The Redhunter

« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

January 31, 2006

State Of the Union 2006

All of the SOTU speeches that I've seen are well done. Bill Clinton, I admit, gave some of the best. And they do give a good idea of where the president wants to go, what his policy prescriptions are. And they are great American moments. Unlike in so many countries, there are no catcalls, and very little booing. Everyone stands and applauds at the beginning and the end. These are very good things, for they are one more bit of evidence that we are the most mature and stable democracy on the planet.

Often more interesting than the speech itself, though, is the reaction from Republicans and Democrats, who gives a standing ovation to what part and who sits silently.

Unfortunately Bush does have a way of looking like he's smirking when he means to grin. It's a look that drives the left insane, which kind of amuses me, I'll admit. All in all, though, I wish he could somehow change it. Not gonna happen, though.

The full text of the speech can be found here. LGF had it up seconds after it ended. Amazing.

The President started off with a strong defense of the war in Iraq, as he should have. Contrary to the naysayers, we are making steady progress, and we must stay until the job is finished.

I'm glad he spoke so strongly about Iran. He made it clear that he will not accept an Iranian nuclear weapon. Just as important he was conciliatory to the Iranian people, maiking it clear that our argument is not with them.

The Democrats certainly didn't like it when Bush asked Congress to renew the Patriot Act. Their misfortune, because I think that while Americans may be uncomfortable with some aspects of it, they definately want most of it reauthorized.

Hillary grinned and shook her head ever so slightly when Bush said "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.". She couldn't even bring herself to laugh when he said that "This year, the first of about 78 million Baby Boomers turn 60, including two of my Dads favorite people me, and President Bill Clinton". And she wants to be president? First she needs to become human.

The Democrats outright booed when Bush urged them to make his tax cuts permanent. W justgrinned.

Says he'll cut the deficit in half by 2009. I'll believe that when I see it. As every conservative knows, Bush has let us down on this and other domestic policy issues. Our only consolation is that the Democrats would spend more. Anyway, it was the Democrats turn to smirk.

The Democrats cheered when Bush said that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security", showing once again that they are the party of Alfred E Newman "what me worry". The bad news is that he recommended another commission to study the issue. We don't need another commission. What we need is for politicians of both parties to recognize that there is a problem, and to form some bipartisan way to fix it (see, I can be reasonable).

Overall I thought the speech was pretty non-confrontational and not terribly partisan. Bill Kristol on FoxNews said it was "conciliatory", which I think was going to far. Bush didn't throw out a lot of red meat for conservatives, but it was a SOTU speech, after all.

The new governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, gave the Democrat response. Interestingly, it was fairly tepid affair, with lots of calls for bipartisanship. I imagine the Kos crowd will skewer him. His recommendation that we should "restrict corporate profits to encourage greater investment in energy resources and lower energy prices, however, would be a disaster.

Nice try on both sides, but it won't happen. Nor, on many issues, should it.

Oh, and apparently that whackjob Cindy Sheehan was arrested for unfurling a banner in the Congressional gallery just before the speech started.

Posted by Tom at 9:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Alito Confirmed

Earlier today the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42. The Democrats attempted a filibuster, but cloture was invoked and the attempt was defeated.

All Republicans except for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted yes.

All Democrats except for Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia voted no.

That's about as partisan as it can get. But has it always been this way? Let's go through some recent nominees and see what happened.

President George W Bush

78 - 22 John Roberts (2005)

President Bill Clinton

87 - 9 Stephen Breyer (1994): 87 - 9

97 - 3 Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993)

President George H W Bush

52 - 48 Clarence Thomas (1991)

90 - 9 David Souter (1990)

President Ronald Reagan

97 - 0 Anthony Kennedy (1988)

42 - 58 Robert Bork (1987) defeated

98 - 0 Antonin Scalia (1986)

65 - 33 William Rehnquist, Chief Justice (1986)

99 - 0 Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)

President Gerald Ford

98 - 0 John Paul Stevens (1975)

President Richard M Nixon

98 - 0 William Rehnquist (1971)

89 - 1 Lewis Franklin Powell Jr (1971)

94 - 0 Harry A. Blackmun (1970)

45 - 51 Harold Carswell (1970) defeated

45 - 55 Clement Haynsworth (1969) defeated

71 - 3 Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice (1969)

President Lyndon Baines Johnson

69 - 11 Thurgood Marshall (1967)

In the interests of time that's as far back as I'm going to go. If you'd like to do more research yourself here's a very good site that lists all of justices in our history.

I think that the results of my little survey are pretty clear: With few exceptions, most justices are confirmed by overwhelming margims. When there were close votes there were obvious controversial issues.

Not so with John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Unless you are off in left-wing lulu land, it is intellectually dishonest to say that they are "outside the mainstream". If anything, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the most radical person to be appointed in recent years, and she was confirmed by an overwhelming margin.

Powerline sums up my thoughts pretty well:

The vote changes the "rules" for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president's party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president's party doesn't control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.

Such a shame that it has come to this. Liberals will no doubt find a way to blame it all on President Bush, citing this or that. But the fact remains that to good nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, had far too many votes cast against them, and for no good reason.

The reason for all this of course is that the Democrats are being forced leftward by radical groups such as Moveon.org and by blogs such as the Daily Kos (Republicans are not moving righward, as the effect the right-wing blogosphere has on them is somewhat different, but that is not the subject of this post).

President Bush will likely get a chance to nominate another justice. We will see a simiar battle, with similarly unfortunate effects for our country and politics.

Posted by Tom at 8:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 30, 2006

Trackback Seems to be working now

Well what do you know. A few minutes ago I sent myself a trackback and it worked. The weird thing is that I haven't made any changes recently. The gremlins must be asleap now.

However, please send me an email if you send me a trackback and it gets rejected. My sincere thanks to those who have done so these past few days.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 AM

January 28, 2006

Code Pink Kept Away from Walter Reed

Once again patriotic Americans occupied all four corners outside the main entrance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Code Pink was kept away for another week, left to lick their wounds asome distance away down the street.

Our brave men and women in uniform no longer have to look at a bunch of left-wing extremists every Friday evening as they enter and exit the hospital.

For months Code Pink held anti-war protests, disguised as vigils, on the two corners right beside the main entrance to the hospital every Friday evening. Once discovered, organizers at Free Republic and Protest Warriors countered them by holding a pro-troops/anti-Code Pink rally on the opposite two corners. This has been going on for about 10 months. I got involved last August when all of this became a national news story after Marc Morano of CNSNews published a story about it. My previous posts on the subject are here, here, here, here, and here.

As I related last Saturday, the Pinkos forgot to renew their permits, and ConcreteBob of the Washington DC chapter of the Protest Warriors seized the initiative and got permits for "their" corners.

Perhaps it was the news of this victory, which was picked up by Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs, or maybe it was just word of mouth among the local chapters of the Protest Warriors and Free Republic, but we had great attendance last night, easily presenting a formidable presence on all four corners.

That said, now is not the time to let up! I urge anyone who is within driving distance of Washington DC to please consider attending next Friday evening. We are there from approximately 6:30 to 9:30, though of course please do as your schedule allows. If you need directions or anything else please do not hestitate to contact me, please use the email address at the upper right of this blog.

I believe that if we can keep up the pressure for a few more weeks we might be able to drive a stake through Code Pink once and for all. Our entire objective in this campaign is simply to make them take their anti-war protests someplace else. A military hospital is not the appropriate place for such activities. There are plenty of locations in Washington DC outside the White House and Capitol Building where protests are allowed.

This first photo shows us at the corner opposite the entrance to the hospital. I took it early in the evening, before all of our members had arrived.

Here's the corner by the main entrance, where Code Pink used to set up shop.

And here were are at another of our corners

Where was Code Pink?

What Pinkos showed up were a few hundred feet down the street, where nobody could really see them.

BOOO HOOOO!

Update I

Once again, please check out GunnNutt for her excellent post on last night. As always, she's got great pics and commentary.

Update II

One of our number, tgslTakoma, went down the street to take some pictures of the Pinkos as the sad bunch congregated.

Apparently, however, this was too much for the Pinkos to take, so they threw a temper tantrum. Here's tgslTakoma's account posted at FreeRepublic

There I was, across the street, a six lane street. Just me. And my little camera.

I stood quietly on the empty sidewalk taking pictures of the Code Pink protest at Walter Reed. The one that used to be at the main entrance to the hospital, until they forgot to renew their permit for that location.

Now, they've taken to infesting a location down the street, in front of a small sidewalk park, but still in front of the hospital.

I had gone down alone, with my camera and tripod to document their little public protest.

I had less than a minute's peace to take photos before Allison Yorra and Ann Wilcox of Code Pink came across and told me that I would have to leave the empty sidewalk, across the street from their protest, because they had a permit for where I was standing.

I told them I wasn't disrupting their protest across the street, and that I was holding no signs but simply taking photos. They told me that I was not allowed to be there, and that the police would remove me. I encouraged them to call the police, because I wasn't demonstrating in their protest area, just taking photos, in their protest area where they weren't protesting. They initially declined to call the police, preferring to "handle it themselves."

By now, "Princess", Weasel and some guy with a black beret had joined Allison and Ann around me. They began to block my camera, which was focused on their public protest across the street. No matter which way I turned, there was Allison and her bully-boys.

So I stepped off the sidewalk and into the curb lane of the street, where MPDC does not issue permits unless the road is closed. Allison and the bullies quickly followed. I'd move. They'd move in front of me. I'd move again. They'd again block my view.

What a bunch of losers. Next time I'll make sure tgslTakoma has company when she goes down to photograph them.

tgslTakoma also has great photos, so be sure and follow the link.

Update III

Also covering last night's events are Doll at Freedom Watch and Landry Fan at Landry's Life. It was "Doll"s first Friday, and we look forward to seeing her again! Both Doll and Landry have photos and, of course, their own story to tell. Don't miss either one.

Posted by Tom at 11:34 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

The Palestinian Elections

Hamas has won 76 seats out of a possible 132 in the Palestinian Parliament. Fatah, founded by Yassir Arafat and the party of (president?) Mahmoud Abbas, received 43 seats. The balance went to a variety of other parties. As we've heard on the news again and again, this is either a "stunning victory" for Hamas or a "stunning defeat" for Fatah, depending on which broadcast you listen to.

Is this outcome a good thing or a bad thing for Israel and the United States?

Is Democracy Always Good?

First, we need to get this out of the way: elections mean that people get to choose, it does not mean that they will make the choice that we want them to make. This does not, however, mean that elections themselves are wrong or bad. Nor do I brook any favor with the argument that "some people aren't ready for democracy."

