Hate What I Hate

Turkeyless

2004-11-25T18:15:00.000-08:00

Alas, I am turkeyless on this most turkeylicious of days. Indeed, it is my very first Thanksgiving without turkey (since I acquired teeth, presumably). It is also my first Thanksgiving without being with any family. The two are probably related in some fashion (i.e. family = turkey). I miss them both.

I could have had Thanksgiving with someone here on campus. And I certainly would have, were I a nice guy. Since I'm a selfish jerk, I didn't help to aleviate the loneliness of anyone else on this holiday. The reason is that I have a paper due on Monday. As is my wont, I put off doing any serious work on it until very late in the game. I was supposed to start writing yesterday, but I spent all day perusing this one book. Granted, it was the most important book, but it still put me behind schedule. Then, I stayed up past my bedtime and didn't get to work untl late today. (Lame, huh?) Luckily, I cranked out a nice quantity of work. How good it is remains an open question. However, I've got plenty of time to spiff it up once I get it all cranked out. Starting is always the hardest part.

Creating a paper is always such a weird experience for me. I say "creating" because writing is just a physical act. "Creating" more accurately captures the experience of formulating ideas and articulating them in an effective manner. The experience is akin to that of a painter of icons. In the eastern Orthodox Churches, the creation of an icon was a religious act. The painter would spend days or weeks in a monk's cell, fasting and praying. When his spiritual connection was finally made, he began to paint. Therefore, the value of an icon is not only as an objet d'art, but as the product of mystical union between man and God.

Now, I pity the God that would have to read any of my stuff. His love of mankind is itself a Promethean punishment. Why be cruel and have Him read my paper? The pathos of God aside, you get my drift. I do lock myself in my apartment and exist only around creating my paper. My sense of time vanishes, and I minimize all contact with the outside world. Semi-delirious, I assault my keyboard with a heavy "hunt'n' peck" typing. Then, days later, I give birth to a semi-presentable paper. That reminds me, I have a BIG paper next month that I simply cannot afford to fuck-up. Shit.

Any way, long story short, that's why I didn't get together with anyone and have turkey for Thanksgiving. Enjoy the holiday!

(Hey, is that goddamned Santa Claus peeping out at me from my Coke can? Oh, Lord. I can feel the holidays creeping up one me, drawn by the scent of credit cards... Slowly and deliberately... stalking me...)

Nuke the CIA

2004-11-16T18:38:00.000-08:00

In the course of scarfing my dinner down, I almost barfed it back up when I flipped the channel to MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Matthews was kissing the ass of a former CIA official named Michael Scheuer. Scheuer was the "Anonymous" author of a book entitled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. For a thorough review of this dreadful work, please read David Frum's piece. I'd just like to say a few words on it, as I believe it to be so indicative of everything that is wrong with the foreign-policy establishment in Washington DC.

First, Scheuer's perspective is that all Muslim grievances must be redressed, including the abandonment of Israel by the West. Osama (who, contrary to my expectations, is still alive and kicking) has built his following among Muslims by acting as the advocate of aggrieved Muslims everywhere. Now, the mere existence of a grievance does not mean that it warrants a cure. For example, Adolf Hitler's ability to articulate Germany's grievances in the inter-war period brought him to power. Undoubtedly, some of those grievances, particularly with regards to the Treaty of Versailles, were legitimate. That said, treating with Hitler did nothing but whet his appetite for further demands. Moreover, Hitler's ideology of hatred made it pretty clear that his use of legitimate grievances was a mere political ploy, one that British nit-wit Neville Chamberlain accepted at face value. The lesson of "peace in our time" is lost on Mr. Scheuer, as he urges accommodation of Osama & Co.

Second, Scheuer whines ad nauseum about how taking the offensive against the Islamofascists does nothing but breed more of them. Given that al-Qaeda's golden era was under the Clinton administration, with its 'hear no evil, see no evil' policy of passivity, one might question whether doing nothing really defeats terrorism. Of course, Scheuer does not advocate passivity, but capitulation. Still, I'll take barely-trained jihadistsmarching off to Iraq to die by the busload than another decade or two of dozens, hundreds, and ultimately thousands of innocent Americans being murdered by these psychos. Even Scheuer should know that passivity is the most contemptible course possible in the eyes of an honor culture, such as produced our Isalmofascist buddies. Doling nothing only encourages them in their belief that the West is weak and decadent. In other words, both logic and historical fact argues contrary to Mr. Scheuer's assertion that only capitulation and passivity will stop the enemy.

What is it about these fools in the CIA and State Department? Their fundamental problem is that they choose cowardice in the face of every moral challenge or conundrum. C.G. Jung, in one of his famous lectures on Nietzsche, noted that the more one studies the motivation of a criminal, the more one will sympathize. However, if we sympathize too much, we will lose perspective and, ultimately, our moral judgement. That is exactly what has happened to the educated fools in Foggy Bottom and Langley. There never is an easy answer to difficult questions. Doing the right thing in the face of Adolf Hitler cost millions of lives, but the alternative was even worse. Likewise, the explosive situation in the Middle East, such as a nuclear-armed Iran and the unchecked spread of Islamofascism, cannot be allowed to continue. There are no easy or guaranteed solutions. There is, however, the resolve and courage of those willing to meet the challenge head-on. It's too bad that jerks like Scheuer, whose moral cowardice masquerades as sagacity, get in the way.

The Importance of Being Lazy

2004-11-15T21:40:00.000-08:00

It's been a whole month since I've blogged! Such is the curse of laziness. However, I cannot ascribe all of my failure to my many shortcomings. It's been a rough month between a heavy course load and some legal difficulties on the home front. That said, there were a few noteworthy events since I last put fingers to keyboard.

Dubya was re-elected. That was a good thing. Granted, I can't say that I regard Dubya as the ideal president, but he's pretty good. Besides, had we elected Monsieur Kerry, it would have sent a dangerous message to both our allies and enemies. I can at least rest assured that the War on Terror will be prosecuted with the necessary vigor and determination. His win was pretty big, especially in light of expectations set by the press. As a graduate student, my sense of schadenfreude is pretty satisfying right about now.
Arafat returned to his birthplace in the pits of Hell. Death spent too long in sharpening its scythe before claiming that ugly bastard. Arafat was a corrupt and violent fraud, Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. Sadly, his death is no guarantee that things will improve in the region, but it does provide an opportunity for progress. The question is, who will take up the mantle of leadership of the Palestinians? The current PLO cronies are a pretty uninspiring lot. Normally, I'd say that Hamas is the likely winner, but Israel has so depleted the Hamas leadership with precision strikes, that they may not be able to collect this windfall.
Scott Peterson was convicted. It's always nice to see a sociopathic husband get his comeuppance for murdering his wife and unborn child. The Peterson verdict provides some nice closure on the O.J. Simpson trial, and the Nineties in general. The ersatz Age of Clinton has been put to rest. America is again capable of some moral clarity. That's a good thing.
Fallujah has all but fallen. Naturally, Zarqawi and the top dogs have long since fled the city, and its capture will not insure victory. Nonetheless, it was an important psychological victory, for the American people, foreign naysayers, and those Iraqis who doubted our resolve. The fall of Fallujah will also deny the insurgents some of their most valuable physical infrastructure. Succor for the anti-US forces will increasingly have to come from outside the country. Syria and Iran will attempt to provide enough to keep the US tied-down in Iraq, but not enough to provoke American ire. Can they provide enough support for the rebels to last long enough to outlast American resolve? Not bloody likely.
My sister just got married to a terrific guy. I'm very lucky. Not only do I have a pair of sisters like radiant jewels, but I have wonderful brothers-in-law. Throw some little nieces into the picture, and the blessings that I have received are beyond measure.

Again, I apologize for being such a lazy bastard. The world never slows down, and I'm an opinionated jerk, so there should be a steady flow of future entries. Things my get a bit light when the end of the quarter approaches, but I'll try to keep blathering.

Osama Bin Dead For A While

2004-10-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

More proof that Osama is Pushtan up the daisies. Reuters
reports that Zarqawi has released a tape loudly declaring his allegiance to Osama Bin laden.

This is news?

Yes, it is. It indicates that there is probably a power struggle going on in al-Qaeda. With Osama dead, Zawahiri should be the new boss. However, with the influx of new recruits going to Zarqawi in Iraq, Zarqawi probably feels strong enough to challenge the old Egyptian for the mantle of leadership. By declaring his "allegiance" to OBL, he's effectively claiming to be OBL's real heir.

Zawahiri probably still has a firm control of the old, operational network (at least, what's left of it). But it is Zarqawi who's got more men, as new recruits flock to Iraq on their way to becoming corpses (courtesy of Uncle Sam). Clearly, Zarqawi still has a decent infrastructure of bomb-makers, as evinced by the wide-scale use of such devices in Iraq.

I've been of the opinion that OBL is dead for some time. Between his big ego, and the incredible propaganda value of a verifiable appearence, the fact that we haven't seen him speaks volumes.

Bravery & Terrorism

2004-10-12T06:54:00.000-07:00

I know that I've been bad about posting lately. I'm taking a heavier course load than normal, and it's kept me busy. It makes me wish that I had the extraordinary discipline of the great Instapundit.

This morning, I came across a Mark Steyn column (via Belmont Club) that had been cancelled by his editors at the Telegraph. The piece was on the recent execution of Briton Ken Bigley, and the editors thought Steyn's honesty was a little too harsh. This excerpt really struck me:

By contrast with the Fleet Street-Scouser-Whitehall fiasco of the last three weeks, consider Fabrizio Quattrocchi, murdered in Iraq on April 14th. In the moment before his death, he yanked off his hood and cried defiantly, "I will show you how an Italian dies!" He ruined the movie for his killers. As a snuff video and recruitment tool, it was all but useless, so much so that the Arabic TV stations declined to show it.

It speaks volumes about the Islamofascist mind-set that Quattrocchi's bravery negated the propaganda value of the videotaped execution. This reveals how it is the fear displayed by Westerners, and the petty power that the terrorists feel in murdering the defenseless, which feeds the movement. As in Beslan, the reason that these guys commit such horrible crimes against the innocent is that they believe Westerners to be effete cowards. Ergo, through acts of indiscriminate violence they can frighten us into submission.

The War on Terror will separate the men from the boys among the nations of the world. Those who are unwilling to show fear, like the brave Mr. Quattrocchi, will deprive the Islamofascists of their main weapon. Australia, God bless 'em, spat back in the face of those who advocate being afraid. Americans will soon have to make that same decision over John Kerry, who obliquely manifests his fear of terrorism in a delusional incoherence on the subject. Every time he intones the "wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time", it is music to our enemies' ears. Let's hope we make the right choice on November 2nd.

The Debates

2004-10-05T23:10:00.000-07:00

In the first debate, I was really disappointed by Bush's performance. I kept having to get up for a cigarette in order to keep cool. Kerry was better than I had expected, but he was still a pompous fool begging Bush to slam him. Bush, however, was too flustered to land any punches. The debate was a tactical win for Kerry, albeit a strategic draw in the overall campaign. The MSM, of course, has worked to spin that draw into a win for Kerry.

Tonight, I think that Edwards got spanked. Cheney was cool, calm and collected while he parried Edwards' attacks and effectively used his time to shred Kerry, especially on his Senate record. In policy debates, Cheney is the Terminator.

By the way, this is not to say that Edwards was bad, but he just wasn't good enough. He came across as a bit of an amateur. He's a trial lawyer who recently entered politics, and he does not give the impression that he has really thought about the issue of global security.

Why the big difference between Bush and Cheney's performances? I think that Bush and Cheney have different approaches to their politics. Bush's politics are more intuitive; he does what he feels in his bones to be right. Cheney's politics are more the product of careful reflection and pondering history. Accordingly, his political views are more easily articulated in the form of an argument. Bush, in contrast, can more effectively work a crowd of regular folks. Like them, his politics are intuitive, and are not the product of intellectual peregrinations.

Will this debate change minds? Probably not, but the recent Kerry-Edwards campaign momentum has been halted, and that is worth a lot. I think it likely that Bush will be much improved in the next debate. He knows that he lost, and he will work hard to avoid a repeat performance. Moreover, the "townhall" style debate format will make him feel more comfortable. Kerry, in contrast, will be a dazzled by his good performance in the last debate. He'll be a little too relaxed.

And that's the thing about Dubya. Just when you're convinced you've got him beat, he hits you with a power that you didn't know he had.

Washington D.C.

2004-10-02T13:16:00.000-07:00

I've been in Washington for the past couple of days. Y'know, although the city does not have the history and grandeur of the capitols of Europe, I still admire it. It seems to have an aura that is quite appropriate for a republic. The monuments and the stately federal buildings never seem to lose that indefinable quality of "republicanness". Naturally, one sees extraordinary buildings in Europe, but there is always the subtle yet persistent reminder that a king or great lord built it while his people starved. Worse still, the Eurocrats who take over these once royal buildings as their own tend to take on royal airs themselves.

