Non PC in Latte Land

How big is that minority again?

2005-01-23T19:19:00.000-08:00

Thomas Friedman, a man I usually respect even when I disagree, has an article in the times 1/23/05 Divided We Stand.

He quotes Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, saying "This is not a war with the Muslim religion, he stressed, but with a violent "fascist" Muslim minority."

I agree with that. But the real question is "how big a minority?" Is this 1% or 49%? At some point it doesn't matter that less than 50% of the people are our fascist enemies.

At the end of the article we find two French born muslim girls who don't trust French TV, admire Osama before all other world figures, support suicide terrorism, consider themselves Muslims first and French last. They report that all their friends agree.

Mr. Friedman interviewed these women, one of which was in a full burkha, in front of their French public high school which is a short subway ride from the Eiffel tower.

That minority seems to look fairly large, Mr. Friedman. In fact, how exactly do we know that it IS a minority?

Social Security Ideas.

2005-01-09T14:27:00.000-08:00

Attempts at SS reform are a potential disaster for the Republicans. Our system simply isn't set up to deal with a problem like this, and perhaps no republic is. (The Bread and Circuses Disease).

Phillip Longman believes we should Give More Credit to Prolific Parents and I agree.

I think, however, there is much merit in combining the proposals a bit. My own is: Freeze guaranteed benefits at there current levels for people who do not contribute high school educated children to the system. Give full wage indexing (as an example) to parents who contribute 3 college educated children to the system. The details would be shaped by complex actuarial calculations as well as various social policy ideas. We could reward foreign adoption. We could make the credit for well educated children dependent upon legitimate birth.

I'd love to see actuarial analysis of things like this, but I lack the information to even start.

He can take Saddam, I'll take Bush

2004-12-18T13:39:00.000-08:00

In response to Samuel Hazo of December 18, 2004.

Larry Diamond, a long time supporter of human rights, had this to say in the current Foreign Affairs issue:

"Let Smith and other critics visit Iraq and talk to Iraqis who are organizing for democracy, development, and human rights. Let them talk to the families that lived under constant, humiliating, Baathist rule. Let them see some of the roughly 300 mass graves of opponents of the regime who were brutally slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. Then they will find out who the devil really was."

War Mongers? If that be the truth make the most of it. The effort in Iraq is a moral choice Americans can be very proud of. The proper question isn't "Why did we attack Iraq?", in purely moral terms the question is "What took us so long."

It is Mr. Hazo's opposition to the war in Iraq that is a moral monstrosity. Mr. Hazo, fighting evil isn't immoral. Colluding with it and protecting it is.
The Devil isn't the United States. The Devil was Saddam, the Islamofascists, and their enablers like Mr. Hazo. Mr. Hazo is pro-Saddam. There is no other honest way to interpret it.

He can stand with Saddam. I'll stand with Bush.

Racial Differences

2004-12-11T21:47:00.000-08:00

If this doesn't get me voted off the island I don't know what will.

Lynne Varner’s article “Conquer your fear and face America’s complex palette” (Dec. 7) continually implored the reader not to tune out since she was talking about ‘race relations’. She focuses on the different impact, heavily correlated by race, of people living in White Center compared to where she lives. I can understand why Ms. Varner might want to find a racist reason for the disparities. If she could, then people like her could fix the disparities they view as so unsightly.

But those large disparities are not something racist strangers do to the people of White Center. It is a result of behavior they inflict on themselves. In 1999 the illegitimacy rate of Washington State black mothers was over 50% (and more than twice that of whites). There is no reason to look for further cause of the lower expectations and quality of life in White Center than this behavioral difference. Outsiders did not cause this, and outsiders can not fix it. The residents of White Center will do better when they behave better, and not before.

Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1999 Vol 1 Natality Tables 1-12 and 1-20.

Self aggrandizing left

2004-12-09T20:16:00.000-08:00

I was directed to www.tikkun.org, where I read a nice ditty about how the left criticizes those bad selfish self-interested people in the name of justice and freedom.

Yeah, right. That is why so many Americans drown trying to swim to Cuba. It was why the Communists had to build a wall to keep the hordes from all moving in to their leftist paradise.

Pardon me while I gag.

More Details Here.

Marines get Serious

2004-12-08T13:20:00.000-08:00

BoingBoing

quotes the Boston Globe, talks about our troops in Falluja taking certain actions. These include:

No more Opera sensitive stuff. WE are the alpha group.

DNA tests, Retna scans, required visible ID badges.

Perhaps a requirement that all the men have jobs even if we have to assign them, or perhaps only the jobs we assign (with pay).

Works for me.

Course, the original blogger probably doesn't think so. I'm just guessing.

Peace Through Superior FirePower
Four more years of dead terrorists and lower taxes. I can dig it.

Poetic words for the fighting man

2004-12-01T23:06:00.000-08:00

Fightin' Words by Russ Vaughn

To hell with you wimps from your Ivy League schools,
Sittin’ far from the war tellin’ me about rules
And preachin’ to me your wrong-headed contention
That I should observe the Geneva Convention,
Which doesn’t apply to a terrorist scum
So evil and cruel their own people run from,
Cold-blooded killers who love to behead,
Shove that mother’ Geneva, I’m leavin’ em dead.

I enjoyed it all.

Explaining America ...

2004-12-01T13:47:00.000-08:00

I liked this article which is full of observations on the very large differences between Americans and the rest of the world.

Yes, all the world drinks our culture from a 5" firehose. But they don't really understand us.

I'll comment more later, but go read it. Peace

Comment: How about reduced spending?

2004-12-01T13:37:00.000-08:00

Last post, I linked to a horrified lefty talking about his fears for the next four years. Fears that are, without exception, things I'm hoping for.

I had a comment on this:

I would settle for President Bush and the GOP coltrolled Congress simply reducing spending by about 10% to 15% by sticking to the things actually proscribed by the Constitution.

OK, fair enough. I'd probably axe more than 10% to 15% of federal spending if I could. But it probably won't happen for structural reasons. The deficit, sad to say, is about the only way to restrain spending. But I'd be happy to talk about how to do better or what I would do if I could.

Note: in the lefty article they implied Bush would, indeed, impose a draft. Sorry, that is fever swamp stuff. Won't happen. Period. The only people who talk about the draft or have supported the draft in the last 30 years are Democrats.

Bush: The Next Four Years

2004-11-29T21:26:00.000-08:00

Mr. Harley Sorensen previewed what he thought the next four years under Bush might be like.

I know it is a season for joy, but I don’t think Mr. Sorensen should get our hopes up so much about President Bush. Four more years of lower taxes and dead terrorists is enough to ask of any man. Privatizing Social Security and freeing Iran would be too much to hope for. But we can always dream. Sometimes wishes DO come true.

