, no matter how successful they are in the service of their country.
There is still time left for President Bush to show himself worthy of the responsibilities entrusted to him by the American public. He certainly owes it to them and their children and grandchildren serving in uniform to begin acting like a war-time President.
A good start would to be for the President to repudiate the ISG report for what it is — a “road-map” for defeat and genocide in the Middle-East, a document only America's enemies, foreign and domestic, could embrace.
FP: Thank you Carlton Sherwood.
Jim Woosley, what do you make of the discussion? And give us your thoughts on Saddam’s execution and how it could impact the war.
Woolsey: My principal reaction is to keep nodding in agreement and smiling at the vigorous and graceful prose of my colleagues.
We have to do our damned best to win this thing, in spite of the history of mistakes in tactics and strategy. The stakes are too high to do otherwise — the whirlwind we will reap if we lose means that we owe it to the world and future generations to do everything humanly possible to avoid giving the Islamists the encouragement they will certainly obtain if they win.
So, double down. Add at least 30,000 troops, increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, put advisers — our best — in at the platoon level, not just in senior positions, pick up the pace and rigor of training, put Iraqi special forces on the borders of Syria and Iran and help them kick the hell out of those who are infiltrating (and training and supplying the infiltrators), fight clear and hold, not search and destroy, in Anbar and Baghdad.
Right, winning doesn`t mean Jeffersonian democracy, but rather what Armatya Sen calls building on the society`s institutions of “public reason”. Some sort of federal structure with a fair, per capita based, allocation of oil revenues would be a good start.
Saddam`s execution seems to me to be a positive watershed. Admittedly from a Western perspective much of the trial was a mess (why did the Iraqis not put Saddam and the others in a glass enclosure so they couldn`t disrupt the proceedings as we did at Nuremberg?). But let`s look at the forest, not the trees. We didn`t take over the trial. Their new government tried him and convicted him according to their law; he had his day in court; he was found guilty on clear evidence, sentenced, and executed. This is a much better outcome than if we had conducted a far more professional trial ourselves — would that our deference to the Iraqis in this case had been matched by our having turned over more responsibility to them sooner in other areas as well. But that`s a subject for another day.
Peters: I certainly agree with Jim Woolsey that Saddam's death is an important milestone. It's not only crucial to further developments in Iraq (which are apt to be far less linear and predictable than the media hope), but his trial and execution also matter on a global scale–while they may try to console themselves that the U.S. is bogged down or has “learned its lesson,” the truth is that no dictator will sleep quite as soundly now.
Despite all the policy errors and practical mistakes in the occupation/reconstruction efforts in Iraq, I remain proud that the United States dethroned a monstrous tyrant and gave 26 million human beings a chance at better lives (whether or not they seize that chance and use it wisely is another matter). We finally defied the European traditions of diplomacy in which any thug can seize power and slaughter the innocent–as long as his violence remains within his “sovereign” borders. I've argued for years that the European-hatched idea of indiscriminate sovereignty for all states, no matter how oppressive, is one of the greatest cons in human history. The only source of legitimacy for any government in the 21st-century must be that it governs in accordance with the popular will and in the best interests of the people.
Which brings me back to your point, Jamie, as well as Bill Cowan's incisive observations about democracy in the Arab world. First, I believe that we have entered a new age in which the popular will cannot be defied indefinitely. More dictators and oppressive regimes will fall. The process will be uneven, frustrating, sometimes slow, sometimes unnervingly swift, inspiring, exasperating–and all too often frightening. A fundamental problem we Americans have is our assumption that the popular will equals democracy.
Well, the popular will can also be expressed by the German intoxication with Hitler (revisionism be damned, the Germans loved Hitler…) or by ethnic butchery or religious intolerance. Moqtada al-Sadr, unfortunately, expresses the popular will among an important Shia sub-population in Iraq, as does Hassan Nasrullah in Lebanon. So…we face an age in which the “wretched of the earth” will have far more say in their own fates, but we're not going to like all that they say. Even populations that choose democracy will adapt the form to suit their own societies (as India notably has done, and as Mexico is struggling to do). Neither Alexander Hamilton nor Thomas Jefferson are going to be role models for the democrats of the developing world.
As for democracy in the Arab world, I will admit to letting hope triumph over experience in my own calculation that, if any population in the Middle East could build a semi-functioning, reasonably satisfying democracy, it might be the Iraqis. I long have viewed the Middle East as so utterly dysfunctional that change had to be introduced from the outside–I still believe that, but have lost much of my faith in the appeal of genuine democracy to Arab societies, who are stunted in terms of psychological growth and crippled by dysfunctional values. And let me stress that the problem is not individual Arabs or Muslims in general–individuals can adjust and flourish when transplanted to societies such as our own. The problem is Arab social structures (and those in Pakistan and various other Muslim states deformed by strict fundamentalist interpretations of Islam).
It may, then, surprise your readers to find that, in the longer term, I remain soberly hopeful about Iran. Dealing with Persia–and it's really about Iran's Persian population–we're in a race against time. As noted by Bill Cowan, Iran's young population is sick of the rule of the mullahs–most Iranians want to rejoin the global mainstream and religion has lost much of its credibility for them (certainly, as a tool of governance). Will the Tehran extremists and Ahmedinejad's bring-on-the-apocalypse vision ignite an irremedial catastrophe before internal change can occur? Can Tehran's nuclear-weapons program be stopped? Will it be stopped? In the longer term, Iran and the United States are natural allies and, if the situation can develop organically, we will be allies again (if not necessarily so close as under the late shah). But, in the nearer term, the possibility of a regional conflagration–with nuclear weapons–could erase all desirable possibilities. If a cataclysm comes, it would be a tragedy on many levels, and completely disastrous for the Middle East.
One respect in which I diverge from some of the comments made above is that I see Sunni Islam as perverted by the Saudis/Wahhabis/Salafists as more dangerous to the West than Shia Islam has been or will be; furthermore, although the theocratic regime's excesses have obscured it, Persians actually have a robust civilization, while the Arabs have only decayed memories of a civilization (in the case of the Saudis, not even memories). Iran is already a good part of the way through the process of trying out religious rule, suffering under it, then ultimately abandoning it. In other words, Iran is ahead of the Arab states developmentally, although it's obscured by current tensions. I'm afraid that–in this age of the popular will–Arab peoples are going to insist on trying theocratic rule and learning for themselves how miserable it is.
One wishes that we could simply turn away from the Middle East and let it rot–yet, we learned on 9-11 that the Middle East is determined to come to us. So we're in this fight, like it or not. I only wish we were fighting to win. But that's a subject for another discussion.
