~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, December 6, 2003
The League of Useful Nations
In response to this post from last week, Ralph writes in an e-mail with the title of this post as follows:
If you want to get an idea who would qualify for it besides us and the Brits and Australians, go check out who's joined us in Iraq. It's a surprisingly long list.
A few highliights:
The Poles have serious special-forces capability.
The Dutch haven't sent that much, but then they're a pretty small country.
The Spanish have been there, as have the Italians.
The Japanese can't send combat troops (yet - they're debating changing their Constitution so they can help us in Iraq, which if they do it shows real dedication) but they are already seriously useful when it comes to logistical support.
With a little thought I'm sure I could come up with others.
Yes, there are a fair number of nations that could and would contribute something, as they are in Iraq. None of them would match America's, but as Ralph goes on to point out, that isn't the point and each would add something significant:
I'd expect contributions to be proprtional to both size and wealth. And even if you don't have fancy toys like the Nimitz to bring to the party, when it comes to fixing up third-world hellholes the help we need the most is boots on the ground. Anyone with competent MPs and/or translators will be good to have around.
At least I did participate in my own little way. But I would have liked to have been officially included in the QoD Week festivities.
I will say this: if South Park Republicans don't exist, then I'm going to be a KoDT Republican. If there was a Quizlet for "what KoDT character are you?" I'd come out as Brian (though there's a bit of B.A. in me, and there is a bit of Bob in everyone). See cast bios. (Though I don't go in for the decor of Brian, and there is little physical resemblance. No comparison is perfect, and Bob is certainly a better comparison for how work affects things I'd rather be doing).
Except for the below post there will be limited blogging today. At least through the morning I'll be doing an annoying work-related task that will take me away from computer access.
One of the writers I really respect is Walter E. Williams. I look forward to when he guest hosts a talk radio program. When he writes this, I agree with him:
Quite a few readers asked, "What if the owner wished to exclude blacks or some other race?" I value freedom of association. An important part of the right of association is the right not to associate for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. That's not to say that I don't find some forms of association offensive. But the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows others to associate in ways he deems desirable. The true test of his commitment comes when he is willing to allow others to associate in ways he deems offensive.
But when he goes on to say, in the next two paragraphs:
One might be tempted to think that if owners were free to reject customers by race, segregation would be widespread. But that's nonsense because there's a difference between what people can do and what they'll find in their interests to do.
Think about it. During the United States' Jim Crow era and South Africa's apartheid era, there was an elaborate legal structure mandating and enforcing racial segregation. Whenever you see a law on the books, your best guess is that the law is on the books because not everyone left to their own devices would behave according to the specifications of the law. After all, why would there be a need for a law saying bars or theaters cannot admit blacks if no white bar or theater owner would admit blacks in the first place?
I have to wonder. I remember a similar argument in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. Now, Friedman makes some very good arguments in that book, but the absolute weakest is when he writes to the effect that, left to their own devices, people wouldn't discriminate because it is against their interests to do so.
Like Williams, he doesn't write that people shouldn't discriminate on those grounds, which I would agree with, but that they wouldn't. This is an example of a problem I find with Libertarian arguments: they assume that people will act in their own rational interest, when this is not the case. Look at it this way: we all know people who attach themselves to losers, as boyfriends, girlfriends, or spouses - people who are, from a rational perspective, bad for them. Mistreat them, mooch off them, disrespect them, cheat on them, whatever. It happens all the time.
"Well, then, Porphy, what are you saying? Are you saying the government should enact a law forbidding bad relationships and promulgate regulations to insure people only go into relationships that others - in, say, the Department of Interpersonal Relationships - think are good for them? Assign everyone a Social Worker who will guide their relationships for them?" No - after all, I recognize that given the sort of people who often populate political offices and government positions, they're the last sort of people we'd want telling the rest of us how to handle our personal relationships.
But Williams writes "There're a lot of things we can disagree about, but let's have straight thinking as a part of the process." Yes, lets. But that would include recognizing that people make choices that are against their own interests all the time. Surely Williams knows that even in the North and West, without any Jim Crow laws to enforce such discrimination, there was (and to some extent still is) housing discrimination, discrimination in hiring and promotion, and people could walk into a restaurant, bar, or other establishment and be made to know that their presence there was unwelcomed - bad seating, poor service, and the like. Even though their money was as good as anyone else's.
I believe that, by and large and for the most part, it is absolutely the best policy to guarantee and protect people's liberty to make their own choices, which includes the liberty to make mistakes and even mistreat others. However, perhaps what makes me more of a Hayekian is that I recognize that people will make such mistakes, and are not always guided by reason in their decision-making. Other factors influence people's decisions as well.
I also think that there are times when, yes, regulations and laws are fitting. I would argue against going too far, I would argue that they should be the minimum required in certain circumstances and should only govern egregious cases. I certainly agree with the main thrust of Williams' column, that dictating to private businesses who can and can't smoke there, and what they're allowed to use their land for (or the purpose the party they are selling to is allowed to put it to) can go too far. However, I do also recognize that, at least to some extent, there is a community interest: to take an extreme example (which is the sort I would regulate), permitting a sale to someone who is going to use it as a toxic waste dump and thus badly affect the value and enjoyability (not to say quite possibly the health and safety) of the land of nearby property owners and users, isn't a good idea either.