That said, I do find the attitude of the people of Washington to be a bit overbearing. Power in America is not concentrated in Washington, but it is spread all over the country. Our power is the result of our political and economic freedoms, not the blessings bestowed upon us from the District of Columbia. Frankly, the sense of power is much greater in a place like New York City than it is in Washington. Too many folks in Washington give themselves airs as hangers-on to power. It's a bummer.

Belmont Club on Iraq

2004-10-02T13:12:00.000-07:00

Folks, if you have any interest whatsoever in the war in Iraq, DO NOT miss Belmont's entry on the topic. He also takes a shot at Sullivan's Chicken Little take on the Iraq war.

Drabble's Drivel

2004-09-28T21:12:00.000-07:00

English author Margaret Drabble recently had this to say about her feelings towards the United States:

My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness. I now loathe the United States and what it has done to Iraq and the rest of the helpless world.

Lovely, no? The rest of her vile screed is little better. If she has a problem with US policy in Iraq, she is quite free to express her opinion. However, she is apparently too good to discuss policy differences in a reasoned manner. As no reasonable person would want to over throw Saddam Hussein or root out Zarqawi's terrorists in Iraq, her only recourse is to explode into a venemous rage.

One of her more hilarious complaints is the American habit of employing nose art on combat aircraft. She states:

But there was something about those playfully grinning warplane faces that went beyond deception and distortion into the land of madness. A nation that can allow those faces to be painted as an image on its national aeroplanes has regressed into unimaginable irresponsibility. A nation that can paint those faces on death machines must be insane.

Now, even someone as seemingly devoid of historical knowledge as ol' Maggie has to know that the Americans (and English) made extensive use of nose art during World War Two. Presumably, using painted "death machines" against Hitler was also a reflection of our insanity. Indeed, I'm sure that a nice chat over some tea and crumpets could have solved all of our problems with Mssrs. Hitler and Hussein. She continues:

A great democratic nation cannot behave in this manner. But it does. I keep remembering those words from Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the dynamics of history at the end of history, when O'Brien tells Winston: "Always there will be the intoxication of power… Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

What a profoundly warped sense of morality. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator whose wars killed over a million people. Within Iraq, his regime claimed another 500,000 lives. To date, Coalition forces have uncovered mass graves containing 300,000-400,000 victims of Saddam's secret police. In addition, the Oil-For-Palaces program deprived Iraqi citizens of the currency needed to provide necessary food and medical supplies. This created a humanitarian disaster that claimed tens of thousands of lives every year, most of them children. Yet, it is America's use of force to remove this monster that is deserving target of Maggie's hatred.

Hey Mags, since you quoted George Orwell, would you like to place a bet on how likely he would have been to support Hussein, Zarqawi et al. against the United States? Not bloody likely!

No wonder that the people of Darfur continue to suffer and die, as did the peoples of Rwanda and Zaire before them. It is not human suffering and evil that Margaret Drabble and her ilk hate, but the strength of a free people unashamed of their power. The only power that she can tolerate is that which conforms to her will. In that sense, she is a metaphor for western Europe itself. Morally bankrupt and bitter over its own impotency, western Europe's envy boils over into a thinly-disguised hatred for America.

I believe that it was H.G. Wells who wrote that moral indignation was envy with a halo. The "sophistication" of Europe's upper middle-class mediocrities has yielded nothing but a politely-ignored irrelevancy. America, proud and free, has no use for the shrill carping of impotent moral cowards. Accordingly, she hates it and pays homage to its enemies. If a brutal and sadistic dictator becomes the target of America's wrath, then she will give him her support.

However, I can take consolation in the fact that Ms. Drabble is as lovely as her screeds. The hard lines of bitterness are etched deeply into her rather masculine visage. Just take a look.

Laziness

2004-09-26T15:36:00.000-07:00

Sorry for being so light on the posting as of late, but I'm just getting back into the academic year. One problem with being a grad student and political conservative is that my affinity for politics has to be curtailed. The liberal bias in academia is overwhelming, and many are not good-natured about it.

Indeed, I recall last year passing by the office of a friend of mine and overhearing him in a political debate. He was talking to a student of women's history who was shocked to find out that he was a Republican because every Republican whom she had ever met was an evil person. He was, as is his wont, very good natured about it. He even dared to suggest that there were other decent Republicans, but she was reluctant to believe that.

Such talk from an ostensibly educated person is madness. Evil and stupidity, alas, are not the monopoly of any political grouping. Heck, I've even met some very nice self-described Communists. Yet, it is simply part of the liberal academic orthodoxy to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil (and often both).

This attitude is being exaggerated by the sorry candidacy of Kerry-Quite-Contrary. Few on the left actually like the guy; they just hate Bush. After all, only an evil man would want to cut taxes and bring democracy to Iraq. So, given that they have nothing good to say about Kerry, they just bash Bush. By extension, their position requires that they excoriate Republicans all the more; we're all just Bush clones. This view is one that I find particularly offensive, as I don't agree with Dubya on much other than terrorism and taxes. Still, as I learned long ago, the failure of most liberals to actually address conservative policies in concrete terms leaves them with little but hollow stereotypes.

This is the fate of a conservative in universities or places like Hollywood: We greatly admire the sentiments (if not the policy prescriptions) of our liberal friends, while they struggle to find excuses for why we aren't as evil and stupid as all other conservatives.

Despite my bitching, it hasn't been that bad this fall. The very high probability of a Kerry defeat has kept these folks more subdued. Besides, it's just so nice to be back into the swing of things. There is nothing so rejuvenating as a new school year. I'm old, single and broke, but I'm still happy.

An Encouraging Sign

2004-09-22T16:33:00.000-07:00

Decentralized decision-making is the key to military victory. Nonetheless, most military institutions, particular the US Army, have been loathe to accept this fact. However, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal gives cause for hope. The Army is, finally, starting to understand that the best problem-solver is the person closest to the problem. Herein is a critical lesson for counter-insurgency.

Money quote:

Fighting the volatile, growing insurgency in Iraq is putting increased responsibility on younger, lower-ranking officers, who are learning through improvisation and error. For the Army, the heavy reliance on officers such as Capt. Ayers is a significant change. As the war in Iraq has turned into a far different kind of battle than the Army expected, it is triggering major shifts in how the service uses and equips soldiers and remaking its historically rigid and hierarchical command structure.

Best of all, these young officers are using the Internet to teach each other what the Army brass won't teach them. Even in the US Army, the telecommunications revolution is toppling the antiquated hierarchy of knowledge, making it available to all.

CBS was just the beginning...

Draft? Ain't Gonna Happen

2004-09-22T13:29:00.000-07:00

Self-destructing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has taken to waarning Americans that Bush has a secret plan to re-institute the draft. Of course, this is a cheap scare tactic from a dying campaign, but it reveals a more disturbing fact: The prospective Commander-in-Chief from Massachusetts does not understand modern warfare. The draft is a concept consigned to the dust-bin of military history, and Kerry should be smart enough to know that.

In the context of overall military history, the idea of the conscript army is one whose time has come and gone. The technical challenges of modern warfare require a high degree of training. The current US military is a force of professional volunteers, with an average of seven years in the service. Creating such good soldiers takes time, and a draft is not the way to do it. Even if Dubya decided to go back to this antiquated concept of the conscripted citizen-soldier, it would take years to turn those draftees into competent soldiers. The US military is not going to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam-era personnel policies by employing unwilling and ill-trained short-timers in high-intensity combat situations.

Then again, it is clear that the senator from Massacusetts ("I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!") has learned nothing from Vietnam.

Insurgency in Iraq: Sullivan v. Belmont

2004-09-17T13:39:00.000-07:00

The upsurge in violence in Iraq has rattled many commentators. A very gentlemanly and polite exchange of views has been going on between bloggers Andrew Sullivan and The Belmont Club on this very subject. Sullivan is taking the increase in attacks to be indicative of a reinvigorated insurgency. Belmont, in contrast, argues that the attacks are crude and unsophisticated in nature, evincing a stagnant or dissipating insurgency. Belmont's Wretchard also supports his argument with an interesting take on the geographical distribution of US casualties.

I am very much inclined to agree with Belmont Club on this one. There are a number of factors which lead me to this conclusion. Most importantly, there is the manner in which the insurgency attacks are conducted. They remain crude operations, relying on car bombs, IEDs and suicide bombers to achieve their ends. This is indicative of an insurgency that cannot adequately train and organize new recruits for more sophisticated operations. This is further supported by the type of targets chosen by the insurgents. They are hitting Iraqi civilians, not US military personnel. The insurgents are simply too amateurish to initiate any serious attack on the US military. The very astute Ralph Peters notes,

Despite the impression created by intermittent attacks, the terrorists have shifted their priority away from attacking our troops. Every time they go after our soldiers or Marines, our enemies suffer disproportionate casualties. So they're concentrating on killing Iraqis government officials, the police, educators, doctors and businessmen.

This gains them short-term headlines and creates local chaos, but it's alienating the population. Bombing crowds of young men applying for jobs is not an effective way to win hearts and minds. The Iraqis may not want us to stay forever, but they do not want the terrorists in power.

Peters also agrees with Belmont's assessment of the geographical distribution of US casualties. American losses are not the result of more aggressive insurgents, but of the quickening tempo of our offensive operations. Peters writes,

And there's another, more significant reason why the violence has increased: Our troops are on the offensive again, reclaiming towns and cities where terrorists grabbed power after the Bush administration faltered in Fallujah this past spring.

The man whom I consider to be the finest defense analyst out there, James Dunnigan, puts the losing strategy of the terrorists within the context of the spate of kidnappings of foreign workers. He writes,

The anti-government forces feel they are winning with their terror tactics. This is a misleading assessment, but typical of the Arab nationalists and religious zealots who comprise most of the armed opposition. These folks keep score by watching the TV news, which explains why they are so detached from reality. While the terror tactics has had a noticeable effect on reporters, UN staff and other non-participants in Iraqi reconstruction, the Iraqis themselves are undeterred by the violence. Same for coalition troops and most foreign workers. The average Iraqi wants the new government to succeed, because the alternative is a return to the tyranny of the past. The terror tactics are not working against the Iraqis, so the anti-government forces are concentrating more on foreigners. This means more foreigners are being kidnapped. This is a pure desperation play, as it's the resolve of the Iraqi people that will determine this civil war.

Of course, the inevitable casualties involved in driving the insurgents out of their urban strongholds means that serious US attacks will not begin until after the presidential election. Until then, the US will prep the battlefield and use air and artillery strikes to degrade enemy positions. It is unfortunate that domestic politics are dictating the pace of military operations in Iraq, but warfare simply cannot be conducted in a political vacuum.

I greatly admire Mr. Sullivan, but he's got a bad case of Chicken Little Syndrome. A historical analogy to the current situation might be the German Ardennes offensive near the end of World War Two. With Allied victory seemingly in reach, the Germans suddenly unleashed a powerful offensive in Belgium against the Americans. US casualties were heavy, and included the largest mass surrender of US forces since the fall of Corregidor. Yet, the offensive was ultimately proof of German failure and weakness, rather than a resurgence. German supplies were meager, and their forces showed a considerable degradation in combat effectiveness. The strategic conception for the offensive, based on the hope that the Allies would lose heart and make a separate peace, bordered on fantasy. The situation is very much the same in Iraq, and today's journalistic hand-wringing is as silly now as it would have been then. A country as populous, divided and heavily-armed as Iraq is not going to be pacified over-night.

Obviously, the Bush administration made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. Slowly but surely, it has moved to rectify those errors. Mistakes are inevitable in war. Indeed, so inevitable are mistakes in war that it may be rightly said that victory goes to whoever makes the fewest mistakes.

Proof of the administration's success in Iraq is not only visible in the insurgents' clumsy tactics, but also in the region's diplomatic developments. The Iranians are clearly becoming more brazen and desperate as the Iraqi resistance fades. In addition, George Friedman of Stratfor notes significant progress elsewhere:

Two significant developments took place in the heart of the Middle East
on Wednesday that underscored the continuing realignment of Arab/Muslim states in favor of Washington's political objectives -- prompted by the U.S. ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime and its occupation of Iraq.

First, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak paid a surprise visit to Damascus and held an important meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad concerning the Middle East peace process and Damascus' continued military presence in Lebanon. Mubarak pressed al-Assad on the need for progress on the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks of the process, which have been stalled for the last four years.

Second, and more importantly, foreign ministers from Arab League countries, meeting in Cairo, passed a resolution calling on member states to restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq, thereby recognizing the Interim Iraqi Government (IIG). The resolution also urged members of the League of Arab States (LAS) to assist in the IIG's efforts to establish political stability and security by providing training for Iraqi government workers, especially its security services.

