I do not like Liberals. I do not trust them, I do not find them decent nor do I enjoy their participation in a discussion. This is because Liberals are not what they used to be; they are in fact “liberal” only in name, and many of their number have even discarded that pretense. Now they call themselves things like “progressives” and other self-adulating titles which have nothing to do with their actual character and works. For the most part, I regard political Liberals as I would snakes and scorpions. They are, for all of that, interesting to study in the collective, which seems to be the way many of them express their political views. To find a independently thinking Liberal these days, one must look hard and long. I know this because the Democrats have slowly begun to understand that they need new ideas in order to gain control of Congress and the White House, and to their horror it is all but impossible to find a Democrat with any originality. Even Bill Clinton seems a long time ago, which is why Hillary is still ascendant – she is no master of innovation or ideas, but she serves as an Icon to the “good old days”, when Democrats ran more than their mouths.
A particularly representative example of Snake Talk, as I call Liberal debate tactics, showed up in the comments of a thread I wrote in the past few days. The writer is not named here, out of a respect for privacy but also because the statements made were so common to others read and heard over the past few months and years from the Left. Said the reader:
“I would like to thank you and other Republicans for bankrupting our country, committing us to a stupid, fruitless war, and pushing to limit our rights just as the terrorists wanted us to do. I know you would rather win than see our country succeed, so keep at it. Maybe in your fascist fantasies, all the lazy will die off, and you can sit around in your perfect world, free markets reigning like they did in the 1800's, women back in the home raising kids, and all of your other fantasies of a world long lost to moral decay and big government.
Having majorities on your side will never make you more right, and the more your power is concentrated and people see how narrow-minded, backward looking and hurtful neoconservative and arch-conservative policy is, they will wake up. They will look for progress again, and progressives will be there with new ideas aside from greed, the laffer curve, hard work for nothing, limited rights, legislated morality and all of the right wing pipe dreams that have yet to pan out. Where are the new GOP ideas?”
Nice rant, huh? Well, let’s dissect this and see what the charges are, and what is the requested response. For civility, I shall pretend that the writer made those statements in good faith, honestly, and with a genuine interest in dialogue [ pauses for laughter ].
All right now, let’s take them point by point and see how it plays out:
= Republicans bankrupting the country
Bush’s tax cuts have led to Federal revenue increases to such a pace that the deficit will be likely cut in half far earlier than even Dubya called. Enough for that claim. And, by the way, the US Economy is projected to generate 13 Trillion dollars this year, which feeds a lot of families and provides a base for all kinds of future growth.
= Republicans committing America to a “stupid, fruitless war”
Iraq and Afghanistan have evicted vicious regimes, elected representative governments and held a series of free elections, including women for the first time. Neither stupid nor fruitless.
= Winning the war would prevent the country from succeeding.
This is patently absurd on its face. Every time America wins a war, thing improve. Walking backwards, winning the Gulf War in 1991 helped convince the Soviet Union they could never win a war against us, and led to dramatic improvements in strategic stability for all major nations. Winning even so minor a conflict as Grenada sent a message that the U.S. would protect its interests, and began a rollback of Cuban military interventionism. Winning in World War 2 made the USA the dominant nation of the world in several key respect. Winning World War 1 forced the world to admit the United States was a “Great Power”, and so on.
= Republicans have “fascist fantasies”
Historically, Fascism rose to power as a socialist rival to Communism, best evidenced by the Civil War in Spain during the 1930s, and the NAZI (National Socialist Workers) Party in Germany. To date, no fascist regime has yet employed doctrines or policies comparable with any American Republican administration. The charge is ludicrously false.
= Republicans want 1800’s type Free Markets
What a strange claim. I suppose it plays out like the Enron claims made so often by the Left. Enron, as we know now, was a large corporation which defrauded customers and employees and investors alike for a number of years. A close look at the details of Enron’s influence-pandering attempts, however, shows that the Clinton Administration had most of the officials who took bribes and campaign contributions, while the Bush Administration was for the most part simply the Administration which refused to bail out the company and whose investigators produced the evidence which sent a number or Enron executives to prison. In the same manner, the accusation fails to consider that during the 19th Century, especially before the Civil War, Democrats had a strong influence on government actions, and in fact more Republicans than Democrats during that century created reform and trust-breaking legislation.
= Republicans don’t mind moral decay and Big Government
Considering the LORAL and Whitewater deals, the acknowledged personal dishonor by Clinton, and the sum effect of six decades of Democrat control in Congress, such a claim is either fantastically ignorant or willfully deceitful.
= Having a majority is not an indicator of moral authority
One may argue so, but there is no reason to believe the opposite, that a majority in seats is in any way morally deficient or the minority party any more moral. And one could make the argument that the party which enjoys the most support from the governed in actual election results to represent the people in legislative work is the most valid of available choices for that role. Certainly individual exceptions can be made to show variance on a given issue or seat, but on the whole the very process of republican democracy confirms this position, rendering this claim to no better than spite.
= Conservative policy is “narrow-minded” and “backward”
I presume that those phrases are used to suggest that Republicans are more exclusive than Democrats, and Conservatives more than Liberals. Given that Republican tax cuts returned money to a majority of Americans, that legal reforms proposed and enacted by Republicans reduce the risk of control of your life by an unelected elite, i.e. activist judges, and that personal opinion on a single issue does not disqualify someone from substantive participation in the GOP, I would have to suggest that the Democrats, not the Republicans, are the party with a closed mind and trying to avoid the future.
= When people “look for progress”, “progressives will be there with new ideas”
It is possible. Yet even in this claim, the advocate for the Liberals is unable to present even a single example of such ideas.
= Where are the new GOP ideas?
A fence along the border with Mexico, reforming Social Security with privatized accounts, replacing Medicare with a more personal and effective plan, replacing the Internal Revenue Service with a consumption-based or flat tax, thus simplifying the process, encouraging savings and eliminating loopholes for the super wealthy. A decentralized, smaller yet more effective military which is unstoppable by any known counterforce, yet which can and does inspire respect and appreciation through its interaction with civilians. And that’s just for starters.
You lose again, Liberal. But America wins.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
Democrats and Implosion
I remember back in December of 2000, when the whole “Hanging Chad” brouhaha was the rage. I remember how eloquently Vice-President Al Gore conceded the election to Governor George W. Bush – after weeks of legal maneuvering, spittle-flecked name-calling, and dirty tricks, of course. But I also recall how well Gore delivered his speech, and it occurred to me at the time to imagine how differently things might have played out for Gore, had he shown such a face just before the election, instead of almost two months after the votes were cast. It bothered me a bit, because I worried that Gore would have four years to work on his act, and in 2004 he would be strong, well-prepared, and a serious contender to take the Oval Office away from Dubya.
But it never happened. Gore dithered when it was time to make a decision about running, and certainly Hillary played him for a fool just to mess with him. In any case, by the time Democrats were serious about picking a nominee, it was clear that Gore was not a serious possibility. No matter how much he screams or puffs up his ‘academic’ image now, he has broken the foundation of his political future beyond repair.
I mention this, not only because I am pleased to conclude that Gore will never be President of the United States, but also to note that I see a similar effect at work in the words and actions of John Kerry. The Senator should know very well from his 2004 experience that Iraq is not a winning issue for him, yet he voluntarily ties himself to it for the upcoming election season. Needs a lifevest, grabs an anchor.
Could it be that one reason Republicans are the governing party, is because the Democrats’ executive nominees always turn out to be suicidal?
But it never happened. Gore dithered when it was time to make a decision about running, and certainly Hillary played him for a fool just to mess with him. In any case, by the time Democrats were serious about picking a nominee, it was clear that Gore was not a serious possibility. No matter how much he screams or puffs up his ‘academic’ image now, he has broken the foundation of his political future beyond repair.
I mention this, not only because I am pleased to conclude that Gore will never be President of the United States, but also to note that I see a similar effect at work in the words and actions of John Kerry. The Senator should know very well from his 2004 experience that Iraq is not a winning issue for him, yet he voluntarily ties himself to it for the upcoming election season. Needs a lifevest, grabs an anchor.
Could it be that one reason Republicans are the governing party, is because the Democrats’ executive nominees always turn out to be suicidal?
Don't Just Stand There
Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics makes the 2006 election very simple:
“[F]or the Democrats to win the House, they will actually have to do something.”
“[F]or the Democrats to win the House, they will actually have to do something.”
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Someone’s Letting The Starbucks Do Their Talking
David Broder, writing from Seattle for the Seattle Times, did his best to ignore the recent events which have shown clear setbacks for Democrats and gains for Republicans. Claiming in his recent editorial that the “story line of the week was "Republicans in Retreat,"“ Broder managed to continue to tradition of other MSM outlets by, to put it bluntly, lying through his teeth. For instance, in addition to ignoring all of the salient events which have moved opinion back to support for the Right, Broder also claims to speak for the opinion of Texas regarding the President and Republicans.
Speaking as a resident Texan, I know something about our history and culture. Broder quickly demonstrates that he speaks from the level of expertise about Texas which is, well, about what you might expect from someone who views the world from Seattle. Broder opines “Bush and others like Karl Rove … are Texans, and Texas is different.”
Well, that much is true. We see the world from a unique perspective, the kind of perspective that sees flying a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center as an act of barbarism and war against civilization, to be punished and its perpetrators destroyed, not appeased. But Broder quickly shows what he really means:
“Historically and culturally, it has been part of Mexico.”
No, no, and HELL NO. If Broder had bothered to even read a respectable textbook on the Texas Republic, he’d have learned that no one living in Texas was really interested in being a subject of Mexico. The regime which kicked out the Spanish Empire was pretty much just a local version, big on taxes, feudal practices and subjugation of regular people. Texas was a chance for people to get away from big government and live their lives with something like independence. A lot of people need to remember how many Hispanics fought at the Alamo and at Goliad and at San Jacinto AS TEXANS. Only a prejudiced moron could make the statement that Texas EVER “belonged” to Mexico. The fact is, Mexico tried to grab it and failed in the end.
Broder, oblivious to the facts, then suggests that in Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to make pawns of Hispanics. In some specific cases, this is doubtless true, but to say that such is the rule, by either party, again shows the limits of Broder’s mind and experience. In Texas, the Hispanic influence is undeniable, and ignoring Latinos would be to ignore a segment of your demographic, no matter who you are or where. And both parties in Texas have known this for a long time. It’s not about ’playing’ with Hispanics, but keeping them in mind, at all levels of a campaign.
Undaunted by his stupidity and disingenuous attacks, Broder concludes by claiming “the Texas perspective is not that widely shared in the modern GOP.” This is, once again, a lie meant to distract people from the truth. As far back as Eisenhower, modern Republicans knew and respected the Texas influence. Eisenhower was born in Texas, President Johnson represented Texas in the Senate, Reagan needed Texas more than any other state to win in 1980, which is one reason why he picked G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. And of course George W. Bush is a Texan in a very real and substantive sense, which is why we are winning in Afghanistan and Iraq, why Saddam is in a cell instead of a palace, and Zarqawi was retired by an air strike. People like Broder speak from the Seattle perspective the unrealistic hope that Texans will simply go away and let Republicans drift back to the weaker, milder version we saw accept the likes of Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill.
As we head into the summer and fall, it seems to me that we Republicans should be emphasizing the better qualities of our leadership, and the Texas influence is not one which is either out of place or in decline.
Speaking as a resident Texan, I know something about our history and culture. Broder quickly demonstrates that he speaks from the level of expertise about Texas which is, well, about what you might expect from someone who views the world from Seattle. Broder opines “Bush and others like Karl Rove … are Texans, and Texas is different.”
Well, that much is true. We see the world from a unique perspective, the kind of perspective that sees flying a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center as an act of barbarism and war against civilization, to be punished and its perpetrators destroyed, not appeased. But Broder quickly shows what he really means:
“Historically and culturally, it has been part of Mexico.”
No, no, and HELL NO. If Broder had bothered to even read a respectable textbook on the Texas Republic, he’d have learned that no one living in Texas was really interested in being a subject of Mexico. The regime which kicked out the Spanish Empire was pretty much just a local version, big on taxes, feudal practices and subjugation of regular people. Texas was a chance for people to get away from big government and live their lives with something like independence. A lot of people need to remember how many Hispanics fought at the Alamo and at Goliad and at San Jacinto AS TEXANS. Only a prejudiced moron could make the statement that Texas EVER “belonged” to Mexico. The fact is, Mexico tried to grab it and failed in the end.
Broder, oblivious to the facts, then suggests that in Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to make pawns of Hispanics. In some specific cases, this is doubtless true, but to say that such is the rule, by either party, again shows the limits of Broder’s mind and experience. In Texas, the Hispanic influence is undeniable, and ignoring Latinos would be to ignore a segment of your demographic, no matter who you are or where. And both parties in Texas have known this for a long time. It’s not about ’playing’ with Hispanics, but keeping them in mind, at all levels of a campaign.
Undaunted by his stupidity and disingenuous attacks, Broder concludes by claiming “the Texas perspective is not that widely shared in the modern GOP.” This is, once again, a lie meant to distract people from the truth. As far back as Eisenhower, modern Republicans knew and respected the Texas influence. Eisenhower was born in Texas, President Johnson represented Texas in the Senate, Reagan needed Texas more than any other state to win in 1980, which is one reason why he picked G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. And of course George W. Bush is a Texan in a very real and substantive sense, which is why we are winning in Afghanistan and Iraq, why Saddam is in a cell instead of a palace, and Zarqawi was retired by an air strike. People like Broder speak from the Seattle perspective the unrealistic hope that Texans will simply go away and let Republicans drift back to the weaker, milder version we saw accept the likes of Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill.
As we head into the summer and fall, it seems to me that we Republicans should be emphasizing the better qualities of our leadership, and the Texas influence is not one which is either out of place or in decline.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Out With The Old, In With The New
Sorry I have not posted yet today, I finally replaced the old Flintstone Mark 1 with a new machine, and I am just now testing it out.
So far I have rammed an NSA satellite, declared war on France, and convinced a colony of militant gerbils to attack neighboring towns. So, two accidents and one success so far ...
Seriously, the hardware is wirking fine but I still have more soiftware to load, and I realize that I have forgotten a lot of passwords. Oy.
So far I have rammed an NSA satellite, declared war on France, and convinced a colony of militant gerbils to attack neighboring towns. So, two accidents and one success so far ...
Seriously, the hardware is wirking fine but I still have more soiftware to load, and I realize that I have forgotten a lot of passwords. Oy.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Race & Politics
One thing Democrats desperately want to control in any election is discussion about Race. The Democrat’s position, as should be obvious, is that the Democrats defend minorities from the rapacious intentions of Republicans, and it has worked for decades to their advantage. Unfortunately for the Democrats, modern minorities no longer simply take instruction from self-ordained “leaders”, but are more and more inclined to think for themselves. The effects of this awakening may be slow in arriving, but they are certainly on the way.
I have been following the polling data and of course voting results, but the most interesting effects I see are anecdotal. Black, for existence, are the most solid of Democrat blogs, and for the longest time would not even listen to a Republican candidate. But here in Houston they are starting to listen, and to ask questions. Yes, most of the questions are based on the assumption that Republicans have things to apologize for to Blacks and Democrats have a record of standing with them (the first is true, but less than most people think, and the second is simply a lie), but the point is, dialogue has begun. And eventually, people will think through the responses and decide which is more honest and intelligent for their issues and priorities.
It’s also worth noting, to see how leading Democrats do not want to bring up Race. Since the 2004 Election, the DNC has been very very quiet on that subject, which tells me they are hearing things they don’t want to have come up in front of a national audience. Sure, jerks like Nagin and McKinney spout off their noise, but notice they are all alone? Even Dean knows to leave that one be, and there’s a reason.
Another group to watch is Hispanics. The wild card in the whole Border Security/Immigration debate, is how legitimate Hispanic citizens in the United States see the matter. Bush claimed more of the Hispanic vote than any previous Republican, and there’s hope for more if the message is clear and mistakes are avoided.