Why we are REALLY in Iraq ...

2004-11-26T21:50:00.000-08:00

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion from the Australian by Frank Devine

1. Sure we thought Iraq had WMDs. But there were also critically strategic reasons why we had to take Iraq.
2. America has identfied the jihadist campaign as a "Saudi Problem".
3. There are serious problems with attacking Saudi Arabia directly, but notice that the US now has bases surrounding them.
4. Iraq borders six countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Think about it.
5. The US/Jihadist war hangs in the balance in Iraq.
6. We are winning.

From the Article:

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."

Good Stuff. Read my excerpts from the article here if it disappears from before you access the main article.

Europe's Muslim Question

2004-11-25T13:16:00.000-08:00

I replied to the CS Monitor which said:

"Nov. 2 - the day provocative Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered ..."
"How could such a crime occur in one of Europe's most tolerant countries?"

My letter to the editor:

It isn't a perplexing question at all. The Van Gough murder happened in part BECAUSE of Dutch 'tolerance'.

Immigrant groups do not cease to lead seperate lives until they integrate. The problem is that many or most of the Muslim immigrants to Europe did not come with the intention of integrating.

The first EU challenge is they don't believe in a melting pot at all. America has been enriched by immigration due to our melting pot. Europe, which had immigration without the melting pot (and in fact celebration of the fact no melting was required), will find that immigration destroys them.

If Europe doesn't Europeanize Islamic culture then either it will expel its Islamic immigrants or be Islamicized.

The title of your paper is "Christian Science Monitor". Here is a prediction: The great Cathederals of Europe will be Mosques in 50 years. I don't believe the Europeans believe in their heritage enough to defend it and insist on Europeanizing their Islamic immigrants.

But it is wrong not to encourage them to try. Wrong for Christians. Wrong for Civilization itself.

Another side of Marine / Mosque story.

2004-11-22T13:35:00.000-08:00

From MSNBC.

Kevin Sites, the reporter who shot the footage of the Marine incident, has taken a lot of heat.

He acquits himself well in his 'open letter' to the Marines.

My bottom line conclusion on this is that the Marine should walk. The troops should be told to be careful, but they should continue to err on the side of their own preservation.

The Marine appears to have shot someone he shouldn't have. He also appears not to have had a good reason, as seen by someone else in the room, to have made his decision.

BUT it is clear that the Marine DID believe he shot someone who was a danger. Part of the issue might simply have been exhaustion and stress. We won't ever fully know that, but we do know from what he said before he pulled the trigger: "He's f------ faking he's dead -- he's faking he's f------ dead." -- that he thought there was a good reason to pull the trigger.

And that is all that matters, legally.

You could also say that the fact these people were unlawful combatants and monsters shouldn't make a moral difference. I don't quite believe that. Although I hope our forces follow the rules, these guys don't. So I'm not interested in enforcing the rules on our troops unless the situation is unambiguous and clearly without justification.

This doesn't meet that test, either.

Left calls for killing Republicans

2004-11-11T22:07:00.000-08:00

From PowerLine, a link to Maher's site. I pulled these rants off.

Can anyone find something similar from the Right?

(Go to the link under rants for all of them. I only reproduce a few.)

At this point in time, would it be morally defensible to apply a "final solution" to republicans?

I hope the whole lot of them [our soldiers -- ed] are decapitated... but getting the butts blown off will suffice.

Is it my imagination or is this trully something new?

Why do they hate the Dutch?

2004-11-11T21:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656?htv=12 is the film which got van Gogh killed. It is in English but you have to wait about 2 minutes before the English starts.

For a link about what the man who made the movie was talking about, http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/october/izadi_301004.shtml is only a few weeks old.

Further fallout in the Netherlands here: http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2109523/

So … Why do they hate the Dutch?

Let Specter have his chance.

2004-11-10T13:13:00.000-08:00

Powerline is willing not to oppose Arlene Specter any more.
This is at least partly based on the opinions of Hugh Hewitt.
I respect the opposition of NRO. I contacted three Senators concerning 'Stop Arlene'. However, given Arlene's WSJ article I'm willing to relent.
When I get a chance I'll recontact those Senators plus Senator Specter and express my support for Senator Specter.
The important thing is changing the Supreme Court. Senator Specter put forth the following proposal:

Specifically, my protocol provides that all nominees will have a Judiciary Committee hearing within 30 days of nomination, a Judiciary Committee vote within 30 days of the hearing, and a floor vote 30 days later.

If he gets each nominee a hearing within 30 days, a vote within 30, and a floor vote within 30 he will have done all I ask. (This means I want his vote in committee and support of an up or down vote. If his beliefs mean he votes against a nominee in an up or down vote then I have no complaints.)

Litmus Test

2004-11-07T20:50:00.000-08:00

I argue (go here for the full post):

If it is ok for Kerry to have his litmus test, it is also appropriate for Bush to have the opposite litmus test. And Bush won the election.

Republicans are more likely to get 60 votes before Democrats do (just look at the map). If Republicans have no right to an anti-Roe v. Wade judge unless they have 60 votes, Democrats have no right to a pro-Roe v. Wade judge until they get 60.

Is that really the game people want to play?

Response to Dionne

2004-11-03T15:53:00.000-08:00

I deleted a comment which linked to E J Dionne in its entirety, arguing that Bush was not a uniter but a divider (my paraphrase). This was prompted by me saying that, basically, Osama supported Kerry.

Osama did support Kerry. That is not to claim that Kerry supports Osama, I’m quite confident Kerry would shoot him personally if given a chance. But sometimes looking at who your enemies prefer is a good way to judge an issue.

I don’t tend to respect E J Dionne. He writes that Bush should have been like Eisenhower. What he doesn’t write explicitly, is that Bush should have abandoned his beliefs in favor of the Democrats in order to buy their loyalty.

That price is too high.

The nation had a right to expect the Democrats to place loyalty to our country ahead of loyalty to their party. They failed to do this.

The Republicans have a very long history of this. Modern Democrats are unable to meet this test.

Kerry Conceeds!

2004-11-03T07:52:00.001-08:00

Bush Wins.

He wins by 3.5 million votes, the first candidate to win more than 50% since ...

... Since his father beat another MA liberal.

How Sweet it is.

2004-11-03T07:52:00.000-08:00

Bush Wins.

He wins by 3.5 million votes, the first candidate to win more than 50% since ...

... Since his father beat another MA liberal.

And Kerry is going to fight anyway, despite being behind more than 100,000 votes in OH. Doing that, I believe, will do lasting damage to his party.

Bush: Congrats.

Kerry: Go for it.