These events are tied together in that both are Egyptian-driven initiatives that facilitate U.S. positions -- on peace between Israel and the Arab world and the stabilization of Iraq. Egypt's attempts to get Syria back on track toward normalizing relations with Israel and coming out in support of the interim government in Baghdad aid Washington's efforts to deconstruct the arguments of Sen. John Kerry, who claims the Bush administration's "unilateralist" approach to foreign policy has cost the United States precious allies.

Clearly, the manner in which Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and other Arab states have demonstrated their eagerness to appease Washington shows that the United States' purpose in invading Iraq -- to effect behavioral change in Arab capitals following the Sept. 11 attacks -- is working quite well.

As always, the chattering classes ignore this stuff. Worse still, the Democratic Party has shown itself congenitally incapable of understanding the broader strategic picture. When Hillary Clinton or John Kerry (depending on the day of the week) propagate the "Iraq as distraction" meme, they are only highlighting their own inability to understand the region's strategic dynamic. The problems of the Middle East are not subdivided into mutually exclusive, hermetically-sealed compartments, each requiring a unique prescription. Rather, the region's entire political dynamic must be changed at almost every level for there to be real progress. Bush, whatever his faults, has been the first US president with the opportunity (made possible with the end of the Cold War) and political cahones to undertake this mission. It is a mission that will require much perseverance. Accordingly, thoughtful commentators need to take a step back and take in the big picture before they label falling rain as a collapsing sky.

America & Europe: Dumb and Dumber

2004-09-15T10:24:00.000-07:00

Europeans love talking about how much smarter they are than us stupid Americans. After all, their incredible achievements in the last half-century make this obvious. They invented, um...er... stuff... probably. Well, they are just smarter than us, as any admiring Leftist here in America will tell you. After all, only geniuses could base their long-term economic prosperity on a system that pays people not to work, and punishes those that do.

Anxious to remind us of their innate superiority, EU Commissioner Chris Patten recently gave a speech in which he castigated American foreign policy. After all, the continent that brought you two world wars, communism, fascism, colonialism, Brussel sprouts and the concentration camp knows better than any place else how to manage foreign affairs. According to Reuters,

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - The European Union (news - web sites)'s outgoing External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, launched a withering attack on United States policy in Iraq Wednesday, saying the world deserved better than American "testosterone."

Renowned for his blunt speaking, Patten used his parting speech to the European Parliament to deliver a stinging rejection of what he depicted as the Bush administration's go-it-alone approach and contempt for allies.

The U.S.-led invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which split the western alliance, had failed to bring peace to Iraq, Israel or the Palestinians, he said.

"Liberation rapidly turned into a brutally resisted occupation. Democracy failed to roll out like an oriental carpet across the thankless deserts of the Middle East," Patten said.

"Above all, peace in Jerusalem and Palestine was not accomplished by victory in Baghdad," he said.

Wow.

What a deep and profound sense of history. I mean, those stupid Americans couldn't bring peace, democracy and prosperity to Iraq in 18 months? One would think that after centuries of invading and plundering peoples the world over, the English might have a better sense of how difficult it is to pacify and transform a nation. Apparently not. Naturally, according to Patten, Americans are not liberators of Iraq, but occupiers. Also, notice the reference to "Palestine", and not "Israel". At least he didn't start quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Why would a prominent British politician, and Conservative (!), lash out at America with such a stupid tirade? Quite simply, the problem is that as little as Americans know about Europe, Europeans know even less about America. Many Americans are descended from Europeans who emigrated to this country. Through those cultural ties, we actually have a better understanding of Europeans than they do of us. Patten's comments are not only laughable in light of Europe's impotence, but they reflect the continent's conceit born of ignorance. One reason that Patten was so brazen was that he is retiring. However, the more significant reason stems from his ignorance. Like most Europeans, he probably believes that America will realize that the Francophilic John Kerry is superior to Dubya and elect him. Not bloody likely, my limey friend.

George Friedman, of Stratfor, recently commented on how ignorance of America is warping foreign perspectives on U.S. policy and the upcoming presidential election.

One of the things to understand about this process is that other
countries really don't understand the United States -- and in
many cases, they make very little effort to do so. It is a mantra
around the world that Americans are ignorant of and indifferent
to the rest of the world. There is certainly a great deal of
truth in that. However, it is not nearly as true as saying that
most foreigners haven't the slightest idea what the United States
is about or how it works. Given the enormous power of the United
States and the fact that it is, after all, a country of more than
a quarter-billion people, this lack of understanding is quite
remarkable. Equally remarkable is the fact that foreigners seem
convinced that they do understand the United States. Any French
intellectual or Chinese businessman will be happy to lecture you
on the nature of the United States -- usually in ways that can
only be described as bizarre.

What can be done to rectify the situation? Not much. Most of western Europe is still locked into a fantasy world from which it cannot escape. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their relative decline. A testament to the depths of delusion to which Europe has sunk is evident in a recent Brussels art exhibit sponsored by the EU. As reported in the Telegraph, the exhibit hails the EU as a new Roman Empire. The report continues:

Segments sketched across 80 yards of canvas predict that the 21st century will be the "European Century" as the EU pushes its borders deep into Eurasia, North Africa, and the Middle East and comes to dominate world affairs through its vast "legal and moral reach".

I have little doubt that terrorists and dictators the world over are quaking in the boots at the EU's great "moral" power. Evidently, there are two forms of Mad Cow disease in Europe, one that kills and another that makes people into delusional bovines.

America is not omnipotent, but it is the world's greatest power. The world of NATO no longer exists, and the foreign policy concerns of this country lie elsewhere. In this new environment, the attitude of nations like Australia or Pakistan matter a lot more than those of France or Germany. If Europe wants a say in the matter, it must help carry the load. France and Germany have refused to do so, expecting the United States to heed their complaints all the same. When I worked in banking, we had a simple saying: "Money talks, bullshit walks." And so it is for post-9/11 American foreign policy. The Europeans cannot take American deference for granted; we're not defending the Fulda gap against the Red Army anymore.

Patten and his ilk need to wake up and smell the testosterone.

Fallujah and the Politics of War

2004-09-14T12:01:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan, one of the great pioneers of the blogosphere, has been increasingly critical of the conduct, if not the aims, of the war in Iraq. Frankly, as much as I admire him, he's getting a bad case of CLS (Chicken Little Syndrome). It is true that a number of mistakes have been made in the war, but the sky is not falling. This insurgency has almost none of the attributes necessary for success. The only way that they can win is if we lose our will. Unfortunately, Sullivan's CLS contributes to a loss of will by failing to understand exactly what is going on. This is doubly important because east of the Hellespont, nothing is as it seems.

A perfect example of Sullivan's panic is his take on Fallujah, entitled "Fallujah Flip-Flop". Bemoaning our failure to storm Fallujah, Sullivan cites Lt. Gen. James T. Conway (USMC), commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force,

"When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."

The irony of the situation is that, from the perspective of purely military strategy, both Sullivan and Conway are right. However, the politics of Fallujah, in terms of both Iraq's internal situation and (to a lesser extent) the U.S. election, means that they are incorrect. In war, the devil is always in the details. In order to fully appreciate this, it is imperative to understand what role Fallujah plays in American strategy.

For the United States to succeed in Iraq, it must have the support of the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's large Shi'ite population. The Shi'ites are important allies for two reasons. First, they have suffered considerably at the hands of Saddam and his Sunni supporters. Secondly, if Iran is ever to gain a foothold in Iraq, it will be through the Shi'ite population. Given these facts, one can plainly see that the Shi'ites can be valuable allies or dangerous enemies. This makes it very important to have them as allies.

It is fortunate that al-Sistani and the Americans have many enemies in common, including the radical cleric al-Sadr, the Loony Sunnis of Zarqawi's al-Qaeda, and the die-hard Sunni Baathists. The stronghold of the latter two opponents happens to be Fallujah. At first glance, this begs the question, why would the Bush administration shy away from storming Fallujah and eliminating this hornet's nest? The answer is that if the United States eliminates all of al-Sistani's enemies gratis, then al-Sistani will no longer have any incentive to cooperate with the Americans. From a purely Machiavellian perspective, it is precisely the continuing existence of our mutual enemies in Fallujah that gives the United States its leverage over the Ayatollah. This is the reason that the Bush administration suddenly flip-flopped on storming the city.

Think of it as a corollary to the proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". In this case, it should be: "The enemy of my friend is my leverage over my friend." Cynical, perhaps, but war is no place for thought corrupted by sentiment.

Finally, one cannot forget (no matter how hard one tries) that there is an election campaign here in the good ol' US of A. Any assault of Fallujah is likely to result in US casualties. Therefore, Bush is putting off any operation to storm the city until after November 2nd. I believe that the talk of training Iraqis to take the town is a canard. Everyone knows that would take ages, especially after the disastrous showing of the initial Iraqi police force in Fallujah. Prior to the US presidential election, the military will focus on pinpoint air and artillery strikes to degrade the enemy in Fallujah. Assuming that Senator Kerry loses, the Baathists and Loony Sunnis of Fallujah have only a few more weeks of respite before this bastion is overthrown.

What of al-Sistani? Wouldn't the fall of Fallujah deprive the United States of its leverage over him? To some extent, but a re-elected George W. Bush will have few constraints on his actions. Unburdened by the prospect of yet another election, Bush can play a very aggressive game. Moreover, as the new Iraqi government gains in power and authority, al-Sistani becomes less important. If he plays his cards right, al-Sistani can remain a valued ally of the Americans, and an indispensable facilitator for the government. He may still use the threat of Iranian involvement as leverage, but he must know that the Iranians would quickly supplant him if they became too powerful in the south.

The Byzantine politics of Iraq are a dicey game, but it is one America must play if it is to succeed. War, as Clausewitz long ago reminded us, is essentially a phenomenon whose ends are political in nature. Therefore, one cannot separate politics from warfighting, as Mr. Sullivan and Lt. Gen. Conway have done.

Relax, kind sirs, that's rain, not sky, falling from above.

Kerry's Vietnam Problem

2004-09-12T11:43:00.000-07:00

Columnist Connie Lynn Carillo understands what Kerry, with all of his "nuance" and legions of consultants, does not. Put simply, the Swiftboat controversy is not simply about mud-slinging, but seriously calls into question Kerry's character, and lays bare the terrible psychological wounds inflicted by the anti-war Left on Vietnam veterans. Carillo writes,

It was Lt. j.g. Kerry accepting the Democratic nomination, trotting out his "band of brothers" and "reporting for duty" with a lame, inappropriate salute, when Sen. Kerry should have shown up.

Unbecoming a hero, he flaunted his Vietnam valor, resurrecting its staggering baggage, creating a catastrophic backlash that may sink his campaign.

He is arrogantly oblivious to one of life's basic lessons: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot run on your war heroism after testifying before Congress that there were no heroes in Vietnam, only war criminals.

You cannot now dig up your trashed medals, dust them off and audaciously exploit them to get yourself elected president, when you can't summon up the common decency to apologize to those you have slandered and betrayed along the way.

The unseemly debacle has given us a glimpse into the character, motives and psyche of John Kerry. It is not a pretty picture.

Determined and ambitious, Kerry joined the Navy. Bragging to shipmates he was the next JFK, he volunteered for Vietnam.

But the Swifties were apparently an ugly blind date that Kerry couldn't ditch fast enough. Four months into the much hyped tour of duty they were unceremoniously dumped, thanks to minor, inconsequential wounds, worthy of some plastic bandages but maybe not three Purple Hearts.

From my husband, who served 26 months in Vietnam with the Marines and managed to remain atrocity and war-crime free: "We had absolutely no use for crybabies who shamelessly put in for Purple Hearts for trivial, insignificant wounds; much less cut out on your men and run home to mama because of them."

Meanwhile, America had changed. People cursed and spat on Vietnam heroes. War protesters were now the heroes of America. So adios, JFK, Kerry appointed himself a statesman and hobnobbed with the enemy in Paris.

Milking his abbreviated Swift boat hitch, he pompously passed himself off as a battle-weary warhorse and bloviated before Congress; sold out his left-behind comrades; accused them of heinous war crimes and atrocities; offered not one shred of evidence; admitted on Dick Cavett he had never actually seen any, other than his own, causing our POWs more torture and distress.

These charges are very hard for Kerry and the Democratic Party elite to deal with. Kerry is too arrogant to admit his mistakes, and the Democratic elites still believe that Vietnam was a "bad" war and feel no guilt over their inexcusable treatment of the war's veterans. The Left's orgy of self-congratulation over their opposition to the war has blinded them to the fact that they behaved in a despicable manner, and have lost the larger cultural battle over the war's meaning. As a grad student, I teach some undergraduate history classes, and I have found that young Americans view Vietnam not as some criminal war of American imperialism. For most, it was a noble, if regrettable and poorly conducted, fight against tyranny.