The entire philisophical question of "can people elect a tyranny" cannot be answered in full here. People do have the right to elect pretty much whomever they want, but some freedoms are not up for a vote. Reasonable people can debate the limits.

However, I see all too many people using this as an excuse to simply bash the Bush Administration and it's goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Some, like bigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, favor stability uber alles. To them, "stable" but "friendly" dictators are to be prefered. On the far left and far right, we hear the "they can't handle democracy" line. Some on the left just want to use anything they can to attack our president and I'm sure we'll hear the "ha! I told you democracy wouldn't work!"

More seriously, the results of the elections mean that they weren't held soon enough, say, 10 or 20 years ago. As Natan Scharansky said in his book "The Case for Democracy", outlines the problem with the Oslo agreements, in which Israel and the US agreed not to push the Palestinians towardds democracy, believing that shoring up a dictator like Arafat was the best road to peace:

Whereas the Helsinki agreements forged a direct link between human rights and East-West relations, the Oslo accords failed to establish any connection between human rights and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Worse, as would later become clear in word and deed, Oslo's architects actually believed that such a link would be detrimental to the interests of both parties.

Because no such link was ever established, the Palestinians had no incentive to reform. Since they didn't reform, Fatah became more and more corrupt. We saw the results earlier this week, in which voters chose Hamas, believing they would clean up the corruption.

What Does It Mean?

Some have said that this brings "unavoidable clarity to the central issues in the region" and that, along with recent statements by Iranian president Ahmadinejad, make "impossible for (most) apologists to minimize the nature of the threats we face." Also gone will by the hypcrisy of Yassir Arafat, when he would "denounce them(terrorists) in English in the morning and celebrate them in Arabic in the afternoon. Hamas will not have that luxury".

No doubt moral clarity is a good thing. I always thought that those who criticized Ronald Reagan for his "evil empire" speech, and those who attacked George W Bush for his "axis of evil" characterization, were very misguided.

Another aspect of this is that now Hamas will have to perform. It is easy to criticize when on the outside, and tough rhetoric always whips up one's followers. But they will find that actually running a government is not so easy, and that public support is fickle. A leader in the Lebanese parliament seemed to speak for many Arab governments when he said that "Hamas had better get its act together." Other Muslim and Arab leaders voiced similar sentiments.

Hamas also has to decide whether it wants to become anything more than just a terrorist organization. The Wall Street Journal opined that it "...may even have the long-run benefit of educating Palestinians about the terrible cost of their political choices." The United States, let alone Israel, will not allow a state governed by terrorists to emerge in Palestine.

Besides clean government, voters also chose Hamas because they believe it can bring victory against Israel. Powerline observes "the fact is that a great many Palestinians, perhaps a majority, are living in a fantasy world in which the massacre of the Jews will somehow solve their problems." This is no doubt true, just as it is true that increased terrorism will only make matters worse for Palestinians.

Perhaps they will have to learn the hard way. The Bush Administration has announced that it will not deal with Hamas "unless it renounces its goal of destroying Israel." We will see whether the administration will be able to resist the inevitable calls that will eventually come to "recognize reality" and deal with the "legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people" that we will soon be hearing.

And They Want Their Own Country?

The response of Fatah supporters to the Hamas victory has been to riot and torch cars. No doubt we will hear many excuses from the left about how this is the result of their being misteated by the Israelis, poverty, not being "respected", bad childhoods....

Whatever. Last September Belmont Club reported that Palestinians werewrecking, dismantling, and carrying off very expensive greenhouses left for them in Gaza when the Israelis evacuated. The high-tech greenhouses could have been a source of much revinue for the Palestinians. That the Palestinian security forces did nothing to stop the looting is telling. If they cannot or will not stop looting, how can they run a country?

Behavior such as this can only harm their aspirations to nationhood.

The anti-Semitic portion of the world, which is all to great a part of it, will always excuse such behavior. The part that counts toward granting the Palestinians a country, the US and Israel, will not. And so as long as they behave this way, they'll stay poor and nationless.

Posted by Tom at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 27, 2006

Iraq War Fallacies: "The War Costs Too Much"

Last Friday evening, while at a pro-troops rally outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a man who was employed as a pathologist at the hospital approached a few of us and asked who we were and our position on the war.

We told him that we supported our president's decision to go to war and thought that we ought to stick it out until victory was assured.

He told us that he was a fiscal conservative, and opposed the war because "it cost more than they said it would." He said that he would have supported our action if the cost had come in at or under the original estimate.

I've never had much sympathy for this argument, and for two primary reasons.

One, it smacks of greed, and two, the war in Iraq is amazingly cheap when compared to other wars our country has fought.

Just the Facts, Please

Interestingly, the financial argument is made by both the left and the isolationist right. The left wants to spend the money here at home, and the right want to put it in the pockets of people.

We saw the left use the financial argument during the 2004 presidential election. John Kerry criticized the president on this, claiming that we needed the money at home for health care:

$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans...We're spending $200 billion in Iraq while the costs of health care have gone through the roof and we're told we don't have the resources to make health care affordable and available for all Americans. They're charging 17 percent more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America.

The only difference between Kerry and the pathologist at Walter Reed is what they wanted to do with the money we would save by not being in Iraq. Otherwise, the arguments are pretty similar.

But as the chart below shows, the war in Iraq is not expensive at all, at least when compared with other wars our country has fought:

Chart by Jerry Bower at NRO

As you can see, OIF(Operation Iraqi Freedom) is more in line with the Mexican War or the Spanish-American war than anythig else. It isn't even close to Vietnam, the liberals favorite, nor is it even getting close.

The "Status Quo" wasn't Cheap

Forgotten in all this is that we weren't exactly ignoring Iraq in the period between the Gulf War and OIF. We were maintaining two "no fly" zones, one in the north and the other in the south. Every day, US and (mainly) British fighters patrolled these zones, their objective to prevent Saddam from massacring more Kurds and Shi'is.

In addition, the United States and our allies patrolled the seas around Iraq, enforcing the sanctions. We stopped and borded ships, checking for contaband.

The cost of all this was perhaps 1 billion dollar per year, paid for by American and British taxpayers. Most importantly, there was no end in sight to any of it. Saddam is 68 years old, and could easily live another 10 or more years. His sons, Udan and Qusay, one of whom would have taken power when Saddam died, were 39 and 37 respectively when they were killed in 2003, and could have lived another 40 years.

The 1 billion dollars per year only covered the situation in "normal" times. Occasionally, as with Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when US and British warplanes attacked Iraq over a 3 day period, the cost would go much higher.

Will the Real Objection Please Stand Up?

So if the war isn't really that expensive, why do some people persist in saying it is?

The left says it's too expensive because they are in need or more and more money to fund their ever more costly social programs. They are convinced that the problems with health care insurance can only be solved with more money, as the example above shows.

But aren't these the same people who are always telling us that we need to increase foreign aid, especially to Africa? And aren't they the same ones who get so upset when we withhold money from the UN, arguably the most wasteful, if not outright harmful, organization on the planet?

Therfore, I cannot take the financial argument at face value when it comes from the left.

Nor can I accept that argument when it comes from the right. There is no advantage to the United States in keeping the rest of the world poor. Quite the opposite, we gain when everyone does well. We are better off today with Japan and Germany as economicaly well-off nations than if we'd tried to keep them poor and undeveloped after the Second World War. We imagine that we have a problem with a trade imbalance with Japan, but consider our problems if we didn't have them to trade with. Remember that they buy our goods as well. What type of airplanes do we think their airlines fly?

My objection to foreign aid has never been from an "I need the money instead" position. My objection has been that most of it doesn't work.

Reshaping the Middle East

We have a chance to reshape the entire Middle East. The democracy in Iraq is very imperfect, and we should not expect even that to spread quickly across the region. Trouble with Iranian nuclear weapons could spell doom for the entire project. But by the same token the results of success would be immense.

This is not a "do gooder" stance, although I believe that as Christians we have an obligation to help other people. The Middle East has long been a source of instability, and the cause is that all Arab/Muslim governments save that of Iraq today are dictatorships of one sort or another (Jordan's is somewhat more benign, but the King is an absolute ruler nonetheless). By reforming the region we can end a source of conflict and as such we can relieve ourselves of a security headache.

By not repeating the mistakes of Versailles in Germany after World War II, we ended the vicious cycle of European wars. By rebuilding Japan in our image, we squashed their militarism.

However, by ending theReconstruction of the American South after the Civil War prematurely in 1876, we sentenced blacks to another hundred years of persecution.

In summary, by historical standards the Iraqi war does not cost very much, and in time history will show that the return on our investment will prove it to be some of the best money we've ever spent.

Posted by Tom at 1:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 25, 2006

Captain Furat, Iraqi Hero

A few weeks ago I related the Washington Times story about Captain Furat, the Iraqi hero who led his men in many battles with the terrorists.

Furat is a Captain in the new Iraqi Army, and has become one of those larger-than-life figures in post-invasion Iraq. Maya Alleruzzo is a reporter for the Washington Times, who went to Iraq, and was with Furat many times when his unit was attacked:

Capt. Furat was typically first out of his truck, returning fire, shouting orders, attending to the wounded. His men, their resolve stiffened by his example, stood their ground in combat time and time again. More often then not, they would drive off the attackers before U.S. forces arrived to support them.

This unit wanted to fight. Its soldiers believed in themselves. After each firefight, their confidence grew, not only in battle, but in the larger sense that maybe they were part of something bigger than their own survival. They strove to perform as a professional army. Asked once about the Shi'ite-Sunni tensions that threaten to tear Iraq apart, Capt. Furat blushed and turned away before replying, "I'm an Iraqi."

Tragically, Furat was attacked by terrorists while visiting his family on Christmas Day. His injuries are severe.

Alleruzzo traveled again to Iraq recently and updates us on his condition:

The powerful legs that carried him through battle lay stretched before him, motionless underneath a blanket. The broad shoulders and bulging forearms that once easily carried an 80-pound machine gun lay limp at his sides. Somewhere in Iraq, those who tried to kill him wait to finish the job.

Capt. Furat, 28, struggles to sort out a life that was shattered Christmas Day in an ambush by gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers while he was visiting his family.

One of the bullets struck his spinal cord, and he is paralyzed from the waist down. Permanently.

Despite being hit by twelve bullets by the terrorists, he fought back, killing at least one. He saw enough to give information to our trooups so that they were able to arrest two of his attackers.

Furat is recovering at the Air Force Theater Hospital in Balad, Iraq. Because he is still a target of terrorists, he will be there for the foreseeable future.