Some common-sense middle ground is needed between, for example, the anti-smoking totalitarianism of some and the absolute anything-goes ideology of others. Somewhere in there, I fit. It doesn't make me a Libertarian, for sure. Indeed, it does not give me the comfort of knowing always, with the absolute certainty of an ideology, what I support and what I'd oppose in any given instance. Sometimes that occasionally flawed instrument, my judgement, is needed before I can determine for myself whether something is, on balance, worth supporting or goes too far. I think a lot can be gained from reading Libertarian works, be they opinion columns, blogs, or books, and recommend them highly to others. I frequently turn to Libertarian analyses to help guide me in making judgements about this or that issue. But I don't always follow their arguments and don't always find them persuasive.
Humans are not Vulcans, rational and logical in every decision (and, hell, even Vulcans weren't Vulcan when it came to mating habits), and thank God we aren't. But it does mean that one can only go so far in assuming everyone is guided in their decisions by calculations of rational interest. Again, this is not to say I favor interference with most decisions because "people are stupid" (and I'm certainly not one of those people who speak only of other and exclude themselves when talking about how sometimes people behave irrationally and do things that are harmful to their own interests. If this was an autobiographical blog, I'd provide examples from my own life to illustrate the point). People can and will make mistakes. Some of those mistakes will harm others, not just themselves - such as giving people who, on irrational grounds, they don't like, poor service and treatment in a tavern or refusing to rent a room to them. Sometimes in such instances - preferably in rare cases - there is a role for government to step in and make sufficient (not excessive; I don't favor excessive) regulations to prevent that, to the extent to which is humanly possible.
Not quite as easy as we make it look after all, eh?
Us dumb, unsophistimikated Anglo-Americans can at least build, maintain, and operate a modern aircraft carrier.
(My friend Last Toryboy has been telling me tales & e-mailing me links of the travails of the Chuckles The Gall for years. Nope, never got any better. . .)
Lets go back to the moon. I agree. We never should have stopped going to the moon. We'll never know how far along we'd be if we had continued. Bush seems to be considering a big new effort. All fine and well, but I remember what happened with his dad's ambitious proposals.
In the EU, it's all about control. Currency controls, this time. In vaguely related news, Chris Caldwell on France. Sovereignity is still a live issue in Europe for some, in spite of efforts by the Restored Carolingian Empire to convince everyone that due deference is owed to Axe-en-Chapel - er, Brussels. A bit of Home Economics: Bush has finally lifted the steel tariffs (known here as "the damnable steel tariffs").
In Iraq, Iraqi anti-insurgent paramilitary is being formed (see also yesterday's Roundup). At home, Stanley Crouch criticizes Ashcroft - but you might be surprised why. This piece on Pat Tillman, former NFL player and current Army Ranger, should be read.
John Kerry's foreign policy will harken back, seeking a reprise of the Carter diplomacy that brought us the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Clinton-Carter diplomacy that helped make the crisis with North Korea what it is today. A USA Today story on Rumsfeld in Afghanistan worth reading.
Like vampires, some things just don't die, and not all of them are Leftist.
Jonah Goldberg manages to gain a keen insight into the obvious - TV is letting us down. Who'da thunk it? Oh, and this just in: Social Conservatives are losing the Gay Marriage debate.
That's it for today, a bit belatedly (work crowded blogging). Check 'em out.
But Don Quixote breaks free from his time; he lives just as comfortably in the 21st century as in the 17th. (Which is to say, not comfortably at all, which is why he decided to become a knight.) Don Quixote doesn't fit in that list because all the other characters in that list are period characters, and ultimately Don Quixote is not. (It is the essence of Don Quixote to reject period; that's the foundation of the character.)
Which, of course, reminded me of the song from Man of LaMancha:
I shall impersonate ... a man.
Come, enter into my imagination, and see him:
Boney, hollow faced, eyes that burn with the fire of inner vision.
He conceives the strangest project ever imagined ...
To become a knight errant
And sally forth into the world, righting all wrongs!
Hear me now, oh thou bleak and unbearable world
Thou art base and debauched as can be!
And a knight with his valors all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Don Quixote,
The Lord of LaMancha,
My destiny calls, and I go!
And the wild winds of fortune
Shall carry me onward ... To wither so ever they blow ...
Wither so ever they blow ...
Onward to glory I go!
I'm Sancho, yes, I'm Sancho
I'll follow my master till the end ...
I'll tell all the world, proudly,
I'm his squire ... I'm his friend.
Hear me heathens, and wizards, and servants of sin:
All your dastardly doings are past!
For a holy endeavor is now to begin
And virtue shall triumph at last!
I am I, Don Quixote,
The Lord of LaMancha,
My destiny calls, and I go!
And the wild winds of fortune
Shall carry me onward ... To wither so ever they blow ...
Wither so ever they blow ...
Onward to glory I go!
My sister had a small role in the DRT's production of Man of LaMancha a few year's back, and I'm somewhat fond of it.
Yesterday I rambled on a bit about labels, which makes this as good an opportunity as any to go back to the last "catch up" post I'll probably write on things I intended to blog about a couple weeks ago but didn't get to.
