Cassandra is writing about a proposal to eliminate the Electoral College, and invites bloggers and commenters to consider the question.
Personally, I'm for keeping the college and doing away with Presidential elections; it seems to me the same logic allows for either option. All you Campaign Finance Reform supporters can jump on the bandwagon here: we can eliminate the need for campaigns all together! Or possibly also the existence of the states, as Mr. Spd Rdr suggests...
The possibilies are endless, when you take up tinkering with the Constitutional system for no particular reason.
Elect. College
Another Wide-Ranging Debate:
Still More Islam
Still More Islam:
Sovay has come back around to have another go in the comments to the first post. As often happens, the comments are now much more interesting than the original post. Here is a direct link to the comments section.
Paycheck Penalty
A Great Idea:
This business about not paying lawmakers who don't do their jobs, though, that's good thinking. You wouldn't pay anyone else who failed to perform, and if you consistently can't meet your deadlines in the civilian market, you're out of a job entirely -- not just facing a missing paycheck. It'd be good if the folks in Congress had a few market-disciplines ensuring they perform their duties.
Credit where credit is due: even Senators come up with something sharp once in a while. This is a brilliant idea:
U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) tonight will use his keynote address to the CPAC Convention to announce a three-point plan to force fiscal discipline into the federal budget process including a call for a “paycheck penalty” that withholds salary from members of Congress unless all appropriations measures are passed by the start of the fiscal year, October 1.The other two points of the "three point" plan I'm not so happy with: the balanced-budget amendment seems like a good idea most years, but it's the fact that it would keep you from making exceptions in emergencies that concerns me. The line-item veto? I have some concerns about how it would be used -- not so much by Bush, who never vetoes anything, but by future Presidents.
“It is absurd that full-time legislators can’t get their job done on-time by October 1—then several months later—all kinds of unknown, unchecked spending occurs. They pass it in the dead of night, thinking nobody will notice what’s in these appropriations bills,” Senator Allen will tell hundreds of delegates to the CPAC convention being held in Washington, D.C.
“What my measure will do is say very clearly, ‘if you fail to pass appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year—which is your job, which is what you are paid to do—your paycheck will be withheld until you complete your job, period.
This business about not paying lawmakers who don't do their jobs, though, that's good thinking. You wouldn't pay anyone else who failed to perform, and if you consistently can't meet your deadlines in the civilian market, you're out of a job entirely -- not just facing a missing paycheck. It'd be good if the folks in Congress had a few market-disciplines ensuring they perform their duties.
NPT/India
India and the NPT:
There is, then, no question of whether we are allowed to do what is proposed. The question remains of whether we ought to do it. Yet it is critical to recognize, in order to prevent the debate from being conducted dishonestly by opponents of the transfer, that there is no issue of law here. What remains is an issue of policy: a question of whether this or that action would be wiser, and more likely to achieve good things and minimize bad ones.
Well, what about that?
We have three reasons to consider adopting this plan: the reduction of the Indian economy's need for oil, which reduces oil prices; the development of strategic ties with India, which is an excellent candidate for developing a US alliance similar to NATO in the increasingly critical Pacific / Asian region; and the development of India's economy, which will not only improve the lives of tens of millions who live in poverty, but increase the relative power of a free nation in a region increasingly under the sway of China's unfree political model.
We have two reasons not to: criticisms that transferring nuclear technology to a state which has made an end-run around the NPT will discourage other nations from adhering to the NPT; and general concerns about the development of nuclear power.
Factors that should influence the discussion: NPT signatory China is in favor of the US making this "exception," if that is the right word; developing nations like the Philippines are indeed watching, though the lessons they are drawing don't seem alarming to me, at least; Pakistan wants a similar agreement with the US, and we may open ourselves to charges of favoritism by not offering one; and the question of whether nuclear energy is safe and environmentally friendly compared to oil and coal energy production, which are India's other likely models.
As to the question of Pakistan, it is an important US ally in the GWOT, and we have long attempted to maintain a balance of sorts between them and India. It seems we may be reaching the point at which we cannot do that. India's rising importance and wealth mean that they will have to be dealt with on a different level from the way we deal with Pakistan. Just as China's increasing power and wealth has bought it an increasing number of US tolerances for things we wish it wouldn't do, so shall India's. The question is only how long we can, and should, continue to try to maintain the balance.
In winning India as an ally, we benefit from early signs of favoritism. We ought to want to convince India that we are their friends because we approve of and admire their devotion to freedom and human liberty. Pakistan is a dictatorship, and one we support only because the alternatives are worse (for now). India is a free nation based on an excellent model, and a friendship between our countries -- like the friendship with our most reliable ally, Australia -- can be one of the heart. We need friends like that in Asia.
Is there a political risk of losing Pakistan at this critical time? Possibly. They have been pursuing a closer relationship with China, and it is possible that they could be driven to prefer Chinese aid to US aid in the future. They would remain tied to the international system, though, rather than becoming a new Afghanistan: the Chinese are also threatened by the Islamists taking over a country they are depending on for naval access to the Persian Gulf, and will support the government in much the same fashion as we would. We benefit from getting a dictatorship off our tab, as it were; if it is necessary to prop up an unfree state, as it may be on occasion, by all means let China do it instead of us. It is proper, that the US should find a way to be on the side of freedom even in this difficult situation.
So: on balance, I think this nuclear deal is a good idea. I suggest to the readers that we give it our support.
We are long accustomed to seeing the concept of "international law" misused. There is no such thing as international law, of course, but there are treaties: treaties which say only what they say, and are binding only if you choose to opt into them, and until you choose to opt back out. There is a legal process for doing so in each country, and it is that country -- not the international bodies overseeing the treaties -- which have all the power and sovereignty. From the American perspective, we believe that power arises from consent of the governed, through a lawful constitution; but, to simply matters, we often (and probably mistakenly) deal with "nations" that are mere dictatorships of force as if they had the right to be treated as actual nations.
An example of the misuse I mean comes in the recent "White Phosphorous" controversy; we saw a similar example in the early days of our operations in Afghanistan, over cluster bombs. Many NGOs and political groups wailed at the US use of "internationally banned" weapons. Yet the US was not a signatory to any treaty banning cluster bombs; and the treaty invoked to explain why WP should not be used actually said nothing of the sort. The "law" is only an agreement; it binds only those who agreed to it, and it says only what it says.
So today we are hearing from advocates of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) over proposed US plans to transfer nuclear energy technology to India.
First of all, India isn't a signatory to the NPT; but the US is. The provisions thus bind us, but not them.
Second, what exactly does it say? The Federation of American Scientists, a group founded to monitor and attempt to control the spread of nuclear weapons, has a website devoted to the NPT:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state.Thus, we may not transfer nuclear technology to, say, Cambodia. India, however, is a nuclear-weapon state: it has demonstrated this adequately. So, the NPT does not ban us from doing what we are proposing to do.
There is, then, no question of whether we are allowed to do what is proposed. The question remains of whether we ought to do it. Yet it is critical to recognize, in order to prevent the debate from being conducted dishonestly by opponents of the transfer, that there is no issue of law here. What remains is an issue of policy: a question of whether this or that action would be wiser, and more likely to achieve good things and minimize bad ones.
Well, what about that?
We have three reasons to consider adopting this plan: the reduction of the Indian economy's need for oil, which reduces oil prices; the development of strategic ties with India, which is an excellent candidate for developing a US alliance similar to NATO in the increasingly critical Pacific / Asian region; and the development of India's economy, which will not only improve the lives of tens of millions who live in poverty, but increase the relative power of a free nation in a region increasingly under the sway of China's unfree political model.
We have two reasons not to: criticisms that transferring nuclear technology to a state which has made an end-run around the NPT will discourage other nations from adhering to the NPT; and general concerns about the development of nuclear power.
Factors that should influence the discussion: NPT signatory China is in favor of the US making this "exception," if that is the right word; developing nations like the Philippines are indeed watching, though the lessons they are drawing don't seem alarming to me, at least; Pakistan wants a similar agreement with the US, and we may open ourselves to charges of favoritism by not offering one; and the question of whether nuclear energy is safe and environmentally friendly compared to oil and coal energy production, which are India's other likely models.
As to the question of Pakistan, it is an important US ally in the GWOT, and we have long attempted to maintain a balance of sorts between them and India. It seems we may be reaching the point at which we cannot do that. India's rising importance and wealth mean that they will have to be dealt with on a different level from the way we deal with Pakistan. Just as China's increasing power and wealth has bought it an increasing number of US tolerances for things we wish it wouldn't do, so shall India's. The question is only how long we can, and should, continue to try to maintain the balance.
In winning India as an ally, we benefit from early signs of favoritism. We ought to want to convince India that we are their friends because we approve of and admire their devotion to freedom and human liberty. Pakistan is a dictatorship, and one we support only because the alternatives are worse (for now). India is a free nation based on an excellent model, and a friendship between our countries -- like the friendship with our most reliable ally, Australia -- can be one of the heart. We need friends like that in Asia.
Is there a political risk of losing Pakistan at this critical time? Possibly. They have been pursuing a closer relationship with China, and it is possible that they could be driven to prefer Chinese aid to US aid in the future. They would remain tied to the international system, though, rather than becoming a new Afghanistan: the Chinese are also threatened by the Islamists taking over a country they are depending on for naval access to the Persian Gulf, and will support the government in much the same fashion as we would. We benefit from getting a dictatorship off our tab, as it were; if it is necessary to prop up an unfree state, as it may be on occasion, by all means let China do it instead of us. It is proper, that the US should find a way to be on the side of freedom even in this difficult situation.
So: on balance, I think this nuclear deal is a good idea. I suggest to the readers that we give it our support.
More on Islam
More on Islam:
Yet he has also closed newspapers in Malaysia that have printed the Danish cartoons, stories about the Danish cartoons, or even cartoons about the cartoons. His government has asserted that it means to be equal-opportunity about this: it will close newspapers that say bad things about Jesus, too. That is a moderate position, but it is not a position consistent with liberty, or likely to lead us to mutual understanding. It attempts to avoid flashpoints, by silencing anyone who would explore the underlying problems.
On what foundations, then, are these bridges to be built? If what underlies them is not solid -- if people have reservations they have not been allowed to voice and have answered, or even considered -- how will such bridges bear any weight?
Badawi himself invokes a long set of complaints against the West, both past and present, in his speech. Perhaps he was playing to the crowd, which included a number of what pass for "dignitaries" these days, including figures from Zimbabwe and Iran. Some of these complaints are ritual (as the Malaysians themselves are aware), rituals that have to be performed so that you can get to the business at hand -- not only in the Muslim world, but closer to home as well. In Mexico, for example, the government has so long encouraged anti-Americanism in state education that it now has to frame issues as 'shoving our independence in the eye of evil America' even when what it desires to do is move into closer cooperation with America. Americans by and large don't notice, and so the anti-American rhetoric functions as a lubricant. It makes it easier for the Mexican government to do what it wants, but what it has taught its people to suspect as servile submission to a domineering neighbor. They still cooperate, but they have made their prominent display of independence, so their people don't notice so much that they're doing just what America would want.
By the same token, we don't really notice in America when even genuine moderates like Abdullah invoke "global hegemony" and accuse us of "systematically caus[ing] innocent children, women and men to be killed[.]" It is only grease for the wheel, which allows his audience to be receptive when he says that "I hold the strong view that in the case of Islam, those who deliberately kill non-combatants and the innocent; those who oppress and exploit others; those who are corrupt and greedy; those who are chauvinistic and communal, do not speak on behalf of Islam."
He has established his independence with the posturing display of rhetoric, and now can move them closer to us. So long as we do not notice the display, it will not push us further away.
Yet now we have noticed, this and other similar things. We have to make a choice about them. We can choose to be pushed away, which will keep the chasm open between Islam and the West. Or, we can choose to take the blow for what it is worth: to "turn the other cheek," that is to say, and pursue the good that these moderates are trying to create in spite of the ritual insults.
As this is the West, we cannot do that through silence and pretending not to notice. That is not our way. But we can do it by saying, "I feel those charges are unfair (for these reasons); but I understand you are attempting to lay the foundation for furthering good will, and so I will not respond with attacks of my own." We can point to the genuine concerns we have -- free expression and inquiry are our right and heritage, and we both can and should speak plainly -- without using language like "evil religion."
When others who do feel that they can only speak plainly by saying such things, Westerners should not silence them. Instead, we reply, and try to say -- as BlackFive and I have tried to say -- that it is not a fair, nor a complete picture.
None of this is easy, but many things that are best in life are not easy. I mentioned Richard and Saladin before, but let me try another one closer to home. In the South we tell our children that the great Robert E. Lee went about before war became certain, arguing against it and trying to keep it from breaking into ruinous conflict. He did, and many others did also; and when they failed, at last, the South found in them its staunchest defenders.
BlackFive, likewise, is a warrior who should be heeded. He does not say these things out of fear of Islam, or ignorance of it. If Richard and Saladin failed to make their peace, and General Lee could make his only after terrible war, let us learn instead, and show our strength by honesty and forgiveness in the hope of avoiding a greater, wider war. There may still be time.
Another quote from the BlackFive piece:
But rational, tolerant people do live in Muslim countries. I know they do. I have friends in Turkey, Jordan, India, and Indonesia (and here in the States) that are socially liberal moderates who are devoutly Muslim. Not to mention muslim soldiers of countries that I've served with and trained with...And they are terrified of both the extremists in their lands and our deaf ears here in the States.Today, Wretchard of the Belmont Club puts together a few stories that show a Left-Right unity in Europe on that Tipping Point:
How in the hell did we get here?
You can blame our media for displaying the worst of the Islamic extremists daily (and for bowing to the pressure of the worst of them - they're cartoons for crying out loud), and you can also blame the theocracies for feeding the blood lust and keeping their followers uneducated and duped in order to retain or build power. You can blame their governments for not protecting the moderates and the socially liberal among their societies. You can blame the rich oil sheiks for playing geopolitical games with their billions. And you can blame the moderates themselves for being cowards, much like the cowards in our own country who acquiesce at the first sign of a fight - whether that fight is taking down a murdering tyrant or cow-towing to the Politically Correct Police.
Glenn Reynolds wrote an excellent short piece on Sunday about the Tipping Point where Americans just don't trust (all) Muslims anymore. Apparently, we've had enough.
Have we?
Have we had enough BS from the extremists to taint our feelings towards every Muslim in the world? Have we let the media influence us so?
twelve public figures have issued a Manifesto calling "Islamism" the new totalitarian threat of our time. Atlas Shrugs has the text of the declaration.... [which] has been signed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq....This morning I see a story from the University of California, Irvine:
Gateway Pundit points to a new ad campaign being undertaken in Poland by an organization called the "Foundation of St. Benedictus" which calls attention to ordinary men and women being killed for religious reasons all over the world by a militant Islam. They are plastering posters on Polish public transportation. Some examples are shown below.
Tensions quickly escalated when the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the conservative Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, said that Islam was an "evil religion" and that all Muslims hate America.Concern over this schism is not limited to the Western world. In Malaysia last month, there was a conference called "Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West?" Some disagreeable characters showed up to speak there, too, but also some genuine moderates, such as Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. Badawi proposed the building of bridges between Muslim and Westerner, with the hope that we might speak up for one another:
People repeatedly interrupted the talk and, at one point, campus police removed two men, one of them a Muslim, after they nearly came to blows.
Later, panelists were cheered when they referred to Muslims as fascists and accused mainstream Muslim-American civil rights groups of being "cheerleaders for terror."
"[W]hen the bridge-builders reign supreme, the people of the West will speak for Islam and the Muslims will speak for the West."I have tried to do so, below. But we cannot stop at just saying nice things, and trying to pretend the differences do not exist. Abdullah Badawi is a moderate, certainly: he has gone far and wide preaching for what he calls "Civilizational Islam," an Islam that devotes itself to technology and education and rejects violence.
Yet he has also closed newspapers in Malaysia that have printed the Danish cartoons, stories about the Danish cartoons, or even cartoons about the cartoons. His government has asserted that it means to be equal-opportunity about this: it will close newspapers that say bad things about Jesus, too. That is a moderate position, but it is not a position consistent with liberty, or likely to lead us to mutual understanding. It attempts to avoid flashpoints, by silencing anyone who would explore the underlying problems.
On what foundations, then, are these bridges to be built? If what underlies them is not solid -- if people have reservations they have not been allowed to voice and have answered, or even considered -- how will such bridges bear any weight?
Badawi himself invokes a long set of complaints against the West, both past and present, in his speech. Perhaps he was playing to the crowd, which included a number of what pass for "dignitaries" these days, including figures from Zimbabwe and Iran. Some of these complaints are ritual (as the Malaysians themselves are aware), rituals that have to be performed so that you can get to the business at hand -- not only in the Muslim world, but closer to home as well. In Mexico, for example, the government has so long encouraged anti-Americanism in state education that it now has to frame issues as 'shoving our independence in the eye of evil America' even when what it desires to do is move into closer cooperation with America. Americans by and large don't notice, and so the anti-American rhetoric functions as a lubricant. It makes it easier for the Mexican government to do what it wants, but what it has taught its people to suspect as servile submission to a domineering neighbor. They still cooperate, but they have made their prominent display of independence, so their people don't notice so much that they're doing just what America would want.
By the same token, we don't really notice in America when even genuine moderates like Abdullah invoke "global hegemony" and accuse us of "systematically caus[ing] innocent children, women and men to be killed[.]" It is only grease for the wheel, which allows his audience to be receptive when he says that "I hold the strong view that in the case of Islam, those who deliberately kill non-combatants and the innocent; those who oppress and exploit others; those who are corrupt and greedy; those who are chauvinistic and communal, do not speak on behalf of Islam."
He has established his independence with the posturing display of rhetoric, and now can move them closer to us. So long as we do not notice the display, it will not push us further away.
Yet now we have noticed, this and other similar things. We have to make a choice about them. We can choose to be pushed away, which will keep the chasm open between Islam and the West. Or, we can choose to take the blow for what it is worth: to "turn the other cheek," that is to say, and pursue the good that these moderates are trying to create in spite of the ritual insults.
As this is the West, we cannot do that through silence and pretending not to notice. That is not our way. But we can do it by saying, "I feel those charges are unfair (for these reasons); but I understand you are attempting to lay the foundation for furthering good will, and so I will not respond with attacks of my own." We can point to the genuine concerns we have -- free expression and inquiry are our right and heritage, and we both can and should speak plainly -- without using language like "evil religion."
When others who do feel that they can only speak plainly by saying such things, Westerners should not silence them. Instead, we reply, and try to say -- as BlackFive and I have tried to say -- that it is not a fair, nor a complete picture.
None of this is easy, but many things that are best in life are not easy. I mentioned Richard and Saladin before, but let me try another one closer to home. In the South we tell our children that the great Robert E. Lee went about before war became certain, arguing against it and trying to keep it from breaking into ruinous conflict. He did, and many others did also; and when they failed, at last, the South found in them its staunchest defenders.
BlackFive, likewise, is a warrior who should be heeded. He does not say these things out of fear of Islam, or ignorance of it. If Richard and Saladin failed to make their peace, and General Lee could make his only after terrible war, let us learn instead, and show our strength by honesty and forgiveness in the hope of avoiding a greater, wider war. There may still be time.
MilTracker
MilTracker:
Our friend Phil Van Treuren (who is now signing his emails "Officer Candidate" Van Treuren -- good for the Army, in recognizing his potential) has opened up a site called MilTracker. You might want to have a look at it, if you're interested in news that honors the American military.
Islam Talk
On Islam:
Pakistan worries about what might happen if the uneducated, tribal groups should gain control of the state from the educated class. They are right to worry: but we should also remember that the educated class exists, and are natural allies of ours. This is not to say that they have the same interests: as I just finished saying, they have almost always different ones. But it is to say that the parts of Islam that worry us also worry them, and are a bigger threat to them than to us. We, alike, want to see that population educated and lifted into what we think of as the modern world.
At my wedding, one of my groomsman was a Muslim: a Scot who had converted from Presbyterianism. Yet he did not refuse friendship with non-Muslims, any more than had these Pakistani Muslims, regardless of what prohibitions may be in Islamic law. We have all read of such things, and they have a hold on the imagination of the radicals. Yet I have seen that it is not always that way, and that there are many Muslims who wish to be, and can be, good friends.
In China, I lived in a foreign residence hall at Zhejiang University -- this is where many of the few foreigners in the city of HangZhou were kept. We came from all over the world, centralized in one building because China wanted to keep watch on any foreigners in their country. There was little in the way of a common language: most people there spoke little or no English; most yet spoke little or no Chinese. I could manage French with the West Africans, who spoke it far better than I did.
Buddhists and Hindus and Christians all lived there, but there was no obvious community to them. Not so the Muslims. We talk a lot about the tribal aspects of much of those parts of the Islamic world where there is trouble, and indeed, much of Islam is still tribal. Yet it is also the case that Islam is the bridge across that tribalism, and an effective one. The Muslims -- from Pakistan, from Africa, from island nations, wherever they came from -- banded together at once in a bond of friendship. They washed and prayed together daily; they never failed, that I witnessed, to share equally food or cigarettes or whatever was needed by their brother Muslims.
Christians said and did little in the way of such things, knowing how the ever-present authorities in Communist China looks with suspicion on faith; but the Muslims prayed fearlessly and in public. If they had lost their scholarships and been thrown out of the country, particularly the Africans, it would have meant real poverty and a collapse of their dreams: but they never let that stop them. That was a high and fine thing to see, prayer in defiance of fear.
There is much good to be said for Islam. I will not hesistate to say it. I do not think Islam is a true faith, but that is for me to decide only for me. The road forward for the West is not to tear down the Crescent, but to raise up our own banners again. We are called, not to defile what they believe, but to recover again our own faith. We must, if we are to see the freedoms and virtues of the West survive into the next century and beyond.
Yet, in becoming a defender of the West, do not make yourself an enemy of Islam. Richard the Lionheart fought against the Muslim warriors more than most of us shall ever do, and yet he came to respect and honor Saladin. No Muslim every fought harder or more successfully against the West's armies, yet Saladin came to love and honor not only Richard but Western knighthood. That must be the model for us: defiant to the very last against any tyranny, Islamic or otherwise; yet prepared to be friends, in honorable disagreement, if we are received in friendship.
It is not impossible. I have been so received, now and then, and am proud and glad to say it.
UPDATE:
I've gotten a couple of whole-mailing-list emails lately from Muslim co-workers, inviting me to learn more about Islam. One of them invited me to attend a seminar; the other, advertised an upcoming History Channel special (which I won't watch because I do not have television). I have to admit that my initial response to both emails was irritation.
In the first place, I was irritated because workplace evangelizing is normally in bad taste. Discussing religion with interested co-workers is fine; nothing wrong with a free discussion. Trying to get everyone to come to your church and hear The Truth, however, is annoying to people -- regardless of which Truth is on offer. For one thing, if I want to go to your church, I can probably find the way on my own. For another, a mass email or a flier distributed to everyone is plainly not the work of a friend who cares about you and wants your salvation; they aren't even thinking about you, in terms of preparing arguments and considering your particular case. They're just beating the bushes, to see if any game flushes -- and I don't like to be treated like prey. You flush a grizzly bear, you might wish you hadn't.
In the second place, it seemed to me that this wasn't the month to be evangelizing on behalf of Islam. This seemed like a good month for embarrassed silence on behalf of American Muslims, what with the US Embassy being attacked in Jakarta, embassies of Denmark burned along with American and Danish flags, Muslims blowing up each other's shrines and holy places in Iraq (and other Muslims blaming America for it, as if the 101st Airborne hadn't permitted fire from the Shrine of Ali to go unanswered rather than attack the shrine in the early days of the Iraq war; and as if the US Army hadn't continued to do so during the uprising in Najaf, to the point that Mehdi Army mortarmen didn't even bother to fortify their positions in the shrine because they knew there would be no counterbattery fire), torture and murder in France, a scholarly conference on Islam in Holland that is considered a national security emergency (with death-threats in the dozens for thinkers who participate), Islamic countries attempting to derail intervention in Darfur that might stop the killing (by Muslims) of minorites (who aren't), worldwide riots over cartoons, the recent election of a terrorist group to the leadership of Palestine, etc., etc.
One can go on essentially forever. If I were a Muslim, I'd be feeling pretty quiet just now. So, when I got instead a couple of mass emails directed at "educating" me about Islam, I was irritated by them. "This isn't the week," I thought, "for teaching me about the glories of Islam."
Yet as I think about it more, I believe I was being unfair. I have known these people for years. They're not evangelizing: they've never approached me before, nor to my knowledge have they ever been interested before now in pushing educational efforts of this sort. Also, they too are aware of the news, just as I am. It is not an accident that they suddenly became interested in outreach at this time.
They're scared.
They are afraid of what lessons you and I are learning from the news. They're afraid of the outrage over the ports deal in a way that they weren't afraid of the outrage over 9/11. They're afraid of the hostility directed at America by Muslims worldwide, and about the hostility increasingly -- and rationally -- felt by Americans toward much of worldwide Islam. They want us to know that there is a lot more to Islam that what is appearing in the news, that there is a beautiful and a peaceful side to it that has informed and brightened their lives.
Fair enough: America wants the Islamic world to know that there's a lot more to America than what they see on the news, particularly if they get their news from the conspiracists who seem to run the press in so many parts of the world. Yet, just as Karen Hughes has made a poor messenger to Islam, so too these efforts by Muslims to reach out to us are ineffective. They rather too obviously come from outsiders; they are rather too obviously biased. We might, and they might, be susceptible to an independent reading -- or a positive reading from one of our own. But tensions are too high for a sermon from within the other's camp.
So I'm going to tell you what I know about Islam. I think it's important that they have an advocate in one of us: and I will take up that cause, which is not my own, out of sympathy and a desire to ease the fear they feel. It is right to do this, as at least the fictional Lionheart held:
"I should in that case hold you," replied the yeoman, "a friend to the weaker party."The first Muslim friends I had I met in college. Most of them were from Pakistan. Pakistan is divided sharply between its ruling, educated class and the classes and tribes that are not. These were of the educated sort: military men, some of them, including a good friend I had who was an F-16 pilot. He was brave and smart and clever, as a fighter pilot ought to be; and well read, as a college student ought to be (but so rarely is). I enjoyed the conversations, which were challenging because they arose from a genuinely different point of view: their embedded interests in every political question were those of the Third, rather than the First world; those of Muslims, rather than the Christians I had mostly known; those of Pakistan, rather than America. They were a challenge, but an intellectual one. They were capable of, interested in, and passionate about intellectual inquiry and argument.
"Such is the duty of a true knight at least," replied the Black Champion.
Pakistan worries about what might happen if the uneducated, tribal groups should gain control of the state from the educated class. They are right to worry: but we should also remember that the educated class exists, and are natural allies of ours. This is not to say that they have the same interests: as I just finished saying, they have almost always different ones. But it is to say that the parts of Islam that worry us also worry them, and are a bigger threat to them than to us. We, alike, want to see that population educated and lifted into what we think of as the modern world.
At my wedding, one of my groomsman was a Muslim: a Scot who had converted from Presbyterianism. Yet he did not refuse friendship with non-Muslims, any more than had these Pakistani Muslims, regardless of what prohibitions may be in Islamic law. We have all read of such things, and they have a hold on the imagination of the radicals. Yet I have seen that it is not always that way, and that there are many Muslims who wish to be, and can be, good friends.
In China, I lived in a foreign residence hall at Zhejiang University -- this is where many of the few foreigners in the city of HangZhou were kept. We came from all over the world, centralized in one building because China wanted to keep watch on any foreigners in their country. There was little in the way of a common language: most people there spoke little or no English; most yet spoke little or no Chinese. I could manage French with the West Africans, who spoke it far better than I did.
Buddhists and Hindus and Christians all lived there, but there was no obvious community to them. Not so the Muslims. We talk a lot about the tribal aspects of much of those parts of the Islamic world where there is trouble, and indeed, much of Islam is still tribal. Yet it is also the case that Islam is the bridge across that tribalism, and an effective one. The Muslims -- from Pakistan, from Africa, from island nations, wherever they came from -- banded together at once in a bond of friendship. They washed and prayed together daily; they never failed, that I witnessed, to share equally food or cigarettes or whatever was needed by their brother Muslims.
Christians said and did little in the way of such things, knowing how the ever-present authorities in Communist China looks with suspicion on faith; but the Muslims prayed fearlessly and in public. If they had lost their scholarships and been thrown out of the country, particularly the Africans, it would have meant real poverty and a collapse of their dreams: but they never let that stop them. That was a high and fine thing to see, prayer in defiance of fear.
There is much good to be said for Islam. I will not hesistate to say it. I do not think Islam is a true faith, but that is for me to decide only for me. The road forward for the West is not to tear down the Crescent, but to raise up our own banners again. We are called, not to defile what they believe, but to recover again our own faith. We must, if we are to see the freedoms and virtues of the West survive into the next century and beyond.
Yet, in becoming a defender of the West, do not make yourself an enemy of Islam. Richard the Lionheart fought against the Muslim warriors more than most of us shall ever do, and yet he came to respect and honor Saladin. No Muslim every fought harder or more successfully against the West's armies, yet Saladin came to love and honor not only Richard but Western knighthood. That must be the model for us: defiant to the very last against any tyranny, Islamic or otherwise; yet prepared to be friends, in honorable disagreement, if we are received in friendship.
It is not impossible. I have been so received, now and then, and am proud and glad to say it.
UPDATE:
It appears BlackFive and I are on the same page again:
After the first crusaders took Jerusalem in the eleventh century, a Kurd Sunni from Tikrit by the name of Saladin took it and much of the crusader gained territory back. Saladin, even seen as a conquering enemy, was revered by European courts for his grace, kindness and intelligence. They regarded him as a Knight. In actuality, he embodied more of the gentle and honorable traits of a Knight than most of the European gentry sent off to rid the world of non-Christians.Well said.
In the Reverse Crusades, our Saladin is not a "who", but a "what". Our Saladin must be the idea that all men and women were created equal and free.
We need to wage both war and peace at the same time. Both require strength of will, both require passion and understanding. Both require love.
Hero Tales
Hero Tales:
After Hitchen's manifestation of last Friday, I cut directly down the hill to where it ran to water, a long and pretty stream called Rock Creek. It stretches through the capital, a basin between the cities that is left green and fertile; it winds beneath the mighty Taft bridge, a magnificient structure decorated with lions and copper. I walked the length of the park from the Danish embassy to the National Zoo.
While I was proceeding along the creek, I remembered something I read a while ago: the introduction to Hero Tales: How Common Lives Reveal the Heroic Spirit of America. The subtitle is not honest: there is nothing common about the lives detailed within the book, nor about its authors. Those authors were Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Cabot Lodge.
The introduction to this edition was written by George Grant of Bannockburn College (the Bannockburn! Another name resonant in the history of liberty). In it, Grant reminds us that Roosevelt and Lodge took regular walks together along Rock Creek a century ago, pondering the history of the Republic, and the right way to champion and further its principles.
What they came up with was this book, a collection of essays about great Americans. You could do worse for reading matter: and, at less than nine dollars' price, I feel confident in promising that you won't find a richer treasure at a smaller cost. Daniel Boone, Washington, Davy Crockett and the Alamo, the cruise of the Wasp and "Damn the Torpedos!," Stony Point and King's Mountain, "Stonewall" Jackson and General Sheridan, Robert Gould Shaw and Francis Parkman, these and more are capped with an essay on the life of Lincoln.
Every American ought to read it, the more if they have been educated by those modern historians who present 19th century America in the solitary light of the oppression of the Indians, the breaking of unions, slavery and corporate greed. If you want to hear the other side, written by men -- genuine progressives! -- who loved and defended their country, here it is.
UN, Save US! Heh.
A Call for Revolution:
A call to storm the White House and institute a UN-led government in the United States, brought to you by CODEPINK, "Not In Our Name," the Communist Party, and the letter X.
I note that the White House is protected by the Secret Service, and a detachment of United States Marines.
I know where I'll be putting my money on any wagers as to the success of this little "revolution."
Pay Up
Pay Up, Jew:
I have never been a great supporter of Israel; as far as I can tell, the US has no interest in whether or not there is a Jewish homeland around Jerusalem. On the other hand, I think Israel has done a notable job of defending itself, and has won its right to exist on the battlefield -- where, I don't doubt, it can continue to defend it.
Still, while I don't see any reason why the US should go to great lengths on behalf of Israel, surely we shouldn't be going to great lengths to prop up Hamas either. Israel has no duty to support Hamas. It may choose to do so, but I can't imagine why it would. If the US, the EU or the UN came to me and told me that I had a duty to support people who wanted to kill me, I would be inclined to laugh in their face. Nor will I blame the people of Israel for doing so, should our President make any such suggestion.
I realize this has been an issue for a little while, but for some reason this story from the AP strikes me as particularly funny:
International envoy James Wolfensohn hasSo, let me see if I understand this correctly: Israel is meant to pay tens of millions of dollars to Hamas, which has promised to destroy Israel as soon as possible? And the EU, US, and UN are meant to help pressure them to do so?
warned Mideast mediators that the Palestinian Authority is in danger of
financial collapse within two weeks, largely because Israel has stopped the
flow of tens of millions of dollars to the incoming Hamas government,
according to a letter The Associated Press obtained Monday.
Without the money from Israel, the Palestinian Authority will not be
able to pay wages, and that could have a destablizing effect on the region,
Wolfensohn wrote to the Quartet of international mediators -- the U.S., EU,
U.N. and Russia -- which he represents.
"I know I do not need to tell each of you that the failure to pay
salaries may have wide-ranging consequences -- not only for the Palestinian
economy, but also for security and stability for both the Palestinians and
the Israelis," the letter said.
I have never been a great supporter of Israel; as far as I can tell, the US has no interest in whether or not there is a Jewish homeland around Jerusalem. On the other hand, I think Israel has done a notable job of defending itself, and has won its right to exist on the battlefield -- where, I don't doubt, it can continue to defend it.
Still, while I don't see any reason why the US should go to great lengths on behalf of Israel, surely we shouldn't be going to great lengths to prop up Hamas either. Israel has no duty to support Hamas. It may choose to do so, but I can't imagine why it would. If the US, the EU or the UN came to me and told me that I had a duty to support people who wanted to kill me, I would be inclined to laugh in their face. Nor will I blame the people of Israel for doing so, should our President make any such suggestion.
Manifest
The Manifestation:
I sewed the White Cross of Denmark to the left shoulder of my coat, and went down to Christopher Hitchen's rally in support of Denmark today, at the Danish Embassy in D.C. (Evidence: Grim is the man in the Stetson on top of the hill in the first photograph). I have three things to say about it.
First, the fellow referred to as "the man" in Corsair's photos was a sergeant with the uniform division of the U.S. Secret Service. He actually said the cleverest thing I heard anyone say at the rally, while trying to get people to stand clear of the neighboring embassy's driveway so that a white Lexus could back out into the street. After several failed attempts to get the crowd's attention, he loudly called out:
"ATTENTION! FEMALE... BACKING... UP!"
That worked wonderfully well. I paused to thank the sergeant for coming out to watch over the rally as I was leaving. He took off his glove to shake my hand.
Second, Wonkette is right to note that the rally was mostly staffed by people who had probably never attended such a thing before. I certainly had not. Mr. Hitchens and his companions are old Leftist warriors, of course, and knew what such things are meant to look like; but they were very much in the minority, and most of the people preferred to stand silently and with some dignity.
There is a difference between a protest and a rally of this type, anyway. The protest is intended to influence government policy through extralegal means. That is not to say illegal ones, nor even immoral ones: but the protest is not part of the legal process of elections, debates, and the like. It is meant to convey an impression that there is a large constituency that will be angry if not appeased, in the hope that politicians will get nervous and start appeasing. It has failed as a mode in America, because it has become evident over the years that no group with enough time and energy to protest can be very large. Americans, for the most part, have more important things to do with what time is left to us.
A rally to express friendship and support, by contrast, isn't trying to change anything. It's only meant to convey a message of companionship. I imagine that many Danes are shocked to wake up and find that their flags are being burned alongside American and Israeli ones across the world now; but there they are, whether they wanted or planned to be. All I wanted to express was the sense that, though they might not have chosen this company, they would find here loyal and faithful companions who would stand beside them gladly in defense of our common liberty.
Third, a personal remark. While I was standing in the crowd, a fat man in a black open crown hat was cheerfully explaining to someone he'd just met why he felt the war in Iraq was unhelpful to the common cause. He's free to feel that way, and it goes to show that support for freedom of speech, conscience and the press is not limited to only one side of the spectrum. Nevertheless, I grew somewhat angry at the point where he began, "I attended a classified briefing at the Pentagon, me and..." and carried on revealing certain details of it to buttress his theories.
It would have been churlish, at a rally devoted to freedom of speech, to silence this man by strangling him with his tie. I supposed it would have been illegal, also, and I am a man with a certain respect for the law.
Still, if he should happen to read this, allow me to suggest that his proposed formula for measuring the difficulty in Iraq ("...and that explains 90% of what's gone wrong," he finished) does not leave nearly enough room to account for the harm caused by the ill-keeping of America's secrets by those who have sworn to do so. Perhaps he thought himself clever enough to know what part of the classified information he was discussing would be of no use to the enemy. He was not, and even if he were, I will wager any sum of money that his agreements allowing him access to the information did not include a clause permitting him to make the judgment.
One fellow nearby turned to him at one point, and began a reply: "I couldn't help but overhear." Indeed, sir, none of us could. The man should be ashamed.
But that is an internal American dispute, not relevant to the business of the day. Here's to the Danes, and the Mark! We will ride with you gladly, into whatever this brings. Neither you nor we would have chosen it, yet we shall see it through together.
COUNTER-Insurgency:
The COUNTERCOLUMN has a lengthy, and excellent, piece on US Army efforts to build and improve counterinsurgency training. Short version: the Army in Iraq is doing a great job; the Army back home is falling down. The Captain explains several places where it could improve, and looks at a good reading list.
My only suggestion is that he may underestimate Clausewitz as a resource for understanding Iraq.
Mosque Bombing
The Askariya Mosque:
That is the bad news. We have to adjust that calculation by noting that both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders, including especially al Sistani, have called for calm. We can further adjust our idea of the odds by getting a sense of who is being blamed for the attacks: Omar's initial reaction that "foreign" terrorists had to be responsible, as no Iraqi would do such a thing, is mirrored by Iran's reaction and similar reactions from other hostile clerics:
I have a last thing to say about it. Several articles have noted Sistani's "warning" that Shi'ite militias might undertake guarding the shrines if the Iraqi government could not protect them. Given the role of militias in the sectarian violence, that is obviously worrisome to some. Yet we ought to remember that all such militias are not the same: Sadr's "Madhi army," or what remains of it, is one thing; Sistani's own forces, under his leadership, another. This is an opportunity to give honor and shift prestige among those various militias, by choosing one and giving it the task Sistani envisions for it.
After all, why shouldn't Shi'ites protect their holy sites? Much like the Swiss Guard protects the Vatican, it makes perfect sense for the holiest sites to be protected by believers. It would be entirely sensible for the Iraqi government to recognize that fact, and give control of a small piece of ground surrounding (say) the Shrine of Ali and other critical mosques to a selected religious militia, one that was relatively trustworthy. That would raise that particular militia's prestige among those Shi'a likely to join militias, which would tend to be stabilizing; also, it would create a precedent that the government had the authority to choose (and could therefore replace) which militia could fulfill that duty.
It would also create a buffer for the government in the case of a future successful attack. Because the primary responsibility for preventing attacks in these mosques would belong to the sectarian group, there will be less popular blame and dissatisfaction with the Iraqi police. Consider the alternative: another successful attack, after the government had taken steps to prevent the militias from adopting a defensive posture.
The enemy will not cease attempting to attack; it is probable that there will someday be another success. If that day comes, the government will be better positioned to handle it if it has this buffer than if it does not.
It has been the insurgent's primary strategy for quite some time to divide Shi'ite and Sunni through attacks. More than two years ago now, Zarqawi's letter advocating the instigation of a civil war in Iraq was captured by Coalition forces. When you are fighting a disciplined and dedicated enemy, now and then they will land a blow in spite of all efforts. What remains is to consider the damage, and decide how to repair the wounds as best we can.
First, the damage. Omar reports that both Sunni and Shi'ite mosques in Baghdad were protesting the attack yesterday. Bill Roggio provides a fact sheet on the damaged shrine, and also a useful point of speculation:
The Byzantine political situation in Iraq has just become more chaotic with the destruction of the Golden Mosque, but it also may provide an opportunity for Sunnis and Shiites to see just how close to the abyss they are with respect to a civil war, and work towards avoiding such a situation through political means. The Shiites currently control the levers of power in Iraq, including the military and police apparatuses, and could easily decimate Sunni mosques and cities if they so desired. The Sunnis have far more to lose by a sectarian war than the Shiites, and they know this. al-Qaeda may have scored a short term gain with yet another shocking display of violence, but this could be another miscalculation that further alienates them in the eyes of the Iraqi people.What are the odds of that? We can calculate them only partially by observing the sectarian violence. More dangerous is the news that the main Sunni political group has responded by suspending its participation in the negotiations as to the government's formation: that has to be the first thing to be fixed.
That is the bad news. We have to adjust that calculation by noting that both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders, including especially al Sistani, have called for calm. We can further adjust our idea of the odds by getting a sense of who is being blamed for the attacks: Omar's initial reaction that "foreign" terrorists had to be responsible, as no Iraqi would do such a thing, is mirrored by Iran's reaction and similar reactions from other hostile clerics:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, says the US and Israel blew up the Shia shrine in Iraq.... Shaikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, a leader Sunni scholar, said: "We cannot imagine that the Iraqi Sunnis did this. No one benefits from such acts other than the US occupation and the lurking Zionist enemy."While it's never good to have false charges aimed at you, there is a silver lining to both of these statements. They indicate a general sense in the region that foreign, rather than Iraqi, elements carried out the bombing. If that is the common understanding among most Muslims, what will become important is evidence as to which elements -- al Qaeda, or the US/Zionist menace -- were responsible. The evidence will not demonstrate that the US was responsible, because the US was not responsible. Therefore, we must adjust our odds in this way: if the evidence shows that foreign terrorist groups were responsible, the public's mental ground should be fertile for receiving that information. Such evidence would tend to create out of this a unifying rather than a divisive trend for in the medium to long term, immediate sectarian violence notwithstanding.
I have a last thing to say about it. Several articles have noted Sistani's "warning" that Shi'ite militias might undertake guarding the shrines if the Iraqi government could not protect them. Given the role of militias in the sectarian violence, that is obviously worrisome to some. Yet we ought to remember that all such militias are not the same: Sadr's "Madhi army," or what remains of it, is one thing; Sistani's own forces, under his leadership, another. This is an opportunity to give honor and shift prestige among those various militias, by choosing one and giving it the task Sistani envisions for it.
After all, why shouldn't Shi'ites protect their holy sites? Much like the Swiss Guard protects the Vatican, it makes perfect sense for the holiest sites to be protected by believers. It would be entirely sensible for the Iraqi government to recognize that fact, and give control of a small piece of ground surrounding (say) the Shrine of Ali and other critical mosques to a selected religious militia, one that was relatively trustworthy. That would raise that particular militia's prestige among those Shi'a likely to join militias, which would tend to be stabilizing; also, it would create a precedent that the government had the authority to choose (and could therefore replace) which militia could fulfill that duty.
It would also create a buffer for the government in the case of a future successful attack. Because the primary responsibility for preventing attacks in these mosques would belong to the sectarian group, there will be less popular blame and dissatisfaction with the Iraqi police. Consider the alternative: another successful attack, after the government had taken steps to prevent the militias from adopting a defensive posture.
The enemy will not cease attempting to attack; it is probable that there will someday be another success. If that day comes, the government will be better positioned to handle it if it has this buffer than if it does not.
Italy Rape
Rape, Italy, Violence:
Cotillion blogger Zendo Deb offers some advice to women on how to avoid similar problems, but her advice will only serve for those of you who are of age. Cotillion blogger Little Miss Attila has actually suffered a similar experience at a similar age, and has some other thoughts as well.
Zendo Deb also has a post on the civil rights movement, including an important group that has been all but forgotten.
Also at Cassandra's place, the Cotillion is having its regular festival. It includes several interesting pieces, including one I had meant to look up anyway. Another complaint of Sovay's when I saw her this weekend was an Italian rape case of which I'd not heard. The details were so odd that I wondered if there was some aspect that wasn't clear; but no, it seems to be that there's just no excuse for it.
Italy's highest court ruled Friday that a man who raped the 14-year-old daughter of his girlfriend can seek to have his sentenced reduced because the girl was sexually active, news reports said.The girl was thirteen at the time. Why the forcible rape of a minor is not a capital crime is lost on me; apparently community standards are different in Italy.
Cotillion blogger Zendo Deb offers some advice to women on how to avoid similar problems, but her advice will only serve for those of you who are of age. Cotillion blogger Little Miss Attila has actually suffered a similar experience at a similar age, and has some other thoughts as well.
Zendo Deb also has a post on the civil rights movement, including an important group that has been all but forgotten.
Showdown:
If you're still in the mood for a long and thoughtful post on a difficult problem, our Cassidy has one over at her other place.
As I said in the comments there, I think she's right on about the problem being rooted in radical individualism. But you'll see what she said, and why I said so, through the link.
Dishonor
Honor & Dishonor:
Was it fair? I tried to be fair; and in the final analysis, the truth may not be knowable on these disputed matters. We have to decide what to believe based on the men involved, as well as the evidence that is available.
Why, then, do I feel confident in condemning Kerry as dishonorable? It is not, in fact, for any of the disputed reasons at all. It is for the reasons that are not in dispute:
1) John Kerry met with representatives of the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, and conducted negotiations with them on a treaty -- "the People's Peace Treaty." He did this while a serving Naval officer, and used that position to attempt to further the treaty's acceptance by the US Congress. The man does not deny this; it is not in dispute. Indeed, he testified to it before the Senate. At the least, this was dishonorable behavior; I would not be opposed to seeing it deemed treason under the Constitution, and brought to trial.
2) John Kerry collected more than a hundred thousand dollars of pay as a Senator in direct violation of Federal law. As a Senator, he was of course in a position to change the law governing how Senators can be paid, and for what purposes they may be absent and still collect pay. A man could argue reasonably that a Senator is performing a needed public service by campaigning for President, since we need Presidents and a Senator might be qualified. However, the law is what it is; the roll shows what it shows; and he has not returned the people's money, to which he is not entitled. He is a thief, and it is the worse for him that he is one of the richest men in the country. Again, this is not in dispute.
3) Kerry testifies that he was a war criminal, who indiscriminately murdered civilians. An officer is required by military law to refuse illegal orders -- indeed, any serviceman is. It is a moral as well as a legal obligation. There is no dispute -- it is the man's own word.
I could go on, but the point is surely made. The things that annoyed me were the things I myself observed the man doing and saying: it was not that I disagreed with him, but that he was behaving as a dishonorable scoundrel.
This is how I feel Kerry ought to be treated -- with utter contempt, that is, and yet still with the fairness of mind to cite such evidence, as Snopes, that is in his favor. Even to Kerry, I would not be unfair.
Contrast that, if you like, with how I treated Hackett: I endorsed him over his opponent, though I had to do so while explaining many reservations and disagreements on policy. I have held my tongue on Murtha, though I strongly disagree not only with what he said but with his having said it. I think it was bad for morale, and good for enemy morale; and those are things we ought to avoid in wartime. Yet he was a hero, and I have not forgotten his service, nor questioned his honor.
I have not questioned the honor of Colin Powell, but I have made light of his character on occasion; perhaps unfairly. He is another veteran with an impressive record, but it was not for his military service which led me to scoff at him. Nor was it because I disagreed with him -- it was precisely the moment at which I was most in agreement with him that has led me to lose respect for him. It was, in other words, his testimony before the UN on Iraq, which later proved to be laughably wrong on a number of points. General Powell claims that he was deceived by the intelligence services, and perhaps he was. I would like to believe it; but I find it difficult to forgive. There is no falsehood that offends me more than one I wanted to believe.
This has all troubled me greatly over the last few days. I have tried to formulate some rule, or guideline that would let us know when it is appropriate or right to question the honor of an apparently valorous man. There are times -- surely, far more times -- when we should not. Yet we have to be able to do so when it is critical, for the defense of the Republic's institutions.
My torment over the issue is similar, I suspect, to that felt by good Catholics who looked in horror on the priesthood scandals of a few years ago. The desire is to honor a kind of man -- a priest, a soldier -- who has nobly volunteered and sacrificed for the greater good. Yet the undeniable reality was that some had misused the honor of the uniform to cover their own flaws. One should not wish to question a soldier's honor, nor a priest's -- and yet, because we live in a bad world, we sometimes must.
I will propose these general guidelines for discussion. This is a difficult matter, and I will be glad of your advice.
1) A veteran's honor should not be questioned in any matter that is not important enough to kill or die over. This is not an advocation of violence, but only a rule of thumb for judging whether the matter is of sufficient weight: it ought to be as serious as a capital crime, or a war.
The stability of the Republic is such a matter; we have whole classes of men, including the soldiers themselves, whose job is just that. In terms of political office, I am not sure that any office except the Presidency is sufficiently powerful for the occupant to be able, himself, to threaten the stability of the Republic. The Supreme Court is perhaps the only other. I am sure that governors do not; I am sure that Representatives do not; and we have clear evidence that dishonorable men can serve in the Senate for decades without the place collapsing.
We might well choose to kill or die to protect our children from rape, to return to the argument from the evil men who had infiltrated the priesthood. We can therefore feel certain that we are not overreacting by questioning, and being certain of, the honor of men to whom we allow that kind of access to and control of our children.
The point of this guideline is to limit the field sharply. There have been too many examples lately of people questioning honor for purely political motives -- for example, to protect a preferred candidate for a Senate seat, or to score a political point in a debate (as in the case of Murtha). That is not acceptable: the Republic will not fall if you win or lose a debate. It might be endangered if the President were a dishonorable man, but if a debate or a vote is lost, you schedule another.
2) If you're going to question the honor of a veteran's record, it must be done according to the military's (or priesthood's) own standards. It is no good to say that Pappy Boyington was dishonorable because he killed many men; that was what his duty obligated him to do. If he held converse with the enemy, that is against the military's code of honor, and ought to be condemned.
3) If you're going to question a veteran's honor outside of his service record, it can be done according to any conception of honor, and need not rise to the level of guideline (1). If we were speaking of a man who had been a hero in the service, and yet had later murdered a man in Memphis, it is possible to separate the honor of his service from the murder. A recent example of this type: "Duke" Cunningham, a hero whose Vietnam service we admire; and whose theft of public monies we deplore.
4) It is best to observe the strictest standard of evidence and proof whenever questions of this type arise. A large raft of charges was floated against Kerry; some of them are passionately believed by men I respect. Yet I assign them to the category of things which cannot be proven; I judge Kerry only on the charges that he does not dispute, or which are based on plain facts that are not able to be disputed. If you are one of those with a passionate belief that you can't prove, that is fine as long as you recognize and admit to yourself that it is so; I recognize that my anger toward Powell may not be fair, but I am still angry. I doubt he could win my support for anything, yet when I discuss him with you, I point to his counterarguments as well as the facts I have observed.
These guidelines are meant as a start. Feel free to advise, or argue against them. The greater challenge is from the first trend, mentioned at the beginning of the piece -- the idea of honor being washed away entirely. Whatever we do about this second trend, it should be done in order to shore up the foundations of honor in American life. We need to be able to police it enough to keep it from being falsely used, but we need to respect it enough that it can serve as a shield when it is rightly won. The concept of honor needs defending. It cannot be defended if we do not take it seriously, and apply ourselves to upholding it fairly.
We have come to a point at which there is a lot of talk about whether our fighting men are praiseworthy or not. We are talking about honor, though few use the word: about what kinds of things are honorable, and what are dishonorable, and who deserves to be considered a praiseworthy man. There are some disturbing trends.
One of them, which I won't discuss at this time, is captured by a Belmont Club post, which points out two incidents of the trend: the Pappy Boyington matter mentioned below, and San Francisco's refusal to permit the USS Iowa to become a floating museum at their wharf. The last one is under negotiation still, Wretchard reports, with the San Francisco board of supervisors considering allowing the Iowa if they can have an annual peace conference on the ship "the kind in which the Iowa once participated when it was sailing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt around the world to negotiate the agreements to officially end World War II."
Wretchard points out the small fact that the USS Iowa actually ferried Roosevelt to a war conference, at which Operation Overloard's details were cemented. That did, of course, produce a peace of a sort -- the kind that the military is for. Honoring that kind of activity, warfighting for any purpose, is the objection that this trend encompasses. Holly Aho has another such monument: a planned Vancouver monument to US draft dodgers and their Canadian hosts.
That is the first disturbing trend. The second is what this post means to address: the question of whether and when military men ought to be treated as honorable -- when it is appropriate to question their honor, and by what standards they ought to be judged. This is a matter that is becoming important due to recent events.
I linked to the piece on Paul Hackett, who was subject to a whispering campaign within Democratic circles designed to paint him as a dishonorable abuser. But this is not isolated: Jack Murtha was attacked, and his war record questioned, by Democrats as well as, and particularly unfairly by, Republicans; the official Democratic Party in Minnesota is trying to ban a pair of ads being run by Iraqi veterans in favor of the war, calling them "un-American." I listened to the radio interview yesterday, and a supporter of the ban called up and told Lt. Col. Stephenson that he -- the colonel -- was a liar. Challenged to prove it, the man said, "Did I say lies, or did I say lies and misrepresentations?" The distinction is lost.
It does appear to be the case that, as Sovay complained to me the other day, people feel free to slander the honor of those with whom they disagree. The average person seems not to understand the concept of honor at all; if you agree with them, you must be a right and decent person, and if you do not, you must be a scoundrel.
Unfortunately, we can't insist on a blanket rule that war records are not to be questioned, or that the character of veterans is never to be attacked. There are times when it is necessary to do so -- that is, when the veteran in question really is a scoundrel, and it is important to demonstrate it lest the scoundrel be entrusted with a high and powerful office. I am of course thinking of John Kerry as I write that.
I try to be as respectful as I can when I write about Kerry, because I know that a lot of people voted for him and want to think well of him. "As respectful as I can" is, however, not at all respectful -- but I do try to give a fair hearing on questions pertaining to him, as in that post where I point readers to the Snopes page, as well as to AuthentiSEAL, whose lead investigator is someone I've known for years:
In fairness to the Senator, however, Snopes considers him clear of the fake-medals charge. Actually, they have a whole page for Kerry, most of which claims are rated false by Snopes. My own sense is based on a personal friendship, and high regard for the honor of that friend. I see no reason why my regard for Steve Robinson should be persuasive to anyone else, but for what it is worth, there it is.I note that Bush personally supported Kerry on this score during the campaign, even in a very closely run race. I likewise linked to Snopes during the campaign, though I also linked to the claims by the several veteran's organizations that questioned or challenged Kerry. The charges were serious, after all; and they were being made by good men. In the ancient Germanic system of oath-swearing, even the most honorable man's oath could be overridden if enough other honorable men swore the opposite. In the case of Kerry, the numbers were strongly against him, and I think we had to make note of that.
Was it fair? I tried to be fair; and in the final analysis, the truth may not be knowable on these disputed matters. We have to decide what to believe based on the men involved, as well as the evidence that is available.
Why, then, do I feel confident in condemning Kerry as dishonorable? It is not, in fact, for any of the disputed reasons at all. It is for the reasons that are not in dispute:
1) John Kerry met with representatives of the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, and conducted negotiations with them on a treaty -- "the People's Peace Treaty." He did this while a serving Naval officer, and used that position to attempt to further the treaty's acceptance by the US Congress. The man does not deny this; it is not in dispute. Indeed, he testified to it before the Senate. At the least, this was dishonorable behavior; I would not be opposed to seeing it deemed treason under the Constitution, and brought to trial.
2) John Kerry collected more than a hundred thousand dollars of pay as a Senator in direct violation of Federal law. As a Senator, he was of course in a position to change the law governing how Senators can be paid, and for what purposes they may be absent and still collect pay. A man could argue reasonably that a Senator is performing a needed public service by campaigning for President, since we need Presidents and a Senator might be qualified. However, the law is what it is; the roll shows what it shows; and he has not returned the people's money, to which he is not entitled. He is a thief, and it is the worse for him that he is one of the richest men in the country. Again, this is not in dispute.
3) Kerry testifies that he was a war criminal, who indiscriminately murdered civilians. An officer is required by military law to refuse illegal orders -- indeed, any serviceman is. It is a moral as well as a legal obligation. There is no dispute -- it is the man's own word.
I could go on, but the point is surely made. The things that annoyed me were the things I myself observed the man doing and saying: it was not that I disagreed with him, but that he was behaving as a dishonorable scoundrel.
This is how I feel Kerry ought to be treated -- with utter contempt, that is, and yet still with the fairness of mind to cite such evidence, as Snopes, that is in his favor. Even to Kerry, I would not be unfair.
Contrast that, if you like, with how I treated Hackett: I endorsed him over his opponent, though I had to do so while explaining many reservations and disagreements on policy. I have held my tongue on Murtha, though I strongly disagree not only with what he said but with his having said it. I think it was bad for morale, and good for enemy morale; and those are things we ought to avoid in wartime. Yet he was a hero, and I have not forgotten his service, nor questioned his honor.
I have not questioned the honor of Colin Powell, but I have made light of his character on occasion; perhaps unfairly. He is another veteran with an impressive record, but it was not for his military service which led me to scoff at him. Nor was it because I disagreed with him -- it was precisely the moment at which I was most in agreement with him that has led me to lose respect for him. It was, in other words, his testimony before the UN on Iraq, which later proved to be laughably wrong on a number of points. General Powell claims that he was deceived by the intelligence services, and perhaps he was. I would like to believe it; but I find it difficult to forgive. There is no falsehood that offends me more than one I wanted to believe.
This has all troubled me greatly over the last few days. I have tried to formulate some rule, or guideline that would let us know when it is appropriate or right to question the honor of an apparently valorous man. There are times -- surely, far more times -- when we should not. Yet we have to be able to do so when it is critical, for the defense of the Republic's institutions.
My torment over the issue is similar, I suspect, to that felt by good Catholics who looked in horror on the priesthood scandals of a few years ago. The desire is to honor a kind of man -- a priest, a soldier -- who has nobly volunteered and sacrificed for the greater good. Yet the undeniable reality was that some had misused the honor of the uniform to cover their own flaws. One should not wish to question a soldier's honor, nor a priest's -- and yet, because we live in a bad world, we sometimes must.
I will propose these general guidelines for discussion. This is a difficult matter, and I will be glad of your advice.
1) A veteran's honor should not be questioned in any matter that is not important enough to kill or die over. This is not an advocation of violence, but only a rule of thumb for judging whether the matter is of sufficient weight: it ought to be as serious as a capital crime, or a war.
The stability of the Republic is such a matter; we have whole classes of men, including the soldiers themselves, whose job is just that. In terms of political office, I am not sure that any office except the Presidency is sufficiently powerful for the occupant to be able, himself, to threaten the stability of the Republic. The Supreme Court is perhaps the only other. I am sure that governors do not; I am sure that Representatives do not; and we have clear evidence that dishonorable men can serve in the Senate for decades without the place collapsing.
We might well choose to kill or die to protect our children from rape, to return to the argument from the evil men who had infiltrated the priesthood. We can therefore feel certain that we are not overreacting by questioning, and being certain of, the honor of men to whom we allow that kind of access to and control of our children.
The point of this guideline is to limit the field sharply. There have been too many examples lately of people questioning honor for purely political motives -- for example, to protect a preferred candidate for a Senate seat, or to score a political point in a debate (as in the case of Murtha). That is not acceptable: the Republic will not fall if you win or lose a debate. It might be endangered if the President were a dishonorable man, but if a debate or a vote is lost, you schedule another.
2) If you're going to question the honor of a veteran's record, it must be done according to the military's (or priesthood's) own standards. It is no good to say that Pappy Boyington was dishonorable because he killed many men; that was what his duty obligated him to do. If he held converse with the enemy, that is against the military's code of honor, and ought to be condemned.
3) If you're going to question a veteran's honor outside of his service record, it can be done according to any conception of honor, and need not rise to the level of guideline (1). If we were speaking of a man who had been a hero in the service, and yet had later murdered a man in Memphis, it is possible to separate the honor of his service from the murder. A recent example of this type: "Duke" Cunningham, a hero whose Vietnam service we admire; and whose theft of public monies we deplore.
4) It is best to observe the strictest standard of evidence and proof whenever questions of this type arise. A large raft of charges was floated against Kerry; some of them are passionately believed by men I respect. Yet I assign them to the category of things which cannot be proven; I judge Kerry only on the charges that he does not dispute, or which are based on plain facts that are not able to be disputed. If you are one of those with a passionate belief that you can't prove, that is fine as long as you recognize and admit to yourself that it is so; I recognize that my anger toward Powell may not be fair, but I am still angry. I doubt he could win my support for anything, yet when I discuss him with you, I point to his counterarguments as well as the facts I have observed.
These guidelines are meant as a start. Feel free to advise, or argue against them. The greater challenge is from the first trend, mentioned at the beginning of the piece -- the idea of honor being washed away entirely. Whatever we do about this second trend, it should be done in order to shore up the foundations of honor in American life. We need to be able to police it enough to keep it from being falsely used, but we need to respect it enough that it can serve as a shield when it is rightly won. The concept of honor needs defending. It cannot be defended if we do not take it seriously, and apply ourselves to upholding it fairly.
Adam Plumondore
A Toast:
On the occasion of the first anniversary of losing one of our own. I never met him either, but those of you who recognize the name will know why it's important. I'll have a toast at dinner tonight in memory.
Pappy
You Say That Like It's A Bad Thing:
The Commissar is deeply amused by a recent U. Washington resolution:
IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:THATThe Commissar replies:
Student Senator Jill Edwards will submit, in writing, a signed apology letter seeking forgiveness to all students, staff, and alumni who are now or ever have served in the United States Marine Corps. In said letter it will contain a formal apology and a recognition that her very rights and freedoms are guaranteed by such members of the armed services, to include the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, past or present, living or dead. Additionally, said letter will be printed in all its form and substance in that day’s edition of the UW Daily newspaper as well as being recited on the UW Radio station. To realize her mistake, she must acquaint herself with the history of the person she is so keen to dismiss, by reading Col. Boyington’s book, Baa, Baa, Black Sheep. All of these requirements are mandatory, under pain of losing her seat on the Student Senate.
Wow! There aren’t many events in the world, or in the blogosphere, that I actually know something about. But this is one of the few. I’m a minor expert in American aces of World War Two, and have built a well-regarded, fairly high-traffic website on that topic.Well, it was the Black Sheep Squadron, after all. Nobody thought they were angels. But they were By-God Marines. I like the idea of expanding the required reading list, though -- and not just for this one Senator. It wouldn't be a bad idea to make all U. Wash students learn a bit about this most famous alumnus, and all American students everywhere should learn more military history, and military science, than they do. It's obvious that we have a deficeit in that, as neither the journalist class nor the general citizenry seems to know how to interpret and understand news stories from war zones.
Now … on to Pappy Boyington. It would be great if University of Washington memorialized him. Wonderful. Furthermore, Ms. Jill Edwards should learn a little about Pappy Boyington.
But not by reading Boyington’s self-serving, highly embellished autobiography. Ouch. Please. Boyington was good pilot and a good squadron leader. But he was a drunk, a liar, a womanizer, a deadbeat...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)