And then there are the Asians. Quiet, keep to themselves, but they have started voting in large numbers. Originally, the Democrats thought this could be a secret weapon, but in recent years there is reason to think that suburban Asians see issues and candidates much differently than their urban counterparts. This is important, because more than any other demographic, Asians are moving from downtown to uptown, and this cannot help but be a factor in close races. I know from personal experience that more than ever before, English-speaking Asians are helping the Asian community as a whole understand the issues and how it affects them. Asians are very big on community action, which means that they are won over in groups.
What this means in specific depends on how the major parties pay attention to the issues and their debate, but it does mean that 'ownership' of a demographic is moving towards a thing of the past.
I have been following the polling data and of course voting results, but the most interesting effects I see are anecdotal. Black, for existence, are the most solid of Democrat blogs, and for the longest time would not even listen to a Republican candidate. But here in Houston they are starting to listen, and to ask questions. Yes, most of the questions are based on the assumption that Republicans have things to apologize for to Blacks and Democrats have a record of standing with them (the first is true, but less than most people think, and the second is simply a lie), but the point is, dialogue has begun. And eventually, people will think through the responses and decide which is more honest and intelligent for their issues and priorities.
It’s also worth noting, to see how leading Democrats do not want to bring up Race. Since the 2004 Election, the DNC has been very very quiet on that subject, which tells me they are hearing things they don’t want to have come up in front of a national audience. Sure, jerks like Nagin and McKinney spout off their noise, but notice they are all alone? Even Dean knows to leave that one be, and there’s a reason.
Another group to watch is Hispanics. The wild card in the whole Border Security/Immigration debate, is how legitimate Hispanic citizens in the United States see the matter. Bush claimed more of the Hispanic vote than any previous Republican, and there’s hope for more if the message is clear and mistakes are avoided.
And then there are the Asians. Quiet, keep to themselves, but they have started voting in large numbers. Originally, the Democrats thought this could be a secret weapon, but in recent years there is reason to think that suburban Asians see issues and candidates much differently than their urban counterparts. This is important, because more than any other demographic, Asians are moving from downtown to uptown, and this cannot help but be a factor in close races. I know from personal experience that more than ever before, English-speaking Asians are helping the Asian community as a whole understand the issues and how it affects them. Asians are very big on community action, which means that they are won over in groups.
What this means in specific depends on how the major parties pay attention to the issues and their debate, but it does mean that 'ownership' of a demographic is moving towards a thing of the past.
More About The Illegal Alien Debate
Well, the jackals are at it again. Apparently, the deceitful game of lying about elected leaders, in hopes of destroying their credibility and obstructing their work , seems to be so appealing that Republicans, the so-called “base”, is trashing the President and all sorts of elected leaders, simply because they have not gotten exactly what they demand. Some go so far as to suggest that President Bush is willfully ignoring the problem, or even working against the welfare of the United States, for reasons unknown and completely at odds with the known facts. Of course, such people are useless boors with little interest in the truth or actually resolving the issues surrounding the problem.
President Bush has done a number of things in response to the needs of these separate issues, evident from the sharp increase in alien interception during 2001-6, discussions with Central and South American governments on the subject of cross-country migration to the US through their territories, and reformation of border security agencies.
The reason he gets no credit for this is sad and simple - people do not tend to pay attention to 'downstream' issues but only the top concerns, which is why borders and immigration were ignored by so many Congressmen and even Republicans for his first term. Also, people like Tancredo, who have turned a valid perspective and honest discussion into personal empires and 'face time' for influence advantage, have soured discussion and destroyed opportunities, because they refuse to work under the leadership of the elected Chief Executive, instead using him to blame for every petty arrogance.
None but a few have ever brought up this issue before recent days, and those jabbering jackdaws who insult President Bush are unaware of the many visits and discussions Bush has had with foreign leaders on this issue, and with Congressional leaders. And I won't even get started here on the number of people who trash Dubs before they even bother to read the text of his proposals, or confirm his actual position, if they ever get around to it.
The President is the Executive of the nation, not its lawmaker. All this stuff about 'he's responsible for not doing xxxx' when they know full well that this President at least allows the Constitution to be properly employed, and restrains the use of Executive Order to avoid confrontations with Congress, allowing them the opportunity to do their duty. These people want some mindless idiot who does what he hears the "base" of his party wants, without regard to its consequences or the effect it has on the nation or the construction of new legal consequences. Whatever their claims, they are asking, demanding frankly, for another Bill Clinton. Bush thinks deeper and acts on the longer scale and with better preparation and insight to the people affected than anyone seems willing to understand or grant.
The problem is that far too many people of strong opinion are not considering the effect of their methods. The defense by the President’s supporters, mocked though we are, is a natural response in defense of a man most unfairly attacked, by people who pretend to be Conservatives, which consequence is more likely to help the Democrats politically and damage efforts to find a functional solution than any thing else.
Tancredo is a good example. Once a voice of reason warning about a major concern and danger, he now refuses to even discuss anything but complete acceptance of his plans and allegiance to his personal perspective. He has shouted down committee chairmen and party leadership, and he has slandered the President through personal insults and false claims. As a result, he is doing far more harm than good to his cause, even if he is completely right in his plans and intentions.
And yet the Rabies Wing continues to deny they have overstated anything, misconveyed any image, or betrayed the twice-elected leader of the nation.
President Bush has done a number of things in response to the needs of these separate issues, evident from the sharp increase in alien interception during 2001-6, discussions with Central and South American governments on the subject of cross-country migration to the US through their territories, and reformation of border security agencies.
The reason he gets no credit for this is sad and simple - people do not tend to pay attention to 'downstream' issues but only the top concerns, which is why borders and immigration were ignored by so many Congressmen and even Republicans for his first term. Also, people like Tancredo, who have turned a valid perspective and honest discussion into personal empires and 'face time' for influence advantage, have soured discussion and destroyed opportunities, because they refuse to work under the leadership of the elected Chief Executive, instead using him to blame for every petty arrogance.
None but a few have ever brought up this issue before recent days, and those jabbering jackdaws who insult President Bush are unaware of the many visits and discussions Bush has had with foreign leaders on this issue, and with Congressional leaders. And I won't even get started here on the number of people who trash Dubs before they even bother to read the text of his proposals, or confirm his actual position, if they ever get around to it.
The President is the Executive of the nation, not its lawmaker. All this stuff about 'he's responsible for not doing xxxx' when they know full well that this President at least allows the Constitution to be properly employed, and restrains the use of Executive Order to avoid confrontations with Congress, allowing them the opportunity to do their duty. These people want some mindless idiot who does what he hears the "base" of his party wants, without regard to its consequences or the effect it has on the nation or the construction of new legal consequences. Whatever their claims, they are asking, demanding frankly, for another Bill Clinton. Bush thinks deeper and acts on the longer scale and with better preparation and insight to the people affected than anyone seems willing to understand or grant.
The problem is that far too many people of strong opinion are not considering the effect of their methods. The defense by the President’s supporters, mocked though we are, is a natural response in defense of a man most unfairly attacked, by people who pretend to be Conservatives, which consequence is more likely to help the Democrats politically and damage efforts to find a functional solution than any thing else.
Tancredo is a good example. Once a voice of reason warning about a major concern and danger, he now refuses to even discuss anything but complete acceptance of his plans and allegiance to his personal perspective. He has shouted down committee chairmen and party leadership, and he has slandered the President through personal insults and false claims. As a result, he is doing far more harm than good to his cause, even if he is completely right in his plans and intentions.
And yet the Rabies Wing continues to deny they have overstated anything, misconveyed any image, or betrayed the twice-elected leader of the nation.
You Can’t Always Get What You Want - If Your Name Is Zogby, At Least
I don't like or trust Zogby's polling, except to slant Left. So it is interesting to read his latest look at the Senate races, via the Wall Street Journal. The numbers are interesting, but the basics are these:
The Republicans hold 55 seats, the Democrats hold 44, and one seat belongs to Indecision. Assuming a 5-point or more lead represents a good hold, of the 17 races considered, Republicans incumbents are in good position to hold their seat in 7 races, the Democrats incumbents are in good position to hold their seats in 7 races, and of the remaining three races, two are tied (one Democrat incumbent, one Republican incumbent) and one race shows a Democrat running for a Democrat-held seat leading by less than a point. So even Zogby is admitting, in the numbers if not in his headlines, that the Republicans look good right now to hold what they have.
The Republicans hold 55 seats, the Democrats hold 44, and one seat belongs to Indecision. Assuming a 5-point or more lead represents a good hold, of the 17 races considered, Republicans incumbents are in good position to hold their seat in 7 races, the Democrats incumbents are in good position to hold their seats in 7 races, and of the remaining three races, two are tied (one Democrat incumbent, one Republican incumbent) and one race shows a Democrat running for a Democrat-held seat leading by less than a point. So even Zogby is admitting, in the numbers if not in his headlines, that the Republicans look good right now to hold what they have.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
When Evil Pays For The Band, I’d Decline To Dance
Harold C. Hutchison over at “Called As Seen” linked to a chilling report about just who is spinning all the attacks against President Bush and leading Republicans in the claim that they are somehow weak on addressing border security and immigration reform (Called As Seen: Just what is going on here?)
Hutchison links to an article in The Pink Flamingo, which notes connections between up-front people like Tom Tancredo, Barbara Coe, Jim Gilchrist, Pat Buchanan, and Michelle Malkin, with some pretty slimy groups.
Groups like “Stormfront”, “Solar General”, and the “American Renaissance”. The first two are neo-Nazi groups, and the American Renaissance is anti-Immigration in a loud and nasty way. The article also notes links to the KKK.
A key quote from SJ Reidhead says “Now the press release:
http://www.heritagelost.org/june3pressrelease.pdf
announcing the picketing of Lindsey's office. Yep, people with direct ties to the Neo-Nazis are picketing Lindsey because of his immigration stance. I don't know about you, but when RINO conservatives like Rush, Hannity, and Tancredo go after Lindsey, I'd rather be on the side of the 'good guys'. My father is a vet of WWII - remember the war with Germany and Hitler. We were fighting these guys - now they are the darlings of the RINO conservative media. Something's wrong here, don't you think?”
Yes, Mr. Reidhead, something is very, very wrong. If Tancredo, Malkin, and the others don’t know what sort of people are funding their rants, you have to wonder why they didn’t bother to check them out. And if they knew, but hid those connections, that is a much more serious concern. Read the whole article, and think about what is going on behind the noise.
Hutchison links to an article in The Pink Flamingo, which notes connections between up-front people like Tom Tancredo, Barbara Coe, Jim Gilchrist, Pat Buchanan, and Michelle Malkin, with some pretty slimy groups.
Groups like “Stormfront”, “Solar General”, and the “American Renaissance”. The first two are neo-Nazi groups, and the American Renaissance is anti-Immigration in a loud and nasty way. The article also notes links to the KKK.
A key quote from SJ Reidhead says “Now the press release:
http://www.heritagelost.org/june3pressrelease.pdf
announcing the picketing of Lindsey's office. Yep, people with direct ties to the Neo-Nazis are picketing Lindsey because of his immigration stance. I don't know about you, but when RINO conservatives like Rush, Hannity, and Tancredo go after Lindsey, I'd rather be on the side of the 'good guys'. My father is a vet of WWII - remember the war with Germany and Hitler. We were fighting these guys - now they are the darlings of the RINO conservative media. Something's wrong here, don't you think?”
Yes, Mr. Reidhead, something is very, very wrong. If Tancredo, Malkin, and the others don’t know what sort of people are funding their rants, you have to wonder why they didn’t bother to check them out. And if they knew, but hid those connections, that is a much more serious concern. Read the whole article, and think about what is going on behind the noise.
A Bad Poll By Deceitful People
My friend Kimsch at Musing Minds sent me a poll she described as “so incredibly rotten you can smell it from Denmark”, and she’s right. Time for a fisking, hmm?
The poll was published in the Chicago Sun-Times, and Kimsch found it via The Capitol Fax Blog, whom I will have to visit again.
The poll, as is the trend these days, was treated as if it was news, rather than spin. The first sentence from ‘Fran Spielman’ reads “Chicagoans overwhelmingly favor wage and benefit standards for Wal-Mart and other "big-box" retailers, even if it places jobs at risk, according to a new poll commissioned by proponents to turn up the heat on the City Council.” OK, first thing you should notice, aside from the idiocy of believing that anyone would rather trash a company and lose jobs, rather than work out a fair arrangement, is the fact that this poll was paid for by people who wanted a specific outcome. Ahem, that’s called a ‘push poll’, and it is reliable the same way ‘Baghdad Bob’ was reliable. And that starting point just hints at more of the same as you go on.
One thing which made me chuckle was the way the poll was described. “84 percent want aldermen to require newly built and existing stores ... to pay employees who work more than five hours a week at least $10 an hour in wages and $3 an hour in benefits.” When told that Wal-Mart says they won’t build new stores if that ordinance is imposed on them, support for the ordinance drops to 69%. Wording on the same question shows double-digit fluctuations in support, not a good sign for a poll’s veracity. Which reminds me; the most critical part of any poll is its methodology. And when a poll hides its methodology, that pretty much means they are fooling around with the numbers. The Sun-Times describes the poll only as a “poll of 500 registered voters ... conducted by Washington D.C.-based Lake Research Partners and was commissioned by the Grassroots Collaborative”. Well, one thing I know is that “Lake Research Partners” is a polling firm which did polling for the Democratic Party during the 2004 Federal Elections. And don’t believe that claim that the poll “has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent”, because that is only true if valid statistical measures and nominal RDD processes are followed. With no demographics cited, no range or dates or times when the poll was taken, no discussion of method (telephone, street, or how?) or sampling parameters, no evidence of weighting to match known census figures, there is no reason to believe the claims made.
There is a reason the newspaper neither cited the internal data, nor a way for readers to check out the claims for themselves.So, a big city MSM outlet is lying, no surprise there. But as we move into the summer and fall, count on fake polls being used more and more by Liberals, when facts just won’t support them.
The poll was published in the Chicago Sun-Times, and Kimsch found it via The Capitol Fax Blog, whom I will have to visit again.
The poll, as is the trend these days, was treated as if it was news, rather than spin. The first sentence from ‘Fran Spielman’ reads “Chicagoans overwhelmingly favor wage and benefit standards for Wal-Mart and other "big-box" retailers, even if it places jobs at risk, according to a new poll commissioned by proponents to turn up the heat on the City Council.” OK, first thing you should notice, aside from the idiocy of believing that anyone would rather trash a company and lose jobs, rather than work out a fair arrangement, is the fact that this poll was paid for by people who wanted a specific outcome. Ahem, that’s called a ‘push poll’, and it is reliable the same way ‘Baghdad Bob’ was reliable. And that starting point just hints at more of the same as you go on.
One thing which made me chuckle was the way the poll was described. “84 percent want aldermen to require newly built and existing stores ... to pay employees who work more than five hours a week at least $10 an hour in wages and $3 an hour in benefits.” When told that Wal-Mart says they won’t build new stores if that ordinance is imposed on them, support for the ordinance drops to 69%. Wording on the same question shows double-digit fluctuations in support, not a good sign for a poll’s veracity. Which reminds me; the most critical part of any poll is its methodology. And when a poll hides its methodology, that pretty much means they are fooling around with the numbers. The Sun-Times describes the poll only as a “poll of 500 registered voters ... conducted by Washington D.C.-based Lake Research Partners and was commissioned by the Grassroots Collaborative”. Well, one thing I know is that “Lake Research Partners” is a polling firm which did polling for the Democratic Party during the 2004 Federal Elections. And don’t believe that claim that the poll “has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent”, because that is only true if valid statistical measures and nominal RDD processes are followed. With no demographics cited, no range or dates or times when the poll was taken, no discussion of method (telephone, street, or how?) or sampling parameters, no evidence of weighting to match known census figures, there is no reason to believe the claims made.