A few weeks ago, M. Simon wrote, via e-mail, and much as a rhetorical question as anything:
I can't figure out why they are called progressives. Is it because they favor progressive taxation?
Nothing they promote advances the human condition.
In fact most of their agenda relies on coercion. Shouldn't they be called regressive? As in to a regress to the strong man state?
While in some cases I don't spend a lot of energy thinking about labeling matters, in others it is important because it does reveal something.
As noted in previous posts, Leftists have used a variety of means to disguise themselves in order to more effectively maneuver in non-Leftist institutions - or institutions which once were non-Leftist, but have since succumbed to the Long March in no small part due to the success of this tactic.
One thinks of, for example, the Democratic Party pre-68 and then post-72 as one example. Or academe, which was always Liberal but now tends hard-Left, with the Leftists playing on the sympathies of real Liberals through labeling deceits that make them seem like "one of us".
There have been successive attempts at Maskirovka along these lines. As each term (from "Left" to "Popular Front" to "New Left") gets revealed for what it truly means, as will probably happen with "Fiscal Conservative" eventually (but in the meantime it serves a purpose of masking high taxation and high spending policies, which are unpopular when put candidly), it is dropped and a new term is adopted.
One that is invariably returned to, however, is the aforementioned "Progressive". The term has a somewhat different meaning to different people, and is left that way. It's vague enough and has positive connotations, despite the fact that it is the self-description for what amounts to Reactionary Leftists whose ideas have origins in the 19th century and reflexively oppose many positive changes and who often (though not always) react badly to real progress. They're usually more defined by what they are against (anti-globalization, anti-welfare reform, anti-tax cut, anti-regulatory reform, &tc) than what they're for. Oh, yes, they will say they have a sincere and to them positive vision of the future. But, unlike modern American conservatives who spend most of their (our) energy on what we'd like to do, they spend most of their energy on what they're trying to stop, prevent, thwart. They read stories like this one and shake their head against the unwelcome change foisted on the Iraqi people. Wouldn't it have been so much better if we hadn't gone in there an destabilized the situation? I mean, isn't this worse than torture and mass graves?
As it turns out, more often than not these days, it is the so-called "Progressives", not the conservatives, who are "standing athwart history, yelling 'stop'!".
The modern "Progressives" are the political heirs of the movement that backed Henry Wallace against Truman in '48: the hard Left and its fellow travelers, the Popular Front which supported Stalin in the '30s and was against the Truman Doctrine of helping countries resist Communist destabilization & revolution. They marched out of the Democratic Party in '48, with their children (the "Red Diaper Babies") forming a new "Progressive" front, "clean for Gene", that marched back in during the late '60s and early '70s when it became clear that violent Left revolution stood no chance of happening in America. They would instead influence things through existing institutions, following strategies outlined by various 20th Century Left thinkers (Gramsci &tc; see earlier posts).
Using the term "Progressive" was a means of associating themselves in people's minds to the late '19th/early 20th century Progressive movement led by Robert LaFollette (whose family home, still in the family, I lived near for a few years when I was still living in Madison). But the American political tradition they are more truly descended from is the Populist movement led by William Jennings Bryan.
"Populist" is, of course, another one of those somewhat vague terms invoked by a variety of people and with different meanings. A Pat Buchanan "populist" (right wing) is different from a Ross Perot "populist" (center-right or perhaps more accurately "Jacksonian") is different from a Paul Wellstone "populist" (Left-Progressive). There's also the Steven Den Beste populist, which is probably closest to that of the Ross Perot sort - or, maybe even more accurately, the popular uproar that carried the Recall in California and Arnold Schwartzenegger to victory (it wouldn't have succeeded if only California Republicans supported it). Some "populisms" aren't that popular and don't last very long.
The Populism of the Wellstone tradition isn't super-popular, but does have deep local appeal, and has lasted a long time. (Wellstone was much more successful with it than some others, because he was a positive politician, and most who carry this banner are negative, angry rather than "happy warrior" types). This is the populist tradition that goes back to Bryan. If one reads his speeches of the era, in particular the famous "Cross of Gold" speech, you'll see themes that resonate down to today (though silver isn't an issue now). Of course there are many other influences, especially among the more Leftist "Progressives" who have aligned themselves with this Populist tradition. But real antecedent/political roots of today's "Progressives", when it comes to their roots in American politics. This Populist movement was also largely reactive against economic & social changes taking place at the time.
(There are, of course, influences outside of American political tradition, European Socialist & Social Democratic tradition has had a significant impact as well. But this post is already long enough).
With Bush's approval trending back up a bit, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman sounds a cautionary note for Democrats hoping to ride a tide of venomous anti-Bush anger to victory in next year's elections:
The level of animosity Bush arouses in Democrats appears unprecedented. The data are not strictly comparable, but in 1998, 75 percent of Republicans said Bill Clinton made them angry. Bush’s father could arouse the ire of only 64 percent of Democrats.
Today, Bush enrages nearly 90 percent of Democrats.