(Be sure and follow the link above to the Time's story for the photo)

A Hero of the New Iraq

A decorated officer with the 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Brigade of the 5th Iraqi Army Division -- also known as the Tiger Battalion -- based at Camp Falloc, 54 miles northeast of Baghdad, Capt. Furat loves Iraq and fought its enemies with a passion that won praise from American and Iraqi troops.

U.S. soldiers of Task Force 1-30 who worked with Capt. Furat often called him "Rambo"; he could wield an 80-pound machine gun and belts of ammunition as if carrying an Uzi.

"To me he is a superhero," said 1st Lt. John Newton of Hague, Va., from the 1st Battalion of the 30th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division, who wept at Capt. Furat's bedside hours after the attack.

"He was fearless under fire," said Lt. Col. Roger Cloutier, commander of Task Force 1-30, from Fort Benning, Ga.

With Men Such as This

With men such as this, who could think of just pulling up and leaving Iraq?

Yes I know that the condition of the new Iraqi army and police forces is uneven. Yes I know that not all fight as bravely as Captain Furat. And yes I know that some join simply for economic reasons, and yes some to become spies for the insurgency. And yes I know about the corruption, inter-sectarian fighting, all that.

I know these things. I also know that when I read time and time again of long lines at the recruitment centers, that most Iraqis join because they want to rid their country of terrorists.

Captain Furat was such a man.

To abandon Iraq now would be to abandon him and thousands like him to a terrible fate. Only fools think that Iraq would suddenly become peaceful if the US left. In reality we would have another bloodbath like what occured in South Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s, where anyone who "collaborated" with the United States was tortured and/or killed.

Sure, some, like Captain Furat, would be taken with us. No doubt that now that he is nationally known we would get him out. But that's not a solution. Furat loves his country and wants to see it made right.

"My dream is just to stand up with my legs," he said. "When I can stand up with my legs, just tell me and I'll go anywhere -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran -- just tell me."

As Capt. Furat works through the physical and emotional trauma of his tragedy, those on the hospital staff see an opportunity for the disabled soldier.

"He could be a beacon of hope for all the handicapped people in Iraq," said Col. Powell.

"He could be a champion, a great one. There are going to be thousands of disabled people here, maybe more. There's nothing keeping him from doing anything. We just want him to reach his full potential."

I have no doubt that he will.

Posted by Tom at 8:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

January 21, 2006

The Pinkos Sound the Retreat!

Last night outside the main entrance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, the anti-war leftists of Code Pink were forced into an ignominious retreat! They were obliged to abandon their protest corners and seek refuge a block away, where they licked their wounds. For at least one evening, the wounded troopers in the hospital, some of whom can see the entrance where all this takes place from their windows, did not have to see the Pinkos who mock them with their fake vigils.

The battle was not won with bombs or bullets, or even with force of numbers. We simply outmaneuvered them by getting a permit for "their" corner before they had a chance to file. So we had permits for all four corners and they had none. You snooze you lose.

If you are not familiar with the situation see my previous posts on the subject here, here, here, here, and here.

The short version is that a radical pro-Castro group called Code Pink Women for Peace holds an anti-war rally outside of the hospital every Friday night between 7 and 9pm. Code Pink is perhaps most notorious for having given $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah in December of 2004. They have been holding these protests at Walter Reed for almost 10 months now.

Word got out quickly that the Pinkos were outside the hospital, and the folks at Free Republic started holding counter-demonstrations/pro-troop rallies at opposite corners to where the Pinkos stood.

Last August the face-off made national news when CNS News reported what was going on. After hearing about it on talk radio and Fox News, I decided to go downtown and see what was happening for myself. Even since that night I have been at Walter Reed more Fridays than not.

Seizing Their Corner

As soon as I got there I knew that something was different.

I arrived shortly before 7pm, and as I drove up, I saw quite a few people on what are normally the Pinko's two corners. Odd, I thought, as they usually didn't arrive in numbers until 7:30 or 8. After I parked and walked to one of our corners, I noticed to my great surprise that those were our people across the street.

This is what I saw.

Something's up, I thought. Those are mostly our prople, with one or two Pinkos mixed in. What's going on? Usually we stay on our side of the street and they on theirs.

I asked one of our members standing nearby and that's when I learned that one of our number, "Concrete Bob", had secured permits this week for the Pinkos two corners. They had been laggard in renewing their permits and Bob seized the opportunity.

Yes!

As you might imagine, as soon as the light changed I went over to our "new" corner to join my compatriots and see what was up. I knew that the Pinko leaders would arrive shortly and wanted to make sure we had adeqate numbers in place.

We were mixed in with a few Pinkos, but one of our number decided to make sure that passers by knew who was who:

The Pinkos Arrive

Somewhat perplexed, they're carrying their signs and such from their cars and putting by the fence as they normally do. Somewhat annoyed, the guy pictured here, Bruce, asked me ifr we really had to take so many photographs of them. "Yes!" I chearfully answered. Odd, but my answer didn't seem to satisfy him.

Their guitarist showed up, getting ready to play his Pete Seeger 60ish leftie songs.

At this point the Pinkos were informed that they did not have a permit for this corner and that so sorry, but they would have to leave. They got on their cell phones (whatever did we do before we had them?) and said that they were going to "straighten things out". But after a few minutes they gave up and beat a hasty retreat down the steet to lick their wounds.

The corner resume activities, this time under new, non-commie management:

And for once I remembered to have someone take my picture:

Crossing the Line

Many Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Most of them still genuinely support the troops. But many do not, among them Code Pink. I'm not going to go into my case against them here, interested readers can check out the links posted above.

Suffice it to say that if you're hanging out with pro-Fidel Castro people like Code Pink, you're not "supporting the troops".

Congressman John Murtha has crossed the line of decency.

From the Code Pink Website, here he is, hanging out with Code Pink co-founder Gael Murphy and DC coordinator Allison Yorra.

Now I know what some of you are going to say; "oh how childish all this is".
Well....on one level yes, but not so on another. Understand that the troops in the hospital know full well what is going on outside. I know this because I've spoken with enough of them, as in addition to this I pay visits to the hospital where we bring them things. And, as I've pointed out in previous posts, when the troops come back from Fran O'Briens at 9:15 or so on the bus they flip off any Pinkos who are still hanging around. Yes yes, I know there are a few troops who are anti-war and all that, so please don't post links on that subject("In any large organization..."). Everyone knows full well that most troops support the war and hate groups like Code Pink. Believe you me if you don't think that chasing off the Pinkos wasn't a morale booster for the troops inside Walter Reed you're kidding yourself.

According to the Pinkos website:

We presented him with our pink badge of courage and pink flowers sent by CODEPINK members nationwide. Rep Murtha was very appreciative of these gestures as he has been receiving many responses to his public denouncement of the war.

Either Murtha agrees with the Code Pink agenda or he's a useful idiot. Take your pick.

Update

Make sure you check out GunnNutt's excellent post on Friday night. She has excellent photos you won't want to miss.

Update II

Thank you to Kat for her kind words at her blog, The Middle Ground. And if you haven't bookmarked her site, do so now.

Posted by Tom at 2:00 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

January 20, 2006

Moral Clarity and Military Strikes

I've about had it with how some people have reacted to the our recent strike on a house in Pakistan, and I'm going to let you know why in this post. Hang around, and you'll also learn about one of the most nasty Nazis of World War II and how he ties into all this.

As we all know, we struck a house in Pakistan with (probably) Hellfire missile(s) fired from a predator drone.

At first, it was reported that we had missed our target, one Ayman al-Zawahiri, the reported #2 man in al-Qaeda. Predicatably, the left went nuts, condemning the United States and George Bush for slaughtering innocents.

Then we leared that in fact we did kill at least one top member of al-Qaeda, including their top bomb maker, Midhat Mursi aka Abu Khabab al-Masr. Sorry, Kos.

18 other people were killed, and they have been described as "innocent". But is this an accurate description?

To the left, the answer is obvious; hell yes and put BushCo in prison for war crimes!

The rest of us, who are not affected with moonbatery, may consider the question in a more rational manner. Kevin Drum, a leftie blogger himself, asks the real questions:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.

Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?

Who is Innocent?

The issue of killing innocents in war falls under Discrimination and Proportionality in Just War Theory. It actually gets quite complicated, and anyone who wants to read my full treatment of the subject can go here for Discrimination and here for Proportionality.

Boiled down to it's essense, however:

"The principle of discrimination means that one may not licitly make attacks in which noncombatants are directly intended to be killed"

And for the other requirement, proportionality:

"The principle of proportionality with regards to conduct in war "deals not with a whole war but with a single military action in that war. The criterion requires that the good to be achieved by the action be proportionate to the damage done. Again, this means values preserved compared with values sacrificed, not a single cost-accounting of lives and dollars."

(see links above for reference)

I'll say it once more; the issues surrounding these two principles are complicated so please see the posts before criticizing the rest of this post.

The bottom line is that our strike met the two principles of fighting a Just War (justifying going to war is a different matter)

Discrimination

We did not directly target noncombatants. If they were truely innocent(which can be debated), they were killed as a byproduct.

The issue of our accepting a level of risk to protect innocents did not enter into the equation, as only those who have watched too many James Bond movies can believe that commandoes could have carried out this mission.

Civilian homes are normally off-limits. However, when enemy soldiers(whether they are legal or illegal combatants does not matter) occupy them, their status changes. More importantly, when civilians willfully shelter enemy soldiers they themselves must accept a level of risk.

That we fired Hellfire missiles shows that we exercised great care in our selection of weapons. In previous wars entire hillsides or towns would have been desctroyed.

To be sure, the selection of the Hellfire had as much to do with being sure we "got the bastard" as any concern for civilians. I am not naive about this. Nevertheless, it cannot be overemphasized that a very small area was actually destroyed.

Any reasonable person can only conclude that we met the test of discrimination.

Proportionality

To recap, proportionality "requires that the good to be achieved by the action be proportionate to the damage done."

In other words, did we prevent more future deaths than we caused?

I do not see how this can be answered by anything but a "yes."

We cannot allow our enemies a sanctuary, whether it be geographic by hiding across a border, or social by hiding among civilians. To do so prolongs wars and allows our enemy to kill more of us and our allies, and this is morally unacceptable.

Proportionality accepts that there is and can be no perfect war, where civilians are never killed and mistakes are never made. This would be foolishness of the worst order.

That Most Terrible of Nazis

Reinhard Heydrich was second-in-command of the dreaded Schutzstaffel, or "SS", reporting directly to Heinlich Himmler, who himself reported to no one but Adolf Hitler.