Bush Wins -- Kerry might challenge anyway

2004-11-03T07:46:00.000-08:00

Bush has won. He is the first person to get more than 50% of the vote in a presidential election since, well, his father in 1988.

When an earlier Bush beat an earlier MA liberal.

Behind by 3.5 million votes and over 100,000 votes in OH, Kerry can't overturn this election. He can, however, do lasting damage to his party.

Go for it, Mr. Kerry.

Last few days

2004-10-30T18:19:00.000-07:00

I think the Osama tape will hurt Kerry. I found this exchange on the Kerry Spot.

ALAN COLMES: "It's not like he [Osama bin Laden] had a Kerry-Edward bumper sticker in his cave."

NEIL CAVUTO: "But he's all but doing that, isn't he? I thought I saw a button."

Ok, a little over the top but basically about right.

More EV Analysis:

There are basically 4 big states in play: FL, PA, OH, MI. If Bush wins any two he wins and doesn't need anything else. If he only wins FL he almost certainly wins. If he wins only OH he needs about an even split elsewhere. If he only wins MI (a crazy outcome) he has to take everything else.

Starting with RealClearPolitics current map (Bush 232 Kerry 207) I take HI from Kerry's assumed total and put it in the toss up category. (Current RCP results have Bush with a lead in HI).

Bush needs another 37pts to win. If he takes FL (27) he needs only one of the following combinations: OH, MN, WI, IA + NH, IA + HI. Basically, Kerry has to run the board.

If you swap OH and FL then Bush needs IA and either MN or WI. (There are other options, NH + HI > IA for example).

Latest: Bush in a Squeaker

2004-10-29T21:25:00.000-07:00

This has Bush losing OH and NH but winning by picking up NM, IA, and HI. The big suprise is HI, of course. Notably absent in this round of polls is WI which has usually shown up in the Bush column.

Assuming all states go as they did last time.
All positive numbers in Democratic direction (worst case).
Kerry must gain 10 net EVs from Gore's performance to win.

Blue States				Gore Won
State	Poll Data			2000	Now	Spread vs	EV
State	Date	Date	EVs	Results	Now	2000	Pickup
MI	10/20	10/29	17	5.2	3.30	-1.90	0
OR	10/19	10/27	7	0.5	4.70	4.20	0
MN	10/19	10/28	10	2.4	1.70	-0.70	0
ME	10/17	10/22	4	5.1	8.50	3.40	0
NM	10/15	10/29	5	0.06	-4.00	-4.06	(5)
WI	10/23	10/29	10	0.2	1.00	0.80	0
PA	10/22	10/29	21	4.2	2.90	-1.30	0
IA	10/23	10/29	7	0.3	-1.70	-2.00	(7)
NJ	10/16	10/25	15	15.9	4.00	-11.90	0
HI	10/13	10/20	4	18.3	-0.90	-19.20	(4)
Red States				Bush Won
State				2000	Now	Spread vs	EV
State				Results	Now	2000	Pickup
MO	10/22	10/26	11	-3.3	-4.70	-1.40	0
OH	10/20	10/29	20	-3.5	1.20	4.70	20
FL	10/21	10/29	27	-0.01	-1.70	-1.60	0
NV	10/19	10/29	5	-3.5	-3.70	-0.20	0
NH	10/14	10/27	4	-1.3	2.70	4.00	4
WV	10/13	10/18	5	-6.3	-4.00	2.30	0
AR	10/18	10/25	6	-5.4	-3.00	2.50	0
CO	10/14	10/29	9	-8.4	-5.20	3.20	0


		Projected Evs		Bush wins.
		Projected Evs
Kerry		268
Bush		270

I continue to believe that Kerry needs everything to break his way, but it doesn't get closer than this.

Moral Consistency

2004-10-22T15:37:00.000-07:00

I read the article "Faith and Patriotism". I'd like to expound upon it with an example.

Martin Luther King Jr attacked segregation on grounds of morality. It was a deeply religious movement. Anti-discrimination law involves people imposing their views on others. (All law does, this is only a telling example).

I can confidently predict that Senator Kerry supports anti-discrimination law.

But this makes a mockery out of his statement that he believes life begins at conception AND he votes pro-abortion even on partial birth abortion which even ordinary supporters of abortion often view as infanticide.

If he actually believes life begins at birth then he has supported infanticide.

Yes, Mr. Kerry, James 2:17 says "Faith without works is dead." But his works are his pro-abortion votes which contradict his claimed faith.

My own positions on abortion are, to borrow the term, a bit nuanced. Most Americans hold a nuanced position. I find it strange that Senator Nuance shows absolutely no nuance in his record of voting on abortion.

Hunting Tigers

2004-10-21T13:24:00.000-07:00

I deeply respect the observations of Mr. Friedman. This is a response to today's article. His book "From Beruit ..." was recommended to me by a lady who used to work for the CIA.

But I do not always agree with his conclusions from those observations. Sometimes subtle differences in emphasis can lead to profoundly different conclusions.

Senator Kerry: Would he pull the trigger on the Tiger? There is absolutely nothing in his record which would suggest he would. The abberation in his career was the authorization of force in 2002. Absent that, he has been a remarkably consistent opponent of American power in the world (he had a brief timeout regarding Bosnia).

Would Bush shoot: of course.

But here is where I disagree. Iraq was the correct target after Afghanistan, and Bush hit it dead center.

Complaining about the looting is monday morning quarterbacking -- we could never have put the forces in to stop the looting. (First, we don't have them anywhere. Second, we couldn't have put them in theater and supplied them if we had had them.)

There are of course many things to criticize, but that is demanding perfection and overlooking much of our actual results.
Look; We opened up Iraq and found Yugosolovia just like Friedman warned we might. But he did note it wasn't completely out of the question we might have found Germany as the neocons hoped. (And one of the people at the WeeklyStandard said immediately after the statues fell, at we should give Iraq back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible.)

My read?

Breaking Iraq was still vital for the US even if it later decends into Yugoslavian civil war.
Our execution in the Iraq aftermath is sub-optimal (in hindsight) but hardly incompetent.
We are still winning.
The problem with wars is the guys on the other side try to win, too.
Our enemies correctly identify our soft center -- American public opinion inflamed by a biased media.
This is a clash of civilizations.
If Bush wins it is a clash we _may_ win.
If Kerry wins this election I think it is a clash we will lose.

The Stakes are too High ...

2004-10-17T13:53:00.000-07:00

The Stakes are too high:

This article has been circulating, but I haven’t been able to find a link to its origin.

Professor Manweller sees this election as the only election in our lifetime that is likely to matter. He sees the potential election of John Kerry as leading to “retreat, abdication, and a reign of ambivalence”.