When John Kerry "reported for duty" at the Democratic National Convention, he ripped open long-festering wounds from America's longest war. Only a pompous, arrogant fool could have done that without being cognizant of the potential backlash. However, in a world of Manhattan cocktail parties, Nantucket mansions, Sun Valley ski chalets, and Washington power-brokering, a world in which everyone who is anyone reads the New York Times, it's hard to see what went wrong. Too bad. I suppose as Kerry's adoring fan, Jacques Chirac, might say, "C'est la vie!"

Autumn Mourning

2004-09-11T14:28:00.000-07:00

Everyone and their brother in the blogosphere seems to have something in remembrance of 9/11, and well they should. In one sense, it seems almost cliched to add to all that has been said. Yet, the tragic fact is that it is necessary because so many have chosen to ignore the event and its profound implications for our world. It was the morning that we were shaken violently out of our sweet post-Cold War reverie. We must remember because the events of September 11th will dominate our world for the next generation.

Despite the unmistakable tension of the Cold War, and the omnipresent threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, it was a relatively stable world. Although the super-powers often fueled regional conflicts with military assistance, they also acted as a restraint. The potential cost of a full-scale war between the United States and Soviet Union was astronomical, and so the two powers acted to prevent local conflicts from spinning out of control. Regional powers could not easily switch sides between the USSR and USA, because their local rivals were often client-states of the opposing super-power. Accordingly, to switch super-power patrons often meant being yoked to a regional rival; not an appealing prospect for any ambitious, nationalistic government.

With the dissolution of the bi-polar world, the restraining influence of the super-powers disappeared. Regional powers were emboldened by their new-found freedom of action. Moreover, the multi-polar nature of geopolitics meant that if one power wouldn't sell you weapons, then another would. This unfortunate situation dove-tailed with the growing power of Islamic fundamentalism. The Islamicists, in many ways, represented a regional back-lash against the super-powers. Democracy was distasteful, even unthinkable, to Middle Eastern despots, and Marxism failed to deliver anything but poverty and repression. From this stagnant swamp, violent Islamic radicals crawled out from the muck.

These Islamic radicals grew in power for a number of reasons. Many Arab governments, such as Saudi Arabia, encouraged them as a means of deflecting criticism of the ruling government. The establishment of a theocracy in Iran provided encouragement and material assistance to the radicals. The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan provided them with the necessary organization and capital, in addition to providing a morale boost when the Soviets withdrew. Israel and its patron, the United States, served as lightning rods for disaffected Arabs. Naturally (in their own eyes), the miserable failure of their civilization was not their own fault, but that of the Zionists and the Great Satan.

The enormous strategic significance of the Middle East made both super-powers reluctant to intervene in a direct or meaningful way, lest it ignite a all-out war between them. This proved critical for the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. A further series of foreign policy blunders gave the Islamic radicals an exaggerated sense of their own power. The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was one. Another was the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The United States had several blunders, such as the failed Iranian hostage rescue, Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon after the destruction of the Marine barracks, Bush's failure to take out Saddam, and Clinton's double-whammy: The retreat from Mogadishu and the failed cruise missile attack on Osama bin Laden.

Intoxicated by its own sense of power, Islamic fundamentalism has lashed out at the rest of the world. The primary victims have been the United States on 9/11, and the Russians at Beslan. These were wake-up calls to the world, which provided vivid illustrations of the nature of the beast. Yet, many nations, even many Americans, have chosen to ignore the warnings. Many on the far Left, and their comrades-in-farce in Europe, imagine 9/11 to be America's just punishment for imperial arrogance. Others, such as Hillary Clinton and more moderate Democrats, see no connection between any of the problems in the Middle East (the "Iraq as distraction" meme). They are, in effect, unable to see the forest for the trees. Like the "useful idiots" of the 1940s and 50s, they are willing to fight Hitler but see no threat in Stalin. The notion that the broader issue of totalitarianism might be a threat to democracy eludes them. The Zeropeans (hat tip to No Pasaran) are almost beneath contempt. Britain, eastern Europe and (on the other side of the globe) Australia, are the notable exceptions.

So, let us rededicate ourselves to this fight. The mass murder of civilians in so many countries, combined with the feverish pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by folks like al-Qaeda and Iran's mullahs, leave us in little doubt as to the nature and intentions of our foe. Their murderous tactics are reflections of their ideology, and are not the product of their limited military capabilities. America has too few friends in this fight, but doing the right thing is seldom the easy or popular thing to do. When I was in high school, the school song was an old hymnal entitled, "Fight the Good Fight". The time us come for us to accept that responsibility.

So, the souls of the men and women murdered on 9/11 are now America's Furies, who drive us to avenge their cruel deaths. The cries of the innocent children butchered in Beslan will not let us rest until the evil is extirpated. Whatever faults Dubya has, he understands the necessity of the great labor before us. I cannot say the same for many others in this world. If we must fight the good fight with only a few brave nations, then our glory will be all the greater. Together, we fight to avenge the murdered, to free the oppressed, and to secure the safety of the world.

God bless the brave warriors who have truly made the good fight their own.

One last thing, don't you just feel like punching Michael Moore on a day like today?

Doin' It Froggy Style

2004-09-10T15:23:00.000-07:00

Another triumph of French diplomacy has placed yet more luarels on the brow of the Quai d'Orsay. Working in conjunction with France, the United States proposed and passed a UN resolution asking Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Out of respect for our brave and trustworthy French allies, the reolution has no penalties if Syria fails to do so. Indeed, Syria has decided to brazenly ignore it by demanding (and obtaining) changes to Lebanon's constitution that will further entrench the Syrian puppet, President Emil Lahoud, in power.

Amir Taheri has an excellent piece on the affair. The heart of the matter:

Why has Assad behaved as he has?

The main reason is that Assad's Ba'athist dictatorship is one of those regimes that respond only to the threat or the actual use of force. Their strategy is based on the assumption that while sticks and stones can break their bones, words shall harm them never!

Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist dictatorship in Baghdad was another such regime. It had learned from the experience of 13 years, in which it ignored 12 mandatory U.N. resolutions, that diplomacy could never threaten the only thing that mattered to Saddam: his hold on power.

If Saddam violated 12 resolutions over 13 years before he faced the threat of war, Assad has 11 resolutions and 12 more years to go. Why pay any attention to the Franco-American huffing and puffing this early in the game?

A despotic regime can't afford to heed U.N. resolutions: It would end up being asked to stop imprisoning, torturing and murdering its opponents, to accept free elections — in short, to commit political suicide. It would also lose part of its aura of invincibility and its capacity to terrorize its population.

Assad is banking on "the great good news" that his media promise: A Bush loss in November. The Syrian media hope that "the Bush storm" will soon blow over and that America will revert to its traditional policy of coddling the despot of Damascus. After all, Bush is the only U.S. president since 1969 who has refused to meet the Syrian ruler. (Bill Clinton met Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father, twice and endorsed his occupation of Lebanon.)

Another reason for Assad's defiance: The mullahs of Tehran, who prop up his regime with money, arms and cheap oil, are determined not to allow international diplomacy any meaningful role in the region. The mullahs fear that the Franco-U.S. resolution on Lebanon could set a precedent and lead to a resolution against Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The mullahs are also determined to maintain the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah as their surrogate army in what they see as a war against America and Israel.

Imagine that...

Another Hierarchy Bites The Dust

2004-09-10T09:01:00.000-07:00

If anyone was foolish enough to doubt the power of the blogosphere, then they are on notice to start dismantling that fantasy. CBS, in its venerable 60 Minutes program, had the breathtaking audacity to present some almost-certainly forged documents on the air as part of their endless campaign to drive Bush from the White House. The documents in question purported to be memoranda prepared by Col. Killian, one of George W. Bush's commanding officers in the Air National Guard. The memoranda implied that Bush had deliberately defied a direct order to take his physical exam, and that Killian was under presure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance record.

It was not long before the "distributed intelligence" (as succinctly described by Wretchard) of the blogoshperic network went to work. A host of discrepancies in the documents were quickly identified, including typographical irregularities, dubious content, improper formatting and references to incorrect regulations (for a complete look, check out the links at Instapundit). In only twenty-four hours, the CBS story had more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

The implications of this remarkable event are profound, and nor are they limited to media matters. Instead, this is a testament to the awesome potential of the autonomously empowered individual. The mantra of the Establishment Left (and part of the Right) is fundamentally that people are too stupid and/or selfish to have control over their own lives. Economic regulation and heavy taxation are imperatives in order to control the individual. The reins of technology must also remain in government hands, lest technology serve as a prosthetic which empowers the individual beyond the government's desired level of control. Naturally, firearms cannot be left in the hands of the citizenry, otherwise they may have the wherewithal to resist government. Only by cowering together under the aegis of paternal government, albeit in mutual suspicion, can we as a society progress.

Technology, slowly but surely, has been undermining the paradigm of centralized government and its attendant hierarchies. No aspect of technology has contributed more to this than advances in communication. Since the first printing press helped to erode the church's monopoly on the interpretation of spiritual texts, communication technology has served to empower the individual to an extraordinary degree. It enables the skills and insights of the individual to become available to all. In effect, it enables the "collectivization" of the knowledge pool; the hierarchy of knowledge is demolished and becomes horizontal, rather than vertical.

Old media, occupied largely by defenders of the Establishment Left, is addicted to the outdated vision of centralized government and the hierarchical world of knowledge. This is evident in the arrogance of CBS in presenting such obviously questionable documents to the public as if they were gospel. It is also evident in the howling of many media commentators, such as Walter Cronkite, over the encroachment of the blogosphere on their inviolate turf. It can even be seen in the thinking of Gerald Levin in his disastrous merger of Time Warner with AOL. The hierarchy is toast.

There are whispers that the source of the forged documents is the Kerry campaign itself. It is much too early to know for sure, and CBS is remaining mum on the issue. If Kerry's Kampaign Klowns are the source, then there will be some serious reprecussions. Frankly, it would not surprise me one bit. The hysterical hatred for Bush felt by so many on the Left would not only render them capable of such a crime, but also of believing it. Conservatives certainly got in a lather over Clinton, but this type of craziness never went beyind the fringe; no best-sellers or Palmes d'Or from the Cannes Film Festival. Passing on the forgeries would also jive with the Kerry Kamp's view of the Swiftboat accusations as mere mud-slinging. They have no clue of the still raw wounds of Vietnam, and how they have lost the culture war over that conflict despite a barrage of self-congratulatory rhetoric.

UPDATE: Lileks makes an excellent point about the state of Old Media,

"But I think the number of people who regard the evening news as straight truth delivered by disinterested observers, can be numbered in the high dozens. Blogs haven’t toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time."

How Stupid Do You Have To Be In Order To Become A Famous Professor?

2004-09-07T22:02:00.000-07:00

Last night, flipping through the channels, I had the terrible misfortune to stop on MSNBC. It was some talk show, and the subject was the recent slaughter in Beslan. One of the guests was Professor. Stephen Cohen, a professor of Russian history at NYU. Cohen made his name as a Kremlinologist back in the Cold War. He taught at Princeton when I was an undergraduate there, but I never took any of his classes. Sadly for Prof. Cohen, once Communism went down the tubes, so did his ability to understand Russian government. Given his record in the last fifteen years, if he was a bookie, he'd be sleeping with the fishes by now.

However, instead of serving as a nutritious meal for our aquatic friends, he's on the air pontificating on Russian affairs. During the discussion of Beslan, one of the guests had the poor taste to point out that the Chechen terrorist movement has, over the last ten years, merged with the broader, al-Qaeda inspired Islamic fundamentalists. The presence of the Arab fighters, and the evidence of their Middle Eastern funding sources, bore witness to this reality. Cohen denied this vigorously, and chastised Putin for failing to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Chechnya. Mustering all of the self-righteousness he could (which is quite a lot), he claimed that former Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov would be more than happy to reach a negotiated settlement.

Sadly, Cohen's ridiculousness is not limited to the sacred groves of academe; it is rife among the mainstream press (not to mention pronouncements from the EU). It is astounding that ostensibly intelligent people could believe that crap. First, it ignores the fact that when Russia did give de facto independence to Chechnya (1996-99), the place quickly degenerated into violence, crime, and served as a base for the export of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Maskhadov's tenure was marked by this descent into chaos. So, not only does the former Chechen president have a shameful track-record, but Cohen makes the ludicrous assumption that Maskhadov would even have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the various terrorists and criminal gangs in Chechnya. If he couldn't control the Chechens back in the mid-90s, what chance does he have now, with the large-scale infusion of al-Qaeda jihadists into the combustible mixture?

Not only are Cohen's assumptions laughable from a practical perspective, but they highlight his inability to adjust to the modern world. He naively imagines that the Chechens are just another separatist movement. A decade ago, that may have been true, but the dynamics of the conflict have radicalized the movement beyond repair. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan knows that Chechen volunteers were a significant element in the al-Qaeda combat brigades deployed against the Northern Alliance. Those factions who have embraced the Islamic fundamentalism of al-Qaeda's Loony Sunnis, such as Shamil Basayev, are in the driver's seat. As Dan Darling points out in his excellent summary of the Chechen situation, Basayev and his ilk seek the establishment of a new caliphate in the Caucasus. Their ambitions are not limited to Chechnya, and Cohen is a fool to imagine otherwise.

None of this implies that Putin is taking the best approach to the problem. The low quality of Russian troops, and a tradition of brutality in the region, prevent a really effective counter-insurgency campaign. The indiscriminate use of firepower and generally poor behavior by the Russian soldiers have done much to alienate the Chechen population.

Still, Cohen's absurdities point to a larger issue: The total inability of the "chattering classes" to even acknowledge the existence of an enemy. This ostrich approach is typical of the old Leftist creed which justified every act of barbarity by Communist regimes or movements of "national liberation" as necessary to create the socialist utopia awaiting all of us. Why do they do this? Where does this moral blindness come from? Frankly, it seems like a frustrated lust for power. Cohen and his comrades assume that their genius and moral superiority entitles them to lordship over us all. Unfortunately, we're too stupid to realize that, and society limits the power of our betters. So, any group which attacks that system must be good, or at least eminently reasonable. It is a dangerous fantasy, and even the death of thousands of their neighbors in Manhattan itself cannot make them believe otherwise.

Kermit the Frog Goes Campaigning

2004-09-07T14:56:00.000-07:00

It seems that Kerry has been getting some advice from a famous frog. No, it's not Jacques Chirac, but America's own Kermit. Taking a page from the Great Green One's Sesame Street playbook, Kerry has now been haranguing his supporters on words that begin with W. Kerry shouted, ""W stands for wrong - wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country." Naturally, the reference is to the president's middle initial.

As the ever-astute Chrenkoff notes, "Kerry should be careful - I can think of a few words which start with "F"."

Marquess of Queenskerry Rules

2004-09-06T16:45:00.000-07:00

Mark Steyn nails it, as always:

Not to worry. The new conventional wisdom is that it was the sheer meanness of the Republicans that earned them the bounce, and so Kerry's hitting back saying he's not going to be criticised by a President and Vice-President who weren't in Vietnam. If you didn't serve in Vietnam, you can't criticise John Kerry. On the other hand, if you did serve in Vietnam and you criticise John Kerry, that just means you're a "Republican smear artist". Either way, don't criticise John Kerry, because, if you do, he'll spend his next 10 campaign rallies droning on about how he's not going to take criticism.

Steyn rocks.

Eurosclerosis

2004-09-06T08:43:00.000-07:00

Things have to be bad in France and Germany if even leftish Britons, such as Will Hutton, (hat tip to Instapundit) notice it. Mired in the socialist politics of the 1950s and 60s, these once mighty nations are locked in a death-spiral of the own creation. Rigid labor markets, punishing taxation, onerous regulations and meddlesome government bureaucracies are choking the life out of the economies of these nations. Moreover, the growing power of the European Union threatens to make the situation even worse. Hutton, naturally, has all of the wrong prescriptions for his otherwise correct diagnosis.

The fundamental problem in these two nations is their failure to unleash the full creative potential of their people. Instead, government elites try to herd their economies here and there with taxes and subsidies. Fear of change permeates every level of their regulatory structures. Rather than acknowledge this fact, Hutton instead calls for even more government intervention in the economy. In his view, government has to foster more research in the universities, and must help to coordinate R&D efforts in the private and public sectors. So long as the European economies remain tied down by such constrictive labor and tax policies, Hutton's suggestions will result in little more than further wasteful spending by governments that cannot afford it. For yet another European Leftist (is there any another kind?), empowering the people means empowering the government.

On a larger level, the woes of France and Germany remind one of the looming failure of the European Union. The EU is a left-over (no pun intended) bit of centralized industrial planning from the 1950s. Worse still, it has long served as a Trojan horse by which France hoped to hijack the industrial power of Germany to make itself paramount in Europe. The EU also held the promise for France to finally tame those annoyingly independent English across La Manche.

This is not to say that the EU hasn't done some good things. It forced a lot of European countries to lower internal trade barriers. Likewise, it provided political cover to some of the most hidebound nations, such as Greece, Spain and Italy, to liberalize. Nonetheless, the benefits of a single currency are vastly over-rated, and the last thing that Europe needs is yet another layer of government bureaucracy.

The latent creative power of the people in France and Germany has long been stifled by governments blinded by faith in their own omniscience. I have always found this especially odd in the case of Germany. The great success of the German army in the 1864-1945 period was largely made possible by a high degree of decentralization. German officers understood that it was the commander on the spot who had the best grasp of a given tactical situation, and so empowered him to make the necessary decisions. The result was a highly flexible and formidable fighting machine that consistently turned the fluidity of the battlefield to its own advantage. Yet, they take almost the opposite view in economics. A rigid legal system and meddlesome bureaucracy control every aspect of economic activity, disempowering the business leaders and entrepreneuers who could otherwise propel the economy to new heights.

The need for change is becoming ever-more imperative in these nations. Their political prestige is sinking, and if they let their economies atrophy any more, they will cease to have any relevance on the world stage. The future lies in the Americas and Asia, and Europe will have no one to blame but itself.

The Powell Delusion

2004-09-05T17:30:00.000-07:00

Shortly after Gulf War I, Gen. Colin Powell (then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), articulated a formula for future U.S. military interventions that has since become known as the Powell Doctrine. Broadly speaking, the Powell Doctrine stated that the United States would deploy military forces only under the following conditions:

There must be a clear threat to US national security.
All non-military options must be first exhausted.
Overwhelming force should be deployed against the opponent.
There must be widespread public support for the military intervention.
There must be a clear exit strategy to enable U.S. disengagement.

Sadly, the Doctrine represents more of a JCS fantasy than a real-world approach to military intervention. Worse still, the Doctrine has provided a justification and vocabulary for opponents of any U.S. military action. With Gulf War II, it is time to put this doctrinal dog out of its misery.

As stated above, The Powell Doctrine is first and foremost a fantasy of the Joint Chiefs rather than a thoughtful response to real-world conditions. The legacy of the Vietnam war was one of paranoia among top U.S. military planners. The older generation of officers was somewhat reluctant to blame the war's failure on poor planning and strategy, and instead took comfort in the notion that it was the loss of public support which resulted in defeat. While the change in public attitude towards the war definitely had an impact, the real fault lay within the defense and policy establishment. The Johnson administration failed to articulate clear and concise strategic goals, and the old WW II vets then leading the military (such as the contemptible Westmoreland) tried to apply conventional solutions to an unconventional war. The result was an unnecessary disaster for the United States. The Powell Doctrine, in essence, represents an effort by the JCS to create conditions where it can hardly fail. However, the strategic function of the JCS is more than just avoiding embarrassment for itself.

A little Clausewitz would have saved the United States a lot of pain in Vietnam. One of the most essential functions of Clausewitzian thought is the dialogue it creates between policy-makers and military planners. In Book One, Clausewitz lays out two fundamental principles. First, there is his oft-quoted contention that"[W]ar is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means."[Italics original] Second, he states, "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." [Italics original] Together, these two principles create an essential dialogue between politicians and military planners. The policy-makers must first identify the policy objectives that they wish to achieve. Then, the military planners must calculate what level of force would be required to compel the enemy to acquiesce. If the force level required is too great, then policy-makers must go back and reformulate a more modest set of objectives; ones that are equal to the level of force they are willing, or able, to apply.

Applying this formula to Vietnam, defeating Communism in the South would have required the military defeat and occupation of the North. After all, the Viet Cong were but the unconventional arm of the more conventional aggression by the North against the South. Given the dangers of Chinese and Soviet intervention during such a time of Cold War tension, this fact would have required American policy-makers to settle for more limited goals. Settling for an attritional stalemate in the South could have been achieved with a much more modest investment of Special Forces, military advisors, military and economic aid, all with a little bit of air support. Instead, we over-invested troops and over-sold our policy objectives without accepting the required strategic imperatives (i.e. invading the North, Laos and Cambodia, and a possible war with China). The strategic mis-match resulted in a minor military setback becoming a major foreign policy disaster.

Unfortunately, Clausewitz is a lot like Nietzsche: Everybody quotes him, a few people actually read him, and almost no one understands him. The turgid German prose of an unfinished work doesn't help (only Book One was finished when Clausewitz died, and the entire work was published posthumously). As a testament to this fact, the first time that I read Clausewitz, I thought that it was okay. The second time I read him, I thought that the stuff was pretty good. Only after the third reading did I realize that it was genius.

So, what's the problem with the Powell Doctrine? Basically, it almost amounts to a negation of strategy. The use of military force is a function of the policy goals to be achieved, not of a priori assumptions about the circumstances of military intervention. Worse still, the Powell Doctrine basically amounts to a bunch of canards that add little or nothing to the fundamental decision making process. For example:

"Threats" to national security are in the eye of the beholder. More importantly, military intervention is for achieving policy goals, not simply for eliminating what are perceived to be direct threats. Sometimes, in places like Rwanda or Darfur, saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives may involve the use of military force in the absence of a direct threat to national security.
Differentiating between non-military and military options is a false dichotomy. They are all merely tools in the policy-makers' toolkit. Often, the efficacy of non-military options is a function of the possibility that one might resort to military options. Put simply, the velvet glove must enclose an iron fist, and the two act as one.
The force level applied should be a function of the policy goal to be achieved. If we merely want to aid a foreign government, but do not wish to invest the full faith and credit of the United States in the operation, then we should not apply overwhelming force. A few Special Forces operators sometimes can be enough to achieve a limited policy goal.
If the policy goal is worthwhile, and the case made clearly, then public support will follow. Powell desires to put the cart before the horse. Besides, the public can be fickle, and vital strategic goals cannot always be subordinated to the vagaries of the polls. If policy-makers do not believe that they can garner sufficient public support, then they should adjust their policy objectives and military investment accordingly.
Exit strategies are bunk. The only exit strategy is victory. Defining some artificial "exit strategy" achieves little but to signal to your enemies what they have to do in order to get you to leave. Moreover, warfare is a nonlinear phenomenon, and the very existence of a conflict will change its dynamic in unpredictable ways. If you create an "exit strategy" that no longer accords with the reality on the ground, then you will be hoisted by your own petard.

In Iraq, our policy goals were to (1) remove a nasty anti-U.S. dictator; (2) signal to regional governments that the United States is willing and able to smash hostile powers; (3) puncture Arab fantasies about being able to militarily resist the West; and, (4) begin the process of creating functioning, representative governments in the Middle East. The only exit strategy is to transform the Middle East in such a way that it no longer represents a strategic threat to the United States, as we have done in Germany and Japan. Accordingly, let us just take the Powell Doctrine out back and shoot it.

Best to Bubba

2004-09-04T13:25:00.000-07:00

Former President Bill Clinton is in the hospital, about to undergo surgery for a heart condition. I am certainly no fan of the guy as president. I found him to be a tad sleazy, too quick to lie, and impotent on the international scene (despite his great popularity abroad). That said, he wasn't a bad president. Heck, as a conservative, I should be pleased with the dramatic welfare reform he signed, however reluctantly he did so. Moreover, the Democrats lost their stranglehold on Congress under his watch. The guy was no ideologue (in contrast to his wife, who scares the bejeezus out of me), and could reach across the aisle when necessary. All in all, he wasn't a bad centrist. Chrenkoff has some nice thoughts on the subject.

Let's hope that the former president makes a swift recovery.

Massacre of the Innocents

2004-09-04T10:43:00.000-07:00

As was probably inevitable, the hostage situation in Beslan came to a bloody and horrible end yesterday. Anyone wishing to gain a fuller appreciation of the tragedy is encouraged to look at the slides from the Associated Press. I couldn't make it through without tears, and I doubt you will either.

War is inherently a nasty business. Pain, suffering and tragedy are integral to warfare, and cannot be avoided even in the smallest and neatest of conflicts. Yet, at least in the West, we make an effort to avoid the deliberate killing of civilians, especially children. It inevitably happens, sometimes by mistake, other times through callousness. Still, with the notable exceptions of such abominations as Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, slaughter such as this is never intentional. Making an effort to spare the innocent is a hallmark of civilization.

However, the terrorists, Chechen and Arab, who carried out this attack chose to ignore any decency and assumed the status of barbarians. In Israel, in Madrid, on 9/11 and now in Russia, these people have chosen to focus almost exclusively on the murder of innocents. Do we need any more evidence of the nature of the opposition? Or, will someone of Susan Sontag's ilk pen yet another excuse for the killers, and explain to us why these children deserved to die? Maybe Michael Moore will be so good as to explain to the world how 'freedom fighters' and 'Minutemen' such as this have no choice but to kill children in a world controlled by Halliburton.