The SS was esentially the private military of the Nazi party. It was not part of the Germany Army. The SS ran the concentration camps, and carried out much of the Nazi terror within Germany once Hitler came to power.

(Note: Yes I know it's all more complicated, I'm trying to be brief)

In short, the SS was a very evil organization. Heydrich was head of the Sicherheitsdienst, or "SD", also known as the SS Security Service.

Heydrich himself was a very nasty individual. It is said that he intimidated everyone he met, including Himmler.

He oversaw the mass arrests that followed Hitler's seizure of power in 1933, and it was he who founded Dachau, one of the most notorious concentration camps. He led the mass murders of the SA (storm troopers), a separate organization who helped the Nazis gain power but that Hitler later saw as a rival organazion.

Once Germany had captured Poland, Heydrich organized the Einsatzgruppen, or "extermination squads", who started the mass murder of the Jews, first by shooting, then by gas in the concentration camps.

Bear with me now

He also chaired the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which the top Nazis decided on the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", which I do not think needs further explanation.

In short, one of the most evil men of his day, indeed in history.

In 1941, he as made "Protector of Czechoslovakia", and settled into headquarters in Prague.

Free Czech agents, smuggled into the country by British Intelligence, assassimated him. The Nazis, furious at this, murdered at least 1000 Czechs in retaliation.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Are the Equal?

On one level, no. Heydrich was part of a regime that murdered millions. For all the terror al-Qaeda has unleashed, they have come nowhere near the Nazis.

On the other hand, that al-Qaeda has not murdered millions is more due to lack of opportunity than anything else. Does anyone doubt that if they had the means to kill millions "infidels" they would?

Some readers will no doubt object to my comparison in this post, and so be it. But for our purposes here I believe that the two operations , the one to kill Heydrich, and the other to kill al-Qaeda leaders, are roughly equivalent.

Decision Time

Despite the differences between the two incidents, the problem for decision makers is the same; do the benefits outweigh the inevitable loss of innocent life?? The British and Czech agents both knew that if their attack was successful the Nazi retaliation would be brutal. The American leaders knew that civilians would be killed in the missile attack, and we might not even kill any terrorist leaders.

The British and Czechs didn't have to worry about bad PR as we do today. For them the calculus was one of lives lost to others saved. The WOT is as much in the sphere of public opinion as it is on the battlefield, and so such things must be taken into account.

By my reconing, no matter what we do we'll take heat from someone. It is to be expected that we'll face criticism from Al Jazeera, and unfortunately, the American left (read this again if you don't believe how bad they can get).

But I don't want to turn this into an anti-left post, that's too easy. My real purpose was to lay out the difficulties that decision makers face, and some of the principles that should guide us in making the hard calls.

Update

Bill Roggio at ThreatsWatch provides an update on who was killed:

al-Qaeda’s losses in Damadola may be even worse than thought last evening. Since the death of Abu Khabab al-Masri, Khalid Habib and Abd Rahman al-Maghribi were reported, two more al-Qaeda commanders are believed to have been killed. Dan Darling provides a breakdown of the al-Qaeda leaders thought to have been killed in the nightime airstrike:

Abu Khabab al-Masri (WMD committee head) Abd Rahman al-Masri
al-Maghribi (al-Zawahiri’s son-in-law, al-Qaeda commander)
Abu Ubeidah al-Masri (Kunar operations chief)
Marwan al-Suri (Waziristan operations chief)
Khalid Habib (southeastern Afghanistan commander)
Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi (southwestern Afghanistan commander)

Mr. Darling includes Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi as one of those reported killed, however Newsday states that while he was invited to the dinner, “it was not clear whether Al-Iraqi attended and there was no report that he was missing.”

In addition, the government of Pakistan was pretty involved too. Roggio concludes that

Perhaps recognizing the trend, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz issues the obligitory diplomatic concerns over the attack while confirming joint operations along the border will continue

No doubt.

Posted by Tom at 8:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Mismanagement We Must Take Note Of

Not the type of story one wants to read in the morning paper:

Finding out what happened to Iraq's $37 billion in oil-financed reconstruction funds -- its stacks of plastic-wrapped hundred-dollar bills popping up all over the country like play money -- has taken investigators down many paths, including one to the Defense Ministry office of Ziyad al Qattan. ...

So far, the United States has spent $226 billion to wage war in Iraq, and the reconstruction costs have proven to be another expensive challenge.

Along with the $37 billion fund, another $24 billion from U.S. taxpayers has been ordered for Iraqi reconstruction. Together with $4 billion pledged by other countries, more than $60 billion is pegged for reconstruction costs alone. The problem is U.S. and Iraqi officials aren't sure just how much money has been stolen or misspent.
...

A confidential report by Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit provides a peek at accounting problems, which date back to May 2003, when the Bush administration created the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and made L. Paul Bremer Iraq's first post-Saddam leader. Mr. Bremer's office received a huge infusion of funds at that time and began spending it on rebuilding efforts at a furious pace -- in cash.

The Iraqi audit dug into Mr. al Qattan's defense ministry office to find evidence of front companies, out-of-country banks and cash payments to arms dealers before anything was delivered. Sometimes, nothing was.

Today, Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity is trying to determine how much of the CPA-distributed cash was stolen or misspent, and how much went for legitimate projects. Mr. al Qattan could probably answer some of those questions, but he's now thought to be hiding in Warsaw.

I think you get the point.

I'm not going to try and find out how much of all this is true, and what is overstated. No doubt the lefie bloggers are reacting with glee, licking their chops at the prospect of "another BushCo scandal."

So be it.

What I am reminded of is the Truman Committee of World War II.

Some people seem to be under the impression that everything went just peachy during the Second World War, that since "we were all in it together" there was minimal corruption and mismanagement.

Au Contraire

Think about it, the government ramped up from spending a tiny amount on our military to spending billions. Do you really think that we could keep the unscrupulous out of the process?

I don't have time this morning do do a lot of research, but consider this description of how Truman saw the situation:

It became clear to Truman that while much of the country was sacrificing and patriotically doing all that it could for the war effort, special interests-- whether it be labor or big business-- was taking advantage of the country’s vulnerability and need. Compounding the problem was the inefficiency of government and the employment for $1 a year of yes men from big business that were nothing more than corporate pawns.

After reciting several tales of corruption and mismanagement, the account concludes that

It is hard to fathom that such things could have happened in the United States during WWII. Movies and pundits have us marvel at the WWII generation’s sacrifices. We conjure up images of soldiers dying for our country on foreign shores and belt-tightening deprivations on the homefront. Meanwhile aluminum prices were being manipulated! What affect did manipulating aluminum prices have on the war? Did it prevent proper and rapid armament? Did it prolong the war? President Truman noted that the squeeze on aluminum initially led to the manufacture of comparably inferior airplanes and armaments. These are only a few of the painful questions we must ask ourselves about the effect special interests had on WWII. It is sad and sick, but do it we must; it is part of the Truman Committee’s legacy left to us--it serves to show the sharp contrast of sacrifice versus greed and exploitation.

No I am not excusing mismanagement of funds meant to help Iraq. What I am saying is let's not have some people pretending that this is unique in American history, or some particular fault of Republicans or the Bush Administration.

Posted by Tom at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 19, 2006

Walter Reed FReep #95 - The Bus Stops Here

Title something to the effect of "busses stopping in front of us"

Instead of "The Bus Stops Here" I could well have titled this AAR "Freeping on a Glacier". Last week we had a typical Washington DC area winter storm; sleet and snow. During the day it partially melts, and at night freezes rock-hard. This time, after only about one day or partial melting, the temperature stayed below freezing even during the day, unusual for around here. The result was that any driveway or parking lot that didn't get plowed on Wednesday had turned into a glacier by the weekend. Cars that didn't get cleaned off were encased in ice.

The parking lot were we set up our base of operations was like a skating rink.

Honor role of attendees for this week's FReep: tgslTakoma, Tom the Redhunter; VAFlagWaver; Kristinn, Albion Wilde, Mr & Mrs Trooprally, Lurker Bill, Cindy-true-supporter, Just A Nobody, TFroatz, , Fraxinus, Nina0113, Lurker Adam, Olney-Keith, and about 10 students from the George Washington University College Republicans!

Mr Trooprally took shovel and pickaxe in hand to work at clearing the area on the sidewalk where we stand to greet the cars coming out of the base entrance. He also cleared some walkways on the other corners as well. He's looking a bit tired just thinking about it!

Later that evening, TFroatz and Fraxinus used the pickaxe and shovel to clear pathways wide enough for a wheelchair on both sides of the northeast corner.

Mr Trooprally provides a narrative

"[Mrs] T and I arrived at 6PM and pulled into an icy parking lot, wondering who was standing next to the entrance. Upon getting out into the low 20 degree air, we met a cold Lurker Adam. He hasn't been at WR for a while, but he was dressed warmer than in the past. Some greetings and he got into the jeep to warm up while I unloaded the shovel and salt. The driveway up to the parking lot was salted down. Before we could start clearing the corners of ice pack, a call came in from Nina0113. She was at the Metro station, cold and needing a ride. Leaving [Mrs] T and Adam there in the cold (they didn't know how to get to Metro station), I left to get Nina. ...

Returning with Nina, I saw [Mrs] T and Adam had a good start on the NE corner. [Mrs] T got into the jeep with Nina while Adam and I proceeded to clear and salt the other four corners. As other FReepers arrived, they helped in enlarging the cleared areas. "

Here are Lurker Adam and Mr Trooprally cleaning the NE corner, the one directly across from the main entrance:

We quickly put up the flags and got our our signs. It was far too windy for the MOAB, but the flip side of that was that the flags look great flying in all that breeze.

Here are tgslTakoma, Kristinn & TFroatz standing on frozen snow while setting out flags

Cindy_True_Supporter and Nina0113 are all bundled up on the NE corner. The first thing you learn about FReeping in cold weather is that you don't dress for the first hour, but for the last! Chemical pack hand warmers are a must

I took up a station by Lurker Bill on the SE corner and we soon started receiving our usual high quota of friendly waves and honks from passing cars. Many are police cars, and one lady officer used the car's loudspeaker to say "Thank you for coming out to support the troops!"

Sometimes cars will stop and speak with us briefly. On this evening one of the cars coming out of the hospital stopped by the NE and spoke with (I believe) Olney-Keith and Albion Wilde, and say "thank you" for being outside in the cold to lift the spirits of those inside. He said he was a Vietnam vet who worked with new troopers who had just arrived from the war zone (which could be Iraq or Afghanistan). He helped them through their issues.