“The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters.”

I’m sorry I couldn’t find a more authoritative link. While the article is worth reading, I think I could sketch a decent rebuttal if I were so inclined. (I won’t; I agree with his conclusions about the likely consequences).

It is my belief that our society is in deep trouble. Thomas Friedman, who I always respect though I often don’t agree, has a list of three severe challenges that will face our nation in the fairly near future. Personally I think he vastly underestimates the danger of the third one along with our current possibilities of success (if and only if, IMHO, Bush wins).

Of those three challenges he mentions, only Bush would make progress on the first two and only Bush could make progress on the last one. I don’t believe Bush will make nearly as much progress on any of those three as our society needs. But the institutional pressures which will prevent Bush from moving forward as much as we need to will necessarily cause Kerry to either ignore things or make them worse.

And of course, those things are BIG discussions in their own right. There are some long legitimate discussions we could have on those if anyone wanted too.

-- John

Have you no Shame, Senator?

2004-10-16T21:48:00.000-07:00

... apparently not.

Gay baiting one of Cheney's daughters isn't going to cause people not to vote for Bush. It is going to infuriate a lot of people who support Bush.

I think this one backfires.

Kerry Wins

2004-10-12T21:02:00.000-07:00

I've been working on this for awhile. It uses the poll averages from RealClearPolitics and then regenerates an Electorial Vote analysis they did sometime back but don't update. I wrote a program that scrapes their site, regenerates the presentation I liked, and builds a table.

Blogger.com seems to put more padding in the table, somehow, than I would like. I can't get around that yet.

If the poll averages from 10/12 were taken as the final results, Kerry wins a squeaker. How close? NM is a tie and I break the tie in his favor. Without the tie in NM, the EV total is a tie that Bush wins in the House. AFTER the Supreme Court throws out the CO proportional EV ballot measure as a violation of the powers guaranteed a State Legislature by the United States Constitution. Note that this happens where Bush loses OH.

Assuming all states go as they did last time.
All positive numbers in Democratic direction (worst case, if Bush is leading that is a negative number).
Kerry needs a net increase of 10 EVs over Gore's performance in 2004 to be President.

Blue States				Gore Won
State	Poll Data			2000	Now	Spread vs	EV
State	Date	Date	EVs	Results	Now	2000	Pickup
MI	9/22	10/6	17	5.2	2.70	-2.50	0
WA	9/17	10/4	11	5.6	10.30	4.70	0
OR	9/24	10/11	7	0.5	5.50	5.00	0
MN	9/18	10/11	10	2.4	1.00	-1.40	0
ME	9/10	10/5	4	5.1	2.50	-2.60	0
NM	10/1	10/6	5	0.06	0.00	0.00	0
WI	9/22	10/11	10	0.2	-3.00	-3.20	(-10)
PA	10/3	10/11	21	4.2	2.00	-2.20	0
IA	9/27	10/11	7	0.3	1.00	0.70	0
NJ	10/1	10/11	15	15.9	6.00	-9.90	0
Red States				Bush Won
State				2000	Now	Spread vs	EV
State				Results	Now	2000	Pickup
MO	9/22	10/5	11	-3.3	-4.00	-0.70	0
OH	10/2	10/11	20	-3.5	2.00	5.50	20
FL	10/1	10/5	27	-0.01	-3.50	-3.40	0
NV	9/18	10/3	5	-3.5	-4.80	-1.30	0
NH	9/27	10/5	4	-1.3	0.70	2.00	4
WV	9/13	9/20	5	-6.3	-3.20	3.10	0
CO	10/3	10/7	9	-8.4	-5.60	2.80	0


		Projected Evs		Bush Loses
		Projected Evs
Kerry		274
Bush		264

Pajamahedeen and the Pastor

2004-10-11T21:17:00.000-07:00

I had intended to use this blog to conduct a series of letters with my Pastor. He has begged off due to time constraints. So this blog has wound up talking about other things, instead of the modern day implications of Luke 16:25. A pity, in some ways.

But I wound up in an exchange with my Pastor about an article by John Leo which severely criticized the ‘selective outrage’ (my term) of many people in high church office.

My Pastor was not a fan of that article, and my next response was rushed (and sulfurous). I think the entire exchange is interesting, though. Here goes (information stripped to protect the guilty).

Dear Pastor,
Please take time to read this.

John,

Thank you for the article and I have read it and I do disagree with much of what Leo wrote. I do not think the church should make knee-jerk movements toward a left wing political agenda and I do not think the ELCA in particular is doing that. When democratic states like Israel or the USA are criticized for human rights violations by mainline churches, I understand those churches and those criticisms never to be in comparison with other more oppressive regimes. Of course, mainline churches are appalled at the abuses in Arab countries, or China, or Cuba, but criticisms are often directed at democracies precisely because we hold ourselves to a greater ethic, a higher standard than totalitarian regimes. In John Leo’s thinking, it is as if the American abuses at Abu Ghraib are not so bad because the abuses of Saddam were so much worse. What kind of playground logic is that? If we in the free world are going to have any credibility in the world, if we are going to stand for that which is right, and good and true, we should welcome the critique of our own citizens and organizations which call us back to our ideals. I would think you would celebrate the whistle blowers at Abu Ghraib, or the critique of Israeli policy, as examples of a free society challenging itself to be great. Instead, I hear knee jerk reactions from the right defending democracy’s abuses by comparing free societies to societies which are not free.

Your Pastor …

Dear Pastor …

A working definition of anti-Semitism is when Jews are singled out for criticism for things that are ignored when non-Jews do them. I’m pretty sure that is Alan Dershowitz, incidentally.

By all means criticize, but you really ought to have a sense of proportion and apply your moral standards evenly. Yes, you might often direct your criticism where it is likely to do the most good and where you are holding people to a higher standard. But for that to be legitimate you must acknowledge that (A) you are in fact holding them to a higher standard and (B) there is a difference between _often_ directing your comments at the perceived lapses of the ethical and _only_ directing them there while ignoring vastly worse and pervasive behavior.

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” – Luke 6:41

Although that scripture isn’t exactly on point, I think it is close.

Abu Ghraib was a horrible thing, and those who perpetrated it are being tried and convicted at an incredible rate. Two soldiers have just been charged with murder for killing an Iraqi General in their custody. These are good things. But a humiliating picture by and out of control group of kids is so vastly different compared to the routine and systematic horrors endemic to that part of the world that obsessing on it is questionable.

As for critiques of Israeli policy, almost all of them by the main line churches in the US have the flavor of arguing:

Pushing an old lady into the path of a bus to kill her and pushing an old lady out of the way of the bus to save her life are equally wrong because you shouldn’t push old ladies.

‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’ is the actual Burke quote often rendered as “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Aiming your criticism at the good in order to ‘hold them to a higher standard’ while ignoring evil is objectively pro-evil. That isn’t good men allowing evil to triumph through inaction. That is good men actively assisting the triumph of evil in order to serve their own moral vanity.

People can be forgiven for concluding that the main line churches are only sympathetic to Jews when they are being slaughtered while nobly exposing their throats for the knife. Fighting back, however, seems beyond the pale. I’m unable to find a link on short notice, but I believe that Sarte signed a letter in support of Israel before the 1967 and later was very upset by the person who got him to sign. “You assured me they would lose”. (Emphasis mine, and I haven’t found the quote).

J

Dear John …

Another interesting fact about the mainline Lutheran church in Germany is the support offered by the church to the anticommunist movement in the late 1980’s. The Lutheran church of East Germany was the only institution providing an umbrella of support for the movement that would eventually overthrow the government.

Your Pastor

Dear Pastor …

Well, yes. You forgot the Catholic Church and Poland.

But many of the main line church umbrella organizations were thoroughly penetrated by the KGB and were hardly anti-communist. It was smaller evangelical churches that were smuggling Bibles into the Soviet Union, not the NCC and WCC. Catholic “liberation theology” movement was explicitly pro-communist.

Today the Catholic Church hierarchy operates as an apologist excuse factory for much of Islam even as large factions of Islam specifically target Christian missionaries. Some of this is driven (in Rome) by a fear that failure to do this will result in the slaughter of Christian populations (can you say the Coptics, as an example?) instead of simple repression. Other parts (particularly those now culturally Arab) adopt and practice the subservience and deference long characteristic of dhimmitude.

Churches have been havens for those challenging tyranny including today (see: China).

They have also often been havens justifying and supporting tyranny.

It is an empirical question which place they have occupied more often.

I’d like to add that the far left “only America and Israel are guilty” mantra is a really bad business decision. The leftists sitting in the high church offices may or may not be out of touch with the true demands of faith (a point that can always be argued). But simple observation demonstrates that they are severely out of touch with the people who actually show up in the pews.

J

A Message from a commentator ...

2004-10-09T19:01:00.000-07:00

One of the comments on this blog is reproduced below. I strongly recommend reading the link.

That show of support on 9/12/01 that Bush is supposed to have somehow lost? Read - The Legend of the Squandered Sympathy - which points out that even in the "We are all Americans" editorial there was anti-Americanism, which returned to being quite blatant after less than two weeks.

Good News Today

2004-10-09T06:56:00.000-07:00

Good news, if it actually happens: Al-Sadr Followers Will Hand Over Weapons

Despite efforts of Kerry’s campaign (his sister working on his behalf) to sabotage our coalition, Australia Re-Elects Howard Prime Minister

Afghanistan is voting.

I didn’t watch the debate, but a fairly rabid Kerry supporter says Strikeout: Kerry blows the second debate. By William Saletan

Meanwhile, Dick Morris, who has been batting for the good guys recently (I can almost forgive him for Clinton) says: Bush won this debate by acing the issue of Iraq.

So the morning starts with great news even as I have to go teach my Saturday class. It might not be the “Little Good News” that Anne Murray was hoping for, but I’m afraid that dream is going to be put off pending the results of World War IV (WOT).

Peace

And of course if Bush really is the Evil Overlord, I hope he pays attention to the rules necessary to be a competent one. Pay attention to #100.

More responses to Annon

2004-10-08T20:00:00.000-07:00

Annon -- and if you want to keep this up at least give me a first name -- has comments under the prior post. You can go there to read all his points. His points are in italics this time.

There is no doubt in my mind that the civilized world will be the victor in this clash of civilizations.

Why? I think the odds run the other way.

America's standing in the free world has gone … to a treacherous low since Iraq.

There are far more important things that being loved, and far more issues at play than you imply.

If, as you say, invading Iraq was the next essential step in the war on terror, what happened to all of the support?

Why do you think a policy of actually fighting and trying to win the WOT would be popular?

… the President wasn't honest about what he was doing.

On the contrary, he was quite honest and explicit. As for showing leadership, the world continues to dance to the tune he is playing even if they don’t like it.

… in addition to winning the war on terror, he must win the hearts and minds of Americans and our allies.

Nah, I’ll settle for simply winning. As for allies like the coalition of the bribed (Saddam, France, Germany, Russia) why do you persist in considering them allies? If France is an ally, we really have no need for enemies.

You question why the administration would have wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11?

Nope. It was a good idea strategically pre-9/11 but was essentially impossible to do. After 9/11 it became both possible and necessary. You do know that regime change was the official policy of the United States, codified in law, under the Clinton Administration in 1998?

Kerry talked real brave about doing something about Saddam back in '98. Even Teddy Kennedy did. That way they could pretend to be a hawk when they knew there was zero chance the United States would do anything. Damn that President Bush, he didn't simply talk.

He could have gone after terrorists is Syria or Lebanon. He could have attacked the fundamentalist strains in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Pakistan. He could have gone after them in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia.

No, he could not. Here you are complaining we aren't loved for what we did in Iraq and you suggest we could have done things that would have had vastly less support than attacking Iraq?

We went for the soft target that would yield the most gain for the lowest price. Considering your list: Syria and Lebanon (One war at a time, please). Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (Not smart, pressure is having some effect). Iran – we have a potential for an anti-Mullah revolution and an invasion would blow that and be too costly. Egypt and Indonesia – are you out of your mind?

In other news, catch this from Mickey Kaus:

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future? (It wouldn't necessarily make the Iraq war prudent, but it would make Americans feel more comfortable about it than what Bush has been telling them.)

Peace

For some (military) humor, check out www.skippyslist.com

Answering a dissent.

2004-10-07T23:38:00.000-07:00

This is an answer to a reasonable dissent. I've posted his positions and my responses, I hope it is clear when my commentator is speaking. You can find his full comments toward the end of the Fairness in Iraq comments.

As part of my response, I linked to an excellent post on why it was so strategically important to invade Iraq. That link is here.DETERRENCE (part 1)

I don't understand your point when you say "be responsible." I am being quite responsible in my criticism of the President. … wasn't it the President's job to give the American people valid, truthful reasons for going to war, so they could support him? He did that in Afghanistan, and he had volumes of support. So, why didn't he do it in Iraq?

Claiming he didn’t give valid truthful reasons for going to war is not being either honest or responsible. In contrast, claiming that Saddam was a contained problem that wasn’t going to break out of his containment box and so we should concentrate on other things would be a responsible criticism.

I think that criticism would be very poor, but it would be responsible. Other potential criticisms include the level of troops, the decision not to shoot looters, the decision to back away from Fallujah.

The idea of having a valid, internationally credible reason to go to war is not new.

The Iraq war arguably met the test of Just War Theory, considered the starting point for serious discussion of the topic. I chose the word arguably intentionally, since people versed in that theory have come up with different answers on whether the Iraq war qualified. Basing your opinion on that theory is certainly responsible.

And so is pointing to ideas concerning the strategic implications of such an action.

Where is the President, or anyone else in his administration, saying "the sin is upon my head"?

The President, when he says that the responsibility was his and he is confident in the judgment of history. I don’t think you understand the full implications of your ‘do over’ comment. The moral implications of an action are judged by what was known (and in some cases should have been known) about the situation when the decision was made.

Had the President NOT gone to war given the information he had, it would have been a historic betrayal of America that could have never been forgiven. Finding out that there were actually no stockpiles in 2003 would not have changed that verdict. Nor would it have prevented Kerry from coasting to victory by pointing out the massive disaster that not invading Iraq had precipitated. I’d be voting for “anyone but Bush” if Bush hadn’t invaded.

… we all agree that Saddam was a bad guy …

Yes, and now he is a bad guy sitting in jail rather than a bad guy who beat the United States, is no longer under sanctions, and is rapidly rebuilding his military while the United States effort against Islamic Fascism completely collapsed. Yes, he was a bad guy and now he is no longer in a position to be a bad guy and the world is vastly better off.

If you had your way, he’d still be in power and that would be a disaster not just for Iraq but for the entire world.

… it does bother me when we start a war that turns out to be based on completely false pretenses, and in so doing we alienate half of our own people, and most of our allies.

It would bother me if it were true. The war was not fought under false pretenses. It was fought for many, many reasons. The primary reason listed, the one on which most people wound up agreeing as the best reason, turned out to be mistaken. That isn’t a problem for the decision maker, though you might want to fix any fixable errors so you don’t make similar mistakes in the future. Look; we convict people when the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not ‘beyond ALL doubt’. The evidence for Iraq and WMD was clearly (to me) beyond a reasonable doubt. It STILL is. Convicting an innocent man is not a moral failure if in fact the evidence leading you to that conviction was solid and convincing enough. And Saddam was far from innocent …

As to allies, those would be the ones making back door deals with Saddam?

As to half our people, not really. Do remember that about one quarter of our people would oppose the Sun rising tomorrow if Bush thought it was a good idea.

… why did the President choose to commit all of our resources to fighting Iraq? In truth, we don't really know.

I do, and you would as well if you had been listening.

… what does [the Invasion of Iraq –ed] … have to do with the war on terror?

Try reading DETERRENCE (part 1)

I think that they drummed up a bunch of phony reasons to go into Iraq, becase they always wanted to.

And why, exactly, might they have always wanted too? I can think of a lot of good reasons why I wanted to finish off Iraq before 9/11.

Absent 9/11, though, we wouldn’t have done it no matter how obvious the strategic benefits of doing so would be.

After 9/11, it became even more critical strategically. It also became possible. The world should be grateful that Saddam miscalculated one last, fateful time. He thought he could face down Bush and his bribed friend Chirac would protect him. Well, Chirac stayed bought but it didn't help.

Had Saddam been smarter he would have proved he didn't have the WMD and today he would be free and sitting in the catbird seat. Had I been in Saddam's shoes the invasion wouldn't have happened and today I'd be happily living in my many palaces. That would be far worse for America and the world than what has happened.

You claim you are a supporter of the war on terror. So am I. But a critical difference is that I think the only possible way of winning the war on terror involved invading Iraq. (Well, the only way short of a genocide. But we aren't ready for that one. If Iraq works, we will never need to be ready for that one.)

My horse race numbers

2004-10-07T22:17:00.000-07:00

The polls are still bouncing around a great deal.

National polls don't matter much in the end. This isn't 1 election, it is 50 elections.

Of those 50 elections, 33 can be conceeded. There are 10 states that Gore carried last time and 7 states that Bush carried last time which are by any stretch in play.

Kerry begins behind by 10. He has to pick up 10 Electorial votes (net) in order to get to 270. (If he gets 9 we go to the house of representatives which would be expected to pick Bush).

Next, we need a source of polling data. I'm using RealClearPolitics Battleground poll averages. I'm in the process of writing a screen scraper that will automate the process but that isn't done yet.

Right now, Kerry has a pickup of 4 from NH but he is losing 10 from WI and 7 from IA. He is behind by 23 EVs.

Bush currently has a cushion of 2.19%. If Bush does worse than the average of the polls in these 17 states, Kerry comes up 3 pts short even though he takes OH. If Bush does 2.2% worse Kerry wins after he picks up OH and NH while defending IA and losing WI.

Polling data is here.

I'll try to get that screen scraper to collect the data and format it this weekend.

The absolute worst case for the nation would be a situation where the EV reallocation measure passes in CO and the difference depends on whether that amendment is upheld. If you think a 5-4 court decision the first time was bad, how about another one? Or a situation where the congress counting the EVs disagreed with the court?

Devastating article

2004-10-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

The US under Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn’t consulting with anyone. They were informing people. There is a really big difference, something a person worried about a global test doesn't understand.

DeGaulle VS. Kerry

“Yet when Kennedy finally took action [in the Cuban Missile Crisis -- ed.], it was unilateral and pre-emptive — under international law, in fact, blockade is an act of war. Unlike Iraq, there were no votes in either Congress or the United Nations authorizing the action.”

“The United Nations was not being asked for permission, just being told why President Kennedy was taking action.”

Read it all.

Looking back, the reason the Cuban Missile crisis occurred is because President Kennedy the feckless convinced Khrushchev he could be rolled.

The record indicates that Khrushchev had Kennedy read correctly. However, there really is only so far you can push a democratically elected leader no matter what his personal views. Once Kennedy had publicly declared "there aren't any missiles there, I won't allow it" and then the proof landed on his desk he had little option but to act.

Today, with different imperatives, I don't think the junior Senator from MA would behave as well after getting himself into a mess. The Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party ("I'm a liberal but I'm not a damn fool") no longer exists to back him up.

I'm working on a program to collect and tabulate poll data from RealClearPolitics in a manner I think might be more useful for the horse race numbers. FilmAtEleven.

Kerry's French Friends

2004-10-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

I remembered reading this yesterday but tried in vain to get a link. I have not yet found a supporting link for this. Barnier is the French Foreign Minister. These remarks were made at the UN on Sept 23rd.

"... Barnier's remarks last week, when he said that France will attend a proposed conference on the future of Iraq only if the complete withdrawal of foreign troops is a formal topic for discussion and the negotiations include "all political forces" in Iraq, "including those who have chosen the path of armed resistance.

Kerry may want to bring the French to the table, but guess who's coming to dinner with them: terrorists and rebels now attacking U.S. soldiers and slaughtering Iraqi citizens. "

I found it here. If someone can find the original quote on a UN site I'd appreciate it.

Bottom Line: The French are not our friends. They are our 'allies' only when they need us.

I'm off to teach.

Another Response

2004-10-04T23:59:00.000-07:00

Response to a few points: Annon posted 10:13 PM on October 4th in the Fairness thread.

Iraq Liberation act of 1998 passed US Senate unanimously. Getting rid of Saddam is hardly a new idea. After 9/11 we simply decided to actually do it. If a Senator didn't really want Saddam to be deposed then perhaps they shouldn't have voted for this? I know, it is all different now. Bush actually means what he says.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. If you don't want the President to go hunting, don't hand him a hunting license. The idea that someone would vote for this only to allow the US to bluff doesn't pass the giggle test let alone the statesman test.

The poster notes that other nations have committed atrocities but "the US sat it out because there was no interest threatened."

And your point is? The police can't stop every crime so they should stop none? Or is this a claim that our interests weren't threatened in Iraq? If so I again direct your attention to the two American laws detailing the charge passed signed by two different presidents.

Kosovo? European stability is not something we are going to toy widened sit out. We flew 62% of the sorties? What other country had the military might to do that?

European stability wasn't threatened if they acted. And if they won't act, or can't, that is an incredible indictment of them is it not? And of course if no other country could handle Kosovo what makes you think any other country would be able to help much in Iraq, a vastly more difficult enterprise?

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,

Which the supporters of the Iraq war have not done.

Just because we question the motivation and reasoning behind this war does not mean we are unpatriotic. It does not mean we hate America.

Problem is: some people are criticizing it for exactly those reasons. There are legitimate points where reasonable people might disagree on the strategy and wisdom behind Iraq. Problem is, they are rarely (if ever) made by the anti-War left. Such criticism is usually confined to segments of the American right.

It does NOT mean we love Saddam or bin Laden.

No, but some of your fellow travelers view any enemy of America as a friend.

Since this ruthless dictator wasn't linked to 9/11 or global terrorism,how does this relate to protecting us against terrorism?

He was linked to terrorism and there are certainly some tenuous links to the first WTC bombing. He had a violent hatred for the United States, an incredible desire for revenge, and a history of making disastrous miscalculations and aggressions beyond his borders.

His removal eliminated a strategic threat to American interests. It allowed us to remove ourselves from Saudi Arabia. It provided a platform for a frontal assault on the Islamic Fascist movement. It is one thing to rejoice when infidels in New York die. It is quite another when the infidel sends forces half way around the globe to hunt down and kill the people who would rejoice.

Fighting in Iraq shatters their world view. It places the battles in their homes, and those who fight us there face well armed American forces. It gives those who might otherwise cheer with pride the losses of the infidels (justifiable) cause to fear they might be next.

You think Libya gave up its efforts because they decided to be nice?

The thing about fighting wars successfully is it makes the enemy mad and they will try to hurt you. But it isn't like they were missing reasons before. Unless you are advocating pre-emptive surrender (and yes, I think that is essentially Kerry's position though he says something else) the only way to prevail is to take the fight to the enemy.

The enemy isn't bin Laden's network. That is like viewing the enemy after Dec 7th to be Admiral Yamamato rather than the Empire of Japan.

Taking out the existing cadre (75% of bin Laden's top network) is exceptionally valuable even if they manage to fill in some people. The new people aren't likely to be as good, and as we take them out recruiting will gradually become harder. Dreaming of world conquest is so much nicer when the infidel isn't hunting you.

You seem to have some of your statistics wrong. America is the number one contributor of foreign aid ($13.3B of $58.3B). In freedom, the US is one of 39 countries (and by far the largest) with the highest ranking in political and civil rights. In economic freedom I have a 2004 dataset (2002 data) which shows the US in a 4 way tie for third place after Hong Kong and Singapore. I'll give you literacy and life expectancy. As for education it depends on what level of education.

Look; trying to play defense against Islamic Fascism is a guarantee of defeat. You could spend a trillion dollars on Homeland Security and not be safe. The only effective defense is a really good offense.

And taking the fight to Saddam was an essential part of that offense. Making them love us is impossible. We need their respect and in their society we obtain it through their fear of us. Instead of people prattling about "Why do they hate us" we need the people in their society to start worrying about why we hate them. Let them worry about how to soothe our anger and rage.

To get a start on understating why I view things that way, start with Bernard Lewis's The Roots of Muslim Rage.

Peace through superior firepower.

Quick Hits:

2004-10-04T15:11:00.000-07:00

If only it were this simple (voting in Florida).

Interesting comments about WoT, intelligence, and Sudan in today’s WSJ.

Media Bias. Compares MSM treatment of Bush and Kerry's service.

From today’s Best of the Web:

Which reminds us: Kerry has denounced what he calls the "coalition of the bribed." Yet in the debate, he offered this criticism:

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution [meaning U.N. resolutions], to sit down with those leaders, say, "What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?" we'd be in a stronger place today.

So now the problem is that Bush didn't bribe enough. But doesn't Kerry know that bribery is an impeachable offense?

===========

Peace

Futility, The World’s Policeman, etc …

2004-10-04T08:14:00.000-07:00

One person marked upon what he regarded as the futility of the fireman’s sacrifice. Iraq, of course, was hardly futile. Saddam will never regain power and his sons are dead. But I would like to say something about futility.

I took a course in History of American Naval Power back in the early 1980s. This was in Texas, so the students wanted to use the Alamo as an example of bravery but our instructor disagreed strongly. He thought a better model was the ABCD squadron which sailed out of Australia after Pearl Harbor.

As legend has it, before sailing a young officer offered a toast to their victory and return. An admiral responded, “Son, if you think you are coming home alive you are the only one here who does.”

They went anyway. All ships were lost, and there were few survivors.

They stood at Thermopylae as well, where a few hundred held off hundreds of thousands. I’m told there is a sign there which translates:

Go tell the Spartans,
Stranger passing by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

Book Plug: Gates of Fire. And the last pages denote a type of courage that might be greater still, and we have even more need of.

Our civilization will stand while we still have such men. It will fall when we can no longer find enough of them. You don’t find many in Europe these days; they just don’t grow up that way anymore. In all of Western Civilization, there are only a few backward benighted places where it is still common to produce such men. Most of them speak English and they come disproportionately from rural areas of America, England, Canada, and Australia. They are joined by a few other brave bands, usually those who have more experience with not being free. We thank each and every one.

The following poem I quote from memory. It was in a book by Michael Flynn and I haven’t found a contact for him to obtain permission.

Where you at Thermopylae when Persia crossed the Sea?
Did you place your bones between your homes and the spears of the Enemy?
Or did you stand before Chalon, with old foes by your side,
And with sword and shield refuse to yield and stem the Hunnish tide?

Did you ply a boat to Dunkirk?
Did you drive a Taxi to the Marne’s grim banks and never charge a fare?
Did you roll down rocks at Morgaten?
Did you die at Manzikert?
Did you shout back “NUTS!” in the frigid German air?

If you were no strutting conqueror,
But fought for hearth and home.
If you warded the defenseless,
And shielded them from harm.
If you swooped in for the rescue,
If you ground a tyrant down.

Then accept the thanks of the world’s poor ranks;
You’ve EARNED your plot of ground.

==== I love that one ====

Concerning the World’s Policeman:

I come back to the article with this quote: “Our duty in this area is like our obligation to show charity. We have no power to help everyone and no right to help no one.”

I was ambivalent about the Kosovo war because although I thought it was morally right I didn't believe our strategic national interests were in play. I prefer that we use armed force when it is both in our interests and the morally right thing to do (like Iraq).

=====================
Side Note:

One commenter wanted a larger typeface. Blogspot uses ‘normal’ size so this means you can change to a larger font size yourself. On IE, View/Text Size/Larger (or Largest) will increase the font size.

Response to a critic on 'Fairness in Iraq'

2004-10-03T23:25:00.000-07:00

The comments on “Fairness in Iraq” have been quite positive; with (at this time) two negative ones. The first was a rant, the second deserves a response. Search for: ”Your analysis of the situation ignores precedent” in the commentary on “Fairness in Iraq” to read someone with a substantial objection.

He claims that in the first Gulf War “nearly the entire world” contributed to military operations.

In Gulf War I 34 nations contributed 24% of the troops compared to 76% for the United States.

That compares relatively favorably to 31 nations with the US contributing 84% of the troops this time as far as I’m concerned. Especially since there was some doubt about whom the Syrians (for example) might wind up shooting at the first time.

In the Korean War, there were 15 non-Korean partners and the US contributed 90% of the combat forces.

With all do respect, I think I have my context quite accurate. Thank you.

Yes, the US did enter Vietnam without a full and frank discussion and we paid a bitter price for that. But you can not plausibly claim this is true for Iraq. No military action by the United States since World War II has involved anywhere near the debate we held on going into Iraq this time. In point of fact, we discussed Iraq far more thoroughly than we discussed our actual entry into either World War I or World War II.

I have no patience with someone who does not acknowledge that overthrowing Saddam was a moral action.

“… for me and many others in uniform, justification for the war in Iraq will come down to a dusty sandal on a forgotten levee in central Iraq. We were not in time for that little girl, but the children who survived the Ba'athist genocide will have the chance to grow up and live freely because our country had to resolve to say "enough." The United States and Britain have done a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, which history will judge as another courageous step in our national history of opposing tyranny and genocide.”
Lt. Col. Craig Trebilcock

People who wish to argue it wasn’t in the strategic interest of the United States can make reasonable points. But here, I argue that it is people who make those points that do not have a sufficiently wide perspective.

My perspective considers the concept of dhimmitude and the ark of Islamic civilization from its peak at the gates of Vienna through the Armenian Genocide before continuing to Hamas and 9/11. It considers the thoughts of Bernard Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson.

In a practical strategic sense, the war on Terror had to go through the streets of Baghdad to have any hope of our civilization prevailing. I understand why President Bush has to pretend that this isn’t a clash of civilizations, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

The “War on Terror” isn’t a misnamed law enforcement exercise. It is a misnomer for World War IV. (I highly recommend that article in Commentary.)

I am not, and have never been, a fan of ‘nation building’. I’m still not. Nevertheless I’m sitting here supporting one of the most aggressive and radical experiences in nation building ever.

Why?

Because if we can make this work we can avoid the behavior we used to pacify the Philippines. That would be a very good thing. The alternative is to fight Islamic fascism with the same ruthlessness we used on the Native Americans and the Philippine resistance.

The US population isn’t ready to be that ruthless (and I’m really not either). Another 9/11, a Beslan or two, or (heaven forbid) a smoking city and we will be.

In a post 9/11 world, the invasion of Iraq is an example of the US playing nice. If that doesn’t work, Pax Americana will start looking an awful lot more like Pax Romana than even I am comfortable with.

Peace

Through Victory.

Fairness In Iraq

2004-10-03T19:34:00.000-07:00

On 9/11 a firefighter wearing badge 672 barely escaped the collapse of the first World Trade Center. After pausing for a minute, he headed into the second tower. An incredulous reporter, noting his recent escape and his obvious need for medical attention, asked him why he would do that.

He responded, “Because it’s my job. Because they need me.”

He went in. He did not return.

I learned of this story only today, in church. I found a reference to it in a 2003 article by Lou Louis.

I think about this in the context of a complaint that Kerry made in his debate with President Bush: “But you can't tell me that (we have a genuine coalition) when the most troops … “ and he details that Great Britain has 8,300 ground troops and only five other non-Iraqi countries have more than 1,000 (South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine total 10,876).

Some people look at this list and say, “this isn’t fair”. Perhaps. But fireman #672 didn’t go into that building because it was fair; he went because it was his job.

In 1999 the US flew 62% of the missions in Kosovo, a number that greatly underestimates how much the US contributed to the mission there. This was in the heart of Europe dealing with a European problem that did not impact the security interests of the United States. That wasn’t fair, either.

So why should we be surprised if today we are 83% of the forces not counting the Iraqis in Iraq? If you count Iraqi soldiers, border guards, facility protection and police we are close to 50%.

Yes, American soldiers outnumber Polish soldiers 40 to 1. But America spends $114 on our military for every $1 that the Poles do. How many did you expect?

Tonga has 45 soldiers there. But that is a higher percentage of their population than the percentage of our population serving in Iraq. Should American politicians be sneering at them?

The US is contributing the lion’s share of forces in Iraq because we have the lion’s share of forces in the world capable of fighting outside our own homeland.

We are there protecting ourselves and the rest of the civilized world because we can and, to put it bluntly, most of the rest of the world can’t.
Moaning about the ingrates in France and Germany doesn’t help. They know we have no choice but to save them while saving ourselves so they have no incentive to be responsible.

It isn’t fair. But it is our job.

May God bless every coalition soldier in Iraq for doing the job.

Welcome

2004-09-26T16:51:00.000-07:00

This blog isn't 'live' yet.