From descriptions contained in the Associated Press account and others, it seems to me that the terrorists probably intended to slaughter their victims. If one intends to use one's hostages as bargaining chips, then it is imperative to keep them intact during the course of the negotiations. The fact that these terrorists denied them even water or the chance to urinate for days means that the hostages were not worth preserving for any political objective. Similarly, the manner in which the explosives were prepared in the gym, packed with shrapnel, meant that they were there not just to bring down the roof, but to maximize the slaughter. The terrorists knew that there would be no peaceful resolution to the stand-off, and fully intended to kill the hostages.

Why would the terrorists plan on simply killing the hostages? Two reasons. First, they believe that infidels are weak, and so horrifying them will break their will to resist the forces of jihad. Second, they do not truly desire political concessions from the infidels. Instead, they seek only our annihilation.

Mekong Delta Blues

2004-09-03T15:38:00.000-07:00

By now, much of the sturm und drang of the Swiftboat controversy has passed. Yet, one man seems intent on keeping it alive. His name is John Kerry and he's from Massachusetts. At a rally here in Ohio, Kerry denounced Bush for questioning his patriotism, and mocked Cheney for not serving in Vietnam (in contrast to, say, John Edwards?). Beyond sounding petty in light of the larger campaign issues, this tirade reveals some fundamental flaws in Kerry as a presidential candidate. These flaws range from the personal, to campaign strategy, to larger misunderstandings about America's cultural dynamic.

On the personal level, Kerry's insistence on being outraged over every attack by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth shows unmistakably that for John Kerry, the most important thing in this campaign is John Kerry. Rather than being dignified and graceful about it, he's acting like a little kid, determined to respond in kind to every insult until the offender takes it back. The smart thing would have been to give a solemn and comprehensive renunciation of the accusations, and then moved to issues on which the Democrats have an advantage, like health care. Instead, Kerry screams like a child every time someone takes a shot at him, while other Democrats accuse Bush/Cheney of being AWOL draft-evaders. This latter approach reeks of hypocrisy: If you don't want your guy's Vietnam record to be a matter of public debate, then don't insist on making the other guy's Vietnam record an issue.

Nonetheless, Kerry just can't drop it. After all, if this election isn't about John Kerry, what is it about? He may be surprised in November when he realizes how many voters think that this election is about defeating Islamic terrorists and improving the American economy.

Beyond self-absorption and poor campaign strategy, Kerry's approach to the Vietnam issue calls into question his character. On too many issues, Kerry tries to have it both ways. He's the decorated Vietnam hero, and the anti-war protestor who defiantly hurled...well, somebody's medals over the White House fence. He is part of a band of brothers made up of fellow veterans, and he is the guy who denounced fellow veterans for innumerable war crimes. Although he doesn't get it, this last act is what really set-off the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Anyone who has served in the military, or even been in any kind of all-male environment, knows that you never, ever rat out your buddies. Yet, Kerry sold all Vietnam veterans down the river to advance his own career. This is another aspect of Kerry's character that has not gone unnoticed. From wives to fellow soldiers, everyone is a means to an end for John Kerry.

Finally, the larger aspect of the Swiftboat controversy that eludes both Kerry and the mainstream media is Vietnam's place in America's culture wars. Well into the 1980s, the Left congratulated itself ad nauseum on opposing the Vietnam conflict as an unjust war of American imperialism. However, this attitude never penetrated more than media elite deep. As time passed, more Americans came to believe that although the war was poorly conducted, its aim was noble. Defending a people against Communist tyranny could only be a sin in Hollywood or a university faculty lounge. Kerry, as a very wealthy Massachusetts liberal, has no exposure to average Americans. His attempt to play the hero both as a warrior and protester simply doesn't work for these folks. Real soldiers do not stab their comrades in the back before Congress, and real Americans do not run off to Paris to meet with the nation's enemies. Influencing the domestic politics of an enemy nation is very much part of warfare, and it was integral to North Vietnamese strategy (see former NVA Col. Bui Tin's "Following Ho Chi Minh"). Given this fact, Kerry effectively aided and abetted America's enemy. He's not a traitor in the strict sense, but his actions won't win any hearts and minds among average Americans.

On last, small thing, I'd like to mention. The fact that a presidential candidate served in the military is definitely a plus. However, it is not the president's job to command an infantry platoon, or a destroyer, or a fighter squadron. His job to manage the war at the highest strategic level, and so the necessary job skills are different. Of the two best wartime leaders produced by this nation, Lincoln and FDR, one had two weeks worth of militia service, and the other had no military experience. Kerry's partisans among the punditry should keep this in mind, especially as former supporters of Bill Clinton.

Russian Hostage Crisis

2004-09-03T13:20:00.000-07:00

What can I say? There is almost nothing so revealing of the true nature of the enemy facing the West than the recent events in Russia. From using women as walking bombs to murder innocent civilians in the skies and in the subway, to using the lives of children as bargaining chips, the terrorists have no moral scruples. The uncompromising character of the terrorists' political objectives renders irrelevant any standard of decency. It also negates the possibility of any type of negotiation or compromise.

Therefore, Putin did what he had to do; he had no choice. Storming the place was going to be bloody. There were simply too many hostages for that not to happen. Murphy's Law is the law of war, especially in special operations such as this. It is not clear which Russian special forces unit conducted the operation, probably the FSB's Alpha team or one of the OMON units of the Interior Ministry. Regardless, there would have been OMON units at the scene.

In a way, Putin's dilemma, and that of the West as a whole, reminds me of a scene from the 1995 movie "The Usual Suspects". In the film, a group of Hungarian mobsters seize the wife and children of the Turkish crime lord Keyser Soze. As a demonstration of his will to resist the mobsters, Soze kills his own family before the Hungarians can. In a way, Putin had to demonstrate the same resolve. A failure to do so would only have encouraged more such incidents.

Again, all of this serves to bring home the true nature of the conflict. Terrorists cannot be dealt with by hugs and affection, as author Alice Walker suggested in the days after September 11th. They understand only two languages: Hot lead and cold steel. Anything less is interpreted by them as cowardice and prevarication, signs that they are winning.

By the way, for some of the best coverage of this stuff in the blogosphere, please check out The Belmont Club. Belmont's analysis is always insightful and eloquent.

Dubya Delivers

2004-09-02T23:45:00.000-07:00

Dubya just finished his speech, and I have to say that I am quite impressed. Maybe it was just that my expectations were modest, but he did much better than I expected. Even Chris Matthews on MSNBC is being very complimentary. That is no small thing, given his none-too-subtle distaste for the Bush pere et fils.

Dubya began by competently laying out a detailed domestic agenda. As a small "l" libertarian, I think it was a bit too much government, but it was good stuff for an election. It showed that he was not ignoring domestic politics for foreign affairs, and realized that there was much work to be done. Given his emphasis on tax reduction and simplification, which almost always increases actual tax revenues (a fact conveniently ignored by most Lefties), I can stomach the other stuff. If the government is paying for its new programs by growing the economy, rather than increasing its share of the economy, it's kosher.

Most of all, I really liked his discussion of the war in Iraq within the context of the larger War on Terror. It was still insufficient, but a giant step in the right direction. He made clear the link between terrorism and repressive governments. Free societies neither create nor encourage large-scale terrorist movements. Our invasion of Iraq not only liberated its people and deposed a brutal dictator, but it will serve as the launch pad of democracy in the Arab world. The invasion advertises our resolve to both friend and foe in no uncertain terms. Best of all, Iraq places us in a central position, next to almost all of the region's meanies. I wish, though, that he had said something about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So, Kerry is now on the defensive. He's got a number of problems, beyond issues of policy or character. Kerry has no real conviction other than the fact that John Kerry deserves to be president. That doesn't help to rally the troops; the ABB (Anybody But Bush) movement will only take you so far. Moreover, his arrogance clearly has prevented him from assembling an organized and well-led campaign team. He's floundering, and it is painfully obvious. Not only is he on the defensive, but his responses are slow and petty.

The Bush team did what they usually do, which is to wait until the opponent is over-extended and then hit them with a massive counter-attack (the old "Zhukov at Moscow" ploy). They waited so long that a lot of Republicans were beginning to despair. It also helped that Kerry set up his own, personal Vietnam booby trap. Still, two months are a long time in politics.

RNC: The Second Night

2004-09-01T11:31:00.000-07:00

I suppose after the terrific speech given by Rudy Giuliani on the first night that almost anything would seem like a let-down. So, I found myself a little underwhelmed last night. The Gubernator gave a solid speech. I especially liked his points about the yearning so many abroad feel to come to America. Too often, our media elites gauge international opinion by by the grousing and mutterings in Paris cafes.

In addition, I appreciated Arnold's statement about the nature of terrorism. His bottom-line was right on the mark: You don't negotiate with these guys. Terrorists, acting under the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, do not want anything from us; they want to destroy us. Liberals often forget this. They imagine the non-western world as some inert mass of yellow, brown and black people who only respond in reaction to some evil committed by the West. Yet, as incomprehensible as it may be to those on the Left, not everything is America's fault. Even more shocking is the notion that some of these people in the Third World can think for themselves, and have their own political agendas exclusive of the policies of the United States.

The Bush twins were just ridiculous. Kids have no place in a political convention. The only thing worse was that little girl who addressed the Democratic convention in Boston. I at least expect that kind of thing from the Democrats, given that their party's policies read like a child's letter to Santa Claus ("I want this, and this, and this, and this, and this..."). Laura Bush was okay, but again, keep the candidates' families out of it. Maybe some focus groups found that she appeals to undecided, married women. Still, it's lame.

Leftist Fallacy #2: "Iraq Is A Distraction From The War On Terror: Part III"

2004-08-31T11:12:00.000-07:00

I've let this subject lie fallow for a few days, so I'd like to do a quick recap. Folks on the Left like to claim that the invasion of Iraq was mistake, as it diverted scarce American military resources (thank you, Bill Clinton) from Afghanistan, and only serves to enrage the "Arab street". In order to adequately address this critique, it is necessary to determine the ends and means of the War on Terror. Only then can one see whether or not invading Iraq is an integral part of the War on Terror.

What is the ultimate objective of the War on Terror?: Obviously, it is the elimination of terrorism. Terror is tactic used by various groups in pursuit of a political agenda, in this case it is Islamic fundamentalism. As the oft-quoted Clausewitzian formula reminds us, "[W]ar is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means." [Italics original] In simple terms, warfare is a means to achieve political objectives. Terrorism is the mode of warfare used by Islamic fundamentalists in pursuit of their political aims. This creates two possible, but not mutually exclusive, approaches to the war. First, we can kill all of the terrorists, which is a very difficult and never-ending process. Alternatively, we can eliminate the political conditions that create Islamic fundamentalist groups willing to use terror tactics. This is often referred to as "draining the swamp". It is this latter approach that the Bush administration has chosen to pursue.
How does one eliminate the political conditions that cause Islamic fundamentalists to resort to terror tactics?: The repressive nature of most governments in the Islamic world is an unfortunate fact of history. For the most part, these governments have failed to deliver anything but misery for their citizens. Sclerotic economic growth, repression and endemic corruption are the rule in these countries, with things being only marginally better in the oil-rich states. In the honor cultures that dominate these countries, admitting error is not really an option, so governments have encouraged their citizens to find outside scapegoats for their failures. The West (imperialists during the Cold War, infidels today), has been a favorite scapegoat for decades. The Jews, in particular, are to blame for all of the region's woes, in the minds of many of its people. Frustration, combined with the inability to reform, has played into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists, who oppose their governments as tools of the Western infidels. With no legitimate means of voicing dissent, moderates in the Islamic world have been drowned out by these violent radicals. Accordingly, the best way to weaken these radicals is to open up the political system and reduce them to only one of many voices clamoring for change. It must be remembered that the radicalism of the Islamic fundamentalists invariably alienates moderate Muslims, as happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic rebels in Algeria (and is currently happening in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran). Take away their monopoly on dissent, and you take away the great majority of their support.
Where does the invasion of Iraq fit into this strategy of political reform?: Invading Iraq serves a number of purposes towards achieving the objective of political reform. Anyone with access to a map cannot help but notice the central location of Iraq. It provides an ideal jumping-off point to any number of nations in the part of the world. It is partially in this context that one must view the invasion. First, to those governments hostile to the United States and who support terrorism, it sends a message that America has the will and the means to change governments by force. In case they doubt this, they have but to look next door (especially in the cases of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia). After all, we don't have all of those armored units stationed in Iraq just for street patrols. Second, to friendly governments, the invasion gives us the physical proximity to provide support and demonstrates how serious we are about changing the region's political dynamic. Finally, Iraq itself is a perfect test case for our strategy. Not only did we get rid of a nasty and brutish regime, but Iraq's educated and cosmopolitan population provides relatively fertile ground for a democracy to take root. The effect of some semblance of a democratic state in Iraq would be electric, and would serve to embolden reformers throughout the Muslim world.