There is a reason the newspaper neither cited the internal data, nor a way for readers to check out the claims for themselves.So, a big city MSM outlet is lying, no surprise there. But as we move into the summer and fall, count on fake polls being used more and more by Liberals, when facts just won’t support them.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
House of Representatives 2006
I did some looking around at DC’s Political Report, to do some research on the races for this fall. They have a nice color-coded map for each category of races, but what I found especially interesting is the choice of information options. In my case, I want to make up my own mind, and so I prefer raw data if at all possible. DCPR provides its own information, but also links to many other sources. One thing I keep finding despite this wealth of information, whether from DCPR, Cook Political Report, Real Clear Politics, or any of the other services out there, is the lack of definitive data on the House races. Yes, a lot of these services will sell you a subscription which opens the polling they have on those races, but ‘caveat emptor’ folks, the polling is a bit less than trustworthy as a barometer, for all the reasons any poll should be taken with a measure of salt. In the first place, the respondent pool is often not identified to any great degree, the size is too small for satisfactory accuracy, the methodology is not transparent, and the polls are not taken often enough to establish a realistic pattern.
So, without the polls, what is there to ride on? Well, there’s news and there’s news. The first news is History, which is both bad and good. Incumbents tend to get re-elected, unless they trip badly in the public view. This is both bad and good, because it means that the arrogance of your average elected official tends to only grow with time and re-election, but it also suggests that the present Republican majority in Congress (231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Ghosts) is more likely to continue than the press contends. Since every House seat is to be decided this fall, the Conventional Wisdom suggests that unhappiness with the Republicans could lead to a change in leadership, but a closer look does not support this contention. While the possibility of a Democrat takeover is possible, the chances of it happening is a bit less than they claim.
You can figure this out by simply scanning headlines. Basically, two things make for change in the House; scandal and retirement. Retirements affect individual seats, so we’re really looking then on whether there is something to make the voters mad enough to make the switch to the other party. For that, you need at least two components – people have to be mad enough at the governing party to kick them out, and the other party has to offer some reason to believe they would be better. The 1994 ‘revolution’ in the House was built on both factors, and so was the 1930 change. Most of the changes, especially in the House, have otherwise been gradual, and for the Republicans to lose control, they need to lose 15 seats of the 231 they hold, and they must lose them to Democrats. That is, 15 out of 231 and assuming no incumbent Democrat loses. If, say, 3% of the Democrats lose their seats, that’s 6 seats so the Republicans would then need to lose 21 of their 231 for the Donks to gain control, or 9% of their position, three times the Democrats’ loss rate. While President Bush has recovered steadily in Approval since May, the same is not true for Congress, and Democrats do not enjoy a significant position of confidence, relative to Republicans.
So, without the polls, what is there to ride on? Well, there’s news and there’s news. The first news is History, which is both bad and good. Incumbents tend to get re-elected, unless they trip badly in the public view. This is both bad and good, because it means that the arrogance of your average elected official tends to only grow with time and re-election, but it also suggests that the present Republican majority in Congress (231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Ghosts) is more likely to continue than the press contends. Since every House seat is to be decided this fall, the Conventional Wisdom suggests that unhappiness with the Republicans could lead to a change in leadership, but a closer look does not support this contention. While the possibility of a Democrat takeover is possible, the chances of it happening is a bit less than they claim.
You can figure this out by simply scanning headlines. Basically, two things make for change in the House; scandal and retirement. Retirements affect individual seats, so we’re really looking then on whether there is something to make the voters mad enough to make the switch to the other party. For that, you need at least two components – people have to be mad enough at the governing party to kick them out, and the other party has to offer some reason to believe they would be better. The 1994 ‘revolution’ in the House was built on both factors, and so was the 1930 change. Most of the changes, especially in the House, have otherwise been gradual, and for the Republicans to lose control, they need to lose 15 seats of the 231 they hold, and they must lose them to Democrats. That is, 15 out of 231 and assuming no incumbent Democrat loses. If, say, 3% of the Democrats lose their seats, that’s 6 seats so the Republicans would then need to lose 21 of their 231 for the Donks to gain control, or 9% of their position, three times the Democrats’ loss rate. While President Bush has recovered steadily in Approval since May, the same is not true for Congress, and Democrats do not enjoy a significant position of confidence, relative to Republicans.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
This Is Not A Drill
North Korea puts long-range missile on pad, refuses to declare its intentions. U.S. increases alert status, moves interceptor missile defense system to 'operational'.
Haditha, the Marines, and the Duty of Every American
In November 2005, something happened in the Anbar province town of Haditha. The twenty-four civilians who died November 19 included children, which is the sort of repugnant atrocity to turn any stomach. The questions are many, however, including who actually killed whom. The only rational course is to let the investigations work their way through the system, and to refrain from emotional rants or rash assumptions. It is also important to take note of known conditions:
• John Murtha, while it is true he once served in uniform, has unquestionably disgraced his service by his quick accusation of guilt and a cover-up, when in fact there is no evidence at all of any sort of cover-up, nor has responsibility for the killings been established. The man is now an immoral traitor, willing to defame Marines serving in combat zones simply to pursue his political agenda.
• There is no previous instance known where a squad or platoon of U.S. Marines has ever engaged in the conduct of deliberately killing civilians. In over two hundred years of service, this has never happened.
• On the other hand, terrorists in Iraq are infamous for the deliberate targeting of civilians, and show no regard for children or known innocents. Also it must be noted that terrorists and their allies have made false accusations before; it is not at all uncommon, given the desire by the thugs to damage the reputation of the Americans if they can do so, for terrorists to lie to the media and to investigators.
• Haditha is not a town of honest, law-abiding people, but a hotbed of insurrection and violence. The Marines went there to find arms caches and terrorists, after all, and they were there. The families and friends of terrorists are hardly reliable witnesses to tell a court what Americans did there.
So what does all this mean? We get fooled by shows like ‘CSI’, believing that any and all actions can be analyzed and quickly prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Real life is hardly so obliging, especially in a war zone. Most people do not even realize that basic forensics could not be performed in Haditha; there are no ‘incident scene’ photos or trajectory maps. There have not even been autopsies on the bodies, because Muslim tradition opposes disinterment and the families have resisted the NCIS investigation. The bodies have been buried, and with them the best opportunity to prove what really happened. Since the witness testimony is extremely biased at best and no forensic data will be available, the investigators are facing a difficult situation, where the actions must be inferred rather than conclusively determined. In all likelihood, the most likely course for the Judge Advocate General will be a series of interrogations, to see whose story fails to stay together, and what falls out from the repeated talks. It’s going to be a rough year for the Marines accused, even if it turns out that they did nothing wrong at all.
A word should be said here about Marines. I have a deep and serious respect for anyone who wears the uniform of my country, even more for those men who have had to go into combat. As a result, I do not like to delineate between the Reserves and the Regular Army, much less pick over details between the services. Each is unique and worthy of its honor. That said, when bullets start flying and the President wants a group on which he can depend, it most often falls to the Marines to do the hardest job, take the biggest risks, and bear the heaviest burden. When a man joins the Marines, he’d better plan on getting into a war somewhere, because the Marines are usually the first sent in, and often with less support than they need, and unfortunately they also receive less credit than they deserve. Liberals hate the Marines, because Marines are everything Liberals hate:
They are proud
They are strong
They are unabashedly patriotic
They love America, warts and all
They wear the sharpest uniforms, and carry the sharpest blades
They bathe regularly
They speak in proper English
They do not fail
They stick by each other like the closest of brothers
Small wonder then, that terrorists like al-Muhajer and their traitorous supporters like Murtha would want to smear the Marine Corps. Our duty, yours and mine, as Americans is clear – keep an open mind and let the investigation and the courts reach their conclusions, but in the meantime do not fail our military. Respect the men who wear the uniform and do not assume guilt where none has yet been proven, nor give credence to a vermin who would use politics to slander our bravest and truest heroes. If these men should be guilty, it will be determined and they would be unfortunate aberrations of a noble group, but if they prove innocent, we should be able to say we stood with these men when they needed us, not against them because some coward told a lie to the media.
• John Murtha, while it is true he once served in uniform, has unquestionably disgraced his service by his quick accusation of guilt and a cover-up, when in fact there is no evidence at all of any sort of cover-up, nor has responsibility for the killings been established. The man is now an immoral traitor, willing to defame Marines serving in combat zones simply to pursue his political agenda.
• There is no previous instance known where a squad or platoon of U.S. Marines has ever engaged in the conduct of deliberately killing civilians. In over two hundred years of service, this has never happened.
• On the other hand, terrorists in Iraq are infamous for the deliberate targeting of civilians, and show no regard for children or known innocents. Also it must be noted that terrorists and their allies have made false accusations before; it is not at all uncommon, given the desire by the thugs to damage the reputation of the Americans if they can do so, for terrorists to lie to the media and to investigators.
• Haditha is not a town of honest, law-abiding people, but a hotbed of insurrection and violence. The Marines went there to find arms caches and terrorists, after all, and they were there. The families and friends of terrorists are hardly reliable witnesses to tell a court what Americans did there.
So what does all this mean? We get fooled by shows like ‘CSI’, believing that any and all actions can be analyzed and quickly prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Real life is hardly so obliging, especially in a war zone. Most people do not even realize that basic forensics could not be performed in Haditha; there are no ‘incident scene’ photos or trajectory maps. There have not even been autopsies on the bodies, because Muslim tradition opposes disinterment and the families have resisted the NCIS investigation. The bodies have been buried, and with them the best opportunity to prove what really happened. Since the witness testimony is extremely biased at best and no forensic data will be available, the investigators are facing a difficult situation, where the actions must be inferred rather than conclusively determined. In all likelihood, the most likely course for the Judge Advocate General will be a series of interrogations, to see whose story fails to stay together, and what falls out from the repeated talks. It’s going to be a rough year for the Marines accused, even if it turns out that they did nothing wrong at all.
A word should be said here about Marines. I have a deep and serious respect for anyone who wears the uniform of my country, even more for those men who have had to go into combat. As a result, I do not like to delineate between the Reserves and the Regular Army, much less pick over details between the services. Each is unique and worthy of its honor. That said, when bullets start flying and the President wants a group on which he can depend, it most often falls to the Marines to do the hardest job, take the biggest risks, and bear the heaviest burden. When a man joins the Marines, he’d better plan on getting into a war somewhere, because the Marines are usually the first sent in, and often with less support than they need, and unfortunately they also receive less credit than they deserve. Liberals hate the Marines, because Marines are everything Liberals hate:
They are proud
They are strong
They are unabashedly patriotic
They love America, warts and all
They wear the sharpest uniforms, and carry the sharpest blades
They bathe regularly
They speak in proper English
They do not fail
They stick by each other like the closest of brothers
Small wonder then, that terrorists like al-Muhajer and their traitorous supporters like Murtha would want to smear the Marine Corps. Our duty, yours and mine, as Americans is clear – keep an open mind and let the investigation and the courts reach their conclusions, but in the meantime do not fail our military. Respect the men who wear the uniform and do not assume guilt where none has yet been proven, nor give credence to a vermin who would use politics to slander our bravest and truest heroes. If these men should be guilty, it will be determined and they would be unfortunate aberrations of a noble group, but if they prove innocent, we should be able to say we stood with these men when they needed us, not against them because some coward told a lie to the media.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Netwar versus Roachwar
Liberals have been cheering, albeit subtly, for the terrorists in the Middle East, especially since Osama bin Laden became the figurehead for Al Qaeda in the middle 1990s. While not quite praising him, some of the Left have used his organizational style to praise the effectiveness of a new type of conflict management, called “Netwar”. While the concept of Netwar is interesting and a valid innovation in some ways, it is not everything claimed for it, nor has Al Qaeda properly conducted a Netwar worthy of the name.
Netwar is not commonly understood outside of academia and think tanks, but in essence, Netwar is generally identified as a conflict managed through a decentralized command, bordering on diffused-authority. Netwar also involves the conditions of autonomous reaction, which enables “swarming”, an attack/defense action where all available forces converge where they are needed in effectively an instant response. The common interpretation by academics is usually that Netwar is more spontaneous than a defense can react to, and adapts to the enemy in such fluid motion to qualify as a significant force multiplier. The academics almost always make statements to the effect that governmental or military organizations (e.g. “state actors”) are unable to counter a functional Netwar effort. My contention, after examining real life conditions, is that Netwar is a sometimes-useful term for discussing tactics, but it should not be confused with strategic value, nor should bias be allowed to occlude significant facts from the discussion.
Since cheering for an organization which has tortured and murdered thousands of innocents, the academics shy away a bit from openly praising Al Qaeda, yet the implied respect for the terrorist group’s methods and structure is made evident by the way in which media and symposiums baldly claim that the group’s nature and almost egalitarian practices means that the Coalition forces cannot achieve their main objective, to wipe out Global Terrorism as a strategic threat. The bias in favor of the Left is further evidenced by studies of Netwar conflicts, such as the one by the RAND Corporation released in 2001; the report specifically pits the presumed ‘nonstate’ Netwar actors against an archaic and slow-responding 'Hierarchical State' actors; the report goes so far as to use the timid responses by the Clinton Administration as examples of contemporary American military abilities and postures. The Middle Eastern terrorists are favorably compared to such other Netwar cases as the 1999 “Direct Action Network” shutdown of the WTO conference, the actions of drug cartels in Colombia during the 1990s, and the rebels of East Timor in 1999. Such a one-sided and hasty assumption reflects the bias inherent in the practice, more than a little like judging a prize fight by only the first punch thrown. Arrogance has invalidated more than a few academics, and so it is here.
Netwar is a valid phenomenon to consider, but the issue should be seen in greater scope and better focus than the academics have been willing to consider up to now. For instance, the American military in Operation Desert Storm, especially the Armored forces, was a perfect example of Netwar well-designed and executed. Iraqi forces had far greater numbers, but the American tanks cooperated in seamless action, and their GPS-assisted navigation and communication not only avoided tank traps and bottlenecks, but also allowed U.S. forces to move rapidly and change plans on the fly; intercepted Iraqi communications released after the war showed disbelief that the Americans could move and adapt so fast as they did. And long before the term “swarming” was developed, AirLand doctrine taught on-scene commanders how to bring maximum force to bear on a selected target. It is a foolish mistake to compare modern American doctrine and training with any other nations, and a fatal one for a military commander opposing an American force. The mistakes which allowed Al Qaeda to survive and thrive prior to the 9/11 attacks were political, not military, and a matter of character much more than tactics.
In the time since the 9/11 attacks, the clear superiority of American Doctrine has been made evident by the results. Afghanistan is free from the Taliban, and women have voted there for the first time in that nation’s history. Saddam Hussein is sitting in a prison cell, on trial for some of his many atrocities. Uday and Qusay are quite dead, having failed to understand what it meant to be the focus of an American “swarm”. A number of infamous terrorists from recent history are also dead, including Abu Nidal and Carlos “The Jackal”. Most of Al Qaeda’s leadership is either dead or captured, including the noted and particularly vicious Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, amongst whose personal effects are significant intelligence prizes, including significant evidence that Al Qaeda is in desperate straits. Obviously the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have been much better at Netwar than the academics ever suspected “state actors” could manage, but what of Al Qaeda? In their case, what the academics called Netwar turned out instead to be merely Roachwar.
Roaches are the bane of any homekeeper; as soon as you see one you know there are many more in hiding, and it’s very difficult to get rid of them all. And if you take down to that level, what roaches do appears to be a lot like Netwar. After all, what one roach knows all roaches know, their communication is instant and they have been “swarming” when they felt like it for thousands of years. But any individual roach is not all that hard to kill. And roaches, like Al Qaeda, are not really all that adaptable. And more to the point, no matter how many roaches you are going up against, if you are serious about the matter you certainly can control the problem, and while it takes a while and some serious effort and thinking, the critters can be eradicated. Al Qaeda is proving to be much the same; carriers of a serious (moral) disease and numerous, indefatigable in their appetite and possessing no mind comparable to a normal person, that you might reason with them. But in the end, the imitation is no match for the real thing, and no roach ends up as anything more than a dirty carcass. So also Al Qaeda, if we are resolute and support the men clearing the Middle East of their infestation.
Netwar is not commonly understood outside of academia and think tanks, but in essence, Netwar is generally identified as a conflict managed through a decentralized command, bordering on diffused-authority. Netwar also involves the conditions of autonomous reaction, which enables “swarming”, an attack/defense action where all available forces converge where they are needed in effectively an instant response. The common interpretation by academics is usually that Netwar is more spontaneous than a defense can react to, and adapts to the enemy in such fluid motion to qualify as a significant force multiplier. The academics almost always make statements to the effect that governmental or military organizations (e.g. “state actors”) are unable to counter a functional Netwar effort. My contention, after examining real life conditions, is that Netwar is a sometimes-useful term for discussing tactics, but it should not be confused with strategic value, nor should bias be allowed to occlude significant facts from the discussion.
Since cheering for an organization which has tortured and murdered thousands of innocents, the academics shy away a bit from openly praising Al Qaeda, yet the implied respect for the terrorist group’s methods and structure is made evident by the way in which media and symposiums baldly claim that the group’s nature and almost egalitarian practices means that the Coalition forces cannot achieve their main objective, to wipe out Global Terrorism as a strategic threat. The bias in favor of the Left is further evidenced by studies of Netwar conflicts, such as the one by the RAND Corporation released in 2001; the report specifically pits the presumed ‘nonstate’ Netwar actors against an archaic and slow-responding 'Hierarchical State' actors; the report goes so far as to use the timid responses by the Clinton Administration as examples of contemporary American military abilities and postures. The Middle Eastern terrorists are favorably compared to such other Netwar cases as the 1999 “Direct Action Network” shutdown of the WTO conference, the actions of drug cartels in Colombia during the 1990s, and the rebels of East Timor in 1999. Such a one-sided and hasty assumption reflects the bias inherent in the practice, more than a little like judging a prize fight by only the first punch thrown. Arrogance has invalidated more than a few academics, and so it is here.
Netwar is a valid phenomenon to consider, but the issue should be seen in greater scope and better focus than the academics have been willing to consider up to now. For instance, the American military in Operation Desert Storm, especially the Armored forces, was a perfect example of Netwar well-designed and executed. Iraqi forces had far greater numbers, but the American tanks cooperated in seamless action, and their GPS-assisted navigation and communication not only avoided tank traps and bottlenecks, but also allowed U.S. forces to move rapidly and change plans on the fly; intercepted Iraqi communications released after the war showed disbelief that the Americans could move and adapt so fast as they did. And long before the term “swarming” was developed, AirLand doctrine taught on-scene commanders how to bring maximum force to bear on a selected target. It is a foolish mistake to compare modern American doctrine and training with any other nations, and a fatal one for a military commander opposing an American force. The mistakes which allowed Al Qaeda to survive and thrive prior to the 9/11 attacks were political, not military, and a matter of character much more than tactics.
In the time since the 9/11 attacks, the clear superiority of American Doctrine has been made evident by the results. Afghanistan is free from the Taliban, and women have voted there for the first time in that nation’s history. Saddam Hussein is sitting in a prison cell, on trial for some of his many atrocities. Uday and Qusay are quite dead, having failed to understand what it meant to be the focus of an American “swarm”. A number of infamous terrorists from recent history are also dead, including Abu Nidal and Carlos “The Jackal”. Most of Al Qaeda’s leadership is either dead or captured, including the noted and particularly vicious Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, amongst whose personal effects are significant intelligence prizes, including significant evidence that Al Qaeda is in desperate straits. Obviously the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have been much better at Netwar than the academics ever suspected “state actors” could manage, but what of Al Qaeda? In their case, what the academics called Netwar turned out instead to be merely Roachwar.
Roaches are the bane of any homekeeper; as soon as you see one you know there are many more in hiding, and it’s very difficult to get rid of them all. And if you take down to that level, what roaches do appears to be a lot like Netwar. After all, what one roach knows all roaches know, their communication is instant and they have been “swarming” when they felt like it for thousands of years. But any individual roach is not all that hard to kill. And roaches, like Al Qaeda, are not really all that adaptable. And more to the point, no matter how many roaches you are going up against, if you are serious about the matter you certainly can control the problem, and while it takes a while and some serious effort and thinking, the critters can be eradicated. Al Qaeda is proving to be much the same; carriers of a serious (moral) disease and numerous, indefatigable in their appetite and possessing no mind comparable to a normal person, that you might reason with them. But in the end, the imitation is no match for the real thing, and no roach ends up as anything more than a dirty carcass. So also Al Qaeda, if we are resolute and support the men clearing the Middle East of their infestation.
Why Republicans Are Better Than Democrats, Reason #10,247
A couple months backwhen the site owner of my old group digs started posting some very incendiary columns which I found unreasonable (and said so), I began receiving some interesting mail. Pretty much, the mail was from people who agreed with me, but wondered why I stuck around at that place, since I was clearly at odds with the site owner. When the site owner reached the decision that his group writers would be shown the door, I received more mail to the tone that the site owner of the old place had really blown his situation, and that I would be reasonable in showing him the back of my hand and basically deliverng a broadside. Without divulging the private communications between us, some of the other group writers were unhappy with the way the site owner addressed the situation, especially as statements were made, by him and by the first person he brought on board to replace us, which were distinctly lacking in accuracy and courtesy. These things happen, of course - even when people do not mean to do so, it is all to easy to say the wrong thing. Anyway, it surprises no one to hear, I am sure, that most of the former group writers have moved on to their new locales, and have not paid much, indeed if any, attention to their old group site. I, being weird, have seen things differently, and it seems to me worthwhile to explain.
First off, I am not deaf and dumb and blind to the things said. Without going into details of little interest outside the circle of people involved, I found that I was blamed for things I could literally never have done, and some of the other former group hosts have been badly insulted, and neither the site owner nor his new guest hosts has corrected these slanders. This is unfortunate and dishonorable of them, and I mention it only because it is why some the previous group hosts at Polipundit.com are in no mood to promote the site. On the other side, to the best of my knowledge none of the former group hosts have made any false or defamatory statements against the site owner or any of his new guest hosts. One of our former number has criticized the site and its tone, but not beyond reason or merit.
Anyway, you might think that I would be giving the place a miss. Not at all, for a number of reasons. First off, I admit to a certain curiousity; the place was a home of sorts for two years, and one likes to know how family is getting on. Also, Oak Leaf in particular is - on the whole - an honorable and honest man, who has done a lot to keep the place running and post interesting and informative articles. Also, Oak Leaf has been kind enough to link to me and to certain other sites he finds worthwhile, and this in the face of some derision by his readers, showing a character that deserves respect and attention. I find Polipundit.com rather a bit like I do Michelle Malkin or La Shawn Barber’s Corner; there are fascinating articles and I respect the individual, but I cannot in good conscience commend their sites, because all three have disrespected the office and the man of our sitting President. No big deal there, I have all the cumulative political influence of a stray dog, but it still matters to me that I am true to myself.
Anyway, finally getting to the point of this piece, I have seen a lot of mail suggesting I should tell off these sites, and it occurs to me that it is important to measure the response. Michelle Malkin, for example, is dead wrong in the way she disrespects George W. Bush on Immigration, just as others are, but she still makes valid points in other areas, and it is also critically important that we Republicans understand the distinctions. That is, Republicans do not and should not respond to challenges the way Democrats do. George W. Bush deserves much better support and respect than he gets from Republicans, but it is still valid to challenge him when you disagree, especially in a way which moves the debate towards a better result. Democrats tend to either fall behind the leader or shout down ideas; it never occurs to them to work through a matter to reach a functional result. Even the staunchest Conservative was willing to reconsider the possibility that the Iraq War was a mistake, but no leading Democrat has ever been willing to publically consider whether Bush’s decision was right - including many Democrats who actually voted for the war. This is actually typical of Democrats; they never consider that a considered evaluation, even of their opponent, could lead to more productive results. Not to be mean, but this is the same think-lock which killed off the Soviet Politburo - when the five-year plans started failing, they never stepped back and reconsidered other, better, options. Every decision, especially after the death of Breshnev, was all-or-nothing, and they ended up with ‘nothing’. So, annoying as it is to read unwarranted insults lobbed at Dubya from self-proclaimed ‘conservatives’, it is actually a healthy sign for the party. We can listen to our wingnuts, chuckle, and make the right decision. The Democrats listen, it seems, only to theirwingnuts moonbats.
UPDATE - I have been advised that the correct technical term for the Left is 'moonbat', not 'wingnut'. Thanks Mark!
First off, I am not deaf and dumb and blind to the things said. Without going into details of little interest outside the circle of people involved, I found that I was blamed for things I could literally never have done, and some of the other former group hosts have been badly insulted, and neither the site owner nor his new guest hosts has corrected these slanders. This is unfortunate and dishonorable of them, and I mention it only because it is why some the previous group hosts at Polipundit.com are in no mood to promote the site. On the other side, to the best of my knowledge none of the former group hosts have made any false or defamatory statements against the site owner or any of his new guest hosts. One of our former number has criticized the site and its tone, but not beyond reason or merit.
Anyway, you might think that I would be giving the place a miss. Not at all, for a number of reasons. First off, I admit to a certain curiousity; the place was a home of sorts for two years, and one likes to know how family is getting on. Also, Oak Leaf in particular is - on the whole - an honorable and honest man, who has done a lot to keep the place running and post interesting and informative articles. Also, Oak Leaf has been kind enough to link to me and to certain other sites he finds worthwhile, and this in the face of some derision by his readers, showing a character that deserves respect and attention. I find Polipundit.com rather a bit like I do Michelle Malkin or La Shawn Barber’s Corner; there are fascinating articles and I respect the individual, but I cannot in good conscience commend their sites, because all three have disrespected the office and the man of our sitting President. No big deal there, I have all the cumulative political influence of a stray dog, but it still matters to me that I am true to myself.
Anyway, finally getting to the point of this piece, I have seen a lot of mail suggesting I should tell off these sites, and it occurs to me that it is important to measure the response. Michelle Malkin, for example, is dead wrong in the way she disrespects George W. Bush on Immigration, just as others are, but she still makes valid points in other areas, and it is also critically important that we Republicans understand the distinctions. That is, Republicans do not and should not respond to challenges the way Democrats do. George W. Bush deserves much better support and respect than he gets from Republicans, but it is still valid to challenge him when you disagree, especially in a way which moves the debate towards a better result. Democrats tend to either fall behind the leader or shout down ideas; it never occurs to them to work through a matter to reach a functional result. Even the staunchest Conservative was willing to reconsider the possibility that the Iraq War was a mistake, but no leading Democrat has ever been willing to publically consider whether Bush’s decision was right - including many Democrats who actually voted for the war. This is actually typical of Democrats; they never consider that a considered evaluation, even of their opponent, could lead to more productive results. Not to be mean, but this is the same think-lock which killed off the Soviet Politburo - when the five-year plans started failing, they never stepped back and reconsidered other, better, options. Every decision, especially after the death of Breshnev, was all-or-nothing, and they ended up with ‘nothing’. So, annoying as it is to read unwarranted insults lobbed at Dubya from self-proclaimed ‘conservatives’, it is actually a healthy sign for the party. We can listen to our wingnuts, chuckle, and make the right decision. The Democrats listen, it seems, only to their
UPDATE - I have been advised that the correct technical term for the Left is 'moonbat', not 'wingnut'. Thanks Mark!
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The Pence Bill
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) has submitted a bill for Immigration Reform and Border Control. It takes a while to read, so I am posting a few brief observations, and will post more when I have digested the thing.
First off, this is going to test the study skills of Congressional staffers. At 280 pages, no politician is going to read it. That means the smart ones will ask their staff what it says, and follow up later with questions about specifics. The dumb ones will ask what they should say, and parrot the party line. As a point of trivia, if every Congressman has five staffers print out this baby, it will eat up 1,230 reams of paper.
With fourteen "titles" in it, this is a freaking omnibus type thing, but at first glance, I found the following sections worth pointing out:
Title XIV - Temporary guest Worker Program - Section 1402 creates a new "nonimmigrant" visa category, Section 1405 restricts eligible benefits, Section 1406 has an English requirement, and Section 1407 notes a fee for this certification. This is a good place to start, because it's likely to be the most controversial.
Title I, Section 101 notes "Achieving operational control on the border".
Section 111 addresses airspace security, which is a key focus to border control.
Section 117 notes "consultation" with businesses and firms, indicating that specific requirements and penalties may still be in planning, although Title VII addresses Employment, particularly Section 702 for the verification process, and Section 706 for penalties.
Title II ratchets up penalties for smuggling, noted in Section 205. Section 219 addresses reducing the immigration backlog, which is important to decreasing demand for illegal crossings by non-violent entrants. Sections 221 and 222 discuss how to bring State and Local law enforcement onto the same page for enforcing the law, and also how to pay for it.
Title IV, Section 410 discusses making sure immigration violators are added to the NCIC database.
Title VI addresses the more dangerous illegals, especially terrorists, criminals, gangs, drunk drivers, and producers of false credentials (Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 618, and 619)
Title X addresses fencing and walls, with Section 1002 focused on construction improvements, consolidation, and cost.
Title XII enforces an "Oath of renunciation and allegiance". You can cheer for Mexico in the World Cup, but if you are going to be here, you better promise to be an American (Section 1202).
All in all, you might find it interesting how much this looks a lot like what Dubya promised all along, just this one has a lot of detail, and is harder for cynics to heckle.
First off, this is going to test the study skills of Congressional staffers. At 280 pages, no politician is going to read it. That means the smart ones will ask their staff what it says, and follow up later with questions about specifics. The dumb ones will ask what they should say, and parrot the party line. As a point of trivia, if every Congressman has five staffers print out this baby, it will eat up 1,230 reams of paper.
With fourteen "titles" in it, this is a freaking omnibus type thing, but at first glance, I found the following sections worth pointing out:
Title XIV - Temporary guest Worker Program - Section 1402 creates a new "nonimmigrant" visa category, Section 1405 restricts eligible benefits, Section 1406 has an English requirement, and Section 1407 notes a fee for this certification. This is a good place to start, because it's likely to be the most controversial.
Title I, Section 101 notes "Achieving operational control on the border".
Section 111 addresses airspace security, which is a key focus to border control.
Section 117 notes "consultation" with businesses and firms, indicating that specific requirements and penalties may still be in planning, although Title VII addresses Employment, particularly Section 702 for the verification process, and Section 706 for penalties.
Title II ratchets up penalties for smuggling, noted in Section 205. Section 219 addresses reducing the immigration backlog, which is important to decreasing demand for illegal crossings by non-violent entrants. Sections 221 and 222 discuss how to bring State and Local law enforcement onto the same page for enforcing the law, and also how to pay for it.
Title IV, Section 410 discusses making sure immigration violators are added to the NCIC database.
Title VI addresses the more dangerous illegals, especially terrorists, criminals, gangs, drunk drivers, and producers of false credentials (Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 618, and 619)
Title X addresses fencing and walls, with Section 1002 focused on construction improvements, consolidation, and cost.
Title XII enforces an "Oath of renunciation and allegiance". You can cheer for Mexico in the World Cup, but if you are going to be here, you better promise to be an American (Section 1202).
All in all, you might find it interesting how much this looks a lot like what Dubya promised all along, just this one has a lot of detail, and is harder for cynics to heckle.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Who Goes There?
Everyone has bad habits. One of mine is trolling through conspiracy theory sites online. I love how some people put together the wackiest notions, and sometimes it’s laugh-out-loud funny, although it’s a bit unnerving how much the Democrats seem to be getting serious ideas from these places. Anyway, the basic requirement for any conspiracy theory site seems to be that you start with a JFK Assassination conspiracy theory. I have to admit that I myself have played a bit with the Dealey Plaza scenario, but it’s tricky because if you talk or write about the thing, you quickly find that you are expected to either believe that Oswald did it all by himself, no matter what common sense or the evidence tells you, or else it has to be some deep conspiracy covering decades and several varieties of secret government coups, again never mind what the evidence or common sense says. I can say, after years of looking at the available evidence and thinking things through, that I don’t know. Yes, people are allowed to say they don’t know.
But the thing that I found interesting today, is that it can be really difficult for a website to hold a civil discussion on this sort of thing. One place I found was making an effort to be scholarly about it, asking folks to register before making comments, to cite their sources, and so on. But they also wanted everyone to submit a biography and photograph when they registered, so the site owner could verify their identity to his satisfaction. And that just made me laugh out loud.
First off, how many people do you know, in this age of identity theft, who are keen to give out a lot of personal information, just so they can post on a public site? I know I would not be comfortable giving out that kind of information to a stranger. But also, let’s say just for a minute that you really are onto something, and so the occasional CIA officer or FBI agent wants to post something important? Again, if they want to keep their job they are not about to blab out their identity to someone who would be more than likely to bring them grief – if “Fox Mulder” had really existed, he would have been busted in the first season for ignoring the Bureau’s regulations. But it works the other way as well; if I were working as a domestic intelligence officer – and we do have those – and wanted to infiltrate this site in order to see what they were up to – it would not be a big deal for DHS or any of a dozen agencies to put together a believable cover, complete with photos and references. Frankly, with Photoshop and a few hours with Lexis Nexis, I could create a fake cover myself. The guy running the site was a true neuf to think that demanding a bio and pic would serve as any kind of security. So it serves as the opposite of what he wanted; it would annoy anyone concerned about their personal privacy, while doing nothing to slow down any real spies. So the lesson for today is to trust your gut, watch out for paranoia more than the Boogieman, and don’t believe everything you read.
But the thing that I found interesting today, is that it can be really difficult for a website to hold a civil discussion on this sort of thing. One place I found was making an effort to be scholarly about it, asking folks to register before making comments, to cite their sources, and so on. But they also wanted everyone to submit a biography and photograph when they registered, so the site owner could verify their identity to his satisfaction. And that just made me laugh out loud.
First off, how many people do you know, in this age of identity theft, who are keen to give out a lot of personal information, just so they can post on a public site? I know I would not be comfortable giving out that kind of information to a stranger. But also, let’s say just for a minute that you really are onto something, and so the occasional CIA officer or FBI agent wants to post something important? Again, if they want to keep their job they are not about to blab out their identity to someone who would be more than likely to bring them grief – if “Fox Mulder” had really existed, he would have been busted in the first season for ignoring the Bureau’s regulations. But it works the other way as well; if I were working as a domestic intelligence officer – and we do have those – and wanted to infiltrate this site in order to see what they were up to – it would not be a big deal for DHS or any of a dozen agencies to put together a believable cover, complete with photos and references. Frankly, with Photoshop and a few hours with Lexis Nexis, I could create a fake cover myself. The guy running the site was a true neuf to think that demanding a bio and pic would serve as any kind of security. So it serves as the opposite of what he wanted; it would annoy anyone concerned about their personal privacy, while doing nothing to slow down any real spies. So the lesson for today is to trust your gut, watch out for paranoia more than the Boogieman, and don’t believe everything you read.
Must Read About the Duke Rape Case
LaShawn Barber pointed readers to a “must-read” rebuke of Duke President Richard Broadhead by a prominent alumnus.
Randall Drain’s open letter is rational and compelling, two things the prosecutor’s case and the University’s actions cannot claim.
I do differ with Ms. Barber on one point; as Mr. Drain made clear, Race is hardly a relevant element in this case, nor its discussion. Therefore, there is no valid purpose in describing Drain as a “black Duke alum”.
Randall Drain’s open letter is rational and compelling, two things the prosecutor’s case and the University’s actions cannot claim.
I do differ with Ms. Barber on one point; as Mr. Drain made clear, Race is hardly a relevant element in this case, nor its discussion. Therefore, there is no valid purpose in describing Drain as a “black Duke alum”.
Friday, June 16, 2006
A Coach Unworthy Of The Game
I love Baseball. When I became an umpire, part of the reason was a strong desire to be part of the game, to help keep it strong where it mattered most. As an umpire, my job was sometimes tough, but always founded on three simple objectives:
1. Keep it safe.
2. Keep it balanced.
3. Keep it sporting.
Sportsmanship has always been at the heart of Baseball, and I have seen more than a few men whose character and integrity had been forged in their time playing the Game.
So it is, that I regard with utter contempt those petty men who cannot respect the Game, who believe they are entitled to strip away honor if it means gaining an advantage in the moment, especially in some vindictive manner. This is especially true in pitching. And so I put keyboard to action, to rebuke the cowardly and thuggish actions of Ozzie Guillen, whose version of Baseball is closer to Gang Warfare, with similar vocabulary and tactics.
A sad example is the incident at Wednesday’s game against the Rangers, reported by Sports Illustrated’s Jacob Luft, where Guillen brought in pitcher Sean Tracey for the express purpose of hitting a batter with a fastball. Even a White Sox fan site admitted the intent was obvious.
Now, I am hardly naïve about professional sports. I even got to work a minor league exhibition game once, and it’s certainly different from college or high school, to say nothing of PONY or Little League. The players more than earn their money in situations where they have to do things differently than they are used to doing, but there again I take the pros to task; despite the lame excuses they very much are role models for the kids, who can be counted on to imitate what they see a Major Leaguer do. And so while I understand that control is a problem sometimes, and that a brush-back pitch is part of the battle for control of the plate, a pitcher who would deliberately hit a player is scum, and a manager/coach who would order it should get jail time, not just a fine/suspension. 90+ mph pitches break bones and put people in hospitals, so deliberately hitting someone with a fastball at that level is nothing short of criminal. Ask Don Zimmer about fastballs hitting people, or the families of Ottis Jackson, "Stormy" Davis, or George Tkach, all of whom died from being beaned by a pitch.
Tracey, to his credit, had a hard time complying with Guillen's thuggish demand. I have seen pitchers become unable to find the strike zone after an intentional walk in a pressure situation, so I can only imagine what a pitcher would go through when ordered to deliberately hit a batter, a thing which all of Baseball rightly rejects at every other level. Here in Texas, the UIL has a no-nonsense attitude to deliberate hits; a pitcher will be ejected as soon as the umpire believes he was trying to hit a batter, and a repeat can cost a pitcher eligibility for a season is proven (and in these days of videocams, that's more common than you might think). My understanding is also that the NCAA similarly takes a dim view of any pitcher trying to hit a batter. So it comes as no surprise to me that Sean Tracey was finding it difficult to obey his coach yet maintain his self-respect; Guillen might as well have asked Tracey to molest a child, as to deliberately hit a batter. So it was that Sean Tracey found himself unable to hit Hank Blalock with a pitch, and so he met with the ire of Guillen. Guillen pulled Tracey from the game, and then kicked him down to the Minors. OK, maybe Tracey's control issues would have sent him there anyway, but the way Guillen chose to do this was classless and may have done serious damage to Tracey's development - I mean, if Tracey gets his control at AAA and impresses folks, his reward is - swell - to go back to the White Sox, where Guillen's sub-decent management style will be waiting. I'd call that a conflict in motivation.
The fact that the White Sox are not punishing Guillen at all for this obvious and dishonorable decision, lowers my estimation of the White Sox organization and the city of Chicago by a large measure.
1. Keep it safe.
2. Keep it balanced.
3. Keep it sporting.
Sportsmanship has always been at the heart of Baseball, and I have seen more than a few men whose character and integrity had been forged in their time playing the Game.
So it is, that I regard with utter contempt those petty men who cannot respect the Game, who believe they are entitled to strip away honor if it means gaining an advantage in the moment, especially in some vindictive manner. This is especially true in pitching. And so I put keyboard to action, to rebuke the cowardly and thuggish actions of Ozzie Guillen, whose version of Baseball is closer to Gang Warfare, with similar vocabulary and tactics.
A sad example is the incident at Wednesday’s game against the Rangers, reported by Sports Illustrated’s Jacob Luft, where Guillen brought in pitcher Sean Tracey for the express purpose of hitting a batter with a fastball. Even a White Sox fan site admitted the intent was obvious.
Now, I am hardly naïve about professional sports. I even got to work a minor league exhibition game once, and it’s certainly different from college or high school, to say nothing of PONY or Little League. The players more than earn their money in situations where they have to do things differently than they are used to doing, but there again I take the pros to task; despite the lame excuses they very much are role models for the kids, who can be counted on to imitate what they see a Major Leaguer do. And so while I understand that control is a problem sometimes, and that a brush-back pitch is part of the battle for control of the plate, a pitcher who would deliberately hit a player is scum, and a manager/coach who would order it should get jail time, not just a fine/suspension. 90+ mph pitches break bones and put people in hospitals, so deliberately hitting someone with a fastball at that level is nothing short of criminal. Ask Don Zimmer about fastballs hitting people, or the families of Ottis Jackson, "Stormy" Davis, or George Tkach, all of whom died from being beaned by a pitch.
Tracey, to his credit, had a hard time complying with Guillen's thuggish demand. I have seen pitchers become unable to find the strike zone after an intentional walk in a pressure situation, so I can only imagine what a pitcher would go through when ordered to deliberately hit a batter, a thing which all of Baseball rightly rejects at every other level. Here in Texas, the UIL has a no-nonsense attitude to deliberate hits; a pitcher will be ejected as soon as the umpire believes he was trying to hit a batter, and a repeat can cost a pitcher eligibility for a season is proven (and in these days of videocams, that's more common than you might think). My understanding is also that the NCAA similarly takes a dim view of any pitcher trying to hit a batter. So it comes as no surprise to me that Sean Tracey was finding it difficult to obey his coach yet maintain his self-respect; Guillen might as well have asked Tracey to molest a child, as to deliberately hit a batter. So it was that Sean Tracey found himself unable to hit Hank Blalock with a pitch, and so he met with the ire of Guillen. Guillen pulled Tracey from the game, and then kicked him down to the Minors. OK, maybe Tracey's control issues would have sent him there anyway, but the way Guillen chose to do this was classless and may have done serious damage to Tracey's development - I mean, if Tracey gets his control at AAA and impresses folks, his reward is - swell - to go back to the White Sox, where Guillen's sub-decent management style will be waiting. I'd call that a conflict in motivation.
The fact that the White Sox are not punishing Guillen at all for this obvious and dishonorable decision, lowers my estimation of the White Sox organization and the city of Chicago by a large measure.
Michelle Malkin As Lois Lane
Some people are just never happy. I remember the anecdote of the man who won the lottery, only to complain because that meant he’d have to pay more in taxes. There’s a lot of people like that, and well, some of them write blogs.
A good case in point is Michelle Malkin, whose memory of recent history is about as bad as John Kerry’s memories of the late 1960s. President George W. Bush gets America into the fight against Terrorism, answering the 9/11 attacks in a deliberate and measured response, but one which goes to the heart of the crisis. But Michelle has forgotten that. He gets a series of tax cuts for ordinary Americans, which pulls America out of a recession, and ironically also increases federal revenue. But Michelle does not remember any of that. Dubya said and did the right things, over and over again, in all the most important fights, from getting competent non-revisionist judges on the Federal bench and Supreme Court to forward-thinking proposals to improve security and maintain the stability of America’s future in education, medicine, tax reform, and border security. Yet Michelle seems oblivious to it all. Why? Well, it seems that Michelle blames Bush for the current Illegals problem, and seems to think that he should have taken care of this issue, single-handedly if necessary. Never mind what the Constitution says about laws coming out of Congress, never mind the practical problems surrounding prior laws which have never been enforced, the attitudes of legislators who are more turf-protectors than Conservatives, or the limitations of resources and circumstances. And since Dubs won’t be everything she wants him to be, Michelle Malkin has joined the band of malcontents trashing the President.
This would not bother me in most cases, save that attacking the leader of your party and nation, and by the way the Commander-In-Chief of the military, is a common tactic of the Left but out of line for the Right. Disagreement is one thing, but the vitriol from Conservatives only fuels the ambition of Democrats and confuses the public. It is also dishonest in the extreme to attach things to the President which he has never said or done, which is increasingly common to the Rabies Wing of the Conservative Movement. This can only lead to losses in the coming election, which means that as much as they deny it, the spiteful Conservatives are actually working to give power to the Left. I’m sure Harry Reid will send you a nice thank-you note.
But what’s the deal? Any objective review of the Dubya Administration shows that he has been true to the nation, the party, and the people, so why would Conservatives go barmy now? Some of it is History of course; I am old enough to remember how Conservatives started treating Reagan around 1986, how they deserted Ford in 1976, how they ran away from Newt Gingrich around 1998; the support for Conservative leaders is fleeting, and it is a foolish man who trusts such fickle advocates. But to the question, it comes, believe it or not, as a casualty brought by success. The leader does a thing or two which accomplishes a victory, sometimes a great one, and from then on these people expect miracles on a daily basis. Just as the Israelites in the desert knew Moses had performed miracles by the strength from God, but demanded more and more from him, so today Conservatives see what Dubya has done, and their appetite only grows stronger and their gratitude dies out. So what, if Dubya was the first man to understand that we had to take the war to the terrorists if we wanted America safe? So what, if Dubya was the first President ever to try to change Social Security from a scam to a functional system? So what, if Dubya was responsible for two critically important Supreme Court nominees? If they didn’t get it all, Team Rabies could be counted upon to attack the man to whom they owed the most.
George W. Bush is like Superman; no matter how good a job he does, it will never be more than they expect. The very success of his work is his kryptonite. Liberals and CINOs alike pretend that because America whipped Al Qaeda, it was somehow never really a threat. Somehow, Justices Roberts and Alito don’t really matter in the course of the nation. And so on. And just as Superman was never quite good enough for Lois Lane, but had to keep proving himself over and over again (or why else was it, exactly, that Lane was always getting into serious trouble which required Super-intervention), so it is for the likes of Michelle Malkin, that the best President in more than a generation can never be given his due.
A good case in point is Michelle Malkin, whose memory of recent history is about as bad as John Kerry’s memories of the late 1960s. President George W. Bush gets America into the fight against Terrorism, answering the 9/11 attacks in a deliberate and measured response, but one which goes to the heart of the crisis. But Michelle has forgotten that. He gets a series of tax cuts for ordinary Americans, which pulls America out of a recession, and ironically also increases federal revenue. But Michelle does not remember any of that. Dubya said and did the right things, over and over again, in all the most important fights, from getting competent non-revisionist judges on the Federal bench and Supreme Court to forward-thinking proposals to improve security and maintain the stability of America’s future in education, medicine, tax reform, and border security. Yet Michelle seems oblivious to it all. Why? Well, it seems that Michelle blames Bush for the current Illegals problem, and seems to think that he should have taken care of this issue, single-handedly if necessary. Never mind what the Constitution says about laws coming out of Congress, never mind the practical problems surrounding prior laws which have never been enforced, the attitudes of legislators who are more turf-protectors than Conservatives, or the limitations of resources and circumstances. And since Dubs won’t be everything she wants him to be, Michelle Malkin has joined the band of malcontents trashing the President.
This would not bother me in most cases, save that attacking the leader of your party and nation, and by the way the Commander-In-Chief of the military, is a common tactic of the Left but out of line for the Right. Disagreement is one thing, but the vitriol from Conservatives only fuels the ambition of Democrats and confuses the public. It is also dishonest in the extreme to attach things to the President which he has never said or done, which is increasingly common to the Rabies Wing of the Conservative Movement. This can only lead to losses in the coming election, which means that as much as they deny it, the spiteful Conservatives are actually working to give power to the Left. I’m sure Harry Reid will send you a nice thank-you note.
But what’s the deal? Any objective review of the Dubya Administration shows that he has been true to the nation, the party, and the people, so why would Conservatives go barmy now? Some of it is History of course; I am old enough to remember how Conservatives started treating Reagan around 1986, how they deserted Ford in 1976, how they ran away from Newt Gingrich around 1998; the support for Conservative leaders is fleeting, and it is a foolish man who trusts such fickle advocates. But to the question, it comes, believe it or not, as a casualty brought by success. The leader does a thing or two which accomplishes a victory, sometimes a great one, and from then on these people expect miracles on a daily basis. Just as the Israelites in the desert knew Moses had performed miracles by the strength from God, but demanded more and more from him, so today Conservatives see what Dubya has done, and their appetite only grows stronger and their gratitude dies out. So what, if Dubya was the first man to understand that we had to take the war to the terrorists if we wanted America safe? So what, if Dubya was the first President ever to try to change Social Security from a scam to a functional system? So what, if Dubya was responsible for two critically important Supreme Court nominees? If they didn’t get it all, Team Rabies could be counted upon to attack the man to whom they owed the most.
George W. Bush is like Superman; no matter how good a job he does, it will never be more than they expect. The very success of his work is his kryptonite. Liberals and CINOs alike pretend that because America whipped Al Qaeda, it was somehow never really a threat. Somehow, Justices Roberts and Alito don’t really matter in the course of the nation. And so on. And just as Superman was never quite good enough for Lois Lane, but had to keep proving himself over and over again (or why else was it, exactly, that Lane was always getting into serious trouble which required Super-intervention), so it is for the likes of Michelle Malkin, that the best President in more than a generation can never be given his due.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Clue, Lesson One – Don’t Side With The Enemy, Especially In Public
The Republicans have truly become the governing party of the United States. I was reluctant to claim this, since the majority was so recently minted, in historical terms, and especially since the GOP continues to repeat some habitual behavior they learned while in the electoral wilderness. But the party which calls itself the Democratic Party – being almost nothing like the party of Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, or Franklin Roosevelt, I cannot agree that they are actually that party in fact – has resigned every signal of its former authority and dignity.
I was struck by the actual results from the 2004 Presidential Election – the Democrats had attacked President Bush on every front possible, they had the myth of the failing economy working for them, along with the much-vaunted “party fatigue”, which in plain English means that voters don’t like leaders who ask them to make sacrifices, unless they are charismatic and eloquent. Yet for all of that, Dubs won his re-election by three million votes. Some of that was a determined support for the President in time of war, but also because John Kerry made it abundantly clear that he was cheering for the wrong side.
Rather than consider the lesson, however, Democrats have redoubled their efforts to defame our military and its Commander-In-Chief, to cast doubt on America’s history and its intentions towards the world at large, and to impugn the character of our major businesses and blame us for our success. Just look at the website for the Democratic Party.
It should have been obvious, selecting Stacie Paxton, speaking as the official voice of the Democrats, claimed yesterday that “Americans are tired of Republicans acting as if the rules don't apply to them. The Bush White House's arrogance and partisan tactics have divided our country. Democrats remain committed to open and honest government.” The problem with those statements is that they lie about Republicans as a party, they pretend that Democrats have been and are morally superior in their deeds and statements, and they ignore more than a few Democrats implicated in political and criminal actions.
I thought about citing how many elected Democrats have been indicted or at least arrested for their crimes compared with Republicans, but that’s not the point, and in any case I do not believe in excusing anyone for crimes, simply because the “other guy” was worse. It should be noted however, that when DeLay was indicted by a paranoid hack of a DA in Austin, he resigned his seat, while Democrats like Harry Reid (who has been very closely connected to the Abramoff scandal), Cynthia “Punchy” McKinney, and William “Freezer” Jefferson refuse to accept any sort of consequences for their own adventures in arrogance. Spare me the soap, donkeys.
Murtha, on no evidence, accuses Marines of mass murder. Dean and Kerry want us to cut and run from the war. Pelosi accuses the Republican Party of a “Culture of Corruption”, again with nothing but noise behind the charge and in ignorance of history; after all, it was Gore who went trick-or-treating at Buddhist temples for under-the-table campaign money from Beijing, not a Republican.
Despite the Democrats’ fondest hopes, this is not 1974, and with the Blogosphere, the snow job won’t work this time. The Republicans may not be doing a very good job as the Governing Party, but the Democrats have made it clear they will not accept the role anymore. Once has to be an adult to take on the job, after all.
I was struck by the actual results from the 2004 Presidential Election – the Democrats had attacked President Bush on every front possible, they had the myth of the failing economy working for them, along with the much-vaunted “party fatigue”, which in plain English means that voters don’t like leaders who ask them to make sacrifices, unless they are charismatic and eloquent. Yet for all of that, Dubs won his re-election by three million votes. Some of that was a determined support for the President in time of war, but also because John Kerry made it abundantly clear that he was cheering for the wrong side.
Rather than consider the lesson, however, Democrats have redoubled their efforts to defame our military and its Commander-In-Chief, to cast doubt on America’s history and its intentions towards the world at large, and to impugn the character of our major businesses and blame us for our success. Just look at the website for the Democratic Party.
It should have been obvious, selecting Stacie Paxton, speaking as the official voice of the Democrats, claimed yesterday that “Americans are tired of Republicans acting as if the rules don't apply to them. The Bush White House's arrogance and partisan tactics have divided our country. Democrats remain committed to open and honest government.” The problem with those statements is that they lie about Republicans as a party, they pretend that Democrats have been and are morally superior in their deeds and statements, and they ignore more than a few Democrats implicated in political and criminal actions.
I thought about citing how many elected Democrats have been indicted or at least arrested for their crimes compared with Republicans, but that’s not the point, and in any case I do not believe in excusing anyone for crimes, simply because the “other guy” was worse. It should be noted however, that when DeLay was indicted by a paranoid hack of a DA in Austin, he resigned his seat, while Democrats like Harry Reid (who has been very closely connected to the Abramoff scandal), Cynthia “Punchy” McKinney, and William “Freezer” Jefferson refuse to accept any sort of consequences for their own adventures in arrogance. Spare me the soap, donkeys.
Murtha, on no evidence, accuses Marines of mass murder. Dean and Kerry want us to cut and run from the war. Pelosi accuses the Republican Party of a “Culture of Corruption”, again with nothing but noise behind the charge and in ignorance of history; after all, it was Gore who went trick-or-treating at Buddhist temples for under-the-table campaign money from Beijing, not a Republican.
Despite the Democrats’ fondest hopes, this is not 1974, and with the Blogosphere, the snow job won’t work this time. The Republicans may not be doing a very good job as the Governing Party, but the Democrats have made it clear they will not accept the role anymore. Once has to be an adult to take on the job, after all.
Stupidity And Stocks
The Times of London, formerly a newspaper of notable credibility, seems to be chasing the New York and LA Times down into the sewers of rumor-mongering and defeatism. In this case I am noting the article written by one Anatole Kaletsky, who warns readers that the Stock Market is in for a bad go of it, and we might as well give up now. What a putz.
Kaletsy is at least honest about his message; the title reads “Stop Celebrating. The markets are not rallying. This is a dead cat bounce”. Of course, when you go through the article, you might note that the man presents no evidence to support his contention, and he is particularly poor in presenting the context of stock market development. Just as an overview of his dreck, so you won’t feel you have to wade through it, here are some of the salient comments Kaletsy makes:
“the retreat in shares and other assets which was then just beginning, has turned into a full-scale rout.”
“Share prices have been falling almost daily in every major market”
“Most industrial commodities, for example, are still worth from 50 to 150 per cent more than they were a year ago, even though demand for them is now clearly falling and is certain to weaken further in the coming months.”
“Another reason for believing that the bear market has longer to run is that so little financial pain has been evident so far.”
At the end of his article, the fact that he has gone way beyond the pier in his walk to despondency apparently even reaching his own mind, Kaletsky backs off from his tone, noting that Bernanke has good control of the Fed, that the Stock Market in general is sound and headed in the right direction, and that inflation is hardly the threat the media makes it out to be. But this is the CYA stuff that hypocrites toss into their articles so that when their promises of doom fail to materialize, they can try to weasel out. Kaletsky is playing ‘prophet of doom’, but without support for his claims.
The Stock Market does carry risk, of course. Even the most bullish investor is aware that every prospectus warns that you are putting your money at risk in any investment. That said, US Stocks have risen by an average of 11% a year between 1926 and 1999, and by 18% a year between 1990 and 1999.
That’s better than you can get from bonds or bank deposits, and this should be understood when making any decision. There are people who just throw money into a stock or mutual fund without any serious look at the performance of the companies or the risk they are accepting; this is not much different from hoping you will get lucky in a casino. If you take the time and make the effort to do your homework, you can learn a lot about a company’s stability, market position, and potential for growth, and from there you can make an informed choice with good reason for optimism.
American stocks are a much better buy than foreign stocks, generally, because of Sarbanes-Oxley. This is not to say that all American companies or stocks are superior, but Sox creates a level of accountability for upper management which also improves the transparency of operations and reporting. Companies do not like the added expense, but in the long term the provisions make the financial statements more credible and the company more stable, which are critical components to any successful company and investment.
While foreign stocks do not have the same stability and credibility of American stocks (the PRC, for instance, does not allow independent audits of companies associated with the Central Committee), the basic premise still holds; if you find out about a company before investing, you can decide what the most likely performance you may expect to see before committing to an investment. Be careful, but there’s no reason to be a Kaletsky.
Kaletsy is at least honest about his message; the title reads “Stop Celebrating. The markets are not rallying. This is a dead cat bounce”. Of course, when you go through the article, you might note that the man presents no evidence to support his contention, and he is particularly poor in presenting the context of stock market development. Just as an overview of his dreck, so you won’t feel you have to wade through it, here are some of the salient comments Kaletsy makes:
“the retreat in shares and other assets which was then just beginning, has turned into a full-scale rout.”
“Share prices have been falling almost daily in every major market”
“Most industrial commodities, for example, are still worth from 50 to 150 per cent more than they were a year ago, even though demand for them is now clearly falling and is certain to weaken further in the coming months.”
“Another reason for believing that the bear market has longer to run is that so little financial pain has been evident so far.”
At the end of his article, the fact that he has gone way beyond the pier in his walk to despondency apparently even reaching his own mind, Kaletsky backs off from his tone, noting that Bernanke has good control of the Fed, that the Stock Market in general is sound and headed in the right direction, and that inflation is hardly the threat the media makes it out to be. But this is the CYA stuff that hypocrites toss into their articles so that when their promises of doom fail to materialize, they can try to weasel out. Kaletsky is playing ‘prophet of doom’, but without support for his claims.
The Stock Market does carry risk, of course. Even the most bullish investor is aware that every prospectus warns that you are putting your money at risk in any investment. That said, US Stocks have risen by an average of 11% a year between 1926 and 1999, and by 18% a year between 1990 and 1999.
That’s better than you can get from bonds or bank deposits, and this should be understood when making any decision. There are people who just throw money into a stock or mutual fund without any serious look at the performance of the companies or the risk they are accepting; this is not much different from hoping you will get lucky in a casino. If you take the time and make the effort to do your homework, you can learn a lot about a company’s stability, market position, and potential for growth, and from there you can make an informed choice with good reason for optimism.
American stocks are a much better buy than foreign stocks, generally, because of Sarbanes-Oxley. This is not to say that all American companies or stocks are superior, but Sox creates a level of accountability for upper management which also improves the transparency of operations and reporting. Companies do not like the added expense, but in the long term the provisions make the financial statements more credible and the company more stable, which are critical components to any successful company and investment.
While foreign stocks do not have the same stability and credibility of American stocks (the PRC, for instance, does not allow independent audits of companies associated with the Central Committee), the basic premise still holds; if you find out about a company before investing, you can decide what the most likely performance you may expect to see before committing to an investment. Be careful, but there’s no reason to be a Kaletsky.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
United States Army
Two hundred thirty-one years ago today, when Britain owned our country and only a few men had the nerve to cry “enough!”, a small but determined band was organized. Before there was even an America, there was the American Army. These brave men took on the British and all the odds against them, and made the world better through their courage and sacrifice.
That legacy lives on in today’s generation. Say it loud, say it proud: “Happy Birthday, ARMY!”
That legacy lives on in today’s generation. Say it loud, say it proud: “Happy Birthday, ARMY!”
Guest Gig?
Well, well, well. Polipundit is asking for guest bloggers. Says the site owner:
I wonder what would happen if I applied?
“If you’ve been commenting a lot at this or other blogs, why not try guest-blogging? I can’t provide any monetary compensation for now. But you’ll be able to say that you write at a popular blog that gets tens of thousands of readers a day."
I wonder what would happen if I applied?
Gitmo
A couple days ago, a reader accused the United States of rounding up the detainees now being held in Guantanamo Bay by use of “sweeps” and through paid informants. This claim is, to put it bluntly, utter bunk, but typical of claims from the Left and demonstrates the mindset which opposes our troops, the war, and the security of our nation. That said, it is worthwhile to examine just how someone ends up at Gitmo.
The DoD has actually been quite open about how things work at Gitmo. I took the time to look at a few papers, including the process chart, and step-by-step walk-through of a detainee’s initial review, an explanation of the legal basis for detaining AL Qaeda and Taliban combatants, and a link to a website where updated information can be found and studied.
The United States has held somewhere between four and seven hundred detainees at Guantanamo at various times. The exact number is unspecific, not because the U.S. does not know how many detainees it holds (another Leftist lie being tossed around), but because like many detention facilities, detainees are arriving and leaving on a regular basis. Guantanamo, despite the bad press it receives, is actually an effective example of how the system should work in this type of conflict.
First, concerning the status of the detainees. Many on the Left wail over the detainee’s undefined status, legally. Again, this is a dishonest attempt to mischaracterize the people involved. The detainees cannot be considered Prisoners of War, because they were apprehended when plotting or committing acts of terrorism, under no flag or national corps. Thus, they are not POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention. Further, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is in no way abusive nor a violation of the standards dictated by the Geneva accords, especially in terms of religious freedoms and expectations of conduct. Further, the use of military courts is expressly approved in Article 87 of those very accords. So even by the Leftist standards, Guantanamo is a valid operational facility.
Referring again to the Geneva Accords, this time with regard to the definition of 'Civilians', these detainees fail the definition. Specifically, the detainees were all involved in deliberate and direct violation of Article 3, especially since the nature of Terrorism is directly counter to the expectation of decent conduct. Guantanamo again fills the requirements for an internment facility, as defined in Chapter II, Article 83. So, however one regards the detainees apprehended by Coalition forces, their treatment is just and fair under the terms defined by the very United Nations which now wants to dismantle Guantanamo for purely political reasons. That is to say, the UN is being hypocritical and dishonest, but as this is a common condition for the modern UN, I will leave that point for now.
Now, as to practice of detainment. The problem of what to do with captured terrorists and combatants is an important element in the War on Terror, and one the Liberal critics have completely failed to consider with any real practical focus. There are essentially five choices available, all of which are employed according to the judgment of the men at the location. Someone apprehended by U.S. forces may be set free after examination, they may be held for a time in a local facility, they may be held in an available prison or camp in-country, they may be deported to another country under certain circumstances, or they may be removed from the theater of conflict and held pending discovery of their identity and review of their actions. Of these, the decision to send detainees to Guantanamo has been a rare choice, as the low number of detainees relative to the number of insurgents and terrorists encountered demonstrates. It is a difficult decision for the on-scene commander to make, given that terrorists cannot be allowed to simply walk away and regroup to murder Americans, nor should they be kept in some location where their friends and conspirators can reach them to plan further violence. Again, the Left refuses to accept that the detainees at Guantanamo have been sent there specifically because they have been determined to represent a present threat to Americans and the mission; this is hardly done casually or on a wholesale basis, as they so falsely pretend. The detainees at Guantanamo all have involvement with groups or actions which demonstrate reasonable concern. If we were arguing a legal action, I should say that in all cases, the detainees are held on the military equivalent of very strong “probable cause”.
At this saying, I immediately recognize that the Left would rise in indignation, demanding that the detainees have been denied their rights, though in actual fact no such rights have been established. The ‘legal rights’ argument quickly falls apart when inspected. For one thing, no government maintains the same procedural code for hostile participants in wartime as they do for accused criminals in peacetime, especially given the character of the offenses. The U.S. Army has little interest in enforcing shoplifting or burglary ordinances, but has a keen interest in removing threats to the public and themselves from operation. Further, the Army is not a police force, nor should it be expected to perform police duties. Also, in wartime the military is not going to be available to testify against persons they observe in hostile acts; the very notion is unreasonable, and detainment of persons observed in hostile acts, even for years, is a reasonable action by a government and relatively mild in scope, given the historical model and functional alternatives.
It should also be mentioned, that the Guantanamo facility and the processes which are performed there are not only documented (unclassified actions are also made available for press and public review), but there are annual reviews by the Department of Defense General to verify conditions, treatment of detainees, and recommended actions or improvements. For example, the February 2006 review announced the recommended release of 14 detainees, 120 transfers to other facilities, and 329 continued detentions of persons presently held at Guantanamo.
This is an effective review process, given the available information and represented threat; those unhappy with continued detention of these detainees may do well to observe that the detainees apprehended by soldiers who are sent on to Guantanamo, are unwilling to cooperate with authorities or provide information on their identities and explain their actions. If you are an Army officer and your men capture a fellow with bomb-making material and he refuses to talk to you, even to identify himself, sending him away from the war zone to a detention camp is a perfectly sound decision. I repeat again, that of all the tens of thousands of individuals interrogated by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, only a few hundred get sent to Guantanamo, less than two thousand since operations began in 2001. That hardly sounds like a knee-jerk reaction or merciless standard.
The comfortable conditions at Guantanamo have been detailed many times, yet many people simply ignore the fact that detainees receive what can only be considered first-class treatment in terms of hygiene, food, and personal considerations. I defy anyone, frankly, to find any evidence of abuse or mistreatment at Guantanamo. Yes there have been allegations, yet not one of them has panned out. Yes, there are the recent suicides, which is an unfortunate development – one wonders why the Left never considers that the privacy demanded by detainees and access to pillows, sheets, and linens made these suicides possible, nor the fact that less than a month ago, staged suicide attempts were used to lure guards into an ambush.
Guantanamo is not a “secret jail”, nor a “gulag”, nor has any attempt been made to mistreat the detainees held there. The U.S. violates no treaty or human right to conduct the base as it has – indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find another facility run as well or as humanely. And make no mistake, many of the countries which publicly attack Guantanamo, have their own facilities which would hardly fare well in comparison to the American standard.
The DoD has actually been quite open about how things work at Gitmo. I took the time to look at a few papers, including the process chart, and step-by-step walk-through of a detainee’s initial review, an explanation of the legal basis for detaining AL Qaeda and Taliban combatants, and a link to a website where updated information can be found and studied.
The United States has held somewhere between four and seven hundred detainees at Guantanamo at various times. The exact number is unspecific, not because the U.S. does not know how many detainees it holds (another Leftist lie being tossed around), but because like many detention facilities, detainees are arriving and leaving on a regular basis. Guantanamo, despite the bad press it receives, is actually an effective example of how the system should work in this type of conflict.
First, concerning the status of the detainees. Many on the Left wail over the detainee’s undefined status, legally. Again, this is a dishonest attempt to mischaracterize the people involved. The detainees cannot be considered Prisoners of War, because they were apprehended when plotting or committing acts of terrorism, under no flag or national corps. Thus, they are not POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention. Further, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is in no way abusive nor a violation of the standards dictated by the Geneva accords, especially in terms of religious freedoms and expectations of conduct. Further, the use of military courts is expressly approved in Article 87 of those very accords. So even by the Leftist standards, Guantanamo is a valid operational facility.
Referring again to the Geneva Accords, this time with regard to the definition of 'Civilians', these detainees fail the definition. Specifically, the detainees were all involved in deliberate and direct violation of Article 3, especially since the nature of Terrorism is directly counter to the expectation of decent conduct. Guantanamo again fills the requirements for an internment facility, as defined in Chapter II, Article 83. So, however one regards the detainees apprehended by Coalition forces, their treatment is just and fair under the terms defined by the very United Nations which now wants to dismantle Guantanamo for purely political reasons. That is to say, the UN is being hypocritical and dishonest, but as this is a common condition for the modern UN, I will leave that point for now.
Now, as to practice of detainment. The problem of what to do with captured terrorists and combatants is an important element in the War on Terror, and one the Liberal critics have completely failed to consider with any real practical focus. There are essentially five choices available, all of which are employed according to the judgment of the men at the location. Someone apprehended by U.S. forces may be set free after examination, they may be held for a time in a local facility, they may be held in an available prison or camp in-country, they may be deported to another country under certain circumstances, or they may be removed from the theater of conflict and held pending discovery of their identity and review of their actions. Of these, the decision to send detainees to Guantanamo has been a rare choice, as the low number of detainees relative to the number of insurgents and terrorists encountered demonstrates. It is a difficult decision for the on-scene commander to make, given that terrorists cannot be allowed to simply walk away and regroup to murder Americans, nor should they be kept in some location where their friends and conspirators can reach them to plan further violence. Again, the Left refuses to accept that the detainees at Guantanamo have been sent there specifically because they have been determined to represent a present threat to Americans and the mission; this is hardly done casually or on a wholesale basis, as they so falsely pretend. The detainees at Guantanamo all have involvement with groups or actions which demonstrate reasonable concern. If we were arguing a legal action, I should say that in all cases, the detainees are held on the military equivalent of very strong “probable cause”.
At this saying, I immediately recognize that the Left would rise in indignation, demanding that the detainees have been denied their rights, though in actual fact no such rights have been established. The ‘legal rights’ argument quickly falls apart when inspected. For one thing, no government maintains the same procedural code for hostile participants in wartime as they do for accused criminals in peacetime, especially given the character of the offenses. The U.S. Army has little interest in enforcing shoplifting or burglary ordinances, but has a keen interest in removing threats to the public and themselves from operation. Further, the Army is not a police force, nor should it be expected to perform police duties. Also, in wartime the military is not going to be available to testify against persons they observe in hostile acts; the very notion is unreasonable, and detainment of persons observed in hostile acts, even for years, is a reasonable action by a government and relatively mild in scope, given the historical model and functional alternatives.
It should also be mentioned, that the Guantanamo facility and the processes which are performed there are not only documented (unclassified actions are also made available for press and public review), but there are annual reviews by the Department of Defense General to verify conditions, treatment of detainees, and recommended actions or improvements. For example, the February 2006 review announced the recommended release of 14 detainees, 120 transfers to other facilities, and 329 continued detentions of persons presently held at Guantanamo.
This is an effective review process, given the available information and represented threat; those unhappy with continued detention of these detainees may do well to observe that the detainees apprehended by soldiers who are sent on to Guantanamo, are unwilling to cooperate with authorities or provide information on their identities and explain their actions. If you are an Army officer and your men capture a fellow with bomb-making material and he refuses to talk to you, even to identify himself, sending him away from the war zone to a detention camp is a perfectly sound decision. I repeat again, that of all the tens of thousands of individuals interrogated by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, only a few hundred get sent to Guantanamo, less than two thousand since operations began in 2001. That hardly sounds like a knee-jerk reaction or merciless standard.
The comfortable conditions at Guantanamo have been detailed many times, yet many people simply ignore the fact that detainees receive what can only be considered first-class treatment in terms of hygiene, food, and personal considerations. I defy anyone, frankly, to find any evidence of abuse or mistreatment at Guantanamo. Yes there have been allegations, yet not one of them has panned out. Yes, there are the recent suicides, which is an unfortunate development – one wonders why the Left never considers that the privacy demanded by detainees and access to pillows, sheets, and linens made these suicides possible, nor the fact that less than a month ago, staged suicide attempts were used to lure guards into an ambush.
Guantanamo is not a “secret jail”, nor a “gulag”, nor has any attempt been made to mistreat the detainees held there. The U.S. violates no treaty or human right to conduct the base as it has – indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find another facility run as well or as humanely. And make no mistake, many of the countries which publicly attack Guantanamo, have their own facilities which would hardly fare well in comparison to the American standard.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A Poll Autopsy – How CBS Manufactures Its Own Evidence
CBS News released a poll this morning, claiming a 2-point drop for President Bush’s Approval numbers even after the death of the vicious terrorist Musab Zarqawi. It seems the "Fake But Accurate" meme is still hard at work at the Tiffany Network. These numbers are so out of line when compared to the other available polls, that I was immediately suspicious. Also, CBS only polled “adults”, not even asking for registered voters. Further, the respondent pool only numbers 659 adults, significantly below the threshold for satisfactory credibility in a national poll. The poll was taken June 10th and 11th, not even the full weekend. CBS does not verify that its “nationwide” poll made any effort to reach a representative cross-section by geography or age or race; no reference is made to the demographic characteristics of the respondent pool., which casts strong doubt on the methodology used in this poll. The collective impact is the creation of a hit piece, especially when the internal data from this poll, or rather its lack, is compared to previous polls in which CBS took part. The one demographic cited by CBS is that they counted 196 self-identified Republicans in the poll, against 244 self-identified Democrats and 219 self-identified Independents. CBS re-weighted the poll to count only 192 Republicans, against 236 Democrats and 231 Independents, or 29.1% Republican, 35.8% Democrat, and 35.1% Independent. This is a deliberate skewing of party representation, invalid in the face of the 2000 Census, exit polls from either the 2002 or 2004 Federal elections, and common sense in the fact that Republicans are the majority party in both houses of Congress.
Monday, June 12, 2006
When You Can't Say Something Nice ... You Might Be A Pollster
Over at Real Clear Politics, I checked out their aggregation of President Bush's Job Approval polls. You know, how so many people are smirking that it sure doesn't look like President George W. Bush will win a third consecutive term?
Anyway, I noticed something. Twelve different polls released Job Approval numbers sometime in May, which ended going on half a month ago. Of those twelve, only three have done a poll in June. Of those three, one shows the same numbers as in May, but the other two are higher in June than in May, one significantly so.
That means nine major polls were happy to trumpet the news when they could post low numbers, but have not mentioned them since. Gee, I wonder why that is so?
Anyway, I noticed something. Twelve different polls released Job Approval numbers sometime in May, which ended going on half a month ago. Of those twelve, only three have done a poll in June. Of those three, one shows the same numbers as in May, but the other two are higher in June than in May, one significantly so.
That means nine major polls were happy to trumpet the news when they could post low numbers, but have not mentioned them since. Gee, I wonder why that is so?
The Plans of Saddam
Somewhere right now, the former bloodthirsty tyrant of Iraq is sitting in a cell, with his own thoughts for company. Doubtless, he never planned to have things work out as they have, but the man is not a complete dolt, and I think a lot of people have forgotten that Saddam had some very specific plans in the works, and defied President Bush because he believed he could ride out the consequences. The question to be addressed here is, what did Saddam think would happen, and why was he so wrong?
There is a tendency to be negative these days. We so often digest one day’s news, good or bad, and brace ourselves for the next crisis. We do not, however, tend to look back at even the recent past to consider how we got where we are. The only ones who seem to do that on a regular basis are the conspiracists, who look for things to plug into support for their claims. That’s hardly the same thing as a sound analysis. Obviously, we all face limits to the available information, but a reasonable person can look at the available background, and see what fits, and to that end I write this admittedly unproven guess. I do this, because understanding how Saddam was so wrong and how things went as they did, can help explain how we may resolve the current situation with Iran. In many ways, Ahmadinejad shows some of the same characeristics in his thinking and assumptions, as did Saddam.
Saddam Hussein rose from the relatively small town of Tikrit to serve the new Baath Party as an enforcer by trade and torturer by avocation. Saddam was canny and street-smart indeed, not only to rise through the ranks as he did, but to make an attempt on the life of the Iraqi leader, yet still be invited back to return to be part of the power structure years later. Saddam Hussein must be understood to be a man of great cunning and intelligence. The fact that he held essentially absolute power from 1978 through 2003 means that for a quarter-century every bet of Saddam’s played out, if not as a winning move, at least to little personal cost for him. Even after the first Gulf War, Saddam still lived in luxury, unchallenged in his country. Small wonder he never expected what was to come; he judged Dubya by the standard of Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton, and believed that even Reagan would not have dared to move against Baghdad. This happened because Saddam held an ethno-centric view of the world- a common human error, but one which failed to understand that America’s goals, enemies, and options had all changed. The Americans not only held a renewed determination to protect American interests, but also understood that our military had grown beyond the old model; the new force is all-volunteer, with better weapons, training, and doctrine than any of our opposition can boast or hope to imitate. After all, a good deal of the AirLand doctrine we used back in Desert Storm depended on the initiative of unit commanders and on-scene decisions. And we have moved further along that training since then, as well. This, in a nutshell, is what undid Saddam’s plans; he never understood the nature of the conflict.
In the first Gulf War, Saddam was stunned by the force and speed of U.S.-led forces, but he was persuaded by his generals to believe that the Coalition could not have easily handled an invasion of Iraq the same way they did the recovery of Kuwait; he never understood that the U.S. held off only because the 1991 Coalition was operating under the mandate of the United Nations, who (never wishing to actually resolve a conflict) forbade the actual removal of Saddam at that time. Saddam was led to believe that his military was more formidable than was actually the case. Even so, Saddam understood that American advantages were overwhelming in some elements. For instance, the U.S. did not merely hold air superiority, or even air supremacy, but absolute control of the skies over Iraq - nothing flew unless they allowed it to fly.
The Iraqis tested the ‘No Fly Zone’ periodically, firing on Coalition aircraft in specific and deliberate violation of the cease-fire terms, the fact that response under the Clinton Administration was so weak and sporadic suggested to Saddam that all he had to do was wait, and the West would lose interest in him. To the end of resuming where he had left off, Saddam had had a great deal hidden away. Documented accounts note, for example, that supplies and weapons, even tanks and jet fighters, were buried in the Iraqi sand. Proof has been slow in coming, but I have little doubt that more illicit material, the stockpiles of WMD known to exist during the Clinton years for example, might also have been placed in similar keeping.
Middle Eastern nations have not established a long history of self-government, nor are the present regimes much inclined to take lessons from those governments they overthrew, as they tend to believe there are no lessons of worth there. Further, it runs against the traditional Middle Eastern psyche of leadership, to appear willing to reconsider one’s plans and actions – rather, rulers in the Middle East tend to believe that one must act decisively, and that admitting error is a fatal sign of weakness. This leads to a distinct rigidity in decisions, and a clear inability to change course, even when approaching disaster. When the Spring of 2003 showed that Saddam had badly misjudged the determination of the Bush Administration, it was too late for Saddam to change his plans, he could only make quick preparations for the inevitable.
Saddam has to have known that the U.S.-led coalition would eviscerate Iraq’s air and sea defenses in a matter of hours. His only hope, therefore, was a Mogadishu-style defense, hoping pinpricks would be enough to make the Americans lose interest in a long garrison of Iraq. Saddam hoped for Baathists to hold a degree of control in certain key cities, so that central control could be re-asserted once the Americans left. This proved to be great folly. Instead of massive and increasing losses, the American military proved able to adapt, improving weapons to meet the local needs and their tactics to adjust to the unexpected. Saddam judged the Americans by the Soviets in Afghanistan and by the surface appearance of our State Department, never comprehending the sterner stuff at the core. As a result, Saddam considered only three possible courses of action; In the best case scenario, the Coalition would fail to depose Saddam, in which case he fully intended to play that opportunity into leadership of the Gulf; the countries of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have long wrestled over the question of who could claim the crown of Middle East hegemony; for Saddam the possibility that he could appear to be the man who had successfully defied America was worth the gamble. In the middle case, Saddam still believed he could either hold his seat at some cost, or else flee to a comfortable exile with his family. Preparations were made to that end, but hidden to prevent the appearance of doubt. And even in the worst case scenario, Saddam undoubtedly believed he only needed to ride out the occupation; stay in hiding until the Americans left, at which time he could plan and act to regain power or security depending on the situation. All three scenarios betray the limited perspective Saddam held; he simply was unable to comprehend the determination of the American forces, nor the scope of their ability. As a result, by the end of the year his sons were dead and the former dictator had been himself captured, hiding in a dirty hole.
This review is not meant to say that I advocate invasion in every case, nor even full-scale military action. I do, however, suggest that our diplomats recall how swiftly negotiations with Libya progressed after the fall of Baghdad, and how accommodating even the emissaries from Teheran became in those days, when the United States was clearly victorious, even if the New York Times would never admit it. Following a series of successful elections, captures, and kills where necessary, it would be wise to remind our potential opponents of the stakes they face, and remind them as well that recent gambles against us have not paid off at all for the fools who thought to play them. George W. Bush is a President of a mold unlike anything these men have seen before, and the quality of our discussions may be improved by making that fact clear to the men on the other side of the table.
There is a tendency to be negative these days. We so often digest one day’s news, good or bad, and brace ourselves for the next crisis. We do not, however, tend to look back at even the recent past to consider how we got where we are. The only ones who seem to do that on a regular basis are the conspiracists, who look for things to plug into support for their claims. That’s hardly the same thing as a sound analysis. Obviously, we all face limits to the available information, but a reasonable person can look at the available background, and see what fits, and to that end I write this admittedly unproven guess. I do this, because understanding how Saddam was so wrong and how things went as they did, can help explain how we may resolve the current situation with Iran. In many ways, Ahmadinejad shows some of the same characeristics in his thinking and assumptions, as did Saddam.
Saddam Hussein rose from the relatively small town of Tikrit to serve the new Baath Party as an enforcer by trade and torturer by avocation. Saddam was canny and street-smart indeed, not only to rise through the ranks as he did, but to make an attempt on the life of the Iraqi leader, yet still be invited back to return to be part of the power structure years later. Saddam Hussein must be understood to be a man of great cunning and intelligence. The fact that he held essentially absolute power from 1978 through 2003 means that for a quarter-century every bet of Saddam’s played out, if not as a winning move, at least to little personal cost for him. Even after the first Gulf War, Saddam still lived in luxury, unchallenged in his country. Small wonder he never expected what was to come; he judged Dubya by the standard of Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton, and believed that even Reagan would not have dared to move against Baghdad. This happened because Saddam held an ethno-centric view of the world- a common human error, but one which failed to understand that America’s goals, enemies, and options had all changed. The Americans not only held a renewed determination to protect American interests, but also understood that our military had grown beyond the old model; the new force is all-volunteer, with better weapons, training, and doctrine than any of our opposition can boast or hope to imitate. After all, a good deal of the AirLand doctrine we used back in Desert Storm depended on the initiative of unit commanders and on-scene decisions. And we have moved further along that training since then, as well. This, in a nutshell, is what undid Saddam’s plans; he never understood the nature of the conflict.
In the first Gulf War, Saddam was stunned by the force and speed of U.S.-led forces, but he was persuaded by his generals to believe that the Coalition could not have easily handled an invasion of Iraq the same way they did the recovery of Kuwait; he never understood that the U.S. held off only because the 1991 Coalition was operating under the mandate of the United Nations, who (never wishing to actually resolve a conflict) forbade the actual removal of Saddam at that time. Saddam was led to believe that his military was more formidable than was actually the case. Even so, Saddam understood that American advantages were overwhelming in some elements. For instance, the U.S. did not merely hold air superiority, or even air supremacy, but absolute control of the skies over Iraq - nothing flew unless they allowed it to fly.
The Iraqis tested the ‘No Fly Zone’ periodically, firing on Coalition aircraft in specific and deliberate violation of the cease-fire terms, the fact that response under the Clinton Administration was so weak and sporadic suggested to Saddam that all he had to do was wait, and the West would lose interest in him. To the end of resuming where he had left off, Saddam had had a great deal hidden away. Documented accounts note, for example, that supplies and weapons, even tanks and jet fighters, were buried in the Iraqi sand. Proof has been slow in coming, but I have little doubt that more illicit material, the stockpiles of WMD known to exist during the Clinton years for example, might also have been placed in similar keeping.
Middle Eastern nations have not established a long history of self-government, nor are the present regimes much inclined to take lessons from those governments they overthrew, as they tend to believe there are no lessons of worth there. Further, it runs against the traditional Middle Eastern psyche of leadership, to appear willing to reconsider one’s plans and actions – rather, rulers in the Middle East tend to believe that one must act decisively, and that admitting error is a fatal sign of weakness. This leads to a distinct rigidity in decisions, and a clear inability to change course, even when approaching disaster. When the Spring of 2003 showed that Saddam had badly misjudged the determination of the Bush Administration, it was too late for Saddam to change his plans, he could only make quick preparations for the inevitable.
Saddam has to have known that the U.S.-led coalition would eviscerate Iraq’s air and sea defenses in a matter of hours. His only hope, therefore, was a Mogadishu-style defense, hoping pinpricks would be enough to make the Americans lose interest in a long garrison of Iraq. Saddam hoped for Baathists to hold a degree of control in certain key cities, so that central control could be re-asserted once the Americans left. This proved to be great folly. Instead of massive and increasing losses, the American military proved able to adapt, improving weapons to meet the local needs and their tactics to adjust to the unexpected. Saddam judged the Americans by the Soviets in Afghanistan and by the surface appearance of our State Department, never comprehending the sterner stuff at the core. As a result, Saddam considered only three possible courses of action; In the best case scenario, the Coalition would fail to depose Saddam, in which case he fully intended to play that opportunity into leadership of the Gulf; the countries of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have long wrestled over the question of who could claim the crown of Middle East hegemony; for Saddam the possibility that he could appear to be the man who had successfully defied America was worth the gamble. In the middle case, Saddam still believed he could either hold his seat at some cost, or else flee to a comfortable exile with his family. Preparations were made to that end, but hidden to prevent the appearance of doubt. And even in the worst case scenario, Saddam undoubtedly believed he only needed to ride out the occupation; stay in hiding until the Americans left, at which time he could plan and act to regain power or security depending on the situation. All three scenarios betray the limited perspective Saddam held; he simply was unable to comprehend the determination of the American forces, nor the scope of their ability. As a result, by the end of the year his sons were dead and the former dictator had been himself captured, hiding in a dirty hole.
This review is not meant to say that I advocate invasion in every case, nor even full-scale military action. I do, however, suggest that our diplomats recall how swiftly negotiations with Libya progressed after the fall of Baghdad, and how accommodating even the emissaries from Teheran became in those days, when the United States was clearly victorious, even if the New York Times would never admit it. Following a series of successful elections, captures, and kills where necessary, it would be wise to remind our potential opponents of the stakes they face, and remind them as well that recent gambles against us have not paid off at all for the fools who thought to play them. George W. Bush is a President of a mold unlike anything these men have seen before, and the quality of our discussions may be improved by making that fact clear to the men on the other side of the table.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Thoughts On The Arab Mind
Some years back, when I actually listened seriously to those Liberals who could manage to make a statement or ask a question without sounding like they were doing a ‘Tony Montana’ impression from one of the last scenes in “Scarface”, I often heard the question, “Why do they hate us?”
Of course, being Liberals, they would usually answer their own question, blaming this Republican or that for all the ills of the world. “It’s War For Oil!” they cry, even though we do not seize oil fields, and send troops into countries which do not even have oil. “American aggression!” they shout, even when we were attacked first. “A rush to war!” they proclaim about Iraq, even though we invaded Iraq more than a year and a half after 9/11. It’s been a lot of fun watching Liberals try to explain their logic. I think they have finally figured out that their position is untenable by Logic, which would explain why they so quickly resort to insults and name-calling now. Seriously, no one expects a Liberal to be civil or reasonable anymore.
From the title of this article, you might think I have confused myself. What, after all, do the rants of Liberals have to do with the Arab mind? Quite a bit, actually. And that’s the first step in trying to understand what’s going on in their heads; you need to know who has been teaching them.
Most Americans do not know any more about Arabs than what they read or hear from the Media, and that has been neither balanced nor in-depth. It should hardly surprise anyone to consider that any group of people numbering in the tens of millions is far too complex to be considered in only one shade of mind or opinion. But it should also be understood that the environment of the Middle East also shapes the way people see things. As an obvious example, some Americans were surprised when the Iraqi people did not immediately cheer the Americans as their liberators. Yes, some did, but not many, and the media took that as a sign that the Iraqi people were unhappy with the removal of Saddam. In actual fact, anyone familiar with recent history - say 1991 and 1992, when Iraqis rose up against Saddam and believed the U.S. would support them, only to be brutally crushed by the Republican Guard - would understand that Iraqis were not about to put their own lives and families at risk by openly siding with the Americans, while so many Baathists and worse were rolling around, armed and bitter. This perspective greatly explains the wait and see attitude, and is supported by the slow but steady improvement in citizen cooperation as stability has become more assured.
The Middle East political condition is largely a creation of the Twentieth Century. Not only because of the World Wars and the creation of the State of Israel, but also because the Ottoman Empire (and other empires before it) dictated the condition of the region before that time. Also, most Arabs with direct experience with America come from privileged families, and so do not represent the average “street” opinion, which is sometimes surprising to the average American. For instance, most Americans were strongly surprised in 1978 to see violent protests against the Shah of Iran, in support of the renegade Ayatollah Khomeini. But in actual context, the protests were not surprising; most of the protests, as today, were orchestrated for the cameras, and represented extremist elements. Those extremists were in part promoting Jihad, which was Khomeini’s objective, while others were in desperate straits; the Shah’s “Land Reform” may have had the best intentions, but instead it most often left the poor starving and the former landowners rebellious. While government relations between the Muslim Revolutionaries and the United States was hostile, most Iranians had no particular dislike for Americans; those who had encountered Americans generally liked them, and a great many more had no contact with them, and so had no motive for hatred. The U.S. simply was not - and is not - a major influence in the personal lives of most Iranians or Arabs, and so they see no reason to hate someone they do not even know. Obviously, the reverse is also true: America is a strange and very alien land to most Arabs, so they are very unlikely to develop or express strong preference for American values, unless and until they have a chance to experience them directly and consider what they mean in real life.
This means that there are two sides to the coin for the Arabs; the past and the future. The past is written through the filter of non-representative governments, unchallenged Islamic hierarchies, and an unresponsive and archaic social order. The future is a forked road, either leading back to the past in continuity but also stagnation, or towards an unknown expanse as part of a living world. Let’s be clear; the American example both thrills and frightens the Arab who considers it. In Houston, for example, one can find churches, temples, and mosques in every neighborhood, for every known faith or belief, all equally respected and protected by a code of law which recognizes comprehensive freedoms. One can also find literally dozens of topless bars, gambling halls, and assorted locations for prostitution or drugs, which are less than effectively enforced by the police. Gang violence is a growing problem in every major city, as is racial strife. This is not to say, of course, that the caste system and sectarian violence in the Middle East is of no concern, but Arabs would be reasonable to worry about whether the American lifestyle is an improvement or a descent in morals.
Ironically, the Jihadists are helping Arabs become interested in Americans. Through draconian fatwas and the like, the extremists within Islam have created a backlash of sorts; not the Western-style immediate protest, but rather a slower but deeper examination of the Mullah’s motives, and the prima facie evidence of actual American behavior in contact. And the consensus among those who know American troops is a growing preference to at least consider what maner of nation produces men who would risk their lives for the freedom of others, and whose cause is strong enough to extend to opening the doors to freedom for people a world away. The rants and protests we see on Al-Jazeera are the echoes of the old generation; the future may be something altogether different, and better for everyone concerned.
Of course, being Liberals, they would usually answer their own question, blaming this Republican or that for all the ills of the world. “It’s War For Oil!” they cry, even though we do not seize oil fields, and send troops into countries which do not even have oil. “American aggression!” they shout, even when we were attacked first. “A rush to war!” they proclaim about Iraq, even though we invaded Iraq more than a year and a half after 9/11. It’s been a lot of fun watching Liberals try to explain their logic. I think they have finally figured out that their position is untenable by Logic, which would explain why they so quickly resort to insults and name-calling now. Seriously, no one expects a Liberal to be civil or reasonable anymore.
From the title of this article, you might think I have confused myself. What, after all, do the rants of Liberals have to do with the Arab mind? Quite a bit, actually. And that’s the first step in trying to understand what’s going on in their heads; you need to know who has been teaching them.
Most Americans do not know any more about Arabs than what they read or hear from the Media, and that has been neither balanced nor in-depth. It should hardly surprise anyone to consider that any group of people numbering in the tens of millions is far too complex to be considered in only one shade of mind or opinion. But it should also be understood that the environment of the Middle East also shapes the way people see things. As an obvious example, some Americans were surprised when the Iraqi people did not immediately cheer the Americans as their liberators. Yes, some did, but not many, and the media took that as a sign that the Iraqi people were unhappy with the removal of Saddam. In actual fact, anyone familiar with recent history - say 1991 and 1992, when Iraqis rose up against Saddam and believed the U.S. would support them, only to be brutally crushed by the Republican Guard - would understand that Iraqis were not about to put their own lives and families at risk by openly siding with the Americans, while so many Baathists and worse were rolling around, armed and bitter. This perspective greatly explains the wait and see attitude, and is supported by the slow but steady improvement in citizen cooperation as stability has become more assured.
The Middle East political condition is largely a creation of the Twentieth Century. Not only because of the World Wars and the creation of the State of Israel, but also because the Ottoman Empire (and other empires before it) dictated the condition of the region before that time. Also, most Arabs with direct experience with America come from privileged families, and so do not represent the average “street” opinion, which is sometimes surprising to the average American. For instance, most Americans were strongly surprised in 1978 to see violent protests against the Shah of Iran, in support of the renegade Ayatollah Khomeini. But in actual context, the protests were not surprising; most of the protests, as today, were orchestrated for the cameras, and represented extremist elements. Those extremists were in part promoting Jihad, which was Khomeini’s objective, while others were in desperate straits; the Shah’s “Land Reform” may have had the best intentions, but instead it most often left the poor starving and the former landowners rebellious. While government relations between the Muslim Revolutionaries and the United States was hostile, most Iranians had no particular dislike for Americans; those who had encountered Americans generally liked them, and a great many more had no contact with them, and so had no motive for hatred. The U.S. simply was not - and is not - a major influence in the personal lives of most Iranians or Arabs, and so they see no reason to hate someone they do not even know. Obviously, the reverse is also true: America is a strange and very alien land to most Arabs, so they are very unlikely to develop or express strong preference for American values, unless and until they have a chance to experience them directly and consider what they mean in real life.
This means that there are two sides to the coin for the Arabs; the past and the future. The past is written through the filter of non-representative governments, unchallenged Islamic hierarchies, and an unresponsive and archaic social order. The future is a forked road, either leading back to the past in continuity but also stagnation, or towards an unknown expanse as part of a living world. Let’s be clear; the American example both thrills and frightens the Arab who considers it. In Houston, for example, one can find churches, temples, and mosques in every neighborhood, for every known faith or belief, all equally respected and protected by a code of law which recognizes comprehensive freedoms. One can also find literally dozens of topless bars, gambling halls, and assorted locations for prostitution or drugs, which are less than effectively enforced by the police. Gang violence is a growing problem in every major city, as is racial strife. This is not to say, of course, that the caste system and sectarian violence in the Middle East is of no concern, but Arabs would be reasonable to worry about whether the American lifestyle is an improvement or a descent in morals.
Ironically, the Jihadists are helping Arabs become interested in Americans. Through draconian fatwas and the like, the extremists within Islam have created a backlash of sorts; not the Western-style immediate protest, but rather a slower but deeper examination of the Mullah’s motives, and the prima facie evidence of actual American behavior in contact. And the consensus among those who know American troops is a growing preference to at least consider what maner of nation produces men who would risk their lives for the freedom of others, and whose cause is strong enough to extend to opening the doors to freedom for people a world away. The rants and protests we see on Al-Jazeera are the echoes of the old generation; the future may be something altogether different, and better for everyone concerned.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Zarqawi In Context
The terrorist leader Zarqawi is dead. Let’s start there, plain and simple. Whatever else someone wants to say about his death, the one thing we can say for sure, is that this very evil man will never kill again.
Some on the Left warn about making him a martyr. By that logic, it was a shame we got rid of Hitler, or that Stalin is dead. But when sanity looks in, it reminds us that we can’t force terrorists to be anything but monsters, and whether they make Zarqawi their idol, or Bin Laden, or someone else, it changes nothing on our side. The mission remains the same:
To protect the innocent, it is necessary to find and kill those who would kill the innocent.
Everything else is details
.
Some on the Left warn about making him a martyr. By that logic, it was a shame we got rid of Hitler, or that Stalin is dead. But when sanity looks in, it reminds us that we can’t force terrorists to be anything but monsters, and whether they make Zarqawi their idol, or Bin Laden, or someone else, it changes nothing on our side. The mission remains the same:
To protect the innocent, it is necessary to find and kill those who would kill the innocent.
Everything else is details
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
