Zabul falls to the Taliban:

It appears that coalition forces in Afghanistan have allowed Zabul province to be recaptured by the Taliban. Jihad Unspun, a pro-Islamist site in Vancouver, had the story first:

The Taliban claim they have successfully captured the Sfghan province of Zabul, with the white flag of Taliban flying on government buildings and the local people happy to have the Taliban back in power.

The Afghan army retreated and left behind huge caches of arms and ammunitions. Fighting in the surroundings districts continues and has claimed the lives of 11 Afghan soldiers at the time of this filing.

The governor of the province under the Karzai regime, Hameed ullah Tokhi claims that main government buildings are still flying the flag of the Kabul government and that the governor of Kandahar has refused to help the Afghan forces in Zabul. Daily Islam has reported that the Taliban have captured all but one district of the province, with many offices bearing white flags and that Mullah Abdul Jabbar has been named the Taliban governor of the province.

I normally consider the presence of a claim on JUS to be evidence against the claim's truth. However, today StratFor picked up the story. StratFor is respectable, if far from the best at predictive analysis, so I decided to look into it.

Last week, the governor of Zabul province urged US forces to attack Talibani positions in his province. But this week, after the JUS story, the governor denies that there are any Talibani in Zabul province. Meanwhile, a report from Afghan TV says the Taliban have set up a base northeast of Khandahar in Zabul province.

Lending support to all this is an article published this week based on investigations in Afghanistan says that, in Zabul province, gunmen have seized educational materials meant for women and are keeping them under lock and key.

That's a suprising amount of support for the story. It may very well be true that the Taliban are back in control of parts of Zabul province. JUS claims that they have the backing of Pakistan's ISI, the intelligence service that erected the Taliban as a power in the first place. There is good reason to believe that is true, as reports of at least rogue elements in the ISI supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda have been constant.

What does this mean for the coalition? One thing it could mean is that we are seeing a large-scale trap on the lines of Operation Anaconda. In Anaconda, an area in Taliban control was left safe while guerrillas gathered, then surrounded and brutally wiped out. Allowing them a province as a rallying point could cause a draining away of pro-Taliban forces elsewhere. The appearance of success could also cause the supporting ISI members to overplay their hands, making them easier to identify.

But there is a problem with this analysis: NATO is taking over command in Afghanistan, and it is not evident that the rifts in NATO caused by the diplomacy preceeding the Iraq war have healed. Open rifts make leaks more likely, and make it hard to coordinate a plan on the scale I postulate in the last paragraph. That argues against this being intentional.

For now, the press is still blind to this. When they recognize it, look for a firestorm.

Update: Reader Michael Ware notes:

NATO is not "taking over command in Afghanistan" exactly. A NATO command is assuming control over ISAF, relieving a joint Dutch-German command. ISAF is a stabilization force largely confined to Kabul. (See SHAPE press release). ISAF is separate from the coalition's combat command.

The war-fighters are in CENTCOM's Combined Joint Task Force 180. (GlobalSecurity.com has a useful though far from perfect precis on Combined JTF-180.)

The centerpieces have been (a) special operations forces from all U.S. services in total in multi-battalion strenghth and (b) a reinforced brigade of light infantry rotating from the 10th Mountain, 82d Airborne and 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Divisions. There have been Australians there from the begining. On a rotating basis for the last 18 months, there have been fairly substantial coalition contributions (over and above ISAF) to the combat effort. Italian mountain troops have fought this summer. (I have heard that their American commanders were psyched with the brutal effectiveness of the Alpini, though I don't have a link.) Norway has had soldiers fighting on the ground and planes fighting from the air (see here, reporting combat operations earlier this year of Norwegian, Danish and Dutch aircraft). At least a dozen other countries have contributed to Combined JTF-180 and its predecessors over and above whatever contributions those countries may have made to ISAF.

All this fighting stuff is controled by CENTCOM is separate from ISAF.

Duly noted, and thanks for the clarification.

Bush Administration Lies:

No, this isn't about WMD. I think the president is telling the truth about them, and if you're interested in my reasoning, go here. This is about the Iraq war, though, and a lie the administration has apparently decided it needs to tell.

Yesterday the German press ran this story on napalm which I have here in an English translation:

The Marines said that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen denied that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of olystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

The Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but said they had less of an impact on the environment.

Emphasis added. Now... you've got a thing that is "remarkably similar" to napalm, but slightly different in composition--it uses kerosene instead of gasoline to burn people alive. It is so very similar, in fact, that the Marines just carry on calling it napalm, because to them it's the same stuff. These are the same people who call the M4 Carbine a "lightweight, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsible stock." If the Marines see no reason to distinguish between the MK-77 and napalm, there is no reason to distinguish between them.

Mind you, even this "lie" is technically the truth, since there is apparently some difference between the two chemical compounds. Still, is the Pentagon thinking it's going to get credit from the enviornmentalist lobby? Nice thought, but the people who are going to be mad about napalm aren't going to care what you're burning--except the people underneath it. If you're going to defend the MK-77, you've got to make the case that burning those people is the right thing to do: either for reasons of force-protection, or because victory requires it. Trying to weasel out of that difficult but necessary argument is dishonest.

Teutonic Surnames:

In The Corner, a discussion of the difficulties of Teutonic surnames:

[Nick Schulz] once heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say that his name means �Black Hammer Thrower� or �Black Plow Man� which always sounds really funny when he says that (or when just about anyone says it in an �Ah-nuld� voice). Since those would be easier to spell, you could always substitute one of them when writing about him.

Well, this presents a real difficulty for your correspondant. My last name also has a disputed origin: it comes from the Danelaw in England, and means either "the Bald" in Anglo-Saxon, or "the Stout," meaning short but thick, in Old Scandinavian.

Of course there has already been a Grim the Bald (father of Egil Skallagrimsson, that is, "the son of Grim the Bald"). And at any rate, your correspondant is not yet bald, though it is fully possible someday I will be. Grim the Stout is fairer: at five foot six and a half inches (according to the USMC), I stand only half an inch taller than the average height for a human male, and a bit shorter than the average height for a man of European descent. On this point I blame what have otherwise been excellent genetics, since my father's side apparently may have been known as "the Stout," and my mother's draws its descent from Donnachaidh Remhair, that is, "Duncan the Stout," founder of the Clan Donnachaidh in Scotland. It's an odd confluence of stoutness, drawing on both the Germanic and the Celtic. The results readers can judge for themselves: that's me when my son Beowulf was a month old, the bearded fellow with the boy on his lap and The Ballad of the White Horse at his foot.

Ahem.

Eurobashing at its finest. It reminds me of a story my father used to tell about a US propaganda coup during the Cold War, in which a huge number of these products, or some rather similar, were sent to Russia marked "Medium." This link is not for my lady readers, thanks aye.

The Post Gets States' Rights Wrong:

It is not surprising that the official newspaper of the Federal capital would be opposed to any doctrine that tended to balance power away from the Federal government and toward the states. The Washington Post's constant disdain for the doctrine of States' Rights is only natural. It would be nice, however, if they would take the time to understand the doctrine before heaping it with scorn.

Today's lead editorial on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment demonstrates their difficulty. The FMA is meant to prevent gay marriage by forbidding any state to allow it. Those who believe it necessary do so on the grounds that the current law--the Defense of Marriage Act--would be vunerable on multiple grounds to Supreme Court rulings, so that any state's legalization of gay marriage would quickly require all states to allow it. (Those interested in this argument are hereby referred to National Review Online and Andrew Sullivan, who have conducted a lively debate on the subject--check their respective archives, as both are on vacation just now.)

The Post contends that good conservatives should be against this, since:

there's another issue too, which has to do with federalism and the respect for states' rights, which in other spheres many conservatives tend to enshrine. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would federalize what has been among the most unquestioned of state responsibilities since the dawn of the American republic. The amendment specifies that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," and it would preclude state or federal law from being "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Certainly many Americans agree with Mr. Bush on his definition of marriage. But why should states with majorities that feel differently be barred from acting through their democratic processes?

The doctrine of State's Rights is not, and has never been, that -all- rights are State's Rights. It has also not been, as the Post suggests, that states are naturally better at democracy than the Federal government. The point is that the Founders' design was one in which the states had some rights, the federal government others, and some rights neither had nor were entitled to have (e.g., the right to require citizens to subscribe to a particular religion). This design produces a balance of power between opposed governments, which opposition between powers creates a space for liberty.

The determination of which rights pertain to which group (state, federal, or personal authority, that is) is codified in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states, which represent the lasting will of the people. Constitutional Amendments, which specifically require ratification by state legislatures as well as the Congress, are not violations of States' Rights, but a natural outgrowth of this principle of Classical Liberal Federalism.

The proper way of thinking about this from Classical Liberal thinking is that ONLY a constitutional amendment can address the question of gay marriage. The reason is this: while the people have traditionally delegated to the state the authority to ajudicate certain questions about whether a given man may marry a given woman, they have never delegated to the state or the Federal government the authority to define marriage as something other than a union of man and woman. That understanding of marriage preceeded the formation of the American republic. It is not subject to the authority of the American republic, but remains a right reserved. If any state wants to legalize gay marriage, ONLY a constitutional amendment can do it. It means a concession of new, and great, authority from the people to the state. No judge, no judiciary has the rightful power to usurp that authority.

However, the judiciary has been in the business of arrogating new powers to itself for quite a little while now. It has reached the point that, practically, a Constitutional amendment is necessary if the judiciary is not to "discover" the authority to remake the social contract to fit its views, whatever they are. Such an amendment is not a violation of the republican ideals of the Founding, but a restatement of them; and neither does it violate States' Rights, as neither the states nor the Federal government have any authority here. Whatever solution is reached can only be reached legitimately by the amendment process, which consults both Congress and the legislatures of the several states for new authority.

Hang this man:

As someone who joined the United States Marine Corps right out of high school, and who has over the years become a true believer in its precepts and traditions, I take especial exception to this plea bargain. There are three things that should be mandatory capital offenses in military law: engaging in forcible rape, treason, and betraying your brother Marines. Judges are not bound by plea bargain agreements. The sentence should be death, preferably by hanging with a parachute cord.

Still More Advice to the Democrats:

This one is called Mogadishu Democrats and includes what is a fine assessment of the war's progress in Iraq:

As for "bring it on...", one wonders if DfNS are aware that U.S. troops used exactly this tactic during the war, via loudspeakers on Humvees, to great effect? That's why we heard about pickup trucks attacking M1A1 tanks - the fedayeen just couldn't stand to have ther manhood challenged in stereo. I believe one U.S. soldier's quote was "we shoot them down like the morons they are." One expects an organization called "Democrats for National Security" to know this, and perhaps to apply it.

In a guerilla war, you WANT people to come after your soldiers. That's the ideal tactical scenario, and with the shallowness of the Ba'ath infrastructure and limited recruiting capability they cannot sustain an attrition-based campaign for long. That might change if they adopted a longer-term strategy, and Bush has now challenged them not to. Smart move - the fedayeen loudspeaker tactic writ large. The faster and harder al-Awda attack, the sooner they're taken out, the faster the reconstruction is done, and the more U.S. troops come home.

Yeah, that's true, although there may be wider recruitment than just what's in Iraq. That too is a benefit, as we've heard from the Flypaper theorists. Either way, though, we need a gunfighting corps of soldiers out there challenging the guerrillas to come and get it. The US has an excellent record with guerrilla warfare, excepting Vietnam--which is to be excepted, since this time there are no secure bases for the enemy, nothing off limits, and no superpowers backing them.

Leaving all that aside, the advice to the party is right on: we need a candidate, and a platform, that is built around warfighting. We are at war, after all.

DPRK Watch:

If we go to war with the DPRK, it will probably not be over their development of nuclear weapons. The administration seems resigned to accepting that--which is a terrible mistake, for reasons outlined on ParaPundit's blog. No, what will require war will be if the DPRK can't be persuaded or required not to export its nuclear technology. Of course, the DPRK is doing just that.

NORTH Korea and Iran were in talks over a plan to export Pyongyang's Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missiles to Tehran and to jointly develop nuclear warheads, a Japanese daily said today.
The two countries have been negotiating the deal for about a year and were likely to reach an agreement in mid-October, the conservative Sankei newspaper said, quoting defence sources familiar with North Korean affairs.

I've said I expect war with the DPRK before next summer ends. It may be sooner.

Books in the Corner:

I am amused by this post in the Corner:

MY BOOK IS VIRTUAL [Susan Konig]
I want to thank all the Corner readers who consistently query me about my book, Why Animals Sleep So Close to the Road (and other lies I tell my children). I'm flattered and didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column as if it were already published. I was sort of advertising the fact that it was indeed written and ready for the bidding wars to begin!

I didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column? Well, ok: I have a book called The Ship Knife which is ready for the bidding wars, too. It's about the expedition to Sicily led by King Harald Hardrada, Viking warlord, at the head of the Byzantine fleet. Bidders welcome.

'A Ticket to Nowhere':

Joe Lieberman's advice to the Democratic Party made quite a stir today. Turns out he's a boxing fan, too. Boxers make great politicians, if they are good enough to keep from getting their brains rattled. Lieberman sounds like he mostly watched boxing, but maybe he learned some of the right lessons:

[A] lot is at stake:� nothing less than the heart and soul of the Democratic party, and the security and prosperity of the United States of America. . . .

Some Democrats still prefer old, big government solutions to our problems.� But with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that.� It won't work.� That old way is wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some Democrats respond to the health insurance crisis with a break-the-bank $2 trillion program -- leaving no money to create new jobs, invest in our schools, support our firefighters and cops, or shore up Social Security. That would be wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some would raise the walls of protectionism again.� But we've got a record trade deficit and our manufacturers are hemorrhaging jobs. We need more markets, not fewer.� Bridges, not barriers.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Some have said no to any tax cuts, and would even raise taxes on the middle class.� But middle-class families have borne the brunt of George Bush's failed economic leadership, so we must help them, not burden them even more.� That's right for America, and right for the Democratic Party. . . .

Some are silent about the marketing of violent or sexual entertainment to our children.� But we should be allies with parents in the struggle to protect their kids.��

Some said "no" to eliminating Saddam Hussein, or were ambivalent about it, before and after the war.� But we must not shrink from the use of force when our security and our values are at stake.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Doing what's right for America and for our party are truly one and the same.

There's a lot of good stuff here, Joe. I understand you're still in the market for a VP--you might see my advice to our party from earlier in the week if you want a suggestion on one that will win it with you. Get Sen. Miller on your ticket, and I'll vote for you.

Damn that Instapundit!

Doesn't the Sage of Knoxville have anything better to do? Talk Like A Pirate Day indeed. It even has one of those damnable personality tests.

You are The Cap'n!

Some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some slit the throats of any man that stands between them and the mantle of power. You never met a man you couldn't eviscerate. Not that mindless violence is the only avenue open to you - but why take an avenue when you have complete freeway access? You are the definitive Man of Action. You are James Bond in a blousy shirt and drawstring-fly pants. Your swash was buckled long ago and you have never been so sure of anything in your life as in your ability to bend everyone to your will. You will call anyone out and cut off their head if they show any sign of taking you on or backing down. You cannot be saddled with tedious underlings, but if one of your lieutenants shows an overly developed sense of ambition he may find more suitable accommodations in Davy Jones' locker. That is, of course, IF you notice him. You tend to be self absorbed - a weakness that may keep you from seeing enemies where they are and imagining them where they are not.

Eerily accurate, these things. I took a D&D one once only to be told that I was a Chaotic Human Barbarian. Everyone I mentioned it to nodded knowingly. Where's that broadsword?

Good news from the Middle East:

Honestly. This report looks at Bahrain, whose king has appointed a bicameral legislature and given full rights to women. Nor does the king, whose reign so far enjoys prosperity on the order of six-percent annual growth, harbor feelings of anti-Americanism:

�Time seems to be very slow in Iraq. But it is only three months since Britain and America went in. And three months is not enough time in a big country like Iraq with so many different groups and beliefs: but the dramatic change is for the good of Iraq and for the people of Iraq.�
But what about the evidence that the Alliance�s leaders were less than honest about their reasons for going to war? �Nothing is 100 per cent, nothing is perfect. But we think they�ve been honest enough to be followed by the entire world. And whether they�ve missed one or two things, well, things happen in wars. But in general everybody is with America and with Britain in what they have done so far. We just have to wait a little longer, and we will see the good things that are happening in Iraq. But often, you know, no news is good news.�

Now why can't certain candidates for the Democratic nomination to the presidency speak as boldly in favor of their country and its work?

Theology in the Asia Times:

Out of Hong Kong, a fascinating series by Spengler on the clash between the West and Radical Islam, one that posits that Islam will win. The critique of Western culture has the mark of scholarly theology, and is plainly a long time coming.

Socrates (like Strauss) was wrong. It is not the unexamined life that is not worth living, but the life defined by mere animal existence. Unlike lower species, humans require a sense of the eternal. The brute instinct for self-preservation is a myth.

Because radical Islam provides this, and most Western faiths no longer do, Spengler judges that Islam has the weight advantage in a punching match.

In the second part of the series, he answers the hope many people expressed in reply that Islam may soon undergo a reformation. Spengler asserts that there are good reasons to suspect that they will not:

What precisely goes into making a Reformation? In the case of Christianity, textual criticism became the starting point. What was the original Revelation, and how could Christians return to it? . . . .

Hebrew and Christian scripture claim to be the report of human encounters with God. After the Torah is read each Saturday in synagogues, the congregation intones that the text stems from "the mouth of God by the hand of Moses", a leader whose flaws kept him from entering the Promised Land. The Jewish rabbis, moreover, postulated the existence of an unwritten Revelation whose interpretation permits considerable flexibility with the text. Christianity's Gospels, by the same token, are the reports of human evangelists.

The Archangel Gabriel, by contrast, dictated the Koran to Mohammed, according to Islamic doctrine. That sets a dauntingly high threshold for textual critics.

Spengler feels that the West's hope is that Protestant missionaries--the true believing Christian Right--will interact with Muslims, who may absorb the Protestant methodology of examining the texts as a path to God. There may be something to this analysis. Certainly Protestant Fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim radicals than others in the West. Osama bin Laden's letter to America contains a number of objections to American culture echoed perfectly in Christian Right publications, especially as concerns the prevelance of sexual images and outright pornography.

Still, to me it sounds like adding a second tiger to a hill. It may be the organic solution, but a great deal of blood and time would be necessary to bring about sustained interaction between them. I suspect a second probability, which is this: the clash with Islam will embolden the West, and renew its faith. A second 9/11, particularly if it happened in Europe, would do more to fill men's hearts with divine fire than anything else. Nothing makes people suspect the truth of an ultimate Good than to witness ultimate Evil. It is comfort, not despair, that has brought the West away from faith as a mode of life.

Radical Islam should beware. Refilling the hearts of Western men would remove the only advantage the Islamists have. Because the West is tolerant of all faiths, Muslims who wished to live moderate lives would find a home among invigorated Westerners before they could among the Talibani. The punching weight of true belief evened, humane tolerance and high technology would be the deciding factors--both Western strengths.

For my Father:

I think they mean you, Dad. No better man could lead them.

More On the National Parties:

Caerdroia's Jeff Medcalf explains his own thoughts on equal protection, which is never equally protected by either party. Then there is this blog, Shining Full Plate and a Good Broadsword, which explains its author's thoughts on the proper position for either Republican or Democrat, though it sounds more Democratic to me:

Let me be clear: I'm for gay marriage, welfare, national health care, and protecting endangered species.

And I am proud when we pump bullets in another terrorist on a daily basis.

In fact, I am so proud that I would readily join a secret force to ritualistically kill terrorists on a daily and nightly basis for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Liberia:

Today's Washington Post has the first potentially convincing argument I've heard for US intervention in Liberia:

washingtonpost.com: Douglas, thank you for joining us this morning. Can you talk a bit about the circumstances under which you left Africa?

Douglas Farah: I left after writing the original story about Taylor's ties to al Qaeda. Both U.S. and European intel picked up Taylor directly threatening to kill me. The Post ordered me and my family to leave as soon as possible. We got out by having U.S. Embassy security escort us through the airport, onto the flight, to make sure nothing went amiss.

Mr. Farah is writing on terrorist ties in West Africa. Bringing freedom and democracy to troubled areas is part of the solution to terrorism, and if it can in fact be demonstrated that al Qaeda is running free in Liberia, there may be a real reason to send in the Marines.

More Proof of Communist Trechery:

Having just last night enjoyed AMC's showing of "The Quiet Man," imagine my particular horror to encounter this story from the Guardian today.

Can We End the DNC?

Long term readers know that I am, by political affiliation, a Southern Democrat. This is one of the least comfortable positions in modern American politics, as you really do not have a home in either major party. There are tremendous difficulties in cooperating with either the national Democratic party or the Republican party, both of which stand firmly for things to which we are firmly opposed.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. I carry on believing that sooner or later the DNC's total lack of substance on foreign policy, combined with its latent anti-Americanism, will cause it to implode and be relegated to the fringes. The Southern Democrats are the only Democrats who can actually hope to defeat President Bush in 2004, both because we are the only Democrats who are stronger on foreign policy than he is, and because stripping Southern states away from Republican support is the surest strategy to Democratic victory. Without the support of the "solid South," Bush can't win.

That won't happen, though, as long as the national Democratic party continues to view 2004 as a revel deserving nothing but frivolity. Consider, for example, the DNC Party Platform, entitled "Prosperity, Progress, and Peace":

Today, America finds itself in the midst of prosperity, progress, and peace. We have arrived at this moment because of the hard work of the American people. This election will be about the big choices we have to make to secure prosperity that is broadly shared and progress that reaches all families in this new American century. In the year 2000, the Democratic Party stands ready to meet that challenge and to build on our achievements.

When Thomas Jefferson was elected as our Party's first president in 1800, America was a young country trying to find its place in the world. Two hundred years later, Democrats gather at a moment of vast possibility to nominate Al Gore as America's next president. A new economy founded on the force of new technologies and traditional values of work is giving rise to new industries and transforming old ones. Biological breakthroughs give us the chance to unlock the mysteries of humanity's deadliest plagues. While the globe is still beset with tragedies and difficulties, more people live under governments of freedom, liberty, and democracy than ever before in history. America enjoys unparalleled affluence at home and influence abroad.

Now I realize that this is the 2000 platform. I also realize that a new platform isn't traditionally due until the next Presidential election year. May I humbly suggest, however, that is a major reason for the debacle in the last elections?

An emergency session of the DNC should have been called sometime between 2001 and now to assemble a platform of suggested action in response to the end of prosperity, the threat to progress, and the destruction of peace. In 2002, the lack of such a platform meant that the party had nothing to offer in a time of war but, "We think Bush is rushing to war. Although we're still going to vote for his Iraq War Resolution. But he's wrong. Except we know war is popular, so he's not wrong. Maybe a little wrong. Vote Democrat!" Horseshit.

This year we still have no platform. The nine presidential candidates--none of whom is presidential--are each fumbling around trying to figure out what they want to say. So far they seem to be finding unity around a message of: "Bush is a liar. Taxes aren't high enough. Iraq is a mess, though we don't have any actual solutions, just complaints. Maybe we should apologize to the French."

That is a disaster waiting to happen in 2004. The solid South will vote for no candidate whose campaign is established around those principles. The wild-eyed radical base may be fired up, but they can't win the election by themselves--and, furthermore, they are a bunch of nutcases with whom we should be ashamed to be making common cause. (It is the role of the Southern Democrat to point that out now and again, and be ignored.) Mainstream Democrats will not be energized to vote for a candidate on those grounds, and swing voters--of whom there are more in this election than ever in recent politics--will trend to Bush. This is true even if Iraq is still a mess in a year, which is frankly not all that likely: our successes there have been underreported, and there is no reason to believe that a year from now we won't see a relatively stable Iraq, a dead Saddam, firm documentary evidence of WMD programs that will quell all but the aforementioned wild-eyed radicals, an Iraqi government enjoying wide legitimacy, and oil revenues already beginning to obviate the need for foreign investment. Meanwhile, the US government has decided to triple aid to Afghanistan, making progress there likely as well.

The Democratic Party should be happy about that! By Thunder, if the national party organizes itself so that any of the above is bad news for it, it deserves to be razed by the electorate and scattered by the wind. The Democratic Party should be the party of the people, and the people love America and take pride and pleasure in her success. Well they should! She is the hope of the world.

An emergency session to plan a 2004 platform should be called immediately. The platform, if victory in 2004 is to be achieved, needs to include these items:

1) A strong statement on Democratic goals for the present war. This needs to include not the usual diplomatic vaugery, but specific statements on how to deal with each of: Eradicating Terrorist Networks, Hunting and Killing existing Terrorists, Preventing Terrorism In the United States and Europe, the Problem of North Korea, Preventing or Restraining Nuclear Proliferation, Destroying (through War or Other Means) State Sponsors of Terrorism, and Establishing Flourshing Democracy in Troubled Parts of the World.
2) One of the most important issues for the forseeable future is the overstretched US military. The strains felt by them have brought a number of military voters--conservative by nature, but dissatisfied by the current administration--into the swing voter camp. They need to know that the Democratic Party will defend their interests, which are: Expanding the Military, Constricting Deployments to areas where there is a Clear National Interest, Increasing Pay Rates, Ensuring Continued Technological Superiority, and Bettering Intelligence Sharing between the CIA and the Military.
3) The wild-eyed base needs to be quelled. The Democratic Party, if it is to be taken seriously as a national party, needs to make certain it is not associated with anti-Americanism in any form. Victory requires that we lose every Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, and any voter who would self-identify their political leanings with the preface of "radical." They are welcome to vote for us or against us, but our party platform should contain nothing for them. The Party of the American People ought to love America with all depth and purity of emotion--the American People do.

A continued failure to address these issues is running the DNC onto the rocks in 2004. If the DNC decides to stop running against Bush, and to start running on their actual merits, the Southern Democrats include several persons who could be of service in drafting a platform that could carry the party to victory. It wouldn't hurt, for the serious candidate, to try to draft Zell Miller as your Vice President.

Arts & Letters Daily:

Arts & Letters Daily has linked to Mr. Robinson's piece in the Spectator. They have also today a very interesting piece on the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Scooping InstaPundit:

It's not often that one beats InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, to the punch. I thought based on yesterday's firestorm against the DARPA idea that I was out on a limb alone in supporting them, but this morning that turns out not to be true. Good to know that those who understand the business feel as I do. I thought I'd been a little rash, letting my temper get the better of me, when I called certain Senators "bloviating idiots," but I see that at least the "idiots" part has some support as well.

Alas for DARPA:

It appears that DARPA's plan to create a futures market for speculation on terrorism has died an undeserved death. This is due to a total lack of comprehension on the part of the US Senate, which simply isn't smart enough to understand why this was a remarkable and brilliant idea.

The business of predicting terror attacks is very much like the futures business, as it is like the actuarial business (the people who determine the rates for insurance companies are called Actuaries). A question the government has been considering for some time is this: given that the US has the finest actuaries and futures speculators in the world, how can we tap that knowledge for use in the terror war? The central problem is that the knowledge is out there, but that the government can't really compete with the market for the services of the very best of these guys. The top speculators make millions a year.

DARPA thought of a way to tap them: make a new market, one that rewards them in much the same way as the existing market. The potential value to the terror war was immeasurable. For example, when a terror threat comes in that is against NYC, the country really has no mechanism except to raise the terror alert for the entire country. That means that Cumming, Georgia goes on High (Orange) alert just like Los Angeles and NYC. The US government's resources are likewise spread across many threat-areas. Top actuaries would be able to predict much more accurately what areas are really threatened, allowing a better distribution of resources and a more accurate prediction of terror acts. Futures speculators would likewise bring a new perspective to predictive analysis, and would be better than military men at seeing nontraditional targets that terrorists could hit.

All that for a projected cost to DARPA of five million dollars. For five million bucks, you couldn't hire a handful of the top actuaries and speculators, but DARPA would have tapped potentially all of them. Gentlemen, I salute you--just because the Senate is full of bloviating idiots does not mean that your work is totally unappreciated. Better luck next time.

Wisdom from an old CIA hand:

James Woolsey writes:

I would add that, just as we eventually won the Cold War - and when I say 'we' here, I always mean Britain, the United States, the democracies, our allies - it was in no small measure because, while containing the Soviet Union and its allies militarily and with nuclear deterrence, we undermined their ideology.

We undermined it over a long period by convincing the Lech Walesas, the Vaclav Havels, the Andrei Sakharovs, the Solidarities, that this was not a clash of civilisations, not even a clash of countries, but a war of freedom against tyranny, and that we were on their side.

To exactly the same degree, we will surely be successful in this long war if we convince the hundreds of millions of reasonable and decent Muslims around the world who do not want to be terrorists, who do not want to live in dictatorships, that we are on their side and they on ours.

The surest way to demonstrate this is the unmaking of tyranny. Rhetoric, psyops, public relations--these are only good as long as they are tools to the actual, the physical destruction of tyrants. Freeing men is our business, and the only right purpose of our war. So it says in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which was written in the days when Christian symbolism did not excite dissenters:

As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make them free.

Arts & Sciences: Outrages

Jonah Goldberg takes on a survey from the "science" of psychology that purports to demonstrate that conservatism is a kind of mental deformity. The continued acceptance of psychology as a science is one of the worst problems with American society, and one to which people are almost entirely blind. Given that, I will test my readers' patience by reprinting below my full remarks on the subject:

Arts & Sciences:

From the beginning of a piece on failed civilizations:

In particular many of the so-called hard scientists such as physicists or biologists, don't consider history to be a science. The situation is even more extreme because, he points out, even historians themselves don't consider history to be a science. Historians don't get training in the scientific methods; they don't get training in statistics; they don't get training in the experimental method or problems of doing experiments on historical subjects; and they'll often say that history is not a science, history is closer to an art.

Historians often say that history is not a science because history is not a science. One of the central problems with modern society is its increasing inability to tell the difference between what is a science, and what isn't. This is directly related to the prestige that has come to be associated with the label of "science" during the 20th century.

In part because of the tremendous material advances brought us by science, the concept of science enjoys considerable standing. The best way to make sure that your ideas are put into practice is to convince others that they are scientific: to say that something is scientific is commonly thought to be the same as saying that it is true beyond the possibility of counterargument. Psychology (from the Greek, psyche-, or "spirit/soul," and -ology, or "study of"), which claims to be the science of the mind, has so convinced the majority of Westerners that it is scientific that a psychologist's testimony alone can strip a man of his freedom, serve as reason not to hire him, or to fire him from a job he already has. A man can be subjected to forced injections of drugs and imprisonment based on nothing more than a psychologist's assessment.

This all rests upon a misunderstanding of just what science is. Science is one kind of inquiry, a particular kind that rests upon two general principles: the method of making no assertions that cannot be tested and falsified; and the complete transparency and open debate of all assertions being made, none of which are ever to be taken as invunerable. Science is indeed a great thing; it is indeed powerful.

It isn't -everything-, though, and it isn't all powerful. There are some endeavors that are not, and can not be, science. History is one of them. So, as it happens, is "psychology," which would be more honestly called philopsyche, after the fashion of philosophy. Anything which involves the working of the human mind isn't and cannot be a science. This is simply because the human mind isn't observable, and therefore, it is not testable. Regardless of how cautiously you design your tests, the fact is that you are simply guessing about the why of a given decision. You can't really observe the process of decision making.

Stripping these so-called "social sciences" of the notion that they are sciences is one of the greatest services we could do for our culture. There is nothing more noble than art, exactly because there is nothing more human than art. We ought to be proud to be performing the arts, practicing the arts. There are too many, though, who are unwilling to compete in a fair and open atmosphere. They wish to hide behind the authority of science, even if they must do so illegitimately.

And they must: science was never about stifiling debate, but always about enforcing it systematically. Psychology, sociology, and the rest do not--as history does--recognize honestly the fact that their methods simply cannot be scientifically tested, cannot be falsified, cannot be proven nor disproven. As such, all of their assertions deserve a healthy scepticism. That scepticism should be the healthier for the fact that these so-called disciplines will not admit the truth about their methods. They are a blight upon our way of thinking, and of conceiving the world.

Arts & Sciences:

In response to my contention that psychology is not a science (see Monday's log), I've been asked to read Our Inner Conflicts by Karen Horney, M.D. Dr. Horney was one of the founders of psychoanalysis, both a friend and competitor to Freud, and compiled the basis of psychology's theories of neuroses. One of psychology's defenders asked me to consider her work at length before I made up my mind that psychology was not a science. I have now completed my study of the work, and am ready to report.
Dr. Horney's work has several things to be said in its favor. In particular the vision of sanity she presents is appealing, and in fact almost perfectly echoes G. K. Chesterton's vision of sanity from Orthodoxy. Chesterton, of course, was not a psychologist, but a Catholic: his thoughts on why men departed from sanity did not hinge upon theories of psychological conflict, but sin. Yet the two visions of sanity are almost perfect copies: each is a vision of wholeheartedness, coupled with responsibility and an ability to respond to things genuinely and without pretense. Both visions are powerful, appealing, and deeply human. Either, or indeed both, could be correct.

Both are empirical. Neither is scientific. Understanding why psychology is not science requires a short examination of what science is. The religious view is not in any danger of being taken for science, as it has no pretenses in that direction. The religious view takes its authority from faith, which is ultimately not testable beyond the confines of one man's heart. But psychology partakes of studies, not prayer; it holds conferences, publishes journals, engages in peer review and debate: how can I hold that it is a thing more like religion than like physics?

Science requires that all principles be not only testable, but falsifiable. Newtonian physics felt, at the turn of the 20th century, that it had basically solved all but a few straggling problems, and was remarkably close to a complete explanation of how the universe worked. It still viewed atoms as unsplittable, and had no knowledge of quarks or quantums. When the "new physics" came along, it undermined the entirety of the discipline as it existed. Everything had to be cast out or reexamined: a resolution is still out of reach.

Psychology's bedrock claims are not similarly falsifiable. Behavioral psychology claims that the mind is an illusion of the brain: its evidence is that it can explain behavior by reference only to chemical properties of the brain, and therefore a mind is unnecessary. That kind of argument is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is, the argument from ignorance. The fact is that behavioral psychology cannot show that there is no mind, any more than it can show that there is. At the last, it is engaged in an act of faith, upon which principle no scientific inquiry is possible.

Behavioral psychology is not alone: all psychology ultimately is based upon unscientific principles which must be accepted, or not, on faith. Freud's Oedipal complex, for example, was meant to exist in all men; if analysis showed something consistent with it, the psychologist said, "Aha! The Oedipal complex at work!" If analysis failed to show anything consistent with it, the psychologist replied, "Aha! You are repressing your Oedipal complex." The fact that the complex might not exist was not possible, therefore it could not be the case. Jungian psychology similarly posits a "collective unconscious," and it is ultimately your acceptance of the existence of that collective unconscious which qualifies you to practice Jungian analysis. You can't be a Jungian and not accept the collective unconscious. Cognitive dissonance theory posits that the human mind (or brain) can't accept two mutually exclusive propositions without feeling agitation to resolve them. I have occasionally debated this point with cognitive therapists, and found that evidence against this central proposition is finally dismissed. It has to be, as the central principle can't be proven, nor can it be disproven: it must be accepted on faith.

Yet psychology retains the respect due only to real sciences, and with it the force to legally deprive a man of his freedom, his job, or certain rights which are available only to those held to be "mentally competent" to exercise them. Psychology's ability to maintain this illusion is due to its empiricism--that is, to the fact that it bases its conclusions on real-world examples, which gives it the flavor of science. Empiricism, practiced by Aristotle, was indeed the precursor of science. I said that Dr. Horney was empirical, and she is. She really has done a lot of research, and a lot of analysis, and a lot of thinking about the examples she has met. Empiricism is not science, however. That is another way of addressing the line of questions which takes the form, "But if (e.g.) behaviorists can in fact explain all human behavior without reference to a mind--if they can really do it--does that not show that they are right?" The answer lies with the Greeks.

Ancient Greek navigators developed a complex mechanical device for navigation, called the Antikythera mechanism. It aided navigation by predicting where certain stars should be in the sky at given times of the night, at given points of the year. The Greeks thought that the earth was the center of the universe, however, which should pose a problem for correct prediction of astral movements. When they encountered those problems, though, they just thought around them:

The Greeks believed in an earth-centric universe and accounted for celestial bodies' motions using elaborate models based on epicycles, in which each body describes a circle (the epicycle) around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth. Mr Wright found evidence that the Antikythera mechanism would have been able to reproduce the motions of the sun and moon accurately, using an epicyclic model devised by Hipparchus, and of the planets Mercury and Venus, using an epicyclic model derived by Apollonius of Perga. (These models, which predate the mechanism, were subsequently incorporated into the work of Claudius Ptolemy in the second century AD.)

Epicycles were able to correctly account for the movement of astral bodies without discarding the core--and inaccurate--principle of the earth's centrality. The development of epicycles is an astonishing, indeed a magnificient, human accomplishment. It is a beautiful piece of human artifice. Its only flaw is that it fails to be correct.

Psychology is in just this position. Insofar as it simply wishes to guide a given ship to a given port (say, an unhappy person to that vision of sanity) it may serve as a perfectly useful model. So long as it is applied to that, and only that, it may be functional. The problem arises when you start making wider judgements based upon its core principles--for example, what sort of people ought to enjoy freedoms, or ought to hold jobs. If the core principle is wrong, you could end up making very bad, hurtful judgements.

Ultimately epicycles were set aside because they partook of the realm of physics, and better methods of observation allowed us to see plainly that the earth was not the center of the universe. Psychology is a different animal because its core principles are finally untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. There is no evidence that can be brought to bear, either today or conceptually in the future, that could really put an end to the question of whether or not we have minds separate from our brains; or whether "inner conflicts" yield "disorders" from some kind of normality, rather than simply informing the development of a unique person who wasn't meant to be anything other than what they are. These things at last can't be tested.

I have nothing against people making decisions in their personal life on the basis of psychology, if they feel inclined. I don't mind them choosing this thing over that thing on the basis of Tarot card readings, for that matter. I have said that arts are the noblest of human endeavors precisely because they are the most human. Psychology is an art. It should be proud of it. It must also, however, discard the false authority that it has laid claim to under the guise of being a science. People can--should!--choose to build their lives around the mastery of some art that is particularly appealing to them. No government or corporate entity, though, should make decisions involving fundamental liberties on the basis of signs and portents, the readings of seers, or the analysis of a psychologist.

Horn'd helmets all around:

Hagar the Horrible, the Movie. More likely: Hagar, the Horrible Movie.

Bless Harold Bloom:

The Atlantic Unbound has an interview with Harold Bloom. It is worth reading in full, but of course I won't quote it at that kind of length. I will only include a couple of the most excellent parts:

There's a line in the first chapter of your book Hamlet: Poem Unlimited that seems to encapsulate your approach toward literature: "I think it wise to confront both the play and the prince with awe and wonder, because they know more than we do." As a literary critic, how are you able to analyze a text with this kind of humility instead of assuming a dry, superior tone as some other critics do?

Harold Bloom:

Superior? To William Shakespeare?

...

This attitude of reverence is what sets you apart from many of your colleagues. You don't seem to belong to any particular school of literary criticism.

Harold Bloom:

Well, it's such a complex thing. I left the English department twenty-six years ago. I just divorced them and became, as I like to put it, Professor of Absolutely Nothing. To a rather considerable extent, literary studies have been replaced by that incredible absurdity called cultural studies which, as far as I can tell, are neither cultural nor are they studies. But there has always been an arrogance, I think, of the semi-learned.
You know, the term "philology" originally meant indeed a love of learning�a love of the word, a love of literature. I think the more profoundly people love and understand literature, the less likely they are to be supercilious, to feel that somehow they know more than the poems, stories, novels, and epics actually know.
And, of course, we have this nonsense called Theory with a capital T, mostly imported from the French and now having evilly taken root in the English-speaking world. And that, I suppose, also has encouraged absurd attitudes toward what we used to call imaginative literature.

My Jewish readers (as well as the several of you who express an interest in comparative religion) will want to continue on through the interview to the parts on Kabbalah.

Is It Vietnam Yet?

Iraq certainly is not Vietnam. Indeed, even Vietnam isn't Vietnam. These days Vietnam is Indochina:

French ambassador Antoine Pouillieute said Vietnam is a priority partner of France in Asia, not only because of its traditional relationship but also because of the potential for cooperation between the two countries.

France is a sincere and trustworthy partner of Vietnam. This finds expression on our loyalty, effectiveness and fraternity. . . . I note that the two countries have similar views and ideas, which will help to make ASEM a success. The dialogues are often made on three aspects � political, economic and socio-cultural. On security and anti-terrorism, Vietnam and France have shared views and on economics, the two countries support economic development linked with social development. In social and cultural fields, Vietnam and France see the need to preserve national identity, as well as political, economic, linguistic and cultural diversity.

On Bastille Day, too. I suppose it's good to know that France is a sincere and trustworthy partner to somebody.

Defending Iceland:

The heroic ethic in Ancient Greece is often stated by historians as, "Help your friends, harm your enemies." In fact it was rather more complicated, and was only one branch of Indo-European heroic ethics. Still, helping your friends and harming your enemies is a good start.

So when we decided to pull our air defenders out of Iceland without giving them time to get defenses of their own up to speed, it was a bad sign. It's true that we need those fighters elsewhere. It's also true that we've had a relationship with Iceland for fifty years, providing their military defense in return for what was, during the second World War and the Cold War era, access to a strategic island of great importance.

The sudden end of the relationship has given Iceland's sons a feeling of betrayal, which earlier this week led to a stabbing involving a US serviceman. The soldier is being tried by Icelandic law, though the US is demanding that he be turned over to face military justice. The report below is from the AFP (I don't have a link):

Washington has based its extradition claim on a 1951 Defense
Agreement between the two countries and a long tradition of handing
over servicemen involved in offences in Iceland to the United States
for military trials.
However, the agreement, which calls for consultations between
the two countries, is already up in the air after Washington
unilaterally decided in June to pull out its F-15 fighters and rescue
helicopters from the Keflavik base.
That decision angered Iceland, which has no military of its
own and would be left without air defenses.

No big deal, you say, because who would want to attack Iceland? Our common enemies have noticed. This ran on pro-al Qaeda website Jihad Unspun:

And what of Bush saying the United States will help its friends and punish its foes? Well, it seems that Mr. Bush cannot be trusted to take care of his friends. Iceland was one of the countries that signed up to Bush's so-called "coalition." How has Bush repaid the North Atlantic nation? By writing a letter to Iceland's prime minister stating that the United States will, after 46 years of providing for the NATO nation's defense, pull its military forces from the soon-to-be defenseless island state.

We are leaving old friends at the mercy of our common enemies. Iceland's sole defense against mujahedeen is going to be its nature spirits. Let us hope that this is enough, if our leaders do not reconsider this unwise decision and make allowances for the sons of Iceland to develop their own defenses. If not, we can only hope that our enemies will meet the same resistance as the warlock sent by King of the Danes, Harald Bluetooth, son of Gorm the Old:

King Harald told a warlock to hie to Iceland in some altered
shape, and to try what he could learn there to tell him: and he
set out in the shape of a whale. And when he came near to the
land he went to the west side of Iceland, north around the land,
where he saw all the mountains and hills full of guardian-
spirits, some great, some small. When he came to Vapnafjord he
went in towards the land, intending to go on shore; but a huge
dragon rushed down the dale against him with a train of serpents,
paddocks, and toads, that blew poison towards him. Then he
turned to go westward around the land as far as Eyjafjord, and he
went into the fjord. Then a bird flew against him, which was so
great that its wings stretched over the mountains on either side
of the fjord, and many birds, great and small, with it. Then he
swam farther west, and then south into Breidafjord. When he came
into the fjord a large grey bull ran against him, wading into the
sea, and bellowing fearfully, and he was followed by a crowd of
land-spirits. From thence he went round by Reykjanes, and wanted
to land at Vikarsskeid, but there came down a hill-giant against
him with an iron staff in his hands.

Hail the land spirits. May they do what we ought to be doing, at least until our friends and old allies are equip't and trained to do it themselves. No good comes of the betrayal of friends.

Honored Guns

Good revolutions are not a thing understood by the UN. No surprise. We who honor the old American way can not agree. For myself, I choose a weapon not entirely "light": the Smith & Wesson M629-4, chambered in .44 Remington Magnum.

Bush, Saddam and al Qaeda:

From InstaPundit, sage of Knoxville, comes an article from a judge for whom he used to clerk. The fellow, a lifelong Democrat, was in Iraq with ORHA, and has uncovered documented evidence that Saddam assigned a Mukhabarat agent to work with Osama bin Laden:

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

No word on the date of this yet. We know that Saddam had approached al Qaeda in the early 1990s, but many reports suggest that they fell out quickly. Everything changes if this is a more recent, and ongoing, relationship. Or rather, everything changes for us who live in the open sources: it looks as if Bush, who has been saying this all along, is borne out again. See Thursday's post on that subject.

War with DPRK Watch:

Open sources, including the Straits Times of Singapore, are reporting that North Korea is doing pre-nuke bomb tests and has probably nearly finished reprocessing its plutonium. This confirms that we are not even a year away from a fully nuclear North Korea. At this point, there is probably nothing but war that can stop them from going fully nuclear. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald:

North Korea has conducted 70 high-explosive tests linked to nuclear weapons development, South Korea's spy chief was quoted as saying last night.

The claim was made just hours after the Prime Minister, John Howard, began reining in Australia's tough talk on North Korea, amid warnings that military threats could provoke a nuclear confrontation.

A senior source in Seoul said that Ko Young-Koo, a National Intelligence Service director, had told parliament: 'We have also noticed high-explosive tests being conducted in Yongdok district in Gusong City in [the north-western province of] North Pyongyang and we have been keeping track of the movement."

He also said that North Korea had apparently begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, a program that could yield enough plutonium for half-a-dozen atomic bombs within months.

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, spoke to the matter yesterday. He uses hopeful language, though this may be because his nation is wary (and weary) of supporting US-led wars:

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard says he is still hopeful the stand-off over North Korea's nuclear weapons program can be solved diplomatically.

But Mr Howard says North Korea's statement that it is willing to go to war is worrying.

Mr Howard says Australia will join America in military training exercises in september to fine tune skills needed for the interception of vessels suspected of carrying nuclear weapons.

"Clearly the training that will take place over the next few weeks will mean that different countries, including Australia, are ready if we do decided to do that," he said.

Australia agreed on Thursday to contribute forces to interdiction training exercises at a meeting of the 11-nation Proliferation Security Initiative, in the Australian state of Queensland.

North Korea has said it's ready for war if America resorts to force.

Lied? Apparently not.

I've been giving my friends on the left a lot of leeway with the "Bush lied about..." claims that they have been making. After all, Bush is a politician, and in my experience, politicians lie a lot. Even the ones who don't lie do change their minds on matters that they had previously appeared to consider points of principle. So, I've been willing to consider that it was not impossible that Bush had stretched the truth a bit on this or that matter.

Even so, I've found him to be a relatively honest politician: in fact, I would say stunningly honest given that he occupies the Presidency. Normally Presidents have to be very dodgy because they know things that they can't say; and they can't say it because it's based on collected intelligence, which has to be treated gingerly because the lives and welfare of agents are on the line. In spite of that, Bush has been pretty straightforward about what he thinks.

Take the Axis of Evil, for example. When Bush linked Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the response from the left was "What? Those are totally unrelated evils. You obviously are an idiot." (Actually, many of the folks on the left went a bit further, and argued that there was no such thing as evil. This space will treat that particular brand of foolishness another day.) Even from the right, the response was, "Obviously this is the scoring of a rhetorical point rather than a literal axis, since Iran and Iraq hate each other, and North Korea is on the other side of the world."

But ever since then it's proven out that Bush was just telling us, as straight as he could, what the intelligence showed. North Korean missiles have been sold to Iran, aiding the development of Iran's own weapons program, including the missile that can hit Israel. The DPRK and Iran have openly coordinated their nuclear programs. The Iran/Iraq frontier appears to have been far more porous that most of us believed, with groups like Ansar al-Islam operating on both sides and giving aid to al Qaeda. The smuggling of Iraqi oil out through Iran appears to have opened secret, but real, ties between those governments. We've recently uncovered a huge cache of documents belonging to the Mukhabarat, Iraqi intelligence, and I expect them to demonstrate far more serious and numerous ties than have heretofore emerged.

So, this claim that Bush lied about Iraq has to be put into a fence. Based on what is now open source, we can say that Bush's claims about Iraq have all borne out except the WMD claims. Those claims were beliefs shared by the United Nations, which had 18 Security Council resolutions on the subject and which wasted years and fortunes begging Hussein to let them inspect. The nations on the Security Council have some of the best intelligence services in the world, so we have to assume that the evidence on WMD was pretty emphatic. All intelligence is speculative, but the degree of unity of opinion here is remarkable.

So if it wasn't WMD as a whole that Bush lied about, then we have to limit ourselves to nuclear weapons. But here again, Bush's claims were only that he believed Hussein was preparing to reconstitute his nuclear program, not that there was a reconstituted nuclear program. That is the kind of thing intelligence can simply be wrong about. So we must draw the fence tighter and tighter to find an area in which we can clearly say that Bush lied.

And at last, I can't find one. The area that the left has focused upon is the Niger uranium. But Bush's claim in the State of the Union address was that the British had warned him of the purchase. While the CIA's document has been demonstrated to be a forgery, the British sources--we still don't know exactly what they were--are still supported by their government. Tony Blair, while playing down WMD generally, spoke to the Niger issue yesterday:

Mr Blair stood by the claim in the September dossier that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons. He insisted the claim was based on different intelligence to the forged documents which have been dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr Blair said: "This is terribly important, because this has again been elevated into something that really is not warranted by the actual facts. There was an historic link between Niger and Iraq. In the 1980s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called forged documents. They came from separate intelligence. In so far as our intelligence services are concerned, they stand by that."

Now that leaves us here: Bush claimed the British had told him about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Niger, and the British did just that. If you're going to pick a foreign intelligence service to trust, MI6 is one of the better ones. Even if Bush didn't believe them, he was still telling the truth when he said that the British had passed us that piece of information.

I think there is nothing much more to be said. InstaPundit, sage of Knoxville, has the story of the CIA officer who allegedly told Bush that the Niger documents were forgeries. What turns out to be a forgery is the CIA officer himself, who never worked for the Agency. There were other sources, apparently including the real CIA, who agreed that these documents were forgeries--but there is still the unseen British intelligence. Evaluating that as good or bad is not possible except as an act of faith.

That really is where we finish the inquiry: with faith. At the last you can only believe Bush is a liar if you choose to believe it. There is no evidence to support the claim. At the same time, you can't see the British intelligence he seems to have chosen to trust. So, there's no evidence to exonerate him either. I am going to choose to believe the man, simply because his record in the past has been one of openness with the American people on matters of national security, far more openness than I would have required or expected of a President. I don't see that we can move farther on this question unless new evidence emerges.

More on Iran:

Iranian agents may be behind the jamming of all US satellite transmissions to Iran. Neither private nor government signal is getting through. This report suggests the agents may be based in Latin America.

Iran:

Although I'm not sure why I would follow the advice of Andrew Sullivan, I will include a link to Iranian issues today, via Arts & Letters Daily. Here it is: The Backwardness of Islam. I must say that I am myself a friend to Islam, much as I am to Christianity. Nevertheless, there are some ideas here that Muslims will have to consider, especially as concerns market economies.

Arguing Against Heroism:

I am always surprised at how many people want to take up a stick to beat the notion of heroism. It seems to me that nothing could be more necessary to a peaceful human future than the heroic model. This has been argued extensively in the past on this page, but here's another chance to take it up again.

From J. Cohen's "Medieval Masculinities":

"As a political mythology, heroism is surprisingly quite poor" (Peter van Heusden): it offers a mode of behavior, but by making its best representative more than human (hypermasculine, sanctified, even perhaps divine), it disallows that mode's successful repetition. The necessary end for heroism is death, even if that death is construed as a valorization through "glory" of the preceding life; and so heroism as a gender code has built within its deep structure the inevitability of its own passing, and to a degree, its own failure.

"The necessary end for heroism is death[.]" Glad we've got that straight. Now, tell me--what kind of life has a different ending?

Grandma:

Not my own dear grandmother, but a heroic woman nonetheless:

Grandma set broken bones, dug lead out of men that had been shot, and when a smallpox epidemic raged in and around the sleepy village of La Luz, Grandma quarantined some houses to use as "pest houses" and then vaccinated dozens of La Luz residents. She used a vaccine she personally extracted from calves she had inoculated with virus of the disease.
Not everyone in La Luz was willing to be vaccinated. Grandma's technique was to scrape then slash criss-cross an area of skin on her patient's left arm with a sharp knife opening a wound of at least an inch and a quarter in diameter. She then would rub her vaccine into the bleeding wound. During 1898 and 1899 people who were vaccinated in this way did not come down with smallpox, while many who refused vaccination did.
In 1900, there were no corner drugstores in La Luz--the nearest was in the new town of Alamogordo, miles away by horseback. So Grandma kept a medicine chest of old frontier standbys--quinine, turpentine, coal oil and whiskey.

Magna Carta:

Here is what almost passes as a conservative case for radical socialism, if such a thing can be imagined. It references the Magna Carta as a document that lays the foundation for the common right of access to the forests. It's an argument worth considering for those of us who tend to be private-property advocates. It's worth remembering that private property has its limitations in the American tradition too, especially where corporations come into play: James Jackson's wrath against the Yazoo land conspiracy, for example, was entirely American. Jackson, hero of the American revolution and "Prince of Duellist," was enraged by the Yazoo land law precisely because it stripped from the citizens of Georgia the chance to be small land holders, yeoman-farmers of the sort he and Thomas Jefferson prized. It may be that this point ought to apply in the Amazon, too. It's worth considering.

Anti-American:

Did you know that the current stream of anti-American thought has its roots in Nazism? Did you know that there were four previous streams of anti-American thought, the first of which was put down by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson? For my more philosophical readers, here is a link to an article on the history of anti-Americanism.

Ah, yes, California:

The Golden State screws us again:

Shorn of LaLaLand [that is, California], in May America would actually have seen a net gain in employment - an extra 4,500 jobs - but then the monthly figures from California came in - another 21,500 layoffs - and drove the national figure down again. Meanwhile, if you drive in California, your vehicle registration just tripled: if it was 200 bucks last year, it's 600 now.

Thanks to Mr. Steyn for that.

Ah, the Turks:

On April 24th, US forces captured a dozen Turkish commandos who had come to Iraq to cause mayhem:

The Turkish Special Forces team put up no resistance though a mean arsenal was discovered in their cars, including a variety of AK-47s, M4s, grenades, body armor and night vision goggles. "They did not come here with a pure heart," says U.S. brigade commander Col. Bill Mayville.

Now another team has been caught. This time they are rumored to have been planning to carry out an assassination:

Turkish government officials said about 100 American troops raided a Turkish special forces office in the northern Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah, detained 11 soldiers, and took them to Kirkuk.

The Hurriyet newspaper said the detentions followed reports that Turks were planning to kill a senior Iraqi official in Kirkuk. While there was no word on the identity, the city recently elected a Kurdish lawyer, Abdulrahman Mustafa, as its mayor amid concerns that the new administration may favor one ethnic group over another. The city is divided between Arabs, Kurds, ethnic Turks and Christians and has been the scene of ethnic tensions.

Turkey rejected any suggestion of a plot.

I've Seen This Movie:

Send in the Marines? I can't think why, when we will surely need them elsewhere soon enough. The threat of the Marine Corps is lessened tremendously when they are already bogged down somewhere else. With only two US Army divisions available to deploy for combat operations, it seems that even a few thousand Marines might be better kept for other purposes.

Additionally, I'm against going just because the UN said we should. I think the lesson of the last year ought to be that the UN be roundly ignored on all matters. Unless we have a pressing national interest, we ought not to go. Besides, the press reports from there are turning purple. Leftists who long for the US to be the army of the UN, and never act otherwise, have begun to really hype Liberia since the UN vote last week. Doesn't this lurid AP report sound like the movie Casablanca crossed with Aliens?

Liberia, fraught with danger and drunk killers, awaits U.S. forces
By Jonathan Paye-Layleh, Associated Press, 7/4/2003 19:57

MONROVIA, Liberia (AP) Trapped in Liberia's besieged seaside capital, more than 1 million desperate, hungry residents and refugees dream of American troops coming to the rescue disarming rebel and government fighters locked in a vicious civil war.

Yet ending Liberia's nightmare is being weighed against the cost of U.S. intervention that would put American soldiers between AK-47-toting gunmen for whom mutilation and summary execution is commonplace.

Another reason to avoid Liberia: president Charles Taylor is being described as "indicted war crimes suspect" Charles Taylor. Ya'll remember that Bush, Blair, and Gen. Franks are also "indicted war crimes suspects." The ICC and similar organs are trying to use things like this to build legitimacy behind the idea that international bodies can violate national soverignity in order to seize people that the UN/ICC/whoever has voted to indict.

Pretty rich, you say, a defense of national soverignity coming from a guy who favors using the USMC to knock of tyrants anywhere we please? Touche. But you must understand that I support the old order, whereby national--presumably, democratically accountable--governments hold the power to choose war or peace. The international order is antidemocratic, as you must have noticed by now. Far better for matters of such importance to be in the hands of the people, not career bureaucrats drawn from the ranks least likely to understand or feel inclined to use force in a firm, just fashion. There are plenty of folks in those bureaucracies with ranks and titles, but damn few who understand what nobility is about.

One thing I do like to see though: Charles Taylor hopped pretty quickly in response to that US warning that he had 48 hours to step down, didn't he? The decapitation strike may not have gotten Saddam, but it put the world's tyrants on notice. Come the 49th hour, the bombs can already be on their way.

Our Predecessors:

Many of our Islamist enemies have come to consider "Crusaders" to be just another word for "American" or, at best, "Coalition." So it's interesting that on the 4th of July the Israelis broke into a cistern that was built by the real Crusaders.

A Bolt from Heaven:

An evangelist calls upon God for a sign, and God delivers:

A member of the First Baptist Church said a guest evangelist was preaching repentance and seeking a sign from God when lightning struck the steeple.

Ronnie Cheney called the incident "awesome, just awesome!"

Cheney said the lightning traveled through the microphone, blew out the sound system and enveloped the preacher, who wasn't hurt.


Afterward, services resumed for about 20 minutes until the congregation realized the church was on fire. The building was evacuated.

This reminds me of the movie about the life of Sergeant York, wherein a bolt of lightning knocks a drunk Alvin York off of his mule just by the church. However, that was Hollywood. One has to leave the metaphysics aside for a moment and just take it in--it is an awesome story.

All hat, no...

Cowboy hats on the runway in Milan. It's supposed to be a 'virile' symbole of an 'American tough-guy image.' Well and good. My hat is a Stetson, one that belonged to my grandfather before his days ran out, and now belongs to me. Don't reckon he ever expected to be setting the style for the Milanese fashionable, but he was certainly a tough American guy.

Dirty Bombs:

Dirty bombs are the terror weapon that provides the greatest danger to the U.S. economy:

On 13 June, a Thai national was arrested in Bangkok with a large quantity - reportedly 30kg - of caesium-137, a radioactive isotope that could be used in a radiological weapon (a so-called 'dirty bomb'). Narong Penanam confessed he had smuggled the radioactive material into Thailand from neighbouring Laos. He was detained in a sting operation by officers posing as potential buyers.

It is believed that the suspect's intended customers - possibly the Southeast Asian terrorist network Jemaah Islamiah - were planning to target US interests in Thailand, perhaps the embassy or other diplomatic premises. US customs officials had asked the Thai police to investigate uranium trading in Thailand, which they suspected was bound for terrorist groups in Iraq or North Korea.

It is not clear if the 30kg seized in Thailand included the weight of the case as well as the caesium-137, which could turn out to weigh as little as 100g. Regardless of the amount seized, the arrest highlights the continuing problem of nuclear smuggling.

The use of even a small amount of caesium in a radiological weapon would necessitate an expensive decontamination operation and, apart from injuries caused by the actual explosion, could cause a rise in cancer cases in the long term. Uranium, however, would have to be highly enriched for use in even a crude nuclear device.

On 18 May it was reported that during a routine raid, Georgian police seized strontium and caesium in boxes from the boot of a taxi in the capital, Tblisi. The police suspect the substances were being smuggled into Turkey. A device made from that radioactive material could contaminate a 500-600m radius.

The damage to the US economy from 9/11 was as great as it was because of the disruption of the airlines. Although a massive amount of communications equiptment went down with the two towers, America's communication system is remarkably capable of regeneration. The shutting down of the airlines for a full day, though, created transportation problems for every industry in the country. The main trouble was not the transportation of people, but of goods: factories ran short, orders were not delivered, every industry was disrupted in shockwaves.

A similar, but worse, effect is possible with dirty bombs. Major airports could be shut down, not for hours, but for weeks. Sadly, some of this disruption could be handled: the falloff of air traffic since 9/11 means that there is excess capacity in the airports of the country. There would still be a stern depressive effect upon the economy at a point--the airlines--where we are still limping.

DPRK Nuke Test:

This page has been arguing for months that a nuclear weapon test by the DPRK was coming. Once they've tested a nuclear weapon in an underground location, they'll have thereby irradiated enough material to make many more bombs, thus making the point moot as to their uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing plants. Now, Kenneth Quinones, one of the Clinton Administration's negotiators who worked with the DPRK, says that he agrees. Such a test may well come, he says, by the end of the year.

A brilliant letter:

From Mark Steyn's mailbag. Steyn himself is all too frequently praised on this page for me to pretend to evenhandedness, but this letter written to him by one of his readers deserves to be widely reprinted:

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HIS OWN TYRANT
WMDs were the main reason to remove Saddam Hussein, but none were found yet. As his removal was unwarranted and in blatant breach of many UN charters, wouldn't it be fair, at least as an interim measure, to install a tyrant in Iraq, until the weapons are found?

I'm sure North Korea or Cuba could lend one, and some of Pol Pot's cronies are still around.

This way, we can, at least partially, redress the gross injustice forced upon the Iraqi people.

Kalman Dee
Canberra, Australia

Readers might want to see Steyn's obit for Strom Thurmond, while there.

Pravda is of two minds:

Today's analysis of the Iraq situation (emphasis added):

The war against the occupation force is turning into some kind of a religious struggle; under these conditions the situation in Iraq may become less stable and predictable.

Elsewhere in Pravda, this report on regimental priests, under the subhead (emphasis added) "Are faithful soldiers more predictable?":

A seminar of the subject "Vicarial service in present-day army" was held in the Russian city of Ryazan on June 24. The seminar was organized by the RF Defense Ministry and the Moscow Patriarchate Department for cooperation with the armed forces and law enforcement structures. Main goals of the seminar are to determine objectives that the Orthodox Church pursues while working in the army, to find out the instruments it uses at that or plans to employ in the future.

Outstanding!

This story from Utah shows what happens when legislators get sensible about gun control:

The Jordan School Board gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a policy outlining the conditions under which district employees may carry a concealed weapon on school property with a valid permit.
Employees must keep the weapon concealed and employees who legally use a concealed weapon on school grounds do so in their individual capacities, not their scope of employment.

That sounds right to me. The law respects the free citizen's right to bear arms, but it doesn't provide them any special protections or restrictions based on the fact that they happen to be employed by the school. That is to say, it treats the right to bear arms as a right: a perogative of a citizen, the exercise of which ought not to be subject to any burdens by any entity except those the state legislature duly enacts, so long as those enacted burdens are in line with the principles of the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.

Texas Terrorism:

There is a report on the wires today that terrorists are targeting Texas. The FBI is being cagey, as usual, as to what their sources are. They say there is not a credible threat, but that they've heard some things that make it possible, etc, etc.

Well, of course there was the recent lad from Texas who proved to be an al Qaeda member. But also, about three weeks ago Jihadunspun.net had a post claiming a successful Qaeda attack on a Texas oil refinery. JUS has pulled it, but the original text is below:

[S]ome American sources mentioned that a huge explosion took place in the main oil refinery in Texas. According to Lieutenant Paul Limoin from Niches police station, the explosion fires spread from 300 to 400 feet vertically in the air that could be seen and heard from miles. The explosion was so strong that it resulted in very strong pressure in the area.

The local American TV station KFDM was the only one to transmit the incident live on Tuesday the 20th of May at about 11 PM. KFDM attributed the incident to a tough explosion in a natural gas tube line at Jefferson district.

Lieutenant Limoin was among a number of officers who closed high ways 347 and 336 for several hours because people from neighboring areas and hundreds of cars moved to watch the incident which jammed the traffic and hindered all kinds of communication by phone and the radio was the only thing that worked.

An eye witness said that that she heard the explosion of the tube line that was very tough to the extent that she saw the orange flames in the sky, yet the inhabitants of the area stayed as they were because they trusted the efficiency of the firemen.

Ronda Vize a KFMD employee said that policemen confirmed that after 15 minutes, the flames disappeared from the sky. Nevertheless, she doubts what the policemen said because even hours after the explosion she still could see the fire in the area. However, Paul Limoin said that the blows lasted for 10 minutes or more but there were no injuries among the residents of the area which raised doubts about the police attempts to hide the incident. Police sources added that the explosion is attributed to an electric sparkle that hit one of the oil tankers, but this story contradicts what some eyewitnesses said.

It turned out to be nothing of the sort--an explosion at a SUNOCO gas pipeline near a loading station. But I thought you'd like to know, Texas readers--al Qaeda is thinking of you.

Things to remember:

When reading news stories from certain foreign countries that purport to tell you how "the man in the street" feels, keep in mind this enlightening news story from the Pakistan Observer:

A staggering majority of the Americans want US President George W Bush be impeached for launching Iraq war on false pretexts and flimsy grounds. �Official Poll� reported on June 11 that more than 94.7 per cent of the US citizens were in favour of Bush�s impeachment, the report claimed.

It published its poll with the question: �Should George W Bush be impeached?� A staggering number 94.7 per cent of those polled said: �Yes, the President of the United States of America should be impeached for what appear to be untrue statements to the US Congress and the American people.�

Under US law, lying about the reason for a war is an impeachable offence.

We probably remember from 1998 that US law doesn't really go into any detail about what is or isn't impeachable. But really--94.7%? Why didn't they just report that we HAD impeached him? I mean, if you're going to just make stuff up, why not go hog wild? (Oops--accidental cultural insensitivity there. Sorry, Muslim readers.)

Update to Special Operations piece:

Strategypage is reporting that there will soon be a new commando unit in the US Military, drawn exclusively from the United States Marine Corps. It's certainly right and proper that this should be the case. The Marines, whatever else you may wish to say about them (e.g., that they're obviously superior to the Army in every way, and better looking as well), have a signal advantage over the other services: they are paid out of the President's funds rather than Congress'. The Corps is the President's to use as he sees fit, regardless of what jackass was currently on the Senate floor filibustering against the rescinding of aloe vera subsidies.

Not that I'm opposed to legislative oversight. I think the Congress ought to be the leading branch of the government. It's just that, first, we'll have to elect some leaders to it.

Mercenaries for Peace:

This is an excellent idea. Mercenary peacekeepers: I like it.

Pay in Iraq:

Students of history will recall that one of the early troubles for the American republic was occasioned by the nonpayment of veterans' pensions. George Washington almost failed to put an end to the mutiny, as the veterans were rightly outraged at the government's failure to provide promised funds that were necessary, in many cases, to care for their families. Washington's speech failed, but his vision carried the day: that is, his literal vision. He had to produce eyeglasses to read the notes he had from the government, which surprised many of the soldiers who had served with him. His remark, which I quote from memory, was to ask them to excuse him, "for I have grown grey in the service, and now grow blind." The veterans, remembering common struggles and sacrifices, chose then to heed him.

There is no George Washington in Iraq. Therefore, it is wise of the American government to put the payment of Iraqis in the hands of his heirs, who are very capable men: I MEF.

Mark Steyn:

"Damn, Mark," I keep saying as I read his stuff. If there is a more insightful man than Mark Steyn writing today, I haven't run across him. Cross-cultures are no problem for him: he gets it.

Sartorially, Jordanian politics seems to be the opposite of American: in the New Hampshire primary, smooth, bespoke, Beltway types who�ve been wearing suits and wingtips since they were in second grade suddenly clamber into the old plaid and blue jeans and work boots, and start passing themselves off as stump-toothed inbred mountain men who like nothing better than a jigger of moonshine and a bunk-up with their sister. Evidently, in rural Jordan the voters are savvy enough not to fall for such pathetically obvious pandering.

Or so I thought. But when the campaign aides pressed an 8x10 glossy of their man on me and I asked them where he stood on the issues, they hadn�t a clue. In rural Jordan, a candidate runs on his Rolodex. He�s the guy with high-level contacts in Amman who can use �em to bring home the bacon, or the pork, or whatever the Muslim equivalent is. That�s the message of the suit. If the plaid in a New Hampshire primary is supposed to signal that the guy�s one of us, the Savile Row get-up in Azraq is supposed to send the opposite message: this guy�s one of them � in a suit like that, there�s no reason why you couldn�t find him sitting across the banqueting table from Queen Rania. That�s the man your tribe or village needs in Amman.

Straight talk on WMD and Iraq:

Here it is, courtesy of the good lads at the Star Tribune:

Does the failure to find WMD mean we were handed a sack of lies?

Nope. The administration was clear from the get-go: Iraq was part of the Axis, and the Axis had to go down. Each part would be sundered as circumstances permitted. The destruction of the fascist regime in Baghdad would be the object lesson for the region, the proof that America had a new mission: Extirpating the flaming nutballs and the societies that nurture them.

Of course, that was not how the war was sold. Because the administration sought U.N. approval, the issue became enforcement of U.N. resolutions -- and those had to do with disarmament. Because the Bush team sought a greater moral legitimacy, it also phrased the war in terms of liberation, and removing a government with ties to terrorism. . . .

In the long run, it's not what we don't find in Iraq. It's what doesn't happen.

No more mass executions. No new prisons for children. No bonus checks for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. No Terrorism 101 classes at Salman Pak. No electrodes applied to the daughter of a man who talked to CNN. No daily potshots at allied aircraft. No sudden sluice of fear in the hearts of the Kurds when the government trucks appear on the horizon. No miserable thuggish satrapy in the middle of the Middle East, thumbing its nose at the United Nations and the United States.

Come election time 2004, the Iraqi oil proceeds will not be going to secret Swiss accounts named Chick Daney and Ronald Dumsfeld. They'll be going to the people of Iraq. We won't be arguing about losing the peace in Iraq.

We'll be arguing about losing the peace in Iran. But that's another story. For another presidential term.

Revolutionary Ideal:

Democracy according to the classical liberal tradition is the last true revolutionary ideology in the world. It is also the only one that has worked: predating and surviving Marxism, Fascism, and managing to erect free societies while the ideologies of unfreedom drew darkness over their lands.

PBR Watch:

My grandfather's beer, at $4 a bottle.

Grim Loses A Bet:

Eric Robert Rudolph, neither dead nor in Boliva. Win some, lose some.