This intense anger is reflected in the posture Democrats want to take vis-à-vis Republicans. While the vast majority of Republicans and independents want the two parties to work together to solve problems, Democrats do not. They are spoiling for a fight. Many Democrats feel betrayed by what they see as an accommodationist party. These Democrats do not want compromise, conciliation or cooperation. They want political war.
Wow. That comes as a surprise to me. Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Pat Leahy, Dick Durban, Robert Byrd, and the rest want political war? Gosh. I'm flabbergasted. Stunned, even. While I swoon from surprise and shock, lets go back to Mellman for a second:
This situation presents a simple political problem, however: Democrats are alone in their views. Democrats constitute the minority of Americans who abhor the president; swing independents (and, of course, Republicans) do not. They want presidents and members of Congress who will reach across party lines. . .Many, somehow, actually like him.
While Mellman recovers from his own surprise, I'll note that many of the things he said in the middle of that paragraph (read his piece) are dubious & debatable. Rather than divert this particular post into arguing over those assertions, I left them out, so we could remain focused on the main point:
In reality, the Democratic base is out of sync with swing voters. The Democrats’ visceral anger with Bush is but the prime example of this disconnect. The war in Iraq is another. By a 42-point margin, Democrats say removing Saddam was not worth the cost, according to a CBS poll. But independents say it was worth the cost, by a 13-point margin.
But emotions are communicated much more readily and much more clearly than policy positions. Emotions create images from which it is hard to escape. If Democrats offer only anger, we will excite ourselves but swing voters won’t buy in.
Well, at least some Democrats, like Mellman, recognize the problem.
A lot of States - a lot of countries - have laws on the books which aren't enforced, "dead-letter law". Indeed, one of the striking things about the Texas Sodomy law which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court recently was that someone had been charged & convicted under it in the first place (and there were some questions why the charges were filed). But that's far from the only example of laws on the book which are rarely enforced.
Responding to an aside in the post on Gay Marriage, Alert Reader Temujin inquired, via ICQ, about the UCMJ's law against adultery. No, the military does not have "bedroom police", and the law is only enforced in extreme cases (adultery is considered poor discipline and bad for morale, among other things), and in situations like this.
Some States still have adultery statues on the books. But they're hardly ever used. Which is why this Virginia story is newsworthy:
When John Raymond Bushey Jr. became the first person in as long as anyone can remember to be convicted of adultery in Virginia.
Now, I doubt he's the first person in as long as anyone can remember to have committed adultery in Virginia. Apparently, no one knows why it became a court case in this instance (except the parties involved, and apparently they aren't talking).
Donno whether you want to file it under "news you can use" or "bizarre". I would say, for my foreign readers, don't take the lesson from this that the U.S. is still living in the time of Hester Prynne & Arthur Dimmesdale. You can take that from other things, if you insist, but again what is noteworthy about this case is the fact that a law which still exists mainly because no one bothered to schedule legislative time to repeal it was enforced.
Of course, it would be interesting to speculate on what the reaction might be if by some chance this case was appealed through the Federal Courts on Constitutional grounds and the Virginia adultery statute was struck down. Would the reaction in certain quarters be as strong as it was when the Texas sodomy statute was struck down? It's a question. I don't claim to know the answer. But we can all make our guesses.
There is a point here. But I for one consider myself a conservative (of the Hayekian sort - of course, Hayek rejected the conservative label, himself, in favor of "Old Whig", on the same grounds the author of the Popshot piece does).
I've liked P.J. O'Rourke for a long time, even back when I still considered myself a Democrat. In fact, I'm not finding his latest stuff as funny, for some reason. Donno why.
Update: Me, I guess I'm just not that interested in quibbling over what is or isn't a conservative vs. Republicanism &tc. I'm a conservative in the modern American tradition, not a "Religious Conservative" or "Social Conservative" or "Fiscal Conservative" (which is invariably a line used by Liberals - more on that, later - meaning "willing to raise taxes to pay for unlimited spending programs") &tc, &tc. I'm probably closer to the "Small Government Conservative" or "Republican, not Conservative" conservative to other varieties.
But I guess I just don't care to spend much energy picking nits over this when there are so many other, IMO more important, matters to direct my energies towards. There's not enough time in the day for me to get around to all the things I want to hold forth on, and quibbling over this is kinda low on my priority list (I say as I spend time writing this much. I guess I mainly mean I'm not going to devote too much of my mental energies to this, which is different from explaining why I'm not).
I also think that a group of people who are, as the Popshot article says, going to take their marbles and go home if people keep trying to welcome them into the fold have skewed priorities. I mean, it's one thing to get all testy when someone's pushing you out as an excommunicant heretic, as happens in Left & Liberal circles with their factionalization and is why, for example, Paul Wolfowitz is considered "conservative" or "neocon", as with most other Scoop Jackson Democrats, before him. It's quite another to get all testy when someone's saying "oh, our house is big enough for you to join". Sheesh. One could have bigger problems, eh?
My confidence in the effectiveness of the UN and the "international community" is vindicated again.
Eric Fettmann on peace processes and politics. Now, we're really going to have to tackle global warming. It's impairing people's ski vacations, which is too bad, because it's some people's only refuge from the Great Unraveling which continues unabated to roll through the nation like a cresting wave. Still, Russia rejects Kyoto. I guess they figure that skiing conditions will always be good in Russia. More on the Great Unraveling here.
Two pieces in the Australian that should be read. First, the West's cultural handicap and the U.S. vs. the UN as global problem-solver. I may comment more extensively on one or both of these later.
The Pentagon is rethinking a bad deal foisted on them by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and his wife, who lobbies for the industry. An interesting report on Iraqi paramilitary forces under formation.
In entertainment vs. history, Marvin Kalb & Lou Cannon slam The Reagans (and see this for Reagan's real AIDS record). Related to entertainment, check this out.
And, related to some of the things I rambled on about earlier, check out this two-part column by Thomas Sowell on the high cost of busybodies, Part I and Part II.
Jonah Goldberg echos what I wrote here, calling for a "League of Democracies" (League, Commonwealth, whatever).
However, his outline is missing one of the two pillars, and that is the commitment of resources to be able to contribute more than just their opinion "leadership"/demand for consultation, criticism, &tc. After all, France is a democracy and so is Germany, but that doesn't mean their roles have been positive.
Regarding my idea, Lucas Moody wrote, via e-mail, that:
After reading your series I have to say it would be a very nice thought, but I cannot see it happening, not because I am blind, but for the simple fact that beyond the British who else is willing to pay the price and is also governed by an elected body politic? I can honestly see no one who fits both categories, I see those who are one, or the other, but perhaps I am to harsh, perhaps I am thinking to big. The Australians fit both if you are defining ability to project forces elsewhere loose enough. I am rather young to be so cynical, many tell me this but its not being cynical to simply and bluntly speak the truth. In the end it would come down to the United States and the United Kingdom either being jointly imperialistic or having to constantly go back into places to clean up the inability of the people there to govern themselves in such a manner that does not hurt the combined interests of both countries, or finally play a waiting game with terrorists for one to use a Weapon of Mass Destruction in one or the other country. And while yes it would be wonderful to have such a stoic ally on our side and such communication, I do not see beyond a few countries that already support us actively and who do the best they can currently pushing to pay the price for admittance.
Oh, I know hardly anyone will qualify; the Australians will, along with the British, because they put in the effort (which is relative to size in my schema; ok, a country with a smaller population won't be able to contribute lots, but there should be a measurable effort and willingness to provide what they can).
Right now we have a system that encourages free-riding: France can bloviate from their UNSC chair or in NATO regardless of any effort, and demand to be included in on any decision-making regardless of any contribution they are making. Dittoes with China on the UNSC, among others: what role should China, or Russia, play in an alliance council? Nil. (Unless, of course, Russia wants to come on board with participating constructively, and Putin stops showing his KGB roots by subverting what little Demo there is in Russia). Countries that are growing and may be in a position where they want to have a say in things (I'm thinking India here) will have incentives changed: right now, the incentive is to push to be added to the UNSC, without any incentive for them to offer anything more than their criticism (like France et al), which is entirely worthless, and demand of a leading role in policy formulation with, again, nothing to contribute.
Also, formulating this and enacting it as U.S. policy will change political debates at home. All those people saying we need to include our allies more, bring them in, &tc - well, the retort will be much clearer "there is a mechanism. They decline to make the effort necessary to join it, to meet its requirements [the EU has membership requirements and has gotten the countries of Eastern Europe to change many policies so they could join. the UN structure doesn't provide any such thing, except a willingness to condemn either Israel or the U.S. or both for whatever goes wrong in the world]. Thus, in many ways the real effect of this would be to provide a trump in domestic political debates over the degree of deference & consultation owed to free riders. It would also somewhat puncture accusations that we're an Empire ("no, see - we're a Commonwealth, and we do value the contributions of others. They just have to make contributions, meaningful ones, if they want to "participate in the decision-making.")
Lucas replied that we'd still get criticism anyhow, as "an imperialistic elitist commonwealth", to which my response was that the criticisms would be somewhat deflated. I do know, though, that the people making such criticisms aren't deflected by facts and reality so nothing is going to stop them. But it would have some affect, I think.
The Washington Times article immediately below makes clear that the Syrians either are voluntarily letting terrorists into Iraq or they have lost control of their internal security via corruption. Please note the spend thrift way Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are operating here. They are sending a few key players, unarmed, across the border. Some are there to train Iraqis in terrorist techniques like road side bombs and some are there as suicide bombers.
The Philadelphia Inquirer article under the Washington Times one makes clear the extent of the American military intelligence effort in Iraqi urban areas.
This passage is particularly telling:
"The First Armored Division has been tracking Baghdad insurgents using a database that catalogs information on rebels and diagrams links among them, Dempsey said. The database has proven useful in identifying insurgent groups forming in the city's 88 neighborhoods.
Later this week, the division will launch a crackdown on smuggling and corruption, aimed at breaking financial links to Baghdad's insurgent groups.
The operation, dubbed "Operation Iron Justice," aims at smugglers of gasoline, cooking fuel and other items, Dempsey said, adding: "Our human intelligence suggests a link between price-gouging and the financing of these networks. I can't say for sure it exists, but I have enough to know it's worth addressing."
Baghdad rebel bands include large cells of 80 to 100 members, and smaller groups of 10 to 20 fighters, said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, also of the First Armored Division, who spoke to reporters along with Dempsey.