Later that evening, while standing at the NW corner, VAFlagWaver, Mr Trooprally and I met a young soldier who was coming back to the hospital. He said that he appreciated what we were doing, we told him that we appreciated his service, and we shook our hands. He said that he had lost an eye but was still going back to Iraq in a non-combat role. Far from feeling depressed over his redeployment, he seemed proud of his service and that he was going back. What an amazing bunch they are, and how fortunate as a nation we are to have them protecting us.

Here are Lurker Bill(foreground) and I greeting the cars on the SE corner

And here's Olney-Keith holding down the NE corner

Meantime, here are VAFlagWaver(foreground) and I on the opposite corner

The"Young Pubs" Arrive!

At around 9:15 about 10 members of the GW College Republicans arrived to take up stations around the four corners. No matter the cold, they add a burst of energy to the FReep!

And Here is the Obligatory Picture...

...of the sad bunch of Pinkos down the street. They don't fool anyone with their "vigil" sign. It's an anti-war, anti-troops protest plain and simple.

The Buses Arrive - and Stop!

As the buses came up Georgia Avenue this time I noticed something unusual; they were in the right lane. In order to turn into the hospital they should be in the left lane, I thought. Surely they'll move over to the center.

But they didn't. Rather than put on their turning signals they turned on their flashers and stopped right in front of Lurker Bill's corner. At the time I was on the opposite corner with VAFlagWaver.

"Well isn't this interesting", I thought. Something's up.

After the buses stopped and opened their doors I noticed someone getting out of each one and walk up to the FReepers on the corner. Then I saw Mrs Trooprally get onto the big bus.

The troops and their familes just wanted to say "Thank You" to us for greeting them every Friday. The feeling was quite mutual!

Here is the gathering outside the big bus:

And here is Mr Trooprally getting onto the small bus

This is not at all the first time we've heard these sentiments from the troops and their families. We're heard it hundreds of times over the past 18 months. Anyone reading this who thinks that our standing outside doesn't mean anything and that it's all for show doesn't know what they're talking about. Word has spread far and wide about our rallies inside the hospital, and indeed in Iraq as well.

Here's the view from inside the bus:

Cindy-True-Supporter sends this account:

"I had the great opportunity to get on the small bus along with tgsTakoma. It was a trill to be able to express our appreciation of their sacrifice and service. The addition I made to Takoma's very heartfelt expression of love and thanks, was that we reprecent a strong support group across the nation. I wanted them to know that there are tens of thousands of very supportive, true Americans that respect, value and realize the job they've done.

They are increditably, amazing, selfless individuals.
Words just can't express what I feel about them."

One more of the scene at the corner. Mr Trooprally is getting on the small bus. Lurker Bill is at left be his sign:

During all this VAFlagwaver, and I decided to stay where we were because sooner or later the buses would pull into the entrance and it would be good if they could see people on all four corners.

In the face of all that our troops do for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all around the world, if we can lift their spirits a little by doing what we do ourside Walter Reed it's worth it times a hundred to stand outside for a few hours.

Acknowledgements and More

Don't be shy! We'd love to have you with us one evening! If you'd like more details please send FReepmail to me or any of the other participants.

* A special Thank You to Mrs Trooprally for taking the photos for this AAR. All of her photos for this FReep can be viewed here.

* Thank you also to BufordP for maintaining the BIG LIST of all Walter Reed FReeps

* Tom the Redhunter blogs at The Redhunter

Posted by Tom at 1:30 PM

January 17, 2006

And Now for Something Completely Different

Is it just me, or is there an epidemic of jaywalking in our country?

Yes that's right, Jaywalking.

I cannot drive around anymore without seeing people running across some fairly busy streets. The mainstreet of my little town is one of those four-lane roads, with businesses on each side, with a turning lane down the middle of the street. Undivided, you know what I mean. Every quarter mile or something there is a stoplight, and the speed limit is maybe 35mph but you know how that goes.

And half the time I'm downtown some idiot is running across the street, as often as not young parents with little children in tow.

Now mind you there's a crosswalk not more than a hundred feet away.

And I've seen this too on busier roads than this.

Now mostly, and this is just a personal observation, most of the jaywalkers are Hispanic. If this is accurate, and it might not be, is this the result of cultural or socio-economic factors? Or is it the result of a general breakdown of an attitude towards law-and-order?

Maybe it's just me, but when I was a kid it was inconceivable that I'd do anything other than cross at the crosswalk. But then, we also called adults "Mr" or "Mrs" in those days, too, which is something else that seems to have gone by the wayside.

So tell me, do you notice this where you live too, or is it just me?

Posted by Tom at 10:32 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 13, 2006

The Party of Joe McCarthy

Can anyone now doubt that the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee have become a complete and total farce?

Anyone who wanted to discover Sam Alito's views on the Constitution, his judiciary philosophy, or an honest review of the cases he decided while an appelate judge, will have to look elsewhere.

The Democrats don't care what he thinks about the Constitution. They just want to know how he will vote on any case involving abortion.

And since by now it is clear that they believe that he will vote to overturn Roe, or at least parts of it, they are so determined to prevent his assention to the Supreme Court that any tactic, no matter how dirty, will do.

Monday and Tuesday I thought that the hearings would be pretty much the same as the hearings for John Roberts; entirely without substance. The Democrats misrepresented his case history, and gave speeches instead of asking questions. Ok, so be it, I figured.

But after Wednesday it has become more clear than ever that the Democrats are the party of Joe McCarthy.

It was not enough for them to lie about his record as a judge

It was not enough for them to give endless speeches during their "question time", demonstrating that they didn't really care what Alito had to say.

And it wasn't enough that they make mountains out of molehills because they have absolutely nothing "on" Judge Alito.

But now they have stooped to a new low.

The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have decided that Judge Sam Alito...is a racist.

If they want engage in sillyness about how judges are supposed to "look out for the little guy", and "expand civil rights", yeah fine. We can all roll our eyes at their utter lack of understanding and move on.

But this is absolutely too much.

The Party of Compassion No More

As everyone knows, the situation got so bad that Mrs Alito left the committee room in tears to compose herself.

Oh yes, the great party of compassion, which lectures us endlessly about how they are oh so concerned with women and minorities, has devolved so far into a band of bullies by slandering her husband that she became emotional.

Hope you're happy, you bunch of pathetic creeps.

But of course none of this surprises, for this is the same party that believes that racial attacks on black Republicans is just fine.

And Mrs Alito shouldn't expect any sympathy from the feminists either, if this letter is any indication.

The Slander

Everyone with half a brain knows that his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton was because the cowards who ran the univesity had kicked ROTC off of campus. Alito was in ROTC, and like many decent people wanted to see it brought back.

That another member of CAP, H.W. Crocker III, wrote some controversial stuff that is controversial is not material.

For what it's worth, here's the quote that has caused so much fuss, and just to be sure, I checked both Washington papers, the Times and the Post, and it's the same in each:

"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," author H.W. Crocker III wrote in a 1983 issue of the magazine. "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

A bit much, and a bit intemperate, but not racist. The first sentence is disturbing, to be sure. But I think that liberals are just upset because someone said that all of their "affirmative action" and "diversity" programs are simply quotas by other names.

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

The Democrats have their new slander

"Are you now or have you ever been a racist?"

All of this is especially rich coming from Senator Ted Kennedy, oh he of the answered questions of Chapaquiddick.

Worse, to back up his slander, Kennedy decided to go on a fishing expedition, demanding to see some documents of William Rusher (one time publisher of National Review) that are stored at the National Archives.

It was an illegitimate request because 1) the group in question cannot by any reasonable person be called extreme or "out of the mainstream". It was not a white supremicist group or anything similar, and 2) because Kennedy didn't know exactly what he was looking for. He just wanted to see if he could dig up some dirt.

Guilt by Association

The Democrats are engaged in the worst sort of slander; Guilt by Association.

Let's go through all of your memberships, Senator Kennedy, and see what we can find. Let's go through all of the magazines they published, or that you have ever subscribed to. For that matter, let's go through your family history.

From yesterday's Washington Times:

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Oh I see. We can't question Kennedy because you say so. And of course he's not a radical.

Unfortunately for the good Senator, the Owl was kicked off campus in 1984 for it's refusal to admit women. And he's still a member, according to reasearch done by the Washington Times. Oops.

And as Mark Levin pointed out earlier this week,

Ted Kennedy’s father was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler while he served as Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Britain. Joseph Kennedy opened back-channels to the Third Reich. He was openly anti-Semitic. FDR had to recall him from his post. Now, what does that say about Ted Kennedy? Nothing — unless, of course, we adopt the smear by association tactics used against Alito.

Exactly.

Sad that it has to be spelled out; just because someone somewhere in an organization you belong(ed) to says something controversial does not mean that everyone who has ever belonged to that group subscribes to that same view.

A Bit of History

This is all not "politics as usual" as some will no doubt tell us. And no, the Republicans do not do the same thing to Democrat nominees.

Both of Clinton's appointees were confirmed by overwhelming margins: Ruth Bader Ginsberg 96-3 in 1993, and Stephen Breyer 87-9 in 1994. Yet half of the Democrats couldn't even vote to confirm John Roberts, the vote being 65-33.

Ginsberg was an attorny for the ACLU, hardly a "mainstream" organization. I don't have time this morning to go through her history, but to say that they were controversial would be to understate things. See here and here for details.

Yet Ginsberg and Breyer were eminently qualified for the supreme court, as a review of their careers show. President Clinton did win election, and as such deserved to have qualified nominees approved.

The Media

And notice how the two Washington DC papers covered it all

Wasington Times(quoted above) got their headline right today. Spashed across their front page:

"Alito accused of racism"

The Washington Post, meanwhile, couldn't see fit to call a spade a spade.

Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing 'Roe' Membership In Controversial Group Surfaces As an Issue

Now, that doesn't make it so bad, you see? And, just like they did with the blogger Bill Roggio, the Post just loves to put two separate issues into one story to give you the false idea that they are linked.

So, you see, he must be a racist and a sexist. Why, he opposes - gasp - a womans right to choose!

Which is what all this is about.

Update

Ted Kennedy says he's going to quit the Owl Club "as fast as I can"

The club does not allow female members, something it apparently took the good senator five decades to figure out.

As Jonah Goldberg said, that's HIGH-FRICK'N-LARIOUS

Posted by Tom at 8:45 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 11, 2006

"Person of the Year...."

Over at Down East Blog, Michael has awarded his Person of the Year award to...

The American Soldier.

To me the Most Outstanding Person Of 2005 is still The American Soldier, whether Army or USMC. I don’t doubt the professionalism and courage of airmen and sailors alike, but I think it is clear that in this conflict the foot soldier bears the brunt of the fighting.

Did I tell you Michael is Belgiun?

Perhaps being from Europe gives him perspective that some Americans do not have. All too many nowadays want to quit Iraq since things didn't turn out all rosy immediately. Michael, however, knows that democracy doesn't take root easily. After pointing out that Iraq has not only never known a pluralistic form of government but just emerged from fifty years of Ba'athist hell, he asks us not to lose heart:

Therefore I would urge our American readers, who are all too aware of the blood, sweat and tears shed by your troops and their relatives, not to lose heart. For rule of law and democratic representation to take hold and blossom is in fact a very quaint and tough, if not unlikely event.

Iraq is difficult, yes, and much hard work remains to be done. Success is not assured, either.

But, as he reminds us, success in post-war Germany was not seen as a sure thing at the time, either. Headlines of the day warned of failure.

Yet Americans believed. With what now seems sheer improbable good will and vast amounts of that unique American "can-do" spirit, they took to the task of implementing democratic rule in Germany, when in 1946 nearby Czechoslowakia passed the so-called Benes-Decree, named after its president, which effectively ruled the deportation of a couple of million ethnic Germans, and which was thought of by the free world as a non-issue, or rather as something deserved.

Yet Americans believed.

Thank you, Michael. Despite the naysayers that get all of the news, most Americans do still believe.

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom at 8:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Iraq War Fallacies: "We Should Have Kept the Iraqi Army"

One of the most persistent myths is that we should have kept the Iraqi army of Saddam, or at least parts of it, after our initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. One hears this so often from commentators that I do not think any links or quotes are necessary.

But just like the idea that we need(ed) "More Troops!" in Iraq, it is rarely examined. I don't think I have ever heard a interviewer question the claim by a guest that "we should have kept the Iraqi army". It gets a complete pass.

In an interview published yesteday on NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez asked Paul Bremer about this very issue:

Lopez: What's the biggest myth about your time in Iraq you want to set people straight about in this book?

Bremer: I suppose the myth that we made a mistake “disbanding” the Iraqi army. The facts are these: There was not a single Iraqi army unit intact in the country at Liberation. There was no army to “disband.” It had “self-demobilized,” in the Pentagon’s phrase. Hundreds of thousand of Shia draftees, seeing which way the war was going, had simply gone home. They were not going to come back into a hated army.

The army and intelligence services had been vital instruments of Saddam’s brutal regime. He had used the army in a years’ long campaign against the Kurds, killing tens of thousands of them, culminating in the use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children in 1988. The army had brutally suppressed the Shia uprising after the first Gulf war, machine gunning tens of thousands of Shia civilians into mass graves in the south. Together these two groups make up about 80 percent of the population.

So recalling the Iraqi army (which would have meant sending American soldiers into Shia homes, farms, and villages and forcing them back into the army under their Sunni officers) would have had dire political consequences. The Kurds told me clearly that they would not have accepted it, and would have seceded from Iraq. Such a move would probably have ended Shia cooperation with the Coalition and perhaps even led to a Shia uprising, initially against such an Iraqi army, and eventually against the Coalition.

But we knew we had to find a place in Iraqi society for the former army men. So we welcomed them back into the new army, including officers up to the level of colonel. And we started paying the other officers a monthly stipend, which continued right to the end of the occupation.

See, I told you so.

Unquestioned

Just as with the claim that we need(ed) "More Troops!" in Iraq, the problem is not so much as to who is right and who is wrong, it's that those who make the claim never back it up with anything. The issue of whether we need(ed) more troops is extremely complicated, and not the simple one that so many seen to suppose (see link above).

Such is the case with the issue of Saddam's Iraqi army. In my opinion, it is much more obvious that keeping - really bringing back - Saddam's army would have been a terrible mistake, but I'll admit that reasonable people can debate. The key is to get the issues out into the open and make all parties answer them.

To be fair, Bremer does think that we should have had more troops in Iraq. In the interview, he says that he argued with military commanders over this issue. But what critics should note is that this also dispels the myth that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, were isolated and not listening to their commanders, or only heard what they wanted to hear, or that commanders were intimidated, or...whatever the latest version of this one is from the Kos crowd.

Problems of Analysis

In a post last summer, I wrote about Static vs Dynamic Analysis:

People who blithely say that we “need(ed) more troops” or that we should have “kept the Iraqi Army together” assume that only positive results would come from such a decision. They seem not to realize that there were potential negative consequences from taking a decision other than what we did.

More specifically, they seem not to realize that if you change one factor in the equation of history, everything else changes too.

For example, if you raise taxes by 10% on an item, it is invalid to automatically assume that the government will get 10% more money. It is true that on some items, such as cigarettes, the increase in revinue will be about 10%, because the demand curve for such items is inelastic. But on other items, such as candy bars, people will simply adjust their spending habits, buy less of the product, and the government may not end up with any appreciable increase in revinue at all.

Following up on this, I wrote about some of the problems that may have occured had we reconstituted Saddam's army:

Once again, those who say we should have kept or recalled the Iraqi army only see the potiential positives. They fail to even consider that doing this may have made the situation worse.

Armies in many third-world countries are used as much to oppress the population as they are to defend the borders, sometimes more so. In the case of Iraq Saddam had long used some units to carry out his murderous atrocities. Many Iraqis didn't have much respect for much of the army, and saw it as an oppressive institution. To have kept it in place might have made the population even more angry at us. Remember, things can always be worse.

Further, Iraqi units were organized along sectarian lines. Shi'is, tired of Sunni oppression, might have taken this opportunity to seek revenge. Shi'ite units might well have moved into Sunni neighborhoods and wrecked havoc. Same with the Kurds. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine Iraqi units fighting each other. And who is to say that they would not have turned on us is an opportunity presented itself?

Imagine the consequences of any perceived atrocity; "human-rights" groups would immediately protest that it was all the fault of the United States, that because we invaded and kept the Iraqi units together, we were responsible for their actions. The western media would have a field day.

None of these things might have happened. But they might well have happened, which is why, as Paul Bremer says, our decision to start from scratch was the correct one.

Problems of History

People forget that Saddam's army was just that: Saddam's army. James Dunnigan of StrategyPage explains:

The Iraqi army has been, for over half a century, the chief source of tyranny and oppression in the country. Army commanders overthrew the government time after time, and used their soldiers to brutalize the population. By keeping all, or part, of the army intact, and armed, coalition risked a quick return of the warlord attitude that gave the Iraqi people dictators like Saddam (and several others who preceded him.) Saddam’s innovation was to establish the Republican Guard as a force to keep the army from overthrowing him. Saddam also freely fired, or executed, army officers who appeared likely to try and stage a coup. And there were several coup attempts by army officers, even in the face of Saddam’s secret police and Republican Guard. Keeping the old Iraqi army in business was just asking for more trouble.

Bottom line; don't let anyone tell you that one of our mistakes was in "not keeping the Iraqi army". It's a myth.

Posted by Tom at 8:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 6, 2006

With Men Such as These... II

Explain this if the war in Iraq is going so poorly:

"I've only met two kinds of soldiers in the combat arms community: Those who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and those who are pulling every bureaucratic string to get deployed there.

"I spent the summer of 2004 with a group of Marines in Niger and sub-Saharan Africa, and every Marine in that platoon was trying to get to Iraq. A few months later, one of them got lucky and ended up leading Iraqi forces into combat in the second battle of Fallujah. He was a sergeant from Georgia, and after the battle, he sent me a long e-mail flush with pride. And that's not just a cutesy-pie story -- that's basically what I encounter all the time. ...

"Soldiers are very aware of why they're fighting -- and that awareness stems from their own practical day-to-day experience, which is not killing people. By and large, they're rebuilding, patrolling, and helping the Iraqi people."

-- Robert Kaplan, author of "Imperial Grunts," interviewed in the January/February issue of the American Enterprise (excerpted in today's Washington Times)

Further, as Marc at USS Neverdock reports, the Army exceeded it's reenlistment goals for 2005.

As Kaplan reports, the troops are by and large quite proud of their service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. While we so often hear about how we are simply "creating more terrorists" by our actions in Iraq, or because of various administration policies, the determination of US troops must give the terrorists pause.

All too often the news media forgets that the other side has troubles of it's own. If you only read the press, you could be excused for thinking that things were going swimmingly for the insurgents in Iraq, and for al Qaeda in general. Osama bin Laden, after all, is still on the loose.

But as Al-Zawahiri's letter to al-Zarqawi, intercepted last summer, showed, the insurgents are deeply concerned that they are the ones who are loosing. One reason for this is that no matter what mayhem they cause, those darned Americans just won't give up.

This reminds me of an incident last summer that occured in Afghanistan regarding Seal Recon Team 3.

Four US Navy Seals, on patrol in a remote mountanous region of Afghanistan, ran into a large number of Taliban. In the ensuing firefight, three of the Seals were killed. One survived, evading superior numbers while escaping their grasp. He was later rescued by US forces rushed to the region.

At the time this occured, Wretchard, writing at Belmont Club, reflected on how our enemy must have preceived our determination:

Sixteen more Special Operations soldiers died in an attempt to reinforce the recon team when their MH-47 was shot down. The US response to the loss of the recon team was not to run but insert hundreds of troops into the area to find the missing men and possibly to complete the unfinished mission. The Al Qaeda might ask themselves what manner of men these are, who fight to the death rather than surrender, and who though injured evade over high and cold mountains until they have outdistanced their unwounded pursuers. It's not an idle question. One of Osama Bin Laden's strategic assumptions when he wrote contemptuously of the US in his 1996 fatwa was that he was facing cowards.

What manner of men indeed? Those who do not give up until the fight is won. Those who understand that there will always be setbacks in war, but who does not let this deter them.

It has always struck me as rather odd, that while those who face danger directly perform so heroically, and are so determined to finish the job, that all too many here safe at home want to give up.

So on the home front it is our duty to support the troops by whatever means possible, private and public. As individuals we should contribue to one or more organizations that directly help them. On the sidebar of this blog you'll see a section titled "Helping the Troops". If you're not already doing so, I encourage you to go through them, and contribute in some way.

Posted by Tom at 8:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 4, 2006

With Men Such as These...

Read this from today's Washington Times and tell me we should abandon the Iraqis to their fate:

Home was a short drive but a lifetime away for Capt. Furat, a young Iraqi army officer whose courage under fire exemplifies America's best hopes for the budding military force. While other soldiers visited relatives in nearby towns and villages on weekends, Capt. Furat remained at his base north of Baghdad for fear of exposing his family to danger; he had become too well-known and the death threats too specific.

At least, that was the case until he made a fateful visit home on Christmas Day.

Capt. Furat -- whose family name has been withheld from this article to protect his relatives -- served as a special forces soldier in Saddam Hussein's army and took an American bullet in the leg during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Later that year, he joined the new Iraqi army as what is now known as the "Tiger Battalion" was being formed in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. That alone made him a target in the mixed Sunni-Shi'ite region, where the tensions that fuel the Iraqi insurgency remain intense.

Leading by example
Capt. Furat loved a soldier's life. A powerfully built man who once boasted that blood from an earlier battle still stained the knife that hung from his belt, he had begun to gain superhero status among the men he led and the Americans soldiers with whom he fought. Over time, the battles with insurgents became more frequent. Attacks came in spurts, sometimes two or three in a single week.

Capt. Furat typically would be leading his men in flimsy, unarmored Nissan pickup trucks when insurgents struck, usually with a roadside bomb followed by a burst of bullets from the palm groves lining the Diyala River and its tributaries. U.S. forces rushed to strengthen armor on their own vehicles after a soldier raised the issue with visiting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2004, sparking a public outcry in the United States. But more than a year later, most Iraqi troops remain easy targets. In October, insurgents lying in ambush killed four men from Capt. Furat's unit, including his bunkmate, as the soldiers provided security for a constitutional referendum.

When such attacks came, Capt. Furat was typically first out of his truck, returning fire, shouting orders, attending to the wounded. His men, their resolve stiffened by his example, stood their ground in combat time and time again. More often then not, they would drive off the attackers before U.S. forces arrived to support them. The Tiger Battalion is just one unit of several hundred men, a small part of a larger effort in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis risk their lives daily by working with the Americans. But during a recent two-month period in which I served as an embedded photojournalist with his unit, I witnessed something utterly different from earlier accounts of Iraqis cowering in battle.

This unit wanted to fight. Its soldiers believed in themselves. After each firefight, their confidence grew, not only in battle, but in the larger sense that maybe they were part of something bigger than their own survival. They strove to perform as a professional army. Asked once about the Shi'ite-Sunni tensions that threaten to tear Iraq apart, Capt. Furat blushed and turned away before replying, "I'm an Iraqi."

I never found out whether he was a Shi'ite or a Sunni. Once he gave me a St. Barbara medal, honoring a saint who is said to protect against explosions and artillery. I wondered whether he was a Christian or whether, like many Iraqi Muslims in the days before the rise of militant Islam, he simply paid his respects from time to time at small shrines on the grounds of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Perhaps now I will find out. Capt. Furat, 26, went home for Christmas Day to visit his family.

Insurgents attacked, killing a cousin and damaging his spine with a bullet through the abdomen. I am on my way back to Iraq, to an American field hospital in Balad, where I hope to find out much more about this soldier who may never walk again.

No one knows whether he will regain the vigor that won the overwhelming admiration of his men. But surely there will be a place in the new Iraq for men like Capt. Furat.

With men like these, how can anyone think of abandoning Iraq?

Posted by Tom at 8:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Iraq War Roundup

Much has been going on in Iraq recently. Too bad one has to go to the Internet to get the best analysis.

New Media vs The Old
Blogger Bill Roggio, formerly of The Third Rail and now of ThreatsWatch, went to Iraq to report on the war as an imbed with the US Marines. So far, so good. His reports from the front were, as usual, excellent. But then the Washington Post dedicided to do a hit piece on him. My report on the affair can be read here.

In Roggio's latest piece at ThreatsWatch, he says that with the wrapup of the Anbar campaign, we will see a change in the nature of our fight against the insurgency. Large-scale operations will give way to more reconstruction and civil works projects, coupled with small-scale police-type operations. Iraqi forces are playing a greater and greater role in the fight.

Cultural Issues Hinder Progress
Over at StrategyPage, the editors discuss some of the cultural problems that make progress slow. Iraqis accept a level of cronyism, tribalism, and outright corruption that shocks the Americans who work with them. But now, as the editors point out, we know this game all too well, and tell the Iraqi Army and IP that either they do the job or we will. Given that while these Iraqis appreciate what we do for them, they understandably want us out, this creates a strong motivation to perform. Attitudes like this towards corruption work both ways, however, as the insurgency has been decimated to the point where the editors conclude that "the tipping point may have already passed" in favor of American - and Iraqi - victory.

The Insurgency's Best Hope
The Mudville Gazette has an excellent, if long, review of the the War in Iraq throughout 2005. In the end, Greyhawk concludes that while the insurgency can still kill large numbers of people, "their political effectiveness is virtually nil", as was proven by three successful elections. Their only chance of success lies with allies in the west who "who won't abandon their cause." Be sure to check out the very interesting graphs in the post.

The Good Half
Speaking of graphs Gateway Pundit posts some in his 2005 Iraq War piece. His take is that the media got half the story right last year - the wrong half. What they missed was the good news. His graphs show 1) that Iraqi civilian and insurgent casualties have gone down each year from 2003 to 2005, 2) that daily fatalities trend downwards since 2003, and 3) that now matter what stats you belive about the current situation, Saddam killed far more Iraqis than are dying today. Our liberal pundit know-it-alls seem determined to miss this last one.

It's All About the Shia, Stupid!
StrategyPage (a daily must-read) reminds us that "It's All About the Shia, Stupid!" in a Dec 22 post. The Arab world, and Islam worldwide, is overwhelmingly Sunni. Iran has been the only Shia-dominated and run country, historically. Sunnis and Shia have fought throughout the centuries, much as Roman Catholics and Protestants did. Saddam may have been a hated tyrant, but he was "our' tyrant, the Sunnis thought, against the hated Shia. "The Shia angle" is key, the editors say, because it is this fear that keeps the insurgency and al Qaeda alive. However, they conclude that fears of an Iran-domiated Iraq are unfounded, because Iraqi Shia are Arabs first and Shia second. Also, the United States is simply not going to let it happen.

Wanted: Law and Order
James Dunnigan, editor-in-chief of StrategyPage, discusses trends in the war in another article and condludes that "Looking at the Iraq operation as a process, and brushing aside the sensationalism and rhetoric, the trends are pretty clear." He sees a trend towards defeating the insurgency, as most Iraqis are determined to defeat it, but also one among Iraqis towards "irrational and self-destructive behavior". Basic law and order, Dunnigan says is "the main thing missing from about a third of Iraq." This is so because unlike in the west, where the government takes care of law and order, it is a local matter in places like Iraq. It is more of a "family affair", he says, something that tribal and clan leaders were responsible for. Divided loyalties are a big problem in the new Iraqi Army and Police. In the end, though, most Iraqi simply want an end to the violence. As such, Dunnigan hints (but maddeninly won't say directly) that the new government will likely crack down in harsh fashion.

Metrics to Judge By
Last November Victor Davis Hanson provided some metrics by which we can judge whether we're winning the War on Terror in general and in Iraq in particular:

Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking? Are elections postponed or on schedule? Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq? Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam? Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position? Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank? And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?

Elections are on schedule, the countries are sympathetic to our cause if not our methods, al Qaeda is losing popularity and has been weakened, there has at least been moves toward democracy in the Middle East, and while we are always vulnerable that there has been no terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 has to count as a success.

All That Has Gone Right
In another recent article, Hanson reminds us of how much has gone right in Iraq by relating how much the naysayers told us would go wrong:

Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousands of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election — at a cost of some 2100 war dead — he would have been dismissed as unhinged

Indeed. Remember the "Battle of Baghdad" that was sure to take place? The one where the "elite" Republican Guard would turn the city into another Stalingrad (or Leningrad, depending on the talking head), that would keep American troops at bay for months? But the critics seem never to be held accountable for their bad predictions.

Conclusions

So the situation in Iraq is difficult, and much could still go wrong. However, it is important to note that the insurgency, while dangerous, is not in and of itself the main threat. They cannot take over the country, and people who think otherwise do not know what they are talking about. The dangers are more in the political realm, here in the United States and in Iraq. The wildcard is a nuclear Iran. So 2006 brings new hopes and new challenges.

Posted by Tom at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 3, 2006

Cat Blogging

My cats are over at Landry's Life. Check them out.

BTW, they are happy with the photos and consider Landry-fan a friend for life. That Lanry-fan is a fellow participant at our regular pro-troops anti-Code Pink rallies outside Walter Reed every Friday night makes all of us happy.

Posted by Tom at 9:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Krauthammer vs Kos

Charles Krauthammer says on Fox News Sunday that the reason we haven't had any domestic terrorist attacks is because President Bush has been taking strong measures to keep us safe (NRO's The Corner)

There's a great irony here. Everybody has been asking of themselves for the last four years why haven't we had a second attack, which everybody expected within weeks or months, certainly years. It didn't happen.

And we knew about the external story. The war in Afghanistan obviously had an effect on Al Qaida. The war in Iraq has diverted terrorists and jihadists into Iraq as opposed to attacking America.

But what we've heard over the last six months with these revelations, these so-called scandals, of the secret prisons where high-level Al Qaida have been held, the coercive interrogation which is under attack in the McCain amendment, and now the NSA eavesdropping -- we have the untold story which the administration could not tell. It knew why we had been protected.

All these defensive measures of gathering intelligence -- we were always weak on human intelligence, and that's why we had 9/11. And we don't have good spies inside Al Qaida. But we had a means, technological, in the NSA eavesdropping, and also other means in capturing these terrorists, of getting information.

It's worked. It's held us safe. And that's why I think in the end the president's going to win the whole argument on presidential power.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, thinks otherwise (hat tip NRO's The Corner). In a post on the Daily Kos, he says that people who support the President are cowards. Read what he says, then I'll tell you why it's great news for the GOP.

When our nation was founded, we had men of real character and courage fighting for their nascent America, one in which liberty and freedom trumped the authorative tendencies of the monarchy. Patrick Henry gave words to those efforts:

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

My, how far we have fallen, with an administration that parlays the incessant fear of its supporters into increased authoritativeness [sic] to the point where he now resembles the very despot we fought in our war of independence.

And his supporters bellow, as they cower under their beds:

"Here's our liberties, just spare us from death!"

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every "boo!" that comes out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth. They like to speak about how tough they are, even though they send others to fight their battles and couldn't last a day in places like Iraq, or Sudan, or the El Salvador of my youth, or any other war-torn nation....