Meanwhile, there's some good news–unpersuaded by the Western cult of negotiations (our great superstition), the Ethiopian government applied blunt and unrestrained military power to the Islamist regime in Somalia. And it worked. Yes, the Islamic Courts Union will now turn to terrorism–but better to have Muslim terrorists struggling to regain power than to have them ruling in a capital city. So the New Year did start off with some good news.
FP: Well, let’s make fighting to win a subject for the final part of this discussion.
Andy McCarthy, your take on the others’ comments, Saddam’s execution and on fighting to win?
McCarthy: Saddam’s execution is an important development, albeit not nearly as important as his being toppled. As long as he continued to live, he was a destabilizing factor, and thus his elimination was necessary, though far from sufficient, to stabilizing Iraq.
I can’t help but be amused by the hand-wringing from the press and the commentariat over the manner in which the death penalty was meted out. This is the most naïve kind of wishful thinking and transference. It is reflective of the fact that many devotees of the democracy project have insufficient respect for how profound a cultural shift democracy is, and thus fantasize that mere elections signal the adoption Western notions of equality and procedural due process.
The popular elections in Iraq were not a cultural shift but simply the most efficient means by which the overwhelming majority bloc, the Shiites, were able to assume power. The particular Shiites we are talking about here — led primarily by the Dawa and SCIRI parties — are Islamic fundamentalists who were brutalized by Saddam for a quarter-century, took custody of him for only about an hour and only for the stated purpose of putting him to death, and are neither particularly interested in Western notions of due process nor fastidious about the manner in which their enemies die. Under those circumstances, Saddam's execution – with the Shiite leadership disregarding American, Sunni and Kurd concerns about haste, and with some of Moqtada Sadr’s thugs rebuking Saddam in the chamber – was actually carried out with more decorum than it was reasonable to expect. As Jim says, the forest is more important than the trees in appraising the execution. But the trees here are a reflection of how painful the democratic transition will be … if it can happen at all.
I’ll close by saying we have to fight to win, but equally as essential as national fervor for the war effort (see Ethiopia) is conceptualizing the war properly. It’s a regional war – indeed, even broader than that. Iraq is one battlefield; it’s not the war. And we can’t win it until we start sending state sponsors like Iran the right signal – i.e., that the original Bush doctrine, “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists,” is the rule of the road, and we are done with trying to buy them off and with relying on a diplomatic process that is a foregone failure.
FP: Carlton Sherwood, final word goes to you.
Sherwood: I couldn't agree more with the observations of the panelists: Saddam's execution was critical to any reconstruction and democratization process in Iraq.
There are many things Westerners do not understand about Arab Middle-East culture. One of those things is the belief in the mystical and mythical. For an entire generation of Iraqis, Saddam was thought to be immortal, omnipresent, the boogeyman in every closet who would exact a terrible vengeance upon those who doubted his power. As long as he was alive — even in prison –many still lived in abject terror that he would find a way to rise again to power and unleash a bloodbath of biblical proportions.
As distasteful and barbaric as some may considere the unauthorized recording of Saddam's hanging, it was necessary to assure the Iraqi people that, indeed, the Butcher of Baghdad was dead. Gone, too, are his mystical abilities for survival. In Dr. Phil-speak, closure.
Regrettably, we helped create the myth of Saddam's invincibility following the first Gulf War. Iraq's mass-grave-killing-fields serve as a stark reminder of the price for limited warfare, where military objectives take a back seat to political and diplomatic imperatives.
In many respects, it was a continuation of that policy, giving precedence to State Department initiatives over proven military tactics, that is at the root cause of the current situation in Iraq. If Ambassador L. Paul Bremer had not been given the authority to reverse key military decisions immediately after initial hostilities in the Fall of 2003, there is every likelihood the debate now would be how many U.S. troops should be left behind, rather than how many need to be added in Iraq.
Bremer's twin edicts to fire all former Baathists Party civil servants who previously managed Iraq's infrastructure and to disband the conquered, unemployed and still-heavily armed 300,000 man Iraqi Army, all but guaranteed the road to Iraq's recovery and democratization to be long and bloody, to say nothing of uncertain.
In 2003, when Ambassador Bremer pulled the rug out from under the military commanders in Iraq, Major Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne in Mosul, had already put thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and Baathists on the payroll, using millions of U.S. dollars found in Saddam's secret caches. Mosul and the surrounding territories were nearly violence free, reconstruction and pacification programs on a fast track. All that changed when he was forced to “stand-down” the Iraqi workforce.
Gen. Petraeus said then what should have been obvious, even to State Department pinheads: “Give someone a secure, meaningful job and paycheck to take home to their families, and he won't be making bombs or killing Americans and Iraqis.”
Today, the most encouraging news to come from the White House isn't that the President is considering “ramping-up” troops strength, but that Lt. Gen. Petraeus has been put in command of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Nothing could signal a clearer repudiation of Ambassador Bremer's disastrous policies, the only question, is: is it too little, too late?
For nearly the last century America has been singularly blessed with a brilliant and courageous military that wins every war; fatally cursed with political and diplomatic stupidity and cowardice that squanders and loses every peace. That is true of WWI which lead to WWII which lead to forty years of Cold War, including Korea and Vietnam.
While military success on the ground is only one component, albeit, an essential goal to the overall strategy in Iraq, with men like Gen. Petraeus in command, I don't worry about military “victory.” What concerns me most is what should cause Americans to lose sleep now: what will our Congress will do to undermine our military efforts in Iraq; or, worse, yet, how far Congress will go if their best efforts to cause a U.S. defeat in Iraq prove unsuccessful?
Saddam is dead and gone but the worst threats to Iraq's independence and freedom are far from being buried. Iran and Syria remain as potent threats, to be sure, but ask any American-Vietnamese over the age of 60 who the Iraqis need to fear most now.
FP: Bill Cowan, Carlton Sherwood, Jim Woolsey, Ralph Peters and Andy McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
Read in FrontPage Magazine
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
P.O. Box 33249, Washington D.C. 20033


U.S. Rep Challenges Administration on Pending Medicaid Block Grant Guidance
U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) sent U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar a letter requesting documentation on how HHS is developing Medicaid guidance to states on crafting Medicaid block grants administratively. Additionally, he questioned the legality of the process given Medicaid’s mandate to provide coverage to eligible individuals. Congressman Pallone is Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight of Medicaid issues. The guidance is not yet publicly available, but is undergoing the final stage of review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Because Medicaid is the main program funding supports for people with disabilities, ANCOR has been monitoring this issue and recently met with OMB staff to request opportunities for public review and comment before the guidance is released. We will keep members informed of opportunities for action as they arise.
For the convenience of our readers, we have summarized the general landscape surrounding the guidance below:
As stated above, the proposed guidance is currently under review at OMB. ANCOR first became aware of this proposal in January when Politico scooped that the Administration was seeking to by-pass Congress on Medicaid block grants.
Last week, Politico Pulse reported that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma travelled to a gathering in California of Republican Governors Association staff to discuss multiple topics, including Medicaid.
Earlier this month the state of Alaska commissioned a study “analyzing the prospect of implementing block grants”. Previously, Governor of Alaska Mike Dunleavy stated in a letter to the President that CMS asked his state to be the first to try administering Medicaid block grants.
Following media coverage of Governor Dunleavy’s letter, Tennessee requested to be the first state to test Medicaid block grants.
Democratic members of Congress have responded with concern – in addition to U.S. Representative Pallone’s letter, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) also wrote to HHS on the topic.


Liber Cantabrigiensis, an account of the aids afforded to poor students, the ...
Από τον/την Robert Potts
shall be a body corporate, and that all the governors except the mayor hall be possessed of £200 a year in land or money.
The trustees previously to the year 1798, founded from the increased Eredues of the school four Exhibitions, tenable for seven years, at
John's College, Cambridge, each of the value of £70 per annum. these exhibitions by order of the Court of Chancery bave been reduced
£50 per annum, and in default of candidates, who have a preference, they are open to any scholars who have been two years at the school. And since the passing of the act in 1798, the trustees have founded troo additional Exhibitions, tenable for four years, at Oxford or Cambridge, by scholars from Shrewsbury school. These exhibitions are of the same value, and are under the same regulations as the four appropriated St John's College.
1577. Under the 12th ordinance of Thomas Ashton, clerk, the first master of Shrewsbury school, were founded two Scholarships at St
John's College, which are regulated by deed, dated 3rd Sept. 1623, for students from Shrewsbury school.
happen, or in case the person offering himself a candidate for the same shall, in the Judgment of the governors, be unfit and ineligible, either for want of learning, or for any other cause or defect, to have or enjoy such exhibition, then the money which would otherwise have been applied to the use of such exhibitioner, shall be applied in the manner before directed, towards increasing the fund for founding and ereating a new exhibition, and so toties quoties ; and towards increasing the stipends or salaries of the said vicar of Chirbury, and curates of St Mary, Astley, und Clive, as aforesaid.
"That all the annual stipends, payments, or sums of money, which are now paid out of the revenues of the school estates for the better maintenance and support of wholars or exhibitioners from the said school, unto or for the use and benefit of such scholars or exhibitioners, at the said college of St John the Evangelist, in the C'niversity of Cambridge, under the ordinances of the said Thomas Ashton, shall not at any time hereafter be lessened or diminished, but shall continue to be paid by the said governors to the same amount at the least as they are at present paid; and that it shall be lawful for the said governors, with the consent of the said bishop, from time to time, out of such surplus, to augment the salary or stipend of any such scholar or exhibitioner, which is now or shall be at the said College of St John, under the said ordinances of the said Thomas Ashton.
“That four times in every year, that is to say, on the 5th January, the 5th April, the 5th July, and 10th October, there shall be made out and printed an account of the whole of the receipts, arrears, debts, bills outstanding, and also of all the expenses, and of the surplus of the whole revenues, and twelve printed copies thereof shall be lodged with the corporation, and shall at all times be open to the inspection of the mayor, aldermen, and assistants of the said town of Shrewsbury, and six printed copies thereof shall be transmitted to the master and fellows of St John's College aforesaid for their information."
1656. Two Exhibitions were founded by deed, at St John's Cil lege, for students from Shrewsbury school, under certain restrictiox These exhibitions are now each of the value of £35 a year, and the are tenable till scholars take the degree of Bachelor of Arts.
1713. Rev. Oswald Smyth, second master of Shrewsbury schobequeathed property for founding two Exhibitions, tenable for ses years at Oxford or Cambridge. A preference is reserved for his re tions, next for sons of burgesses, born in the town ; after that, this born in the suburbs of Shrewsbury :-in default, any scholars born the county of Salop, and educated at Shrewsbury school.
1724. John Millington, D.D. founded one Fellowship and fo Exhibitions at Magdalene College, for scholars from Shrewsbury schot (See p. 333.)
1734. Mr James Millington founded two Exhibitions at Magdal, College, for students from Shrewsbury school. (See p. 334.)
1766. John Taylor, D.D. by his will, gave an Exhibition of £ a year for four years, at either Oxford or Cambridge, for scholars from Shrewsbury school, with a preference to any descendant of Roger Ower of Andover, though not brought up at the same school, but who shoul be thought duly qualified for the exhibition.
1844. Rev. R. B. Podmore founded an Exhibition of £30 a year at Trinity College, Cambridge, tenable for four years, for a native Shropshire. (See p. 353.)
NEWPORT.
1 THE FREE GRAMMAR-SCHOOL.
FOUNDED 1656, A. D. This school was founded and endowed by William Adams, citizen and haberdasher of London, who gave besides an estate at Woodease, in the county of Salop, in aid of the original endowment, lest there should be any deficiency for carrying out his design.
In 1660, the 12th year of Charles II. an act of Parliament was obtained, appointing the master and wardens of the Company of Haberdashers, in the city of London, to be the governors of the free-school and almshouses so founded by Mr Adams; and for the settlement of the lands and possessions upon them for the maintenance of the school and other charitable uses.
The founder in 1656 drew up statutes, constitutions, and ordinances
for the government of the school*. It is ordained by them that the khool shall be for ever free for the teaching of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, or any of them, unto fourscore scholars.
The statutes and orders are directed to be fairly written and sus. paded in a convenient place publicly in the school, and to be openly mad in the school once a quarter from time to time, that so none may plead ignorance.
Mr Adams also founded four Exhibitions for scholars proceeding from this school either to Oxford or Cambridge. The nomination is in the visitor and the head-master, and is to be made within the last wo days of the month of February yearly. It is also provided, that if at the time of election any scholar born in Newport or Chetwynd End shall be fitted for that choice, then such to be first chosen : in case there be none such, then next any one born within three miles of that town, but within the said county, if fitted for it: and in case that bone such be found fit there, then any other born elsewhere within the said county of Salop may be chosen, respect always had for the preferring of such that were born at the least distance from the said school : or otherwise in case of failure therein, then to make choice of any well qualified and fitted that hath been a scholar in the said school by the space of three years or upwards, so always that in all the respective places afore-mentioned, care be taken that the poorer sort be herein preferred, in case they shall be every way fitted for the same. These exhibitions are for the term of four years and no longer, and are each of about the value of £20 per annum.
* The following are the tenth, twelfth, and eighteenth rules :
10. “The master and usher shall have a special care to the good manners and decent deportment of the scholars, and shall exemplarily punish all misdemeanours, especially the sins of swearing, cursing, lying, filching, filthy or obscene talking or keting, gaming for any thing of price, and foul language to any person, and in an especial manner shall diligently endeavour to see the Lord's day kept free from any profanation (as much as in them lieth) as well after as under the public ordinances by all these scholars."
12. "All disobedient and stubborn youths that are pertinaciously and exemplarily bad, after two admonitions, wherewith their parents or friends be acquainted, shall the third time be expelled from the school.”
18. “No scholar at any time shall with knife, or otherwise whatsoever in stone, lead, or other materials, cut, notch, deface, or break the windows, wainscot, forms, seats, tables of orders, desks, doors, tables, in any part of the houses, school, or library, neither deface or in any kind abuse any of the books in the said library. The master upon conviction of such offender, or offenders, shall give him or them exemplary punishment for deterring others so to do.”
LUDLOW.
THE FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
FOUNDED 1552, A. D.
THE free grammar-school of Ludlow was founded by King Edward VI.; the bailiffs, burgesses and commonalty, and their successors being directed" always to find in the same town, at their own cost and charges, a free grammar-school, with a schoolmaster and an usher for the erudition of youth in the Latin tongue."
There are three Exhibitions of £50 each for three years, (esta blished under the scheme of 1847, by which the school is now governed.] tenable at any college of Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham. These for day-scholars exclusively, who must be sons (or living with person in loco parentis) of persons residing in Ludlow, or within ten miles thereof, and a candidate must have been in the school two years before he can be elected to an exhibition.
SOMERSETSHIRE.
BRISTOL.
THE FREE GRAMMAR-SCHOOL.
FOUNDED 1533, A.D.
THE hospital of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle, with the lands and tenements thereto belonging, having by licence of Henry VIIL in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, been purchased by the executors Robert Thorne, Esq. were conveyed to the mayor, burgesses, commonalty of the city of Bristol, for erecting a free grammar-school in pursuance of the will of the testator. His sons also, Robert Thorne and Nicholas Thorne, were great benefactors of the school. Ordinances and rules were ordained for the management of the school by the governors, the mayor and aldermen of Bristol, with the advice of the common council of the same city.
1625. Mrs Anne Snigge, by her will, among other things devised £200 to the mayor, burgesses, and commonalty of the city of Bristol, that they should retain and keep the said £200 for their own us, upon condition that they should pay yearly for ever thereafter the sum of £12 to and amongst two poor Scholars, sons of the poor burgesses of the said city, who should be educated in the free grammar-school there, called "The Bartholomew's," to be paid unto them for their better maintenance in some one or both of the Universities of Oxford
Cambridge, namely, to each scholar £6 per annum, for four years, raining there, and demeaning himself well.
1628. John Whitson, alderman of the city of Bristol, by his bequeathed to the corporation of Bristol a certain portion of his perty for various charitable uses, as by the good discretion of the or and aldermen should be thought fit and necessary.
A declaration was made by the mayor and aldermen, of the vitable uses to which Mr Whitson's benefaction was to be applied; Jamong them, they declared that £20 yearly for ever should be ployed towards the maintenance of two poor men's sons of the city the University of Oxford or Cambridge that had first had their 2cation and bringing up in the grammar-school of the city, called The Bartholomew's," to each of them £10 per annum.
In the year 1847 a new scheme was approved by the Court of 3ancery for the management and administration of the estates and enues, and for the future government of the free grammar-school of stol, and the trustees of the Bristol charities were appointed trustees the grammar-school.
It was ordered that the surplus should be employed, among other ags, in increasing the amounts payable as exhibitions under the s of John Whitson, Anne Snigge, and George White, or such of m as may be payable to boys proceeding from the said school to Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, so as to make up the annual me of the said gifts equal to two Exhibitions of £60 each, to be yable to boys from the said school. Also after providing for these ments, any further surplus when it shall amount to £60 a year, ill be employed for a third, and after that for a fourth Exhibition. int the said trustees shall elect to such exhibitions only such boys shall have been reported to be meritorious scholars, deserving of the me by the examiners, and that the said exhibition shall commence om the day of election thereto, and shall be continued during four ars; but shall be determinable by the said trustees, if the exhibiDer shall not continue to reside in the University.
BRUTON.
THIS free school was founded by Richard Fitzjames, bishop of ondon, Sir John Fitzjames, chief justice of England, and John


Home / News / Cuba to play basketball (m) qualifier in Mexico
Cuba to play basketball (m) qualifier in Mexico
RHC
Cuba's men's basketball team will play the first qualifying window for the 2022 Americup in Chihuahua, Mexico, next November.
FIBA America announced that the first windows will be held in bubble format, so Group D has been announced for the Aztec locality, which will also include the teams of the United States, Puerto Rico and the host.
According to the schedule on the entity's website, the Cubans will face the Americans on November 28 and 29 and on those same dates the Puerto Ricans and the locals will face each other during the first of the segments in the group phase, from which the first three teams will advance.
The FIBA America communiqué indicates that Buenos Aires will host Group A (Venezuela, Panama, Paraguay and Argentina) and Group B (Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay) and Santo Domingo Group C (Bahamas, Canada, U.S. Virgin Islands and Dominican Republic).
The decision to hold it in this format is due to "ensure the health and safety of all participants and the most important criteria for choosing the hosts were health and travel guarantees and compliance with FIBA health protocols, including testing and controlled entry in a safe environment," it was reported.
The remaining windows of this stage are agreed for February, June and July 2022 to determine the places in each key after six games.
The 12 teams to continue in a second phase from August 2022 will compete for the seven tickets to the 2023 World Cup scheduled for Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan.
Athletics: Second and third place for Cubans in start of winter tour
IOC seeks for ways to let Russia, Belarus athletes back to international competitions
Baseball: Cuba with five major leaguers and several migrants to the World Baseball Classic
UNESCO official meets with the head of INDER


The blog China turned to for “toxic chicken soup for the soul” has shut down
Mind your words.
Image: Reuters/Bobby Yip
Echo Huang
PublishedFebruary 22, 2019
Mimeng, seen by many as the queen of personal-development clickbait on the WeChat app, this week shut down her hugely popular four-year-old blog—possibly because its content was increasingly at odds with the “positive energy“ China wants to see spreading online.
Started by 42-year-old Ma Ling, a former journalist, who adopted the pseudonym Mimeng, the blog has been surrounded by nearly constant controversy since she began writing about young people’s lives in 2015. With around 14 million followers on its WeChat public account (similar to Facebook Pages), Mimeng became known for posts offering cold get-ahead advice, crude essays on sex and relationships—one popular post was titled “I work hard in order to afford a gigolo (link in Chinese)—and stories about the downfall of people who should’ve made it. Over time, it expanded into a team of writers and multiple accounts. On microblogging platform Weibo, articles about the blog’s closing have gathered more than 170 million views (link in Chinese) as of today (Feb. 22).
Mimeng’s end on Feb. 21 came after an outcry over the authenticity of a recent hugely popular first-person article that, like much of its fare, tapped into China’s economic and social anxieties. Titled “The death of a top academic scorer from a poor family” (一个寒门状元之死 ), it was published at the end of January, and within a day, it garnered more than 100,000 views, a benchmark for popularity on WeChat. But it ran into trouble when many accused the writer of making up the story to attract traffic, and readers realized the account that published it was associated with Mimeng. State-owned People’s Daily (link in Chinese) called it “shameless” to concoct tragic tales to get readers. WeChat deleted the article the day after publication for violating content rules.
Mimeng didn’t specify what caused the shutdown, but the backlash against the article—and an increasingly tightly regulated internet—offer some clues, China media analysts say.
“Authorities will take care of ‘trouble makers’ who cause debates online—this tells you there’s only one kind of voice that can exist, which is the ‘positive energy’ approved by the officials,” said Luqiu Luwei, a media scholar at the Hong Kong Baptist University.
A true story, or a fake?
In the Jan. 29 story, the author depicted herself as a city girl from a well-off family while her classmate, Zhou Youze, the main character of the story and the author’s high school classmate, was a hard-working person who died of cancer at the age of 24.
Zhou came from a modest family from China’s rural area, such that a fake Adidas down jacket would cost his family two weeks’ food spending. He ranked first in science during China’s grueling national college entrance exam and later went on to become an accountant of high integrity—he refused to take bribes from his boss who asked him to manipulate the numbers. He worked three part-time jobs in order to support his sister, but died with just 3,700 yuan ($500) of savings at the end of his life. Zhou’s death made the author—a woman who can deal with demanding investors and smoothly navigate society’s unspoken rules—reflect on her own life, and how she’s lost herself chasing money and power.
The author said Zhou was a pseudonym for a real person (link in Chinese), and included photos of their high school with the piece. Yet many said they couldn’t verify the details—for instance, a user on Zhihu, a Quora-like site, said he went through public records of the national exam during the period the author mentioned, but couldn’t find a matching score (link in Chinese) for Zhou’s result.
Mimeng.
Image: Weibo/iFeng Chongqing
Soon after criticism flooded in, Mimeng shut down her Weibo account, which has 2.6 million followers, and suspended WeChat updates for two months in early February, saying the company would spend time exploring how to be a more responsible media outlet and deliver more “positive values.” In the past, she has been temporarily suspended from updating by platforms for other articles considered too sensational.
Yet suddenly, the WeChat account was closed. Soon after, online news iFeng and Bytedance-owned news aggregation platform Jinri Toutiao also shut down Mimeng’s accounts.
“We must make those pay a heavy price for seriously affecting social stability,” read iFeng’s statement (link in Chinese).
Making money by selling anxiety
Mimeng offered something China’s internet users call “toxic chicken soup for the soul” (link in Chinese) in reference to the popular, rose-tinted self-help books. The phrase is used to describe content that seems like it’ll be good for you but is actually very, very bad—for example it’s (barely) disguised marketing, or misinformation.
As one Zhihu user wrote (link in Chinese), when positive chicken soup for soul stops attracting readers, catering to people’s sense of envy and grievance works, because people love reading about the downfall of people such as professors and students who are at the top of the social pyramid. “Parents and teachers love comparing the audience [who read such articles] with that group of people… The more hatred there is, the bigger the audience,” the user wrote.
In one sense, Mimeng’s success is connected with sang culture, the feelings of hopelessness and pressure that many young people in China say they experience in the face of immense competition. Articles that talk in a highly emotive way about class divides, internet startups, success, and struggle are resonating with young people, Wu Qiang, an independent political commentator told BBC Chinese (link in Chinese).
One post titled “It’s a bit shameful to admit that my assistants are only making 50,000 yuan a month,” drew a lot of readers, since that’s actually an incredibly good salary, particularly for people with little experience. Mimeng explained the headline by saying (link in Chinese) how her two assistants always deliver beyond her expectations, making her feel she just can’t pay them enough. “A lot of people ask what makes them good enough to make 50,000 yuan a month just two years after graduation? Of course, it’s their capabilities, aspirations, and flattering abilities.”
Her ability to know what would make people click made for a successful business. Mimeng’s WeChat account reportedly charged as much as 750,000 yuan ($110,000) for a mention in an article. One story, “Do you know why you are poor? Because you like saving money” appeared to be little more than a marketing vehicle for a shopping event by JD.com, China’s second-biggest e-commerce company.
As part of the backlash, after the January article went viral, some people began judging their social circle by looking at how many friends subscribed to Mimeng’s account (link in Chinese)—with fewer subscribers meaning a more sophisticated circle.
“We encourage methods that use proper marketing and give real information to the audience, but if you are only creating conflict, chasing trending topics, or just playing on the sentiments of the general public, you will ultimately disappear,” one Mimeng critic wrote on Weibo (link in Chinese).


Movie News: Geoff Tate, Formerly of Queensrÿche, Stars in THE BURNINGMORE DEATHS
On February 14th, MVD Entertainment will release the feature film debut of Geoff Tate, former lead vocalist of the mega-platinum metal band Queensrÿche. Entitled THE BURNINGMORE DEATHS, the horror film - written and directed by Jonathan Williams - is inspired by true events surrounding unsolved murders captured on security cameras during a production shoot of a Home Improvement TV show pilot.
Tate takes on the role of James Parrish, a man who allegedly killed his own wife and three children before disappearing without a trace. With the home now vacated and boarded up, a home improvement company gets permission to film the renovation process for a test pilot for a TV network, not knowing that Parrish had returned to take up residence once again in the derelict building. Bloody chaos ensues - and it's all captured on camera!
THE BURNINGMORE DEATHS features an original score by Andrew Kadin with additional music by Dawn of Solace and Geoff Tate.
"I think I've always done it... In our own shows and with the way I present music," said Tate. "It all has a bit of a stage acting bend to it. So this wasn't really a stretch for me. It was just playing to a different audience, to a camera rather than a room full of people, but it's the same thing. You play-act and you make stuff up and you present that like you would in a stage show. "
THE BURNINGMORE DEATHS will be available on all digital stores for download and also available on DVD in retail stores, the MVD Shop, and on Amazon.
Blu-Ray Review: ALLIED
Rest in Peace, Bill Paxton
Blu-Ray Review: DOCTOR STRANGE
Blu-Ray News: ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY on Digi...
Blu-Ray Review: KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1985)
Blu-Ray News: New Restoration of 1933 Disaster Fil...