One of those cells - believed responsible for the Rashid hotel attack - has been broken up, with 28 members captured in raids Nov. 6."
FBI agents helped track the group by examining welding techniques used to build the makeshift rocket launcher and the blue paint used to camouflage it, Dempsey said. The FBI found the paint was the same as that used on the front gate of a man in custody, Hertling said."
All right, the report in the LA Times says we had a bunch of Fedayeen Saddam jump in front of the sights of two Bradley mechanized infantry companies and an Abrams Platoon to get at a pair of money convoys crewed by Fijians. There were also Kurdish Peshmerga guards involved in the fighting as well.
It looks like this was a set up from start to finish:
"U.S. military officials said they had reason to suspect that the convoy would be attacked, because similar deliveries had been targeted with roadside bombs. Since the banks had to be notified to expect the deliveries, U.S. forces believed their enemies would know as well."
I just don't understand why these Fedayeen yo-yos did this. It bespeaks of poor/spoofed communications to me. You don't go out of your way to attack armored vehicles if your are a guerilla who's objective is to steal money and live another day. The 4th ID has signals intelligence/jamming assets organic down to brigade level along with their digital communications. We may have had American Army arabic speakers listening & speaking to the Fedayeen's cell phones and radio during the fight.
One thing is certain, these guerilla's had local support that could account for the variance in body counts:
"Even small children were used as spotters by the insurgents, said 1st Lt. Jason Honeycutt, commanding one of the big M-1A1 Abrams tanks."
Another thing that is clear, the troopers were exercising tight fire disipline:
"On Monday, the city seemed remarkably unscathed. Many buildings were scarred by bullets and mortar rounds, and about a dozen cars were burned, including one parked in front of the Golden Shrine. A small mosque near the hospital appeared to have been struck by a projectile."
Trent goes on:
Please note the differences between the LA Times report of this fire fight above and the one "Sudarsan Raghavan" did for the Philadelphia Inquirer. At a minimum, this Raghavan character had to be an arabic speaker to get the quotes he used.
The pattern selection of quotes, wounded child and visual imagery of the battle aftermath described here looks like many of the translated MEMRI articles I have seen describing Israeli fire fights on the West Bank and Gaza with Palestinians. That selection is the meat and potatoes from the Arab media.
I'd bet this "Sudarsan Raghavan" is either a Palestinian or a Gulf Arab stringer for the Inquirer.
I'd also bet one more thing Raghavan mean to say, but he implied. The Fedayeen were operating in front of Hospitals and Mosques, taking advantage of them as "open cover" due to their knowledge of American military Rules
of Engagement.
Echoing what I wrote yesterday & in previous posts, or I echoing it, or a mutually resonating opinion, Orson Scott Card says:
Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic? Not at all - I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
What I find a bit distressing is this remark, which to me seems both gratuitous and offensive:
"(they also tend to be into Newage spiritualism. Newage, rimes with sewage)."
You might not like "Newage" spiritualism (although I wonder just how much New Age spiritual thought you've been exposed to), but that's really rather beside the point. These are valid religious beliefs for some people, even some people who support the war, and the West, and who don't support the Left.
Worse, it was unnecessary. Your point suffers not the least from omitting that comment altogether.
There's nothing that says a religious belief has to be hoary to be legitimate, or even worthy, and there's nothing that says a fervent desire for peace equates to pacifism.
Me, I believe in praying for peace and preparing for war, and I'll take spiritual truth wherever I can find it. I look in a lot of places for it.
It's a slur, but is it a religious slur?
From my experience, most people who embrace crystals &tc tend to declare that they are against organized religion (they are also as a practical matter against organized thought - "Believe Peace" being a bumper-sticker on a car at work, alongside "No War". What does that mean? We're supposed to take it that if we "Visualize World Peace" then no one will do violence against us? They're betting other people's lives) - they don't consider it religion, simply "spiritualism".
Nine times out of ten (if not more) it's bad politics and bad ideology dressed up as spirituality, things that don't constitute a religion (and thus slurring them isn't a religious slur), but are, rather, political in nature - which is why they are often expressed politically, rather than in a real spiritual sense. Often, to take one example of how this finds expression, as a way to dress up extreme feminism in a way that is beyond rational discussion: it's spiritual, if you disagree, you just aren't spiritually connected. Debate is pointless and rendered illegitimate.
How do I know it's driven primarily by politics, and politics of a vague and insensate sort (one that can't abide debate because it can't survive it, so puts itself outside the realm of rational, say Jesuitical, discourse)? Because - well, one will find Christians of all sorts of political outlooks. One will find Jewish people of a range of political beliefs. One will find Moslems of a variety of political positions. But these people are invariably Left-Liberal.
Usually, their spiritualism is vague and superficial, like the bumper stickers I'm talking about - if one gets into a discussion with them and raises nuanced questions, or points to real historical Native or Celtic or Egyptian &tc religious practice (as opposed to the modern sewage they conjure up and then associate with those faiths, to give it a veneer of respectability and age), they get bored or disturbed and don't want to talk about it. I would say that this is a substitute for a substantive spiritual connection. Like the writers of South Park, I respect real spiritual solace wherever people can find it, but I have some contempt for faux stuff (see the "Cherokee Hair Tampons" episode vs. the end of "All About the Mormons - see Gary's closing speech). And I think Newage stuff is faux stuff, in almost all cases (there may be exceptions).
The slur, and it was a slur (though I would argue not religious), was no more necessary than the slur on their bumper-stickers.
As far as "a fervent desire for peace" - again, a point emphasized in the post, this "fervent desire for peace" expresses itself rather. . .interestingly. . .when it calls for peace on one hand and rationalizes the violence of the other
side on the other. If the Rachel Corries of the world and those who have Sanctified her "fervently desire peace", then why aren't they pushing for non-violence among the Palestinians with at least as much fervor as they push us to not resist our enemies?
Yes, the mass of the so-called "Peace Movement" does not consist of the
same sort of people its organizational core does. The core of the so-called "Peace Movement" consists of people who fervently desire the defeat of our side (the victory of the other side is irrelevant, really; just so long as we're defeated, humbled, and then "question" our system and replace it with their vision). The mass of the so-called "Peace Movement" isn't this malevolent. They're just thoughtless people, useful tools who make the rallies called by the core look like a genuine popular movement, a genuine mass movement, without either thinking or caring much about what they're supporting in lining up to be the backdrop/number-count for these speeches. It doesn't matter much to them, it's about self-congratulation (they're for peace and against war, unlike people like me, cruel and benighted people who think we need to fight back and who support the military-industrial complex that makes BOMBS instead of day-care centers. Just ask Patty Murray. They're better people, more enlightened, more highly evolved, even, and in touch with their spiritual side - see? The fact that they went to ANSWER's peace protest and want our country to be at peace - regardless of the consequences - shows it). The rest of us have to do the tough work of preparing for war – and fighting it – while they pat themselves on the back.
I don't like self-congratulation at the expense of others, indifferent to the consequences. I think it's of a piece with the superficiality of most Newage expressions, among other things. It's a main theme of most of the posts in this blog.
For example, when discussing the EU or UN (or domestic, I.E. Democratic political candidates) corruption, double-dealing, deceptiveness, and promoting policies that make them feel exalted and good about themselves with little regard for the impact of these policies on others, especially those who will be forced to live with the consequences. Such as, for example, U.S. soldiers in Iraq whose mission is undermined in various ways by the efforts of these to engage in self-congratulatory antics that criticize others and reduce support for following practical policies. They promote the impractical (such as putting the UN or NATO in charge or asserting there are many thousands of soldiers from foreign countries available that could do the job if only we asked and, further implying that the UN, France, Germany et al would have the same goals we do, which misleads people - dangerously).
I have written along these lines many, many times. One of the major themes of this blog has been that one should pay great attention and show great concern for the effects of a policy on others, on those who will have to live with it. I have emphasized my dislike, for example, for elites (In the EU or here) who often promulgate policies: regulations, whatever, that others will have to live with but which they are insulated from, thus eliminating a key feedback that promotes the correction of problems, errors, and unintended consequences.
But overall one of my guiding principles is that one should strive, insofar as one is able, to care about the affect of an action on others, be it a governmental policy or even in one's day to day life (and is one of the reasons I favor Gay marriage, because of concern for what some Gays want, even though I myself will never be in a Gay marriage). It's a matter of integrity and respect as opposed to self-congratulation (promoting policies because it fits one's conception of how things should be done, with little regard for how it affects people in practical life. One could take luxury taxes, such as the one put on yachts, in this category, and many, many EU policies, and just about everything the UN crowd and its intellectual fellow travelers promote, though not everything they promote) or narcissism.
I have recently been accused of being solipsistic. In my opinion, it is the person - even if found among groups, even with a considerably more active social life than I have - who shows little consideration for the affect of their actions, words, and behavior on others, and how it would make others feel, who is more aptly described as solipsistic or narcissistic, cut off from those around them because they do not really care about anything other than how something makes them feel. This is bad enough on a personal level, it of course has wider and potentially worse impact on a national or global level, where people, like-minded people who are insulated from the consequences of what they foist upon others, can push policies that are actually counter-productive but fit within the vision or worldview of the insulated elite who are imposing the policies, and make them feel good and moral while the costs are born by others. I believe the mass of the so-called "Peace Movement" falls into this category.
True concern for others would mean you would want to change a policy or behavior that badly affects those you are trying to help (such as in Iraq, or domestic public policy, but this principle can be extended to personal interaction as well, altering what you do based on how it is affecting others), and not grudgingly but happily, knowing the goal is not to impose something but create a result that benefits everyone.
If I did not make this clear before, this post should clarify it. As always, others are free to disagree.
It's been awhile since I've done one of these (chaos, confusion, and General Disarray got in the way). But here we go:
The Great Unravelling continues as Bush's enemies wig out (More here and here and here and here) and Hillary!!!! takes this show on the road, and another First Lady may follow. What we want to know is: Does it play well in Kabul? Bush has some advantage, electorially, which must make his critics very angry. It's gotta be a plot to disenfranchize people, that's all.
Russia isn't interested in Kyoto, giving other countries the excuse to do what they've wanted to do all along, and not implement. Really, one doesn't need a treaty to do these things if those countries really want to follow Kyoto. No one's stopping them but themselves.
One of the parts of the Great Unravelling is, of course, American manufacturing, which is at Reagan-era levels (and we know how bad Reagan was, right? Right?) Showtime has aired the Reagan movie, which proves indisputably that he was the antichrist and incompetent. Back to the Great Unravelling, it's hitting retailers like a wave.
So, herein is one of the posts I intended to write several weeks ago, but never got around to. A few weeks ago Nelson Ascher wrote a post onthe future of Palestine, and someone else had written me a e-mail that got me thinking about the Palestinian's methods and the so-called "Peace movement".
Two things strike me: first, it is the methods the Palestinians use and support which discredits their cause, and it is the rationalizations of their violence that discredits the so-called "Peace Movement".
If the so-called "Peace Movement" really was for peace, they would not, as they so often do, excuse the violence of the other side and invariably justifying it and finding reasons for it in what is done by those that are being attacked by such violence. That is, again, it is not that they are against violence as such - it's just that they accept the other side's use as legitimate, and ours as illegitimate and inexcusable.
The "peace" activists typically claim to favor non-violent solutions to problems, negotiation, dialogue, and compromise. However, the vast majority of them, with only a few exceptions (and the sincerity of those exemptions I respect), make their arguments one-sidedly. That is, they rationalize the violent actions of the other side and say that if we want it to stop, we must accommodate what they say are legitimate demands (or grievances) of the attackers, with a non-violent resolution. But they do not insist that the other side, those attacking America or the West, behave nonviolently.
This is because the core of the so-called "Peace Movement" consists not of pacifists, but of people who dislike free market democracies. They are often the same as the anti-globalization movement and other Left causes. This goes back very far - I didn't recognize it at the time, but the protest movements of the '80s and before (the CND is mentioned in the Guardian piece) essentially had the same core: they would rationalize anything the Soviets did as somehow caused by us and a legitimate security response to the West, while demanding we disarm and opposing negotiation strategies (such as those advocated by the Reagan & Thatcher administrations) that included demands on the Soviets rather than just concessions by us.
What do I mean? How does this tie into the Palestinian problem, so much concern over which is expressed in Europe and enlightened circles in America, which blame Sharon (and Israel generally) for the situation.
Imagine that the so-called "Peace Movement" and those who express a desire to see a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis pushed, with as much energy and resolve, that the Palestinians give up violence and the rationalization of it and instead take up the methods of Gandi and Martin Luther King, Jr? (Btw, don't write me letters about how it isn't going to happen. I know that. This is a thought experiment in the realm of fantasy and make-believe). What if the Palestinians did just that, rallied around a Palestinian version of Gandi or Martin Luther King, Jr, pushing for their demand to live side by side, in peace, with their Israeli neighbors, in two nations, without war or violence or threat of violence to get their way? (Again, don't write letters, I know it's not going to happen. This is a thought experiment in the realm of fantasy and make-believe).
What would be the reaction of a majority of Israelis to such a non-violent Palestinian mass-movement, supported by a true Peace Movement? What type of government do you think the Israelis would elect then? How long do you think it would take until there was a negotiated, peaceful settlement?
The core of the so-called "Peace Movement" isn't about peace; it is about opposition to the West and sympathy with, if not outright support for, its enemies (whomever they may be). It is about making disparate arguments: on the one hand, rationalizing the violence of our enemies with arguments that invariably, without any exception, find their origin in something we did or didn't do, and how we need to change in order to stop the violence, and insisting we - but not our enemies, respond peacefully.
I'm talking about the core of the so-called "Peace Movement", around which other elements coalesce. Yes, there are the fuzzy-headed people with their "Visualize World Peace" and "Think Peace" and "No War" bumper-stickers who are just too unreflective and too emotionally driven to know better (they also tend to be into Newage spiritualism. Newage, rimes with sewage). These are the useless idiots, used by the core of the so-called "Peace Movement" for their numbers. But they aren't the mobilizing force of the so-called "Peace Movement", its activist base. They are the minions who carry the signs and listen to the speeches, not the ones who plan the events and make the speeches.
Andrew Sullivan says today that the protest-Left are "are now riding a tiger that may eventually devour them" - this is close to, but misses the truth.
The truth is they are riding a tiger that may devour the West and a system (economic and political) that the Left despises, and the truth is this Left (which is not the only Left) is happy with that. Thus the disproportionate demands that would disarm one side ("peace") while romanticizing the violence of the other ("resistance to the global hegemonic system"). They are the internal propaganda arm of our enemies, not pacifists. If they were really for peace and nonviolent conflict resolution, their arguments would show that. Their arguments show the opposite: rationalization and legitimization of the violence of one side, while delegitimizing the violence of another. This is usually a sign of which side one supports (thinks is acting justly) and which one opposes.
I want peace, too. The difference is on what terms? Whose terms? For both the so-called "Peace Movement" and for me, peace will be defined by victory: the success of certain policies and defeat of others. It's just that we're on opposite sides.
The EU has been trying to put square objects in circular holes and issuing decrees for the objects to be more circular and the holes to be more square, for so many years that people has lost all faith in that institution.