The breathtaking cowardice of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists knows no bounds. They hide behind the American flag and our genuinely brave men and women in uniform. It's bad enough that they wouldn't deign to join the boots in the ground in Iraq. But now they make a mockery of our Constitution, for the very values that motivated our Founding Fathers to put their lives on the line to combat the unchecked powers of the British monarchy.

It's not entirely clear as to whether he's talking about the War on Terror in general or the war in Iraq in particular, although it doesn't really matter. The speciousness of his "chickenhawk" argument has been dealt with elsewhere, so I won't waste time on that one now.

Good News and Bad News

Actually, it's not just good news for Republicans, but for anyone who cares about winning the War on Terror around the world, and as such that includes reasonable Democrats.

As Byron York demonstrated in his excellent book The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the Democrat party is almost entirely in the grip of far left groups like Moveon.org, and people like Michael Moore and George Soros. The Daily Kos is one of if not the most influential and important left-wing sites on the Internet.

Markos Moulitsas himself "is closely connected to the Democratic party leadership", as York observes. York also reveals that Moulitsas meets regulary with the staff of minority leader Senator Harry Reid(and sometimes with the Senator himself), and after the 2004 elections addressed the Democrat Senate Caucus itself.

Of course, anyone who has simply read the papers knows that most Democrats are becoming more and more unhinged in their denunciations of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

The Good News is that this helps the Republicans. And in order to continue winning the War on Terror we need to keep them in power both in the White House and Congress. Even though the public might be uneasy with aspects of the President's policies, they will not turn en masse to the Democrats given their current general state of lunacy.

The Bad News is that this is that our country needs two parties who are both determined to win the War on Terror in general and the War in Iraq in particular. One reads with nostalgia the debates between Richard M Nixon and John F Kennedy in 1960, they were both strong anti-communists, and both wanted the strongest military posture we could reasonably afford.

Those were the days. Now we fight not only our enemies overseas, but A New Fifth Column at home who want to undermine us. We must not let them succeed.

Posted by Tom at 7:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 2, 2006

"Why We're There: We went into Iraq, and persist there now, for sound reasons"

There's a very nice reminder of why we went into Iraq, and why we're there, in the December 31 print edition of National Review(digital subscription required, but if you're not a subscriber, shame on you).

We on the right are guilty of letting the left frame the debate about Iraq. President Bush is in reaction mode, only recently going on the political offensive against his Democrat antagonists.

Look at how we argue; liberals howl about how Bush said there would be WMD and we found none. Conservatives retort that a president cannot ignore his intelligence chiefs. The left presists in its loony "Bush lied!" mantra, conservatives roll their eyes and make jokes about how the Democrats are now the part of Michael Moore. The left thinks the war unwinnable, the right counters with facts and logic.

To some extent this is understandable, after all, the examination of pre-war intelligence is necessary and right. But once again, we've allowed the left to set the agenda, and we do not hold the left accountable for their miscalls.

The latter will have to wait for another post. For now, let's turn to to the National Review article cited above.

Authors David B Rivkin Jr and Lee A Casey review the history of UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq from the Gulf War to 2003, and how the UN found Iraq in "material breach" of all of them. But, they conclude, at the end of the day

None of these justifications(for OIF) depended on the actual existence in Iraq of WMD stockpiles, and the use of military force was not, therefore, “illegal.”

In this connection, it should be emphasized that at no time was it the responsibility of the U.N. inspection teams, or the United States and its allies, to establish that Saddam Hussein retained a WMD capability. The onus of proving that he had fully disarmed was always on Saddam. This was the price of an armistice, and of keeping his odious regime in power following Iraq’s defeat in the first Gulf War. From a legal point of view, his failure to meet this burden fully justified military action.

If the police get a search warrant for your house on a reasonable suspicion that you have illegal narcotics, and you refuse them entry, they have the right to gain entry by armed force. If, upon inspection, it turns out you do not have any narcotics, it does not at all invalidate the initial search. Not a perfect analogy, but it works.

More to the point, as Rivkin and Lee stress, the terms of the 1991 cease-fire were that a) Saddam declare his WMD, and that b) it was his responsiblity to destroy them, and c) that it was his responsibility to provid proof that he had done so.

Saddam never complied with b or c. Yet this has been forgotten in today's debate.

No, WMD was not the Only Reason

We have also allowed the left to make the argument that WMD was the only reason we went into Iraq. Rivkin and Lee remind us of the other reasons that were made:

1) Saddam had proven himself to be an aggressive and unpredictable actor in a highly important and vulnerable area of the world

2) He had had WMD capabilities (including a mature nuclear-weapons program) in the past

3) He had already deployed and used WMD against both Iranians and Iraq’s own citizens

4) He had sheltered known terrorists and aided active terrorist organizations

5) He had never fully cooperated with the U.N. inspection teams. In other words, Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man behaving as if he had something to hide.

Continuing on this, they make the point that John McCain made at the 2004 Republican National Convention; the sanctions and no-fly zones had not created a "stable status quo", as so many assumed. Quite the contrary, it was all falling apart.

...the U.N. sanctions regime was crumbling. Indeed, by the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, Britain and the United States were the only permanent members of the Security Council who supported continuing (let alone tightening) the sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s government. Partly for commercial reasons, partly driven by reflexive anti-Americanism, partly because of Saddam’s Oil-for-Food bribes, and partly in simple diplomatic exhaustion, France, Russia, and China were eager to grant the regime in Baghdad a clean bill of health. And in any case, even if an all-out U.S.-led diplomatic effort could have resuscitated the sanctions policy for a time, it was fundamentally unsustainable for the long haul. Even the most targeted sanctions would have hurt individual Iraqis more than Saddam, whose allies had made adroit use of Iraqi suffering, some real and some exaggerated, to advance their agenda.

They also point out that for all their squawking about the need to keep the no-fly zones in place, neither France of Germany ever offered to help pay for them. The US and Britain bore their cost, which was about $1.5 billion per year.

Further, although this is not pointed out in the article, the sanctions were breeding resentment and anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world. A bit of review is necessary here. The purpose behind the sanctions, and the "Oil for Food" program, was to provide Iraq with enough food, medicine, and general goods to keep it's people healthy and reasonably well off, but to also prevent Saddam from rearming. To make a long story short, Saddam stole money from the program, and connived with corrupt UN officials, both of which kept the Iraqi people hungry and without all the medicine a society needs. As always happens, it is the weaker members of society who suffer; the very young and the very old. By the late 90s it the criticism that the sanctions were "killing Iraqi babies" had some truth to it, even if it was Saddam who was indirectly doing the killing.

All of this lead to increasing sympathy for Iraq, and by extension Saddam, throughout the Arab world. Classical military/political philosphers like Machiavelli could have told us this would happen; that people will forget what caused the initial offense and fixate on long-term suffering. The threat that Saddam posed in 1991 was subverted to the immediate pictures on TV of suffering Iraqis.

Saddam Unleashed

Once the weakening of the sanction started, the legality of the no-fly zones would be questioned, say Rivkin and Lee. And I think they are right. It would not have been long before the entire thing fell apart to the point of being pointless. And once Saddam was free, does anyone doubt that he would reconstitute his programs, especally pursuing a get-out-of-jail-free nuclear weapon?

Rivkin and Lee belive that Saddam may in fact have been bluffing all along(or much of the way), much in the manner of Nikita Khrushchev in the late 1950s. The Soviet leader claimed that his factories were churing out ICBMs "like sausages out of a grinder." With no satellites in those days, and limied U2 reconnisance, we had no way of knowing the truth. When it came out later that they had few if any nuclear missiles of intercontinental range, we at last saw through the bluff.

It is unwise in the extreme to make a fast grab under one's jacket when confronted by a police officer. If you are shot, you have no one to blame but yourself. Likewise, if you threaten the United States (or any other country) with weapons you do not have, and we attack you, you have no one to blame but yourself.

But many on the left have forgotten all this. They are fixated on the failure to find WMD, our support of Saddam in his war with Iran (justified, read this), and treating the entire war on terror as if it should be a police action.

What about September 11?

The left would have us believe that President Bush said that Saddam was behind the terrorist attacks of Sept 11 2001. This is not the case. As Rivkin and Lee point out, what the administration did say was that Saddam had extensive ties to terrorism, which he did. Among other things, he provided sanctuary for Abu Abbas, the man who planned the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruize ship Achille Lauro and subsequent murder of Leon Klinghoffer, and Abu Nidal, who planned the 1985 attacks on El Al airline ticket counters in 1985 in Rome and Vienna. It has also been widely reported that Saddam paid $25,000 each to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. His support of terror has been amply documented by many people.

But what worried the administration, and anyone else who thought about it, was not whether Iraq was behind Sept 11 or not. What was important was that the attacks changed our entire perception of the threat from Iraq and other countries.

...September 11 fundamentally shifted our strategic calculus of what constitutes a tolerable threat level. The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and potentially the U.S. Capitol or White House dramatized the extent of American vulnerability and the degree to which America’s will had been underestimated by its enemies. Osama bin Laden considered the United States to be a “weak horse” doubtless in part because Saddam had survived a decade despite what he must have taken to be America’s best efforts at stopping him. In any case, once al-Qaeda showed that entities in the Middle East could successfully attack the American homeland, the danger of allowing Saddam to endure was substantially magnified. Regime change in Baghdad had been an avowed American policy since the Clinton administration, but its execution gained urgency after September 11, which dramatically altered our geopolitical paradigm and provided a powerful justification for acting immediately....

Saddam's regime was not going away anytime soon. His sons, Uday and Qusay, were in their late 30s in 2003, and one of them (probably Qusay) would undoubtably take power when Saddam died. The idea that we could contain Iraq for 40+ years is not believeable.

Consequences of Defeat

The consequences of defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. Even if the jihadists did not seize total power in Iraq, they would be emboldened, and would spread their terror to other Arab/Muslim countries first. The governments of these countries would react by cancelling democratic reforms and instituting harsh repressive measures. It should go without saying that US prestige would be severely damaged, and one wonders at times if this isn't just what the left wants. Perhaps it is a return to Carterism that drives the extremists who have taken over the Democrat party.

Today's paper brings news of more car bombs in Baghdad, sobering news, certainly. The terrorists in Iraq will continue their attacks for some time. Years perhaps, certainly months. Yet just as the war was as good as over for the Germanys with the successful landing at Normandy, if current trends continue the war is lost for the jihadists.

The administration was caught asleap during much of 2005, and allowed the critics to get the upper hand. They are fighting back now, and hopefully it is not too late. They ought to take a page out of this excellent article in National Review for their next broadside.

Posted by Tom at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack