rlfj: Blog

I had several comments on the validity of the Iraq/Kurdistan/Turkey scenario. Here’s a few of my responses:

1 – Turkey is trying to make nice with the Kurds. The PKK has had a low-level guerilla war with Turkey for decades, but in 2012, Erdogan began legitimate negotiations with the Kurds, and the response was quite positive. A de facto cease fire was in effect for most of 2013. The Kurds have a lot of oil and Turkey wants it.

2 – Iraq didn’t have chemical weapons when we invaded in 2003, so how come they have them in 2006? Speaking as a former chemist, mustard gas is one of the easier poison gases to make. They could easily make some mustard gas in three years. Note that in earlier Iraqi attacks on the Kurds, they freely used mustard gas, even though they also used nerve gas.

3 – The figures for the Iraqi army are legit. In 2003, on the eve of the American invasion, the Iraqi Republican Guard consisted of half a dozen mechanized and armored divisions, plus roughly another division of the Special Republican Guard. They were the cream of the crop, and the only troops that Hussein really trusted. They formed the backbone of his assault into Kuwait in 1991 and were the core of his strength afterwards. They totaled about 75,000 troops, about 850 T-72 tanks, and lots of other armored vehicles. Continued slow growth from 2003 to 2006 would legitimately allow a force size as I mention in the story. In the event of any hypothetical attack into Kurdistan, they would have been the assault force.

4 – Carl can’t send diplomats anywhere in Air Force One, since the plane only gets that name when he is onboard. Technically quite true, but to the average person and broadcaster, meaningless. To the average person Air Force One is the big white whale of a 747. While there are other planes available both to the White House and the State Department, sending diplomats on the 747 gives them an immediate boost in prestige. This has been done more than a few times, and is what coined the phrase ‘shuttle diplomacy’ when Kissinger did it.

I generally got positive reviews on how Carl handled Katrina. A number of the locals agreed with my characterization of Blanco as a lightweight. A couple referred to her as everybody’s favorite grandmother and out of her depth. Most people who knew Nagin agreed with the characterization of him as well. In short order he would end up in jail on graft charges.

One reader complained that Carl fired the Engineer General because the storm went to Category 5, and he only promised the levees would hold until Category 3. I did not fully explain that by the time the storm hit land, it had dropped back down to a 3 level. In addition, his comment that any breaches would be “isolated” and that problems had been “taken into consideration” were obviously wrong.

I got a huge amount of info and stories about what people saw or lived through in the South during Katrina and Rita. I could have written a book on the storms and their aftermaths, but I just can’t afford the chapters. I tried to add some of this information in 160, but that is basically where it is ending. Thank you to everybody who sent me info. It was appreciated.

I had some religious types complain about Carl’s take on creationism, and some others complain about Carl’s take on global warming. The same goes for the latest I wrote on taxes, the deficit, and several other paragraphs that touched on social stuff. For those who think I am a closet Commie, trust me, I get just as much crap from the Democrats as I get from the right wingers. Hey guys, get over it! I am leaving the story as is.

Some interesting comments and questions about Carl, Jeana, & Michael. Nature vs. nurture? Why didn’t Jean come forward? How could Carl be so stupid to have unprotected sex? I think I finally wrapped them up at the start of 158.

I get recurring questions about what will Carl do about various problems facing the country, or facing the world, or destroying either of the above. Why hasn’t Carl solved global warming? What will Carl do about the transfer of jobs overseas? Why hasn’t Carl fixed the American political system? Why doesn’t Carl end the hopeless drug war? Why is Carl only doing the easy stuff, like balancing the budget and not going to war?

The fact is that Carl is simply one guy, and he has a maximum of 7 years to accomplish anything. One thing I have learned in writing this story is the utter impossibility of one man changing everything. Many of the problems facing the U.S. have been building for 30 or 40 years and won’t change overnight. We spent decades working our way into this mess, and it might take just as long to work our way out.

For instance, when I was blocking out chapters for this I thought, why can’t Carl end the isolation of Cuba and renew diplomatic relations with them? By any stretch of the imagination, the current policy has been a total failure, with no effect on the Cuban political system and terrible effects on the Cuban people. If Nixon could go to China, why couldn’t Carl go to Havana? The thing is, when Nixon went to China, millions of Chinese Americans weren’t going to scream. Any American President who tries to make nice with Cuba while either of the Castros is still alive will permanently lose Florida to the other party for the next 20 years. If Carl had done it in his first term, he would have lost the election in 2004. If he does it in his second term, McCain never wins election. The same could be said if a Democrat was the President. There won’t be a good answer to this until Castro and that generation die off.

So Carl does what he can and tries to limit the worst abuses of the system and prevent things from getting worse. I leave it to the reader to decide if that puts him in the above average category or not.

It seems that not everybody enjoys a good cliffhanger. When I first published Chapter 153 a number of people made various comments concerning the marital state of my parents at the time of my birth, and a few others asked about my unnatural sexual interest in my mother. You have to love a good cliffhanger.

I had a few comments about the actual locations of some of the Marines and ships in 2003. My response? Since we didn’t have the massive interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troop and ship deployments would have been very, very different. If I am sending in the Marines, why not let it be Charlie’s bunch? Several readers reported that they had been present in Monrovia shortly after the Marines went in for real, and my description was relatively accurate.

There were some comments that it was pretty obvious that once Charlie and the Fort McHenry turned up off Monrovia, he was bound to get into the action, regardless of Carl’s orders. That’s probably true, but I couldn’t find a conceivable way not to foreshadow things. Sorry if the surprise was ruined.

Everybody loves Stormy. Presidents and their dogs have a storied history in politics. There was FDR and Fala, Nixon and his Checkers speech, and LBJ picking up a beagle by the ears (not really, but the photo didn’t show that the dog was actually standing on the ground and he just lifted the ears.) Since then we’ve had a ‘controversy’ about the Obama’s dog having a handler and Biden’s dogs biting people. Stormy fits right in. To the best of my knowledge, only Trump has never had a dog, or any other pet.

My dates on the Liberian problem are relatively close to what really happened, and we can assume that enough of a butterfly effect occurred to match the story.