Blu-Ray Review: THE KLANSMAN
Blu-Ray Review: MOONLIGHT
Blu-Ray News: Lost 3-D Classic, SEPTEMBER STORM, C...
Blu-Ray News: TREMORS 6 Now in Production
Blu-Ray Review: MANCHESTER BY THE SEA
Blu-Ray Review: BAD SANTA 2
Movie News: DOCTOR STRANGE - Team Thor 2 and End T...
Blu-Ray News: SING Blu-ray/DVD Release + ALL NEW M...
Movie News: COLLIDE - See Nicholas Hoult's Epic Au...
Blu-Ray Review: LEONARD COHEN: I'M YOUR MAN
Blu-Ray Review: ARRIVAL
Blu-Ray Review: THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN
Blu-Ray Review: BILLY LYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK
Blu-Ray News: Coming in March from KINO LORBER STU...
Blu-Ray Review: THE 9TH LIFE OF LOUIS DRAX
Blu-Ray Review: DIRTY DANCING: 30TH ANNIVERSARY ED...
Movie News: Geoff Tate, Formerly of Queensrÿche, S...
Blu-Ray Review: BALLERS: THE COMPLETE SECOND SEASON
DVD Giveaway: TELETUBBIES: BIG HUGS
Blu-Ray Review: BEYOND REDEMPTION
Blu-Ray Review: LIFE ON THE LINE
Blu-Ray Review: MASTERMINDS (2016)


Taste of Cinema - Movie Reviews and Classic Movie Lists > Lists > Film Lists > 10 Films That Best Represent The Elements of Art
10 Films That Best Represent The Elements of Art
Posted on August 2, 2016 August 2, 2016 by Emma Roberts
The connections between film and other forms of visual art including drawing, painting, and sculpture are limitless. Line, shape, form, color, texture, value, and space are the building blocks of art. All artworks, including film, utilize these elements to convey their message, but some works articulate elements in an especially poignant manner.
The following list includes seven films that best embody individual elements and three films that combine two elements harmoniously:
1. The Third Man – Line
Carol Reed’s The Third Man (1949) tells the story of Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton), a pulp fiction writer who travels to Vienna. Upon his arrival, Martins begins to examine the the mysterious death of his old friend, Harry Lime (Orson Welles.) The Third Man opens with a zither’s strings zoomed into semi-abstraction. These strings establish the important role that line plays in the film.
Vienna is illustrated as a complex system of lines, much like the lines that compose The Third Man’s iconic Ferris wheel. Emphasis on perspective lines draws attention to Vienna as a crucial element in the unfolding plot.
Dating back to the Renaissance period, painters have used perspective lines to create the illusion of depth. The Third Man uses the lines of the landscape to retract to a clear vanishing point. The perspective lines of the film continuously emphasize distance, in a physical and emotional sense, between characters.
The logic centrality of Renaissance perspective is rejected in The Third Man’s canted angles. Canted angles create diagonals that emphasize Vienna’s unstable atmosphere. Minimal camera movement serves to push importance onto the bazaar angles. The city’s lines work as an obstructive force to Holly, an outsider.
As Holly navigates down a crumbled set of public stairs to escape an angry crowd, it is to be questioned which force is working more strongly against Holly, the people of Vienna or Vienna itself?
The film’s conglomeration of lines, often with no clear horizon line, are as confusing as an M.C. Escher painting. The utter lack of spatial orientation conveys the confusion that an outsider like Holly experiences.
2. Ballet Mécanique – Shape
Fernand Léger brought together the principles of Cubism and Purism in his work as a painter. Léger studied of form while taking direction from bourgeoning technology and machines. His film Ballet Mécanique (1924) is a dreamlike sequence of events.
The film juxtaposes the tools of daily life, including wire whisks and copper pots, against humans in a machine-like fashion. The precise lines that compose machinery’s clean shapes are contrasted against the organic human form. The structure of daily life is examined in a dance of the recognizable and distorted.
In the opening and closing sequences, a figure resembling Charlie Chaplin is presented. While holding some human features, the figure is composed of two-dimensional shapes and moves like an automated machine. Léger also employs a motif of rapidly alternating two-dimensional circles and triangles in Ballet Mécanique.
The illusion of movement is created through this rotation of shapes. The machine-like quality given to basic geometric shapes reinforces the Purist practice of emphasizing machines’ precise and high functioning lines and design. Léger and artists of his time explored the mechanical world, and its relation to humans, through their work. They were both captivated and disillusioned by technology.
Through animation, geometric shapes take on both human and machine qualities. Léger continuous breathes life into sterile and linear through movement. Shapes and the tools of daily life play the role of dancers as they rapidly move, creating a ballet.
3. Man with a Movie Camera – Form
In Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera (1929) a cameraman (Mikhail Kaufman) records the daily functions of a city and its citizens. The film is composed solely of imagery, void of intertitles, dialogue, and character development. The visually driven film celebrates contemporary city life and the forms that compose it.
Just as the Cubists showed multiple views of a form in one image, Man with a Movie Camera encompasses the entirety of a dynamic city in one composition. In the beginning of the film, the harmonious choreography of the city is illustrated through a series of shots of the city’s inhabitants asleep while dually showing the quiet city streets. An idea is illustrated with out the use of words or intertitles, merely forms.
Fast pace of the film allows for juxtaposition of images and ideas. The forms of the film match each other shot to shot. For example, the circular motion of threads moving on a sewing machine mirrors the circular form of a smokestack.
This juxtaposition shows that the city functions as a whole harmonious form across professions, from service to industry. Form-matching is a prominent device used in the film to illustrate the city’s synchronization to the audience without the use of words.
4. Three Colors Trilogy – Color
Ambiguous connections are strung together through love, loss, and breathtaking cinematography in the Three Colors Trilogy. Directed by Krysztof Kieślowski, the trio of films are named named after the colors of the French flag; blue, white, and red. These colors serve dually as motifs and symbols throughout the trilogy.
Cinematographically, the films’ shots are saturated with the colors of their titles. The beautiful heroines of each film (Juliette Binoche, Julie Delpy, and Irène Jacob) are often shown under the tinted light of the respective colors of the French flag.
These characters, along with White’s Zbigniew Zamachowski are driven by what the colors represent in relation to the French flag. During the French Revolution, the colors of the flag represented central tenets, liberty, equality, and fraternity. In Blue, after Julie (Binoche) loses her husband and daughter she must liberate herself to start anew.
In White, Karol (Zamachowski) seeks to gain power equal to the power that his ex-wife wields over him. In the final chapter, Red, Valentine (Jacobs) fosters a fraternal connection to an ex-judge (Jean-Louis Trintignant.)
The trilogy encompasses tragedy, comedy, and romance, while fighting against the boundaries of genre. The films are guided by their seemly disconnected characters and their motivations.
Just as blue, white, and red are individual colors that compose a meaningful whole, the French flag, the superficially disjointed stories of the trilogy are woven together to form a complete illustration of the human experience.
5. Picnic at Hanging Rock – Texture
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) is Peter Weir’s adaptation of Joan Lindsay’s novel of the same name. The film centers on the disappearance of four girls at the mysterious Hanging Rock on Valentine’s Day.
For over forty years, the angelic quality of the schoolgirl’s lacey costumes has inspired the world fashion. The fixation on the characters’ gauzy dresses and the characters’ lack of clothing contributes the film’s sense of fetishism.
As the girls wander around the rock during their school trip, their delicate costumes are juxtaposed against haunting circumstances. The overall whiteness of the costumes and brownness of Hanging Rock establishes color consistency that works to emphasize texture
. The jaggedness of the rock contrasts the softness of the girls’ dresses as they weave through the rocky maze. Fear is found in what is not soft and approachable, the rock. Hanging Rock encompasses the fears of all those who lay a hand on it and feel its foreboding roughness.
The delicate texture of the dresses serves to reinforce the feminine nature of the pubescent girls and the semi-eroticism of the film. Texture evokes a sense of tactility. The mist, lace, and greenery that are key to the film’s cinematography all allude to familiar and seductive feelings.
The audience desires the physicality of the landscape and characters on their hands. However, everything in Picnic at Hanging Rock is an illusion, both in the sense of false tactility created and any kind of resolution imagined.
best films elements art
15 Movies Based On True Stories That Are Completely Inaccurate
The 25 Best Yakuza Films of All Time


Vision Advisory Committee
Philip P. Corboy, M.D. Memorial Award
Hawai’i Programs
Hawai’i Cataract Days
Rural Missions
Volunteer Faculty
Self-Sustainable Clinics
Sponsor A Patient
Aloha Friday
Press Releases and Media
About Hawaiian Eye Foundation: Awards
Dr. Philip M. Corboy (1906-1992)
The Philip M. Corboy, M.D., Perpetual Award for Distinguished Service to Ophthalmology became the Philip M. Corboy, M.D., Memorial Award when Dr. Corboy lost his battle with cancer in March 1992.
This award was established in 1986, the 7th year of the Royal Hawaiian Eye Meeting (RHEM), in honor of Philip M. Corboy, MD. Dr. Corboy served ophthalmology from 1933, when he started his first practice, until 1982, when he retired; nearly 50 years as clinician, teacher, and innovator. The PMC award is presented annually at RHEM to an ophthalmologist who typifies a career of excellence in service to his patients and peers, honoring the memory of beloved Dr. Phil.
Philip Medford Corboy was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1906. He received his medical degree from Loyola University and served hi Eye-Ear-Nose & Throat residency at the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary under Dr. Harry Gradle, and later did postgraduate work in Vienna.
Dr. Corboy subsequently practiced Eye-Ear-Nose & Throat in Valparaiso, Indiana and taught residents at the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary. When Dr. Corboy began his practice in Indiana, he established a suite in a hotel for inpatient and outpatient surgery, an inexpensive alternative to hospitalization during the depths of the depression. His stories of those days were well worth hearing, for this was probably the first non-hospital eye surgery facility in America!
During WWII, Dr. Corboy spent five years in the Pacific theater, first on hospital ships and subsequently as Chief of EENT services at Pearl Harbor. After the war, Dr. Corboy limited his practice to ophthalmology and remained in Honolulu, where he cared for patients, taught students, designed instruments, and raised three fine children with his beloved wife, Cassie.
Dr. Corboy served his community as Commissioner of the Hawaii Statehood Commission, Commander of the American Legion, as French Vice-Consul in Hawaii, and in numerous civic clubs and service organizations. One of Dr. Corboy’s most remarkable accomplishments was linguistics. He spoke ten languages, five of them fluently. “My linguistic abilities were fostered by my repeated trips to Europe studying with European surgeons. I realized the immense value of being able to speak Hawaiian and colloquial Japanese to my non-English speaking patients.”When he retired from his practice, Dr. Corboy decided to keep busy – this time as Honorary Consul for Brazil. This post required him to learn a new language at the age of 76!
In 1982, when Dr. Corboy retired from medicine, he turned his practice over to his son, John. “If there were any disappointments about retiring, they were overwhelmed by the pleasure I felt seeing John following in my footsteps aPMC and JMC photon an ophthalmologist. He is a teacher, an author, but most importantly, a caring clinician who is truly devoted to his patients and his staff.”
Dr. Corboy was an accomplished sailor, an avid pilot, a champion skeet shooter, and a recognized sports fisherman: he held three world records for deep sea fishing on light tackle.
The Winners of the Philip M. Corboy, M.D. Memorial Award for Distinguished Service to Ophthalmology:
1986 Jerald L. Tennant, MD
1987 Allan E. Kolker, MD
1988 Irving H. Leopold, MD
1989 William H. Havener, MD
1990 David Paton, MD
1991 Norval E. Christy, MD and Dorothy E. Christy, RN
1992 Louis J. Girard, MD
1993* Richard P. Kratz, MD
1994 Malcolm McCannel, MD
1995 Manus C. Kraff, MD
1996 J. Charles Casebeer, MD
1997 Marshall M. Parks, MD
1998 Bernard Becker, MD
1999 Harvey A. Lincoff, MD
2000 Lorenz E. Zimmerman, MD
2001 Norman S. Jaffe, MD
2002 Alice R. McPherson, MD, FACS, FICS
2003 Arthur Jampolsky, MD
2004 Claes H. Dohlman, MD
2005 Bradley R. Straatsma, MD
2006 Robert M. Sinskey, MD
2007 David J. McIntyre, MD, FACS
2008 James P. Gills, MD
2009 Dennis D. Shepard, MD, FACS
2010 C. William Simcoe, MD
2011 Herbert E. Kaufman, MD
2012 Robert C. Drews, MD, FACS
2013 Spencer P. Thornton, MD
2014 I. Howard Fine, MD
2015 Randall J. Olsen, MD
2016 Henry Baylis, MD
2017 Roger F. Steinert, MD
2018 Richard (Dick) L. Lindstrom, MD
2019 Steve Charles, MD
2020 Irene Maumenee, MD
2021 Bruce Shields, MD
*became the Memorial Award in 1993. (Prior to this date, it was the Philip M. Corboy, M.D. Perpetual Award for Distinguished Service to Ophthalmology).
INSIGHT interview with Dr. Philip from 1994
“In January 1994, Jan-Michelle Sawyer wrote the following article as a Special Feature to INSIGHT, titled Dr. Phil: “Serving My Patients Was My Greatest Joy”.
Philip M. Corboy, M.D. is a kind and gentle man whose pale blue and deeply clear eyes has looked into the eyes of over 100,000 patients during his 50 years of practicing medicine. Dr. Phil, as he is affectionately called, is a man who has spent his life “looking people right in the eye.”
Dr. Phil was born in Valparaiso, Indiana, in 1906, of parents who were both teachers. Growing up during a time when people worked and looked after one another, Dr. Phil remembers one man, a doctor, who would have a great influence in directing him to go into medicine: “My mother told me once, that when I was six months old I was very ill and my life was saved by our family physician, Dr. William Bohart. Dr. Bohart touched my life at another time while I was in medical school, when he performed an emergency appendectomy on my ruptured appendix and saved my life once again. I remember him as being a man of principle and conviction and he influenced my life greatly when I decided to become a physician.”
Dr. Phil was barely 17 years old and he tried his hands at boxing and completed in the Chicago Golden Gloves competition in 1923. “I barely finished the first round,” remembers Dr. Phil. “I had been an amateur boxer and thought I might pursue boxing seriously. But after that contest, I retired my thoughts of ever boxing again and decided to find a new career! Along that same time I watched the funeral procession of President Harding in Marion, Ohio. I was a youngster then and I remember the colorful sights of watching the Pennsylvania railroad train pass through the town with is coach draped in flags and banners honoring the president.”
Dr. Phil receive his medical degree from Loyola University and served his eye-ear-nose and throat residency at the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary. He completed his postgraduate work over a period of four years, during which time he studied with the best European surgeons from Germany, Austria, Greece and Italy. “I was very grateful to study medicine with the best surgeons of that time,” states Dr. Phil. “These men were generous in sharing their knowledge and I came back to the United States with an edge in experience and technique that placed me ahead of most of my colleagues.”
Dr. Phil started his medical career in 1933 in his home town of Valparaiso, Indiana. “I can remember my first patient. I was painting the office one Sunday afternoon and I hadn’t even officially opened for business. But this guy came in with an abscessed tooth and he was in pain. So, I stopped painting and fortunately had the knowledge and skill to remove that painful tooth of his right then and there. I guess that completed my practice in dentistry!”
“I was the first and only eye surgeon established in that city,” continues Dr. Phil. “The hospital there really wasn’t a hospital of any standards, so I established a suite for inpatient and outpatient surgery in a hotel on the fifth floor. It was an alternative to hospitalization during the depression and it worked out great for everyone. The patients got a room, three meals a day and round the clock nursing care for just $20.00 a day. After about three years, the city finally built a new hospital of which I was in charge of the eye department, so I didn’t need my hotel suites any longer.”
In 1936, while travelling in Tahiti, Dr. Phil met his future bride, the former Clarice (Cassie) Matthewson of New Zealand. Theirs’ was an “instant fell in love” experience and after corresponding with each other for one year the couple would finally meet again in Honolulu on May 1, 1937. “The happiest day of my life was meeting Cassie,” states Dr. Phil. “I knew she was the gal for me. She arrived on a Saturday in Honolulu and the following Saturday we were married at the St. Augustine Church in Waikiki. I was 31 years old and Cassie was 26 years old and we have been happily married for 54 years. I think that it takes lover, prayer and sharing to make a marriage work. Ours has been a complete joy to me and very rewarding.”
While the young Corboys were vacationing in Acapulco, Dr. Phil was called to active duty with the Naval reserve, one year prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, Dr. Phil spent five years in the Pacific theater, and was in charge of the eye departments on several hospital ships. Dr. Phil saw active duty in the Coral Sea battle and the battle of Midway. Following the battle of Midway, Dr. Phil was transferred to Pearl Harbor and was in charge of the dispensary at Pearl Harbor and was stationed at the naval hospital at Barbers Point. At the conclusion of WWII he stayed in Honolulu where he felt that he could best serve his patients and opened his first office on Oahu at the Young Hotel building in downtown Honolulu and then later in Waikiki.
“My practice in Waikiki was very active,” recalls Dr. Phil. “It wasn’t uncommon for me to see 40 to 60 patients a day with only a support staff of four. And at the same time, Cassie and I were busy raising a family. Our first child was John, followed two years later by our second boy, Robert and finally by our third child Sally. All of our children have made Cassie and me feel very proud and of course I am pleased that John followed my career in medicine by becoming an accomplished and internationally acclaimed ophthalmologist. “
Over the years while practicing medicine, Dr. Phil was able to utilize his extraordinary talents in linguistics. He speaks seven languages, four of them fluently. “My linguistic abilities were fostered by my repeated trips to Europe studying with European surgeons. I realized the immense value of being able to speak Hawaiian and colloquial Japanese to my non-English speaking patients. It was just another way that I was able to give more service to my patients. After all, I was devoted to the security of my patients. They came first, last and always with me and my staff. We all felt like one close family and I still get letters from the people that worked for me, as well as from former patients. It means a lot to me to be remembered.”
“I’ve had some interesting medical cases,” continues Dr. Phil. “In 1942 while our naval hospital ship was stationed in Tonga, I performed eye surgery on the Queen of Tonga and saved both her life and eye sight. My son John continues to serve the people of Tonga and the Queen’s son, who is the King now, still remembers me. Another patient I remember fondly is the 27 game winner and baseball player Don Nucombe. In 1955 Don had acute glaucoma and I operated on his eye and saved his sight. He’s now in the Baseball Hall of Fame!”
In 1982 Dr. Phil retired from medicine and turned his medical practice over to his son John. “If there were any disappointments about retiring,” states Dr. Phil, “they were overwhelmed by the pleasure I felt in seeing John following my footsteps as an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon. Of course, I like to think that I’m still serving the people of Hawaii through my son and serving them well.”
It’s only been nine years since Dr. Phil left his office in Waikiki on Royal Hawaiian Avenue. During these past years Dr. Phil has been active as Honorary Consul for Brazil. The post required him to learn a new language at 76 years of age. Dr. Phil and his wife Cassie still live in the house that they moved into over 40 years ago. “I’ve watched the city grow and my life and family grow. I’m grateful for the love of good friends, loving family and the remembrances of patients whom I served over the years. If Dr. Bohart could see me now, I hope that he would have been proud of my work in serving others. He taught me the value and importance of always looking people right in the eye.”
Private: Awards
Stay up-to-date with Hawaiian Eye Foundation. Get our latest news and updates by email:
contact@hawaiianeyefoundation.org
Hawaiian Eye Foundation is a division of Project Vision Hawaii.
If you are using a screen reader and are having problems using this website, please call (808) 536-3961
©2023 All Rights Reserved. Designed by Glacial Multimedia, Inc.