editorial

There's the ring of truth, and then there's this proposition's dull thud

Clinker is the glassy cinder material left over from the burning of coal which is then ground into a fine dust to make cement. Breathing it in too often is a good way to get silicosis, a terrible lung disease. Clinker mills, the factories at which the cinders are powdered for use in cement, are some of the dirtiest industrial plants there are. Facilities where clinker is mixed with other ingredients, moved around or stored in bulk are none too clean either.

PIMPSA has applied for a permit to build a cement plant where clinker will be pulverized and mixed with other ingredients at Rodman, right next door to Panama's coast guard base, across the canal entrance from the Port of Balboa, and a short distance as the dry season winds blow from all the tourist developments at Amador, the Ancon Hill National Park and another even closer protected wildlife area. PIMPSA's initial environmental impact statement was a simple conclusion that the plant is non-polluting and was rejected by the National Environmental Authority (ANAM). But now PIMPSA is moving for a reconsideration and ANAM director Ligia Castro says that while on a trip to Spain she drove by a clinker plant and didn't notice any dust. That fits right in with PIMPSA's ad campaign about how there are non-polluting clinker plants all over Europe.

But you know what? PIMPSA isn't telling us the whole truth. Even those allegedly non-polluting European clinker plants that are built underground to control emissions give off dust. Some of the plants that the ads hail as clean examples are the sources of constant complaints from neighbors because of the dust that blows their way. Some of the plants that the ads say exist close to residential or tourist areas are in fact well removed. Some of the facilities PIMPSA described as clinker milling plants are actually just storage silos.

Clinker plant emissions can be reduced, if the money is invested to do that. However, there are strong economic incentives to cut corners on pollution control, and under the Torrijos administration ANAM has a poor record of enforcing existing environmental standards. Add to that the proposed PIMPSA plant's pricetag of about half of what the allegedly non-polluting European plants cost and the sum is a reasonable presumption that what's contemplated here is actually an ordinary gritty cement plant that would be a nuisance to all of its neighbors.

Considering that PIMPSA wants to set up shop next door to the piers where this country's law enforcement patrol vessels are based, the pollution problem rises to become a threat to Panama's national security. Sick sailors and equipment that's covered in abrasive dust would weaken the Panama Canal's defenses and hamper our already inadequate efforts to deal with international criminals who operate in our territorial waters.

Panama needs cement and clinker is part of the process. PIMPSA should be allowed to build a clinker plant in an appropriate place. Rodman is not such a place.

Get US troops out of Iraq, rebuild US forces, rethink US diplomacy

Republicans who believe their own wishful propaganda may be offended by its use by Democrats, but the proper word to characterize the result of US intervention in Iraq is "defeat." A most appalling civil war between that country's Shia majority and Sunni minority is underway and it makes no sense for American military forces to remain in the middle of it. Now is the time to start pulling the troops out and talking to Iraq's neighbors about containing the situation.

It's time for the American people and government to take a reality check, notice that things are pretty grim, and make some tough choices.

How grim?

Consider that both Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf and the former US ambassador to the United Nations Richard C. Holbrooke warn that NATO and the government headed by Hamid Karzai are losing Afghanistan to a resurgent Taliban.

Consider the Pentagon's military modernization program, the Future Combat Systems, which it had planned to start implementing last year but is behind schedule: even by optimistic measures it would not be fully deployed until 2035, by which time it would surely be obsolete.

Consider that US military is physically exhausted, its brightest officers are either gone or humiliated because of the Bush administraton's insistence on a public divorce from reality, its wounded veterans are being cheated of the care they earned, its recruitment is insufficient and its rates of desertions and absences without leave are soaring.

Consider that the United States isn't getting along very well with many of its traditional closest allies and George W. Bush is lagging behind Osama bin Laden in public approval ratings among the world's more than one billion Muslims.

Consider that in the long run the worst part of the US defeat in Iraq may be the money that has been spent there, at a time when US economic power in the world is in precipitous decline and to the point that China or any one of several lesser powers could throw the American economy into an instant depression just by exchanging a good portion of their US dollars for other currencies.

George W. Bush's irresponsibility has been breathtaking. His policies effectively commit the United States to a generation or more of war without an accompanying commitment of the human and financial resources that such an adventure would require. Look not to Lyndon Johnson's escalation in Vietnam for an analoguous rash act. Look to the 13th century Children's Crusade.

Yes, "Peace Now" is a good idea, but there is no quick or painless exit from this dilemma. There will be no "peace dividend" because the United States needs to spend more money to fix a broken military. There will be no peace treaty with bin Laden's jihadi movement. There will be no improvement of America's reputation in the world without changing the behaviors that have made it so unpopular.

Regime change is needed in Washington, and next year American voters will have the opportunity to make it. However, a Democratic victory that leads to little more than a resumption of Bill Clinton's old policies would fall short of what's needed to face the crisis.

Does the United States have any hope of defeating the jihadis? Yes, but despite its military and law enforcement components that's mainly a political struggle to isolate the heterodox fanatics who obey bin Laden's fatwas and thus weaken them to the point that they lose their ability to wage war. A lot of bigoted attitudes and unwise policies need to be abandoned in order to advance this political struggle, which should never be confused with a crusade.

Is the United States to gain rather than lose allies? Then those responsible for giving the country the reputation of a scofflaw human rights violator need to be brought to justice. The Washington architects of torture policies, not just low-level guards, should be tried and punished for their crimes.

The odious doctrine of preventive war will surely not survive the Bush administration's departure, but will Americans thereafter be able to credibly tell all potential adversaries that woe is the lot of those who would pick a war with the United States? To be certain of that would require expensive measures to rebuild the armed forces.

Is the worst bloodbath in Iraq's bloody history to be averted or at least limited? Then the United States needs to start talking with rather than shouting at Iran, as obnoxious as its current president may be.

Nothing is going to be easy. In fact most of the current US predicament is the product of facile thinking in high places and a lazy public acceptance of it so long as its results were not an obvious disaster. But now only fools and charlatans deny the disaster and ordinary citizens are called upon to sharpen their minds and accept sacrifices to meet a challenge that will still be there after the ill-advised adventure in Iraq is ended.

Bear in mind...

I used to be Snow White --- but I drifted.

Mae West

There can't be a republic in which the people are not secure in the exercise of their own faculties.

Simón Bolívar

Habit, n., a shackle for the free.

Ambrose Bierce