One last note. Iraq also serves an important function as a magnet for terrorists, the so-called "flypaper" strategy. The worldview of the Islamic fundamentalists holds that Arabs are invincible warriors with God on their side, and they cannot tolerate the presence of infidels ("Crusaders") in their holy lands. Now, an intelligent military commander attacks his enemy where he is weakest. In this case, however, the cultural conditioning of the Islamic fundamentalists demands of them they they drive the infidels from Iraq. Accordingly, they are attacking us where we are strongest; a fatal error. Not only do they suffer severe losses for almost no gain, but they lose the opportunity to train and cultivate experienced cadres. Instead, these young jihadis march off to Iraq with only minimal training and are killed off by Coalition forces shortly thereafter. We have, in effect, hit the enemy in their psychological center of gravity. Their mindset then forces them to attack our very strong military presence to no avail.

Opening Night at the RNC

2004-08-31T09:22:00.000-07:00

Last night's speeches by McCain and Giuliani made for a strong opener at the Republican National Convention. McCain's speech was good, not great. The content was excellent, but the delivery was a little flat. McCain, however, did a fine job of reminding people of the necessity of ridding the world of Saddam. It is sad that so many question whether the world is a better place without a sadistic dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Such is life in a post-modernist world, I suppose.

Anyway, back to McCain. In particular, I was very pleased at his point that the "containment" of Saddam, so near and dear to the hearts of many liberals, was no longer a viable option. The sanctions were a leaking sieve. As the Oil-For-Palaces scandal (so assiduously ignored by mainstream media) reminds us, too many people were tempted by Saddam's bribery. More importantly, Saddam had offered a number of immensely valuable oil contracts to France, Russia and, to a lesser extent, China, all of which were contingent on the termination of the UN sanctions. These powers, for whom government and business are almost inseparable, had both the incentive and desire to work for the end of sanctions. With cash and arms again flowing into Iraq, we would have faced a more formidable Saddam Hussein.

Folks, let us not forget Machiavelli's admonition in his Discourses on Livy that there is no such thing as a war avoided, only a war delayed, and usually to the advantage of the enemy. That was certainly the case with Saddam.

Giuliani's speech was a blast. Seldom have I seen a politician speak so plainly, directly and comfortably to an audience. One almost got the sense that he had long since strayed from his prepared remarks, and was just saying what he really thought. He took some direct shots at Kerry, but laced his speech with enough humor and self-deprecation that it did not come across as mean-spirited. It was terrific.

Y'know, I've got a lot of problems with Bush's performance on the domestic front, but there are two issues which are paramount for me: Terrorism and Taxes. On those two, I find Dubya infinitely preferable to Kerry. To this day, the Democrats simply do not take the War on Terror seriously, despite the lip-service they pay to it. Last night, MSNBC had Hillary Clinton on to talk about the RNC. She went on and on about how Bush is a "disaster" for America. However, the most painful part of her diatribe for me was when she talked about the War on Terror. It was terrible, she said, how Dubya has diverted troops from Afghanistan and won't go after the real enemy, Osama bin Laden. Does she really think that terrorism is limited to Osama and al-Qaeda, and that they are are to be found only in Afghanistan? Even if we nabbed Osama, would terrorism against the West suddenly stop? Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu-Sayyaf and their ilk would suddenly disband? As was the case with her husband's administration, national defense is simply beyond her comprehension. She displayed no ability to think with any depth about strategic issues. Worse still, the War on Terror was clearly just another means to score political points and to achieve what she craves more than anything: Power.

Vichystan

2004-08-30T15:57:00.000-07:00

Much abuse and scorn has recently been heaped upon our erstwhile French allies. Sadly, a great deal of this abuse is richly deserved. As a disclaimer, I have to admit up-front that I have visited France many times, and I love the country and its people. Nevertheless, when evaluating their actions on the world stage, it is very tempting to conclude that they are, well...jerks. It is only right that one asks why the French insist in behaving in such a despicable manner.

The answer is two-fold. One aspect has to to with France within the context of long-term geopolitical trends. The other is a product of the French character as it manifests itself within the nation's political culture.

As Americans, our sense of history is too often truncated by the comparatively recent birth of our own Republic. Therefore, when critically examining the French historical experience, it is imperative to elongate our view. Since the time of Charlemagne, France has been one of Europe's, and indeed the world's, great powers. Even when French political and military power waned, it's stature as a cultural super-power was unquestionable. Several times in French history, such as during the Grand Siecle (17th century) and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, French power proved a match for most of the rest of Europe combined. As recently as fifty years ago, France was a military and economic power of the highest order (albeit, no super-power), with an empire that spanned the globe.

Yet, in the span of only two generations, France has been reduced to the lower rungs of second-tier powers. Its empire has been swept away and its military power is rapidly diminishing. France's moribund economy hobbles along, with virtually all job growth coming from an expanding government bureaucracy. Its cultural power has long since been eclipsed by the United States. The nation is heading for a demographic implosion. Given current trends, it is only a slight exagerration to say (to paraphrase Mark Steyn) that in another two generations everyone in France will be retired or Muslim. France has even lost control of her last great effort to exercise international influence: The European Union. Rarely in history has a nation fallen so far, so fast. The impact on the self-obsessed French psyche has to be traumatic. France is a like a morning star, whose light is rapidly fading against the rising sun of American power.

The other aspect of French political culture that observers must keep in mind is the idea of la gloire ("glory"). It is imperative for a French political leader to garner la gloire for himself. Achieving la gloire requires some singular achievement. However, it creates the potential for what is known to lawyers and economists as "moral hazard". In brief, moral hazard is a situation in which a person does not bear the full cost of their action. For example, insurance creates moral hazard, because it is the insurance company, and not the insured, who bears the full cost of a mishap. Similarly, politicians are subject to moral hazard in starting a war: Others will suffer and die, while the politician will only get voted out of office for starting the conflict.

The classic French example of la gloire is the famed Sun King, Louis XIV. Louis XIV was a shrewd, calculating and very talented monarch. Yet, his youthful need for la gloire led him into the otherwise inconsequential War of Devolution (1667-68). It was not a war fought over real strategic issues, but a statement by the young monarch of his power, an announcement of his presence on the international scene. In attacking the weak and decaying Spanish empire, he acquired la gloire in an easy victory. Yet, the long-term results were disastrous. Because of this first act of aggression, nearly every subsequent action of the Sun King was viewed by other powers in the most negative light. He was seen as predatory and possessed of an unbridled ambition, when his actual foreign policy goals were quite modest. The net result was a series of exhausting wars, which brought France great military glory, but crippled her political and financial infrastructure. The Sun King's heir, Louis XV, was unable to cope with the burden bequeathed to him. Near the end of his life, he accurately predicted, "Apres moi, le deluge". This prophecy was tragically fulfilled when Louis XVI and his family paid with their lives in their atempt to tackle France's looming financial crisis. In more recent times, the insufferable Charles de Gaulle and Francois Mitterand have further isolated France and outraged her allies for their own personal glory.

These two aspects of French politics, terminal decline and la gloire, have come together in a very ugly way in the person of Jacques Chirac. Not only does Chirac have a very weak hand to play in his search for la gloire, but neither he nor his countrymen have yet accepted France's diminished international stature. Given this state of affairs, Chirac is left with tweaking the nose of the world's greatest super-power in order to achieve la gloire. By tripping up the Americans, Chirac brings glory to himself and gives the French electorate some sense of being able to exert power on the United States. What many observers in France fail to understand is that it is only the Americans' habit of deferring to their venerable Old World ally that gives France any leverage. Chirac's policies are causing American policy-makers to re-think that relationship. Old habits die hard, but Chirac has forced the issue to the breaking-point.

Should America just forget about France? Tempting though it might be, France does have something to offer the United States. Her armed forces are in decay, but France continues to maintain a strong intelligence service (with excellent contacts in west Africa, in particular), some very good special forces, and the splendid Foreign Legion. These are assets that the United States must take seriously. That said, France's insistence on charting its own course, if only to provide some politician his share of la gloire, makes it an ally of limited value. Acordingly, the United States should try to work with France whenever possible, but concessions should be made to the French only when absolutely necessary. When a nation, such as France, is in decline, it generally has two options: Reform or resignation. France is currently incapable of either. Accordingly, she is slipping ever more deeply into a dangerous fantasy world, and American policy-makers must keep that in mind.

Despite this, France still has her charms. Think of it this way: In contrast to the determined Uncle Sam and the doughty John Bull, France is symbolized by a woman, Marianne. [Note to Female Readers: Please forgive any vulgar stereotypes. I have sisters who would beat me to a bloody pulp if I actually manifested any sexist traits.] Like a woman, she can be incomprehensibly shallow, vain and tempermental. Then, just as suddenly, she can transform into a being of extraordinary depth and wisdom; arguably God's most sublime creation. If Uncle Sam and John Bull can put up with all of the pettiness, they will be immeasurably rewarded when they least expect it.

Leftist Fallacy #2: "Iraq Is A Distraction From The War On Terror: Part II"

2004-08-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

In evaluating the role of the invasion of Iraq as part of the War on Terror, it is necessary to determine the precise strategic goals of the war. Is the War on Terror merely directed at al-Qaeda and its affiliates? Or, does it have a larger goal? Indeed, the War on Terror does have a larger goal. It is not just the military defeat of al-Qaeda & Co. That is something we seek, but a more important objective is to alter the conditions that produce terrorism. As in all wars, military actions are just one element of the larger strategic goal, which in this instance is to drain the political swamp where terrorists breed.

If terminating the conditions that breed terrorism is our goal, how is that goal to be achieved? The long and the short of it is that the political structures of the Middle East need a radical overhaul. There are almost no political structures that allow for adequate representation, dissent and compromise. Lebanon came the closest, but even its constitution was based on a precarious division of political power among the dominant religious groups. This system worked until the 1970s, when explosive growth of the Shiite population, combined with the introduction of Yassir Arafat and thousands of PLO fighters, upset the delicate political balance. The result was ten years of civil war, which ended only when Syria and Israel moved in and took control of the country. Today, a precarious peace in Lebanon is maintained largely by the Syrian military presence, and everyone knows that it will end sometime soon.

If faulty political structures are the problem, how does Islamic fundamentalism fit into the picture? Quite simply, it provides the ideology of protest against a failed political system. To a greater or lesser extent, it has long filled this role in the Middle East, but not exclusively. From the late 1950s through the 1980s, Marxism served this role, as it did in much of the Third World. However, Marxism, typically expressed in the pan-Arab socialism of Nasser and (later) the Baathists, ultimately failed. As elsewhere in the world, socialism provided only political repression and economic stagnation. It was no great leap for many Arabs to turn from the secular religion of Marxism to the religion of Islamic fundamentalism.

Yassir Arafat is a prime example of this phenomenon. In his early days in Egypt, he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, once he got into the terrorism game, he embraced the Marxist creed. Now that his patrons in Moscow have disappeared, he is again returning to Islamic fundamentalism (however, his return to the faith comes a little late, as Hamas beat him to the punch). Many of the tenets of Marxism, and to a lesser extent Germany's National Socialism, have been absorbed into contemporary Islamic fundamentalism. Both place blame for the region's woes on outsiders, be they Western imperialists or non-believers. Both creeds also have a strong does of millenarianism, with ultimate victory assured for the faithful. Finally, both promise utopia if the rules are followed. In his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence emphasized the Arabs' notion of themselves as a Chosen People.

More importantly, Islamic fundamentalism holds a number of advantages over Marxism as an ideological rallying point. For example, religion cuts across international borders, tribal affinities and class distinctions. This is in marked contrast to the divisive class warfare preached by Marxists. The nations of the Middle East are recent creations, so nationalism is a distinctly secondary factor in regional politics. The appeals of Islamic fundamentalism render nationalism moot. The most important advantage of Islamic fundamentalism is its deep roots in the region's culture, especially its political culture. Traditionally, most of the rulers of the Middle Eastern countries have claimed some kind of divine sanction for their rule. This was especially true in the case of the Ottoman sultans, who also held the title of caliph. In the context of the region's overall history, the reign of secular governments has been absurdly brief and of limited impact.

Blaming the West for the region's problems comes from a variety of sources. The religious divide between the Islamic world and that of non-believers is one part of it. A second part is the Marxist tradition, which still influences many intellectuals who blame Western imperialism for the region's troubles. Finally, there is the honor culture that exists among the Arabs. Admitting error on one's own part is simply not part of an honor culture; it involves too much loss of face. Accordingly, it is preferable to blame troubles on the intervention of others. The West, everyone's favorite scapegoat for the last century or two, provides a catch-all excuse for any and all failures. The Jews, of course, are particular favorites in the scapegoating department. Heck, even the Europeans love still blaming stuff on them.

Bringing about more representative government in the Middle East is no easy task, nor is it a panacea for all of the region's ills. However, it would provide a framework for the long over-due modernization of the Islamic world to occur. Equally important, grievances can be aired and compromises made under the rule of law. It is fashionable for the chattering classes to assume that Arabs are too primitive for democracy (as they once said of the Japanese). Iraq, with its comparatively educated and cosmopolitan citizenry, is probably the best place to start. A functioning, representative government in Iraq is the nightmare of every Arab leader, especially the theocrats of Tehran and Baathist dead-enders in Damascus. If the Coalition is successful in Iraq, the impact on the rest of the Arab world will be enormous. The justifications for repressive, strong-man regimes will evaporate. Islamic fundamentalists will find themselves in the position of being just another voice in the political dialogue, and no longer the standard-bearers of resistance.

Leftist Fallacy #2: "Iraq Is A Distraction From The War On Terror: Part I"

2004-08-28T21:20:00.000-07:00

One of the favored lines of the chattering classes, especially those on the Left, is that the invasion of Iraq is a distraction from the real War on Terror. Their logic is that there are no proven ties between Saddam and the terrorists. Therefore, the invasion serves no purpose. Rather, it only exacerbates the situation by siphoning off U.S. forces and enraging the fabled "Arab street" against us.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to address the canard that there are no proven ties between Saddam and terror. "Proof" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Most critics of the war seem to be holding to a very high standard, demanding that the evidence proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the whole reason that a regime like Saddam's would work with terrorists would be to have what is known in intelligence circles as "plausible deniability". Clearly, Saddam had a motive, not only in his bitterness over defeat in Gulf War I, but under the code of behavior mandated by an honor culture (such as exists among the Arabs). In an honor culture, a strong man such as Saddam cannot accept defeat without striking back. Vengeance is mandated by an honor culture, and Saddam certainly made vengeance against his enemies a priority at home, so why not abroad? We know that Saddam's intelligence services tried to kill former President Bush in Kuwait. Moreover, Saddam was obsessed with his public image, and to passively accept defeat would have entailed a significant loss of face.

The standard retort to any suggestion of collusion is that Saddam is a pan-Arab secularist, while al-Qaeda's ideology is ultra-fundamentalist Wahabbism. It is true that Saddam was a pan-Arab secularist, but he changed his tune after the first Gulf War. Ever the opportunist, he embraced Islam in a more ostentatious manner, adding Koranic verse to the Iraqi national flag and undertaking an ambitious program of mosque construction. He always, and very publicly, associated himself with the great Islamic leader Saladin, renown for his war against the Crusaders of Christian Europe (that Saladin was a Kurd was conveniently ignored). Moreover, one should not make the mistake of turning stereotypes of an enemy into concrete operational constraints. After all, if ideology were all-controlling, then Hitler and Stalin never would have signed their Non-Aggression Pact in 1939. Similarly, one should not forget that the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an Arab proverb.

The bottom line is that this debate will never be settled to the satisfaction of either side any time soon. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest ties between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda. Numerous low-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence have been documented, and the group Ansar al-Islam seems to have served as a contact point between the two. Saddam also funneled money to Palestinian terrorists, writing big checks to the families of suicide bombers. Terrorists from all over came to train at Salman Pak, hundreds of whom were killed by U.S. forces during the initial invasion. However, given the doctrine of plausible deniability, one is unlikely to find a letter reading:

Dear Saddam,
It's been really great working with you against the Great Satan.
Hugs & Kisses,
Osama

Short of such a document, I doubt that many on the Left will accept the reality of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Even if such a letter appeared, Michael Moore would quickly produce a movie claiming that Osama is actually Bush's half-brother, and that they started this whole terrorists thing to cash in on their investments in the defense industry. Worse still, if Mr. Moore did so, ostensibly intelligent and educated people on the Left would lap it up.

Leftist Fallacy #1: "Iraq Is Another Vietnam"

2004-08-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

With the advent of the War on Terror, many Leftists, long contemptuous of military affairs, have suddenly been transformed into military strategists of the highest order (at least, in their own minds). Their deep knowledge of military history and theory has led them to the profound conclusion that the war in Iraq is another Vietnam.

Alas, reality does not support this contention. The critical differences between the two conflicts are too numerous to list, but a few cardinal points should suffice.

First, it should be remembered that the Vietnam War was a civil war between two political sub-divisions who shared relative ethnic and cultural homogeneity. There were numerous ethnic minorities in Vietnam, particularly in the South, but the great majority of the people were ethnic Vietnamese. Likewise, the great majority of Vietnamese were Buddhists, with small Catholic (mainly among the urban elite) and Muslim minorities (in the far south). Accordingly, the idea of national unification held wide currency in both North and South. The only unresolved question was under what political system would unification come about. This is in sharp contrast to the situation in Iraq, where deep ethnic (Kurd/Arab) and religious (Sunni/Shiite) divides define the political landscape. These divisions within Iraqi society mitigate any shared vision of the Iraqi nation, in marked contrast to the earnest hopes of both North and South Vietnam for a unified nation. Rather, different groups with different agendas are jockeying for power in post-Saddam Iraq. The most desperate are the Sunnis, who have run Iraq for most of the last millenium, and don't feel like sharing power now.

It should also be noted that the polyglot nature of Iraqi society is both a benefit and curse to anyone seeking to control the country. On one hand, it makes it impossible to keep all of the people happy all of the time; compromise in such an environment is difficult. On the other hand, a clever political leadership can play off various groups in such a manner as to prevent any unified opposition. The Americans have become increasingly adept at playing this game, as the events in Fallujah and Najaf demonstrate.

From a purely military perspective, the greatest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the nature of the opposition. In Vietnam, we faced two formidable opponents, the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong, who operated under the central leadership of the Communist Party. These forces were highly experienced, well-trained and lavishly equipped by their patrons in China and the USSR. The American refusal to occupy North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia provided the NVA/VC with numerous and inviolate sanctuaries. In these base areas, they could amass supplies, train, rest and recuperate. The Ho Chi Minh trail also offered the NVA/VC a remarkable degree of strategic mobility. Finally, the guerilla war in South Vietnam was simply one component of the larger, more conventional war between North and South. Indeed, it was only after two purely conventional invasions that South Vietnam finally succumbed. Moreover, it was primarily through the refusal of the United States to provide air support in the second invasion that the South was overcome.

The fragmented opposition to Coalition forces in Iraq lacks every one of these advantages. They seldom act in concert, although the Loony Sunnis of al-Qaeda will occasionally work with their Sunni brethren among the Baathists. Their access to external supply is limited. Iran and Syria provide some help to their proxies, but nothing comparable to the great sugar-daddies the NVA/VC enjoyed in the USSR and China. The Islamofascists do attract a fair number of outside recruits, but have nowhere to train and organize them into effective fighters (although some train in Lebanon). Most of these young jihadis serve little purpose but to provide target practice for American snipers and artillery. The number of experienced cadres in the Iraqi opposition is clearly dwindling. The mini-Tet of April '04 sent most of them to their graves. The declining quality of the opposition, as opposed to the increasing prowess of the Coalition, has been most evident in the recent fighting. The American fatality rate in the Iraq war is but one-fifth of that suffered by U.S. forces in Vietnam.

Finally, it should be pointed out that insurgencies rarely succeed. This has been historically the case around the world, and the absolute rule in Iraq. Iraqi revolts against the British failed on a number of occasions. However, that said, Iraq is much more populous and more heavily armed than it was in the days of the Hashemite dynasty and British occupation.

If the differences between Iraq and Vietnam seem to bode well for the Coalition, there are still a number of caveats. Most significantly, while a fragmented opposition is weaker, it can be harder to kill. Like the hydra of Greek myth, unless the severed neck is cauterized, two new heads will grow in its place.

The key to a successful Iraq will require military victory, political reform and economic development in tandem. The Coalition and Iraqi government have to work hand-in-hand to ferret out and destroy violent opposition, develop a workable political structure, and grow the long-moribund Iraqi economy. None of these objectives will be easy, but they will be far easier than they were in Vietnam. Even in Vietnam, the combination of rural land reform and targeting the VC infrastructure all but destroyed the VC. The North Vietnamese were left only with the option of conventional invasion to conquer the South. That invasion could, and did, only succeed when the United States lost its will to preserve the South.

Not surprisingly, everyone in the Middle East will be looking to this upcoming presidential election as a test of American resolve. If Bush is defeated, the Islamofascists and Baathists will see it as a decisive weakening of the American will to win. With their inflated "God-is-on-our-side" egos, they will credit themselves with a great victory. Iran, in particular, is anxious to prevent the establishment of a pro-American government in Baghdad. It is reasonable to expect that Iran's theocrats will up the ante in the struggle for Iraq in the coming months. If Bush is re-elected, they may even go for broke.

Since the Vietnam War, all of America's enemies have known that war with America can only be won in our voting booths, not on foreign battlefields. No American voter should forget this simple fact.

In the Beginning...

2004-08-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

Well, I tried to avoid the temptation of setting up my own blog. After all, I don't really have the time for one. Then again, that never stopped me before from doing something that I shouldn't do. I've long been an admirer of folks like Andrew Sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com) and Glenn Reynolds (http://www.instapundit.com). The wonderful work that they do, in addition to the work by countless other bloggers out there, should have been enough for me, but it wasn't.

What sent me over the edge and into the abyss? Why jump from the frying pan into the fire?

Two words: Bill Maher.

Yes, Bill Maher. I was up late last night, mindlessly flipping through the channels (pardon the redundancy). Perchance, I caught a few minutes of Bill Maher's HBO show entitled, "Real Time with Bill Maher". It took only a few moments of viewing before I was blind with rage. Short of anything by Bill Moyers, it was the most egregious example of self-righteous liberal B.S. that I've seen in a long time. Maher's guests included (among others) journalist Ashleigh Banfield, Prof. Michael Eric Dyson of the University of Pennsylvania, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-R) and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinsky. It was painful to watch.

Bill Maher, of course, was his usual smarmy, liberal self. Much of the conversation centered on Iraq, with Maher peppering the conversation with inane, trite comments on the war that only children, academics and journalists could find charming. Ms. Banfield trotted out the tired old party line that invading Iraq only made the Arabs hate us more (begging the question: Could they possibly have hated us any more than they already did?), as evinced by the fact that dumbass young jihadis are coming to fight (and shortly thereafter die) in Iraq. Professor Dyson chimed in a la Cornell West with various and sundry platitudes about the inter-connected nature of the global community, and how everything bad is the fault of America. Together, these lefties tittered and chortled over their own cleverness, and laughed aloud at the lame retorts of the cretinous conservative, Rohrabacher. The audience, whose collective IQ could be expressed by the following equation: [(number of audience members) +1], added their hearty cheers to this liberal love-fest. The worst was the ovation they gave Karpinsky, an officer whose incompetence is matched only by her shamelessness. Frankly, it was disgusting.

However, my complaints are not limited to those on the Left, for Rohrabacher also put in a pathetic performance. Quite simply, the guy could not provide a single well-reasoned riposte to any of the lame comments made by Maher, Banfield & Dyson. Like most liberals, these three were clearly not used to being around anyone with opinions different than their own. Accordingly, the inherent logic of their statements was child-like in its simplicity (minus the cuteness). In short, they were pitching underhand slowballs, and Rohrabacher should have been able to knock them out of the park. Instead, he was tongue-tied and lost without his memo of talking-points. His wooden responses to Maher's smug "jokes" made him seem all the more foolish. The guy should be ashamed of himself.

Sadly, Rohrabacher's shortcoming seems to be endemic to the GOP. Gone are the days of Ronald Reagan, when conservatives had well-reasoned, principled and succinct arguments to counter the banal, solipsistic platitudes that passed for wisdom on the Left. This failure is even more egregious considering the total intellectual bankruptcy of the modern Left. When a political movement's most effective rhetorical weapon is the vicious slanders and outright lies of that porcine self-promoter, Michael Moore, it is clearly in an advanced state of decay.

It is ridiculous that the Right has so few spokespersons capable of responding in an effective manner. The passionate hysterics of a Sean Hannity won't cut it. The insufferable arrogance of closet fascist Bill O'Reilly is no good. Rush is too much of a hypocrite (Note to Conservatives: Nothing is more antithetical to small government and personal freedom than the War on Drugs). The lovely Miss Coulter has the wit and intelligence, but her penchant for hyperbole puts her beyond the pale. What is a conservative to do?

Well, in addition to complaining about things in general, I want to try and provide what I think might be some good answers to the oh-so-conventional wisdom of the Left. In the coming days, I'll trot them out as they are formulated. I hope that you'll all bear with me.

Take care.