Steyn gets it right again:

Speaking to the subject of Bill Clinton's new version of "Peter and the Wolf," in which the wolf is set free with a friendly apology:

A significant chunk of the American people think the Democratic candidates feel the same way about the war on terror as Bill Clinton does about Peter's wolf and the New York Times does about Jessie's shark. And they reckon they know how that usually winds up. A couple of years back, a cougar killed a dog near the home of Frances Frost in Canmore, Alberta. Frost, an ''environmentalist dancer'' with impeccable pro-cougar credentials, objected strenuously to suggestions that the predator be tracked and put down. A month later, she was killed in broad daylight by a cougar who'd been methodically stalking her.

''I can't believe it happened,'' wailed a fellow environmentalist. But why not? Cougars prey on species they're not afraid of.

Poetry in the Corner:

Asks Peter Robinson, "But how does one insist that poetry remains, even at this late date, a fit topic for discussion, without seeming a trifle...sniffy?"

By Thunder, man! One recites:

Seven spears, and the seventh
Was wrought as the faerie blades,
And given to Elf the minstrel
By the monstrous water-maids;

By them that dwell where luridly
Lost waters of the Rhine
Move among the roots of nations
Being sunken for a sign.

Under all graves they murmur,
They murmur and rebel
Down to the buried kingdoms creep,
And like a lost rain roar and weep
O'er the red heavens of hell.

Thrice drowned was Elf the minstrel
And washed as dead on sand
And the third time men found him
The spear was in his hand.

Seven spears went about Eldred,
Like stays about a mast;
But there was sorrow by the sea
For the driving of the last.

Six spears thrust upon Eldred
Were splintered while he laughed;
One spear thrust into Eldred
Three feet of blade and shaft.

And from the great heart grievously
Came forth the shaft and blade
And he stood with the face of a dead man,
Stood a little, and swayed--

Then fell, as falls a battle-tower,
On smashed and struggling spears,
Cast down from some unconquered town
That, rushing earthward, carries down
Loads of live men of all renown--
Archers and engineers.

And a great clamour of Christian men
Went up in agony,
Crying, "Fallen is the tower of Wessex
That stood beside the sea."

Center and right the Wessex guard
Grew pale for doubt and fear,
And the flank failed at the advance,
For the death-light on the wizard lance--
The star of the evil spear.

"Stand like an oak," cried Marcus,
"Stand like a Roman wall!
Eldred the Good is fallen--
Are you too good to fall?

"When we were wan and bloodless
He gave you ale enow;
The pirates deal with him as dung,
God! are you bloodless now?"

"Grip, Wulf and Gorlias, grip the ash!
Slaves, and I make you free!
Stamp, Hildred hard on English land,
Stand Gurth, stand Gorlias, Gawen stand!
Hold, Halfgar, with the other hand,
Halmer, hold up the knee!

"The lamps are dying in your homes,
The fruits upon your bough;
Even now your old thatch smoulders, Gurth,
Now is the judgment of the earth,
Now is the death-grip, now!"

For thunder of the Captain,
Not less the Wessex line,
Leaned back and reeled a space to rear
As Elf charged with the Rhine maids' spear,
And roaring like the Rhine. . . .

The Wessex crescent backwards
Crushed, as with bloody spear
Went Elf roaring and routing,
And Mark against Elf yet shouting,
Shocked, in his mid-career.

Right on the Roman shield and sword
Did spear of the Rhine maids run;
But the shield shifted never,
The sword rang down to sever,
The great Rhine sang for ever,
And the songs of Elf were done.

Thus G. K. Chesterton, from The Ballad of the White Horse. If there is a man born to the English tongue who can hear that thunder, today or any day, and not tremble to his bones--he is no man at all.

Still More New Links:

I'd like to announce the addition of three new links: Blaster's Blog, an explosives-oriented fellow, and two blogs who have linked to me: Free Speech, and Tobacco Road Fogey. Welcome to the roll.

This links thing is an ongoing project. I'm still planning to add a section on sites about history and mythology. I'll let you know when it's ready.

Zabul:

The Boston Globe has a piece today on the danger of a resurgent Taliban. You, dear readers, knew of the danger on the 8th of August, and on Friday, you knew it was a particularly brilliant trap, a point which will perhaps elude the Boston Globe's readers for a month or so yet. Isn't it nice to be ahead of the curve?

Casablanca:

In reference to yesterday's post, here's an article on a new phase of Israel/Morocco cooperation:

The al-Qaeda terror bombings in Casablanca last May jolted Moroccan
officials and forced them to revisit Morocco's limited diplomatic agenda.
Morocco recognized the need to improve security measures and cooperation with other countries in combating terror. It was reported that the head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency visited Morocco as part of the bombing investigation.

Now, Israel and Morocco have gotten along pretty well in the past, all things considered. Still yet, the Mossad is hated and feared across the region. To invite them for consultations on your security under those circumstances is no small step.

Another new link:

Kim du Toit, to the right and down, under "Other Halls." It's good to see a fellow rifleman around--sorry it took so long to notice.

Freeing Iraqi Generals:

I've been asked to mention that Chief Wiggles wants your prayers for the freeing of the Iraqi generals who ordered their troops to stand down during the Iraq war. They're still held POW by the Coalition. The Chief feels they deserve better, and maybe they do. Go read his blog, and decide for yourself.

If you do decide to act, you might want to know the following, which the Chief doesn't seem to have online. Donald Rumsfeld can be contacted here:

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000

Your prayers, of course, should be addressed as usual.

The Post gets it wrong:

Here is an update on al Qaeda's war, focused on Iraq. The Post is being a little defeatist about the whole thing. If al Qaeda thinks that Iraq is the perfect place to fight us, they're screwing up in a big way.

AQ can't really hurt the US in Iraq. They can kill some of our soldiers in ambushes and suicide bombings, but probably not as many as they think. Meanwhile, our economic interests in Iraq are minimal--really, the cost of rebuilding and, to a far lesser degree, the market price of oil are the only things they can manipulate. When AQ was fighting an economic war against us, targeting air traffic, airports, and so forth, they had a real chance of beating the US--particularly if they got nuclear/radiological weapons. It appears they've been drawn into a military conflict, and they're not going to win one of those with us.

Meanwhile, the Post misstates two critical points, and leaves out a third. The first is that the bombing in Saudi Arabia didn't just cause a crackdown--it brought into the open a war that's been going on there for more than a year. Those gunbattles they mention are frequent. Saudi security services are no longer feeling like they need to keep things in the shadows, as the people of Arabia were outraged by the bombings there. Meanwhile, the Saudi government is forcing clerics inside Arabia to adopt a new, less militant line, or else.

The point the Post leaves out is that the exact same thing has happened in Morocco. After Casablanca, the media of the country turned anti-terrorist. They are wrapped up in the prosecution and punishment of those involved, and in hunting out their networks both in Morocco and abroad. This has been a source of humiliation for the UK, as London has often been a hub of such groups.

Every time AQ sets off a bomb inside a Muslim country, they poison their own wells. And that gets to the second point that the Post misstates: the Caliphate.

Yes, the Arabs are annoyed with us for occupying the historic seat of the Caliphate. However, not every Muslim is actually interested in the Caliphate. It is particularly the Shi'ites who are concerned with the Caliphate. How many Shi'ites love al Qaeda? Few to start with, since Wahabbis don't consider them real Muslims, nor even one of the protected "children of the book" faiths, but polytheists who should be killed (the reason is that the Wahabbis believe that equating the word of the Caliph with that of Allah is essentially to create a second god). That number has shrunk further since al Qaeda set off a car bomb near the Shrine of Ali. Those foreign fighters that the Post makes so much of are now looking at a reincarnated Badr Brigade which, however much it may be irritated at the Coalition, will delight in killing "Arab foreigners." One more 'victory' like Najaf, and the Badr Brigades will probably just start shooting them on sight.

We've got a rough patch ahead in Iraq, to be sure. The US isn't going to be badly hurt by it, though, as we don't really have anything at stake there. The worst we can do is fail, which would mean some humiliation, additional creeping of that evil thing called International Law, and the deaths of a lot of good men. That's bad--but our society, our economic infrastructure, the largest part of our military might would not be damaged.

Al Qaeda, by constrast, is now committing heavily to trying to fight a military conflict for which it is unsuited; while carrying out bombings that are poisoning its wells; while choosing ground on which to fight where the populace hates them with a passion, is increasingly well armed, and lusting for vengence.

The Advocate:

I am now going to occupy a position that is, ironically in this case, called the Devil's Advocate. I'm doing this in order to see that an honorable opponent is fairly treated, though I strongly disagree with the case he is making. Those of you who are no longer interested in the subject of Roy Moore or the Ten Commandments monument may skip on to other things. Those who are, but wonder what my actual position on the matter is, can find it starting here and finishing here.

With that said, I'm now going to treat Sovay McKnight's discourse on the Ten Commandments. She has a pretty good roundup of the legal reasoning behind the current Supreme Court thinking on religious symbols. She winds up:

The Alabama district court was right to rule the way it did. Any way you look at it, the law prohibits Roy Moore's Ten Commandments from being placed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in their present form. Now, you're welcome to try and repeal the Fourteenth or First Amendments, it's a free country after all, but until that's done, the courts are going to keep on ruling against Moore.

Now, I am all for repealing the Fourteenth Amendment, or rather, recognizing that it was never legally ratified in the first place. It has no place in the Constitution, having been put there illegally and improperly, and it is incompatible with the Classical Liberal foundations of this country. Unfortunately, though all of that is true, to date the people who have argued on behalf of that truth have been doing so for dishonorable reasons, with the result that the argument has become tarnished by their participation in it. Nevertheless, someday the 14th will face organized opposition from honorable men, and we will bring it down.

However, the repeal of neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendments are necessary to Justice Moore's position. All that is necessary is a different understanding of them--and it happens that the different understanding of them is the proper understanding. I will demonstrate why, and then I will argue against her conception of Justice Moore himself, which I think is both unfair to the man, and also underestimates the danger his case poses.

First, it should be said that Justice Moore disagrees not merely with the Lemon test, but with the entire legal tradition that supports it. His challenge isn't to the US Supreme Court, but to Jefferson, as he himself says:

They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

"Separation of Church and State" is, we all know, taken from one of Jefferson's letters on his understanding of what ought to be the way the government functioned. It is not in the Constitution, as Justice Moore correctly points out. Furthermore, it was far from a unified position among the Founders, many--perhaps even most--of whom felt that religion was not separable from government. The 1st Amendment's statement that Congress would "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" meant to most of the Founders that Congress could not establish an official state Church, the way that England, Scotland, Ireland, and generally every other nation of the day had done. It was intended to allow for the "free exercise" of all religions. Jefferson's formula, which has become our own, was unusual and has only the force of intellectual argument to defend it, not Constitutional standing. A future Supreme Court could simply decide to hold that the First Amendment means what the other Founders thought it meant; the repeal of the First is not necessary.

When Justice Moore makes his argument that the First Amendment prevents only Congressional action, and that he "is not Congress, and no law has been passed," he is invoking that alternative understanding. It has as long a history and as respectable a pedigree as the one that forms the basis of the Supreme Court's current understanding. There is, honestly, nothing except the composition of the US Supreme Court to prevent it from becoming the new law of the land. Keep that point in mind--we will return to it.

The second point has to do with Justice Moore's invocation of the Alabama Constitution:

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such[.]

Here the argument against Moore is, essentially, that the Alabama Constitution doesn't count. That argument follows this form:

1. The First Amendment prevents any Federal government action from including religious content.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that state government actions comply with that prohibition as well.
3. Therefore, the Alabama Constitution can't invoke God.

On first inspection, the argument against the Alabama Constitution's language seems stronger even than the argument against Justice Moore's monument. The Alabama Constitution is a law, after all, even if the Justice is not. But a Constitution isn't a law like other laws. The First Amendment can't apply to Constitutions, as it lacks the standing to tell the People what they can do; it can only apply to the people's representatives. A Constitution draws its authority directly from the people, who ratify it as the basic law of the land. It is through that process that the limits of government authority are drawn, and it is through that process that they are changed. The Alabama Constitution has been ratified by the people of Alabama, not created by the legislature of Alabama. The First Amendment speaks to Congress; even if you accept the 14th Amendment, it speaks to legislatures.

No Constitution, though, can set limits on the People. Constitutions lack the standing: all government lacks the standing. No governmental body--not a legislature, not an executive, not a court, not the Supreme Court--can tell the People what they can and can't put in a Constitution. No Constitution can set limits on future constitutions. This is because all government power is descended from the will of the People. Constitutions are only the codification of the more permanent parts of that will. The right of the People, acting as a whole, to set the powers and limits of government is the very basis of Classical Liberalism. It is the basis of the United States of America and the American way.

That is to say: if the People wish, they can invoke God in their Constitution, and no governmental body can tell them otherwise. All such bodies are bound by the fact that they are themselves creatures of the will of the People. They are not superior to the will of the People, and they can set no limits on it. A government can, and does constantly, tell an individual person what that person can do or is forbidden from doing. No government can legitimately tell the People what they can do, or are forbidden from doing. That is Classical Liberalism in "sixteen words," if you like.

Sovay says that Roy Moore is acting out of a desire for personal glory and power. I think she terribly misreads him. I think Justice Moore is acting out of a deep personal belief that the founding principles of this country are being ignored, and that his pursuit of power is a means to the end of correcting the course of American government as a whole. Yes, he has set up this Ten Commandments battle precisely in order to have a fight. The fight he wants to have, though, is not about the presence or absence of a monument, but about the nature of government itself.

I will recall the reader's mind to the statement that only the composition of the Supreme Court, not the 1st or 14th Amendments, stood between us and a reading of the law that permits Justice Moore's ideas from being accepted as right and proper. That is where this is all going. Justice Moore is positioning himself to build and lead a movement to return America to an understanding of government that he thinks is the correct one. It is not going to stop with any court ruling, and it isn't going to stop in Alabama. What you are seeing is the beginning of a groundswell that will command attention far beyond the borders of the Old South. If it is to be combatted in the long run, you can't simply tell people what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says. They know already. They disagree, and they are prepared to do what it takes to change it. If you're going to win the war of ideas, you need to be prepared to defend the Jeffersonian tradition on the merits. Remember that their tradition is just as old, and if anything had more support among the Founders than does the Jeffersonian tradition that we defend. They can't be dismissed as quacks or gloryhounds: the power and depth of their argument demand a full reply.

Furthermore, remember that their understanding of the limits of government power is not only defensible, it is correct. The government has greatly overstepped its bounds, and is therefore off balance. When this groundswell has built to the point that it is ready to challenge the orthodox reading of the First Amendment on a national scale, it is going to be very hard to combat. Much of its power will come from the fact that previous defenders of Jefferson's reading have overstretched, ignored the right and proper limits on government power, and otherwise acted against the vision of what our Republic was founded to defend: that vision of a government which draws its power from the People, and is created and in thrall to them. When these angry men come in their regiments, to challenge in Congress and from the statehouses and benches that orthodox reading, they will be powerful because, on very many questions, they will be right.

Zabul:

On the day when Jihad Unspun first announced that the Taliban had recaptured Zabul province, I speculated:

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.

It appears that was precisely the case. Having been allowed to gather undisturbed in Zabul, the Taliban now find themselves hunted through the passes. Escape is denied them by a massive Pakistan-US joint operation to close the border. Their supporters in the Pakistani Army--and perhaps the ISI as well?--are being arrested in an FBI-Pakistan joint operation.

To the Princes who planned this operation: I salute you. It was manfully done.

Sweet and Proper:

A sign from outside a Southern military base. This demonstrates two things that I think are worth demonstrating: first and least important, that there need to be answers to these conflict-of-interest questions regarding the Iraqi reconstruction; and second, but most important, that military men are far more intelligent, thoughtful, and well-educated than is commonly understood. "We don't pay you to think" is perhaps the most common cliche in the media's depiction of the military lifestyle. Well, whether or not they're paid to think, they still do. Many of them are more properly grounded in classical education than their supposed betters in Academia.

Hat tip to the Agonist, who I've just added to the links section. This site has noted him before, often enough that it seems right to include him.

Neoconservatism:

This is a topic we've all heard about lately. But what is the test for whether someone is or isn't a neocon? Well, if that question has come to you from time to time in the last year, here is the answer: The official Christian Science Monitor "Are you a Neoconservative" Quiz.

This page is not, of course, given over to neoconservatism, or conservatism generally. This is a Classical Liberal page, which only appears conservative to many readers because it is Classical Liberalism that is the foundation of our American society, and it is therefore Classical Liberalism that most American conservatives are trying to conserve. If you are interested in how your correspondant ranked according to the quiz, however, here:

Realist

Realists�

*Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
*Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
*Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
*Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
*Weigh the political costs of foreign action
*Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

*Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

*Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Of course there was no category for Classical Liberal, just as there never is for Southern Democrat. We are a forgotten minority, albeit a well-armed one.

Afghan war:

There continue to be interesting reports from southeastern Afghanistan. One of them, at least, is almost certainly false: that Talibani beheaded six American fighters. That report is from Jihad Unspun, a pro-al-Qaeda site that normally produces falsehoods. As I note below, JUS rather remarkably scooped the rest of the world in reporting the Taliban uprising and reconquest of parts of Zabul province. It's nice to see them returning to form.

Meanwhile, Coalition forces have resumed hunting in the mountains of Zabul province, which border the tribal regions of Pakistan. Interestingly, Pakistan is making moves on the southern side of the same ridges:

Separately, at least 24 Pakistani military helicopters swooped in low over the tribal regions that border Afghanistan in a renewed hunt for fleeing al-Qaida and Taliban, witnesses said Thursday.

Government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said several of the helicopters carried "foreign" forces, an apparent reference to U.S. troops.

The U.S. military earlier deployed an unknown number of special forces into Pakistan's rugged tribal regions[.]

DPA reports (no link):

Pakistan rushed extra troops to Afghan border on Wednesday amid speculation that a ``get Osama bin Laden'' operation was about to be launched, a news report said on Thursday.

Pakistan's foreign minister spoke to this issue yesterday, denying reports that bin Laden was in Pakistan, but saying that he felt that: "To me, time, space and options are becoming limited by the day for Osama and all those linked to him." We will see if that proves to be more than bluster. Again today, it looks like Zabul remains the most interesting place on Earth.

State Dept. Whistles Past Graveyard:

The Kansas City Star has a report from the talks on the DPRK's weapons program, entitled "US Optimistic on North Korea Talks." An excerpt:

The State Department said Tuesday a strong consensus emerged at last week's six-nation meeting in China that North Korea should end its nuclear weapons program and that more multilateral talks were needed to bring about that goal.

Spokesman Richard Boucher said Secretary of State Colin Powell was not surprised by a "belligerent" North Korean attitude at the discussions.

Now, I suppose if you're a diplomat, it's bad form to say after the first day of talks that there is no hope and the talks have failed. Couldn't we, though, at least restrain ourselves to "cautious optimism," given the DPRK's response?

North Korea has said it has no choice but to increase its nuclear deterrent following multilateral talks in Beijing.

The statement, made by a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman, also said Pyongyang is not interested in holding any more talks on the future of its controversial nuclear programme.

Scoop!

James Taranto has this today:

Our Friends the Saudis
In a report on Gerald Posner's new book, "Why America Slept," Time magazine relates this anecdote about Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda terrorist who has been in U.S. custody since March 2002:


When questioning stalled, according to Posner, CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid.


As we noted last year, Aziz died at 43, a few months after Zubaydah's capture, part of a curious string of deaths of youngish Saudi princes.

You, good reader, got this bit of analysis on Sunday. Of course, Taranto has been on vacation, so there was a bit of a handicap. Still, it's good to get out in front sometimes.

More on Zabul:

Zabul must be the most interesting place on Earth just now. Some of this is probably true, but it's getting very hard to tell which parts:

Taliban Reinforces Fighters. This is from Reuters Asia.

Afghan Gov't Enters Separate Negotiations with Taliban. This is from the Afghan Islamic Press, but has been carried in both Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi version is the most complete, and says that the Zabul negotiations may include an amnesty for Taliban. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, has the government denying such talks.

FBI Arrests Pakistani Army Officers in Zabul Province, Afghanistan. A big story if it's true. Also from al Jazeera.

Bin Laden holds Terror Summit in Afghanistan. This report is from the Scotsman, which is an uneven source. When they do original reporting by their own writers, they tend to be highly accurate and detailed. Many of their stories are just wire-stories, though, so the fact that something appears in the Scotsman doesn't make it so. This report appears to be drawing on other sources, but it is worth reading.

Zabul:

Pro-al-Qaeda website Jihad Unspun has a report from Zabul province. JUS is a very suspicious source, and indeed, mostly they report lies or outright inventions. However, they were the first to get the fall of Zabul to a resurgent Taliban, well before any mainstream news agency. Keep those two facts in mind as you read their take.

Ledeen:

Michael Ledeen writes in today's NRO about the Najaf bombing. He agrees with the CNN report that put Mugniyah in Iraq, which posits a Hezbollah-Qaeda union in Iraq. But he goes beyond that report, and places the blame for Najaf squarely on Moqtada al-Sadr, who is, he says, the head of Hezbollah in Iraq.

My sense of al-Sadr has been that he is the Jesse Jackson Jr. of Iraq, using his father's name and some semi-bogus religious "leadership" to shakedown the CPA with threats of a Shi'a uprising. It is certainly true that Najaf put al-Sadr in the #1 spot among vocal Iraqi Shi'ites. I'm not ready to condemn him yet, but there are some serious questions here he'll need to answer. It would be nice if some of those in the newly independent Iraqi press started to ask them.

From Yemen?

Via InstaPundit, two car-bomb attacks have been prevented by Iraqi police. Details are sparse, but there is one very interesting point: the drivers of yesterday's car were said to be from Yemen. That makes them exactly the kind of non-Iraqi "Arab nationals" under threat by the Najaf militia.

...and a Georgia Overdrive:

Some poetry in honor of Labor Day:

I.C.C. is a-checking on down the line.
Well, I'm a little overweight and my log books way behind.
But nothing bothers me tonight, I can dodge all the scales all right,
Six days on the road, I'm gonna make it home tonight.

Well, my rig's a little old, but that don't mean she's slow.
There's a flame from her stack and the smoke's blowing black as coal.
My hometown's coming in sight, if you think I'm happy, you're right,
Six days on the road, now I'm gonna make it home tonight.
Six days on the road, now I'm gonna make it home tonight.

The Taliban Regroup:

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the regrouping of the Taliban in Pakistan. Last week more than eighty were killed in fighting in and around Zabul province, the one that the Taliban claim to control.

Bush Lied, Soldiers Died:

This line has been around for a while, and I find that it seriously makes me angry. I don't like to talk about things that make me angry, as I try to treat all arguments fairly, and anger can cause you to do or say things that aren't rational.

I'm not sure it's rational, for example, to be outraged by Buzzflash selling postcards with casualty figures from Iraq. I'm sure their reasons for this are wholly--what? Political, I think. You get the sense that the only reason they care about the men who've died in Iraq is that it is a stick with which they can beat Bush. Does Buzzflash realize how this looks to an ex-Marine? Do they care? I somehow doubt it.

Then there's Eschaton, who features this line as part of his header. Now, I've got nothing against the fellow. He's a bit shrill in his tone, and is a bit quick to resort to insults and name-calling ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument. I've glanced back over his archives for a bit, in order to be sure I was being fair to him. I think I can honestly say that he's got nothing against the military per se, except that there are disproportinate numbers of conservatives in it, and he finds conservatism to be viscerally objectionable. Still, I think he's usually fair to the military, as shown by this bit on the sensitive subject of Afghan civilian casualties:

One need not feel that the war in Afghanistan has been unjust or inappropriate, or that our military was callous or indscriminate in its choice of targets, or to "Blame America," to think that these indirect victims of the events of 9/11 deserve some consideration. Their deaths were a direct result of the events of 9/11, and the blame can be placed on those who planned and implemented the mass murder on that day.

The fact that some civilian casualties are an inevitable consequence of almost any military action does not make the deaths less tragic. Nor does my mentioning them imply that I am elevating the importance of their deaths above those Americans and non-Americans who died on 9/11. They are, however, also victims of 9/11, even if their deaths came later and their stories are not often told here.

I think that's very well said. As a result, my sense that he wouldn't really care about the lives of US soldiers and Marines if it weren't a political stick for the thing he does care about--beating Bush--is perhaps unfair. I can't find that he ever remarked on US military casualties in KFOR, for example, or in Afghanistan previous to the development of the "Bush Lied, Soldiers Died" line of thought. On the other hand, casualties in both cases have been quite light for coalition forces. You get the sense from reading Eschaton that he wouldn't like military men personally, and some of the permanent links on his page are to anti-American sites (this one in particular, which asks for volunteers to help research crimes by the US government). I don't wish to hold him too tightly to responsibility for that, though. Eschaton himself addressed those issues fairly, as above, so probably his interest in these matters is equally genuine.

Would it be right to ask the fellow to stand down from this line, then, just because others on the further-Left have used it to bludgeon without regard to the feelings of those who have stood to serve? I do not mean to make him stand down, which is plainly improper: merely to ask him to do so, as a courtesy. I have a sense that it might be, for the same reason that we Southerners have been asked to please avoid playing "Dixie" in public places; and indeed, we have largely done so. I haven't heard "Dixie" played openly in years, which in one way is a shame as it's a beautiful song: and yet I fully understand the reasons. Is it too much to ask that other good hearted folk avoid adopting the symbols of extremists?

House Cleaning:

This is what InstaPundit is calling a bombshell, from TIME magazine. It is the story of how Zubaydah, captured al-Qaeda strategist, implicated Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz of the House of Saud as a key figure in al Qaeda's support structure.

TIME says that Zubaydah was captured on 28 March 2002. What it doesn't say is that Ahmed bin Salman was dead by July:

[L]ife expectation among the Saudi Royal Family has taken a sudden turn for the worse. Three princes have died within a week: on July 22nd, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz (owner of the champion racehorse War Emblem) had a fatal heart attack at the age of 43; on July 23rd, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, died in a car accident on the way to the funeral; on July 29th, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, 25, was found dead in the desert from "thirst."

So--did we kill him, or did the Saudis take care of it themselves? I'd bet on the latter, or a joint action. It's pretty clear that the Saudi government is shaking itself out. If there are terror-supporting elements--and all indicators say that there are--there's also a real effort among those who can read the tea leaves to purge those elements. The future isn't with al Qaeda, and the lords of Arabia know it. Not surprisingly, clerics in Arabia are falling in line.

The General Militia:

It's always good to see a genuine, Classical Liberal idea at work in US policy. This time the rumors are from Canada, where there are reports that the US government may accept the formation of Iraqi militias to secure the cities.

This is a good idea, as I argued last week. However, this is not the first time I've argued in favor of it: I also liked the idea back when the Marines were in Saddam city, now al-Sadr city; and when US Army soldiers were first dealing with Iraqi weapons.

General militias are effective at instituting order in a way that no other form of administration is or can be. Free men, moving about the communities in which they live and work, know when something unusual is going on. Just as free citizens in those parts of the United States that recognize the 2nd Amendment keep order whether or not there are police about, so militias in Iraq would keep order against "Arab nationals" who had come to stir up trouble.

Indeed, against a group like al Qaeda, the general militia is the most effective response. It turns the entire state into a hard target, and every place terrorists go to strike they find themselves outgunned and outmanned by the decent and the law abiding. Just as the "General Militia of Flight 93" stood up in an instant to put an end to the plot to destroy the White House, and the folk of now-Sadr City hunted and slaughtered their tormenters to the last man, so the enraged Shi'ites of Iraq have a right to stand up and drive the killers from their midst. It is their nation, and if we want it to be free and strong, we have to help them in taking command of it. Follow the Marines' example: it is time for the General Militia of Iraq.

Smart, but Imaginative?

An article in the Atlantic Monthly about G.W. Bush. It holds that he's "focused, quick to make decisions, perservering, a good judge of character, and yes, "smart enough" to be an effective President." Then there is this comparison between Bush and Lincoln:

Does Bush have the imagination to lead a great war? And even if he does, can he communicate it? The day before Abraham Lincoln's first inauguration, in the thick of the secession crisis, William Seward, who was to be the new Secretary of State, observed that 'the President has a curious vein of sentiment running through his thought, which is his most valuable mental attribute.' This is one of the shrewdest remarks ever made about Lincoln. That vein of sentiment changed the logician of the 1860 campaign into the visionary who delivered the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.

Thanks to S.D., citizen of the USA but resident of the world.

Capitalism:

Came across a blog I haven't read before. I was drawn by the name, "Arms and the Man," which is both a traditional translation of the opening of the Iliad and also the name of a play by George B. Shaw about the Balkan wars. The blog turns out to be on corporate profiteering in the Iraq reconstruction. I have to give the lady (Major Barbara?) credit for the thoroughness of her inquiry. Conflicts of interest ought to be made public, and politicians who have them have to be held accountable.

On the other hand, I still think that profiteering off Iraq's reconstruction is a good thing. If conflicts of interest are not at stake, I stand by my Daddy Warbucks analogy:

Today we are not merely acting to defend our country, but to rebuild a shattered land and lift up a miserable people. There is--let us be frank--money to be made doing so. Thank goodness there is. This is how the market lifts our common boats: not, as Adam Smith said, through alutrism, but through the selfish pursual of our own interests. The number of people who would be willing to dedicate a substantial part of their lives to rebuilding Iraq if there were no money to be made is very small--most of them are in the Marines. If we're to draw down the kind of capital and talent it will require over the long term, we need profiteers.

I think it's important to draw this distinction. Capitalistic profiteering off the rebuild in Iraq isn't merely acceptable, it's to be encouraged. That's how we'll get the talent we need to go into a difficult enviornment and risk life and fortune. Yeah, some of them will get rich--good. It's one of the strengths of capitalism that it can be harnessed to the good of the Iraqi people, a people who have suffered long and deeply.

"Is this organic?" "Probably not."

An article on Scottish food. If you haven't had haggis, you ought; if you haven't had it at a regimental dining in of one of the Scottish units, find a way to get an invitation. The Guardian has more, in the cheerily hopeless voice of Jenny Colgan.

Al Qaeda:

Well, our old friends turn up in the oddest places. I began wondering if al Qaeda was behind the Najaf bombing last night, after I saw this report (credited to CNN--I've seen it several places, but can't find it on the CNN website) that Hezbollah and al Qaeda have allied in Iraq. The reason this is interesting in terms of Najaf is this bit:

One of the most wanted terrorists on the FBI's list may have forged an alliance with al Qaeda members against U.S. forces in Iraq, according to U.S. and coalition intelligence officials.

These officials think Imad Mugniyah -- suspected in the Beirut bombings in the early 1980s -- may have joined forces with an al Qaeda suspect, Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, to threaten U.S. troops in Iraq. Both men are believed to be hiding in Iran.

Middle East experts and intelligence officials in several countries say Mugniyah, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim, runs the international terrorist apparatus of Lebanese Hezbollah and that he works as a subcontractor for Iranian intelligence, often using Iran as a safe haven.

The bombing yesterday was highly professional. It was a bomb constructed by someone who knew what kind of explosives he would need to be sure of killing his target; it managed to, most reports suggest, be planted in al-Hakim's own vehicle, or one just by it. Bombs of that sophistication are not the work of ex-Army people. Mugniyah, though, he knows how. The bombing of the US embassy in Beruit was a masterwork of that murderous trade. Master bombers are blessedly hard to find, and Mugniyah's group is among the best in the world.

So now four men have been arrested and, according to reports, have confessed to being with al Qaeda. This may or may not be true, of course: why trust the word of terrorists? Still, it is one more thing to watch in the developing story in Najaf.

Prominent Iraqi Clergy:

The Kansas City Star has a who's who of Iraq's surviving religious leadership. They note that al-Sadr was said to have been behind the killings in the Shrine of Ali over the summer, though he himself denies it.

More on Najaf:

The extent of the destruction at Najaf is far, far worse than originally reported. For Shi'ites in Iraq, this may well be their 9/11, combined with the assassination of their Gandhi. Americans may not understand just how important the Shrine of Ali is to Shi'a Islam, but here is a starting point for you. The Shrine, or Tomb, of Ali is so important that the 101st Airborne, during the Iraq war, refused to return fire directed at them from the Shrine rather than risk damaging it. Najaf itself is a holy city, and the Tomb of Ali is one of the most important places in the world to a Shi'ite, not all that far after Mecca itself.

In spite of that, and US restraint, there has been violence earlier this year inside the Tomb of Ali, where two Muslim clerics were hacked to death by a crowd. But this car bomb was apparently huge, and went beyond killing men and spilling blood: it slew, according to AP reports, 82 Muslims at Friday prayers. (For my non-Muslim readers, i.e. most of you, Friday is the holy day in Islam, as Saturday for the Jews and Sunday for the Christians). The UN has responded: top officials have told the press they want to pull the UN out of Iraq rather than work toward peace and security.

But what will the Shi'ites do? For them, this is an earthquake.

Paganism in Schools:

Have you seen this statue of Athena in a public park in Nashville, TN? The author of the piece pointing out demands that it be torn down and removed, since the Ten Commandments monument was torn down and removed from public property. No favoritism for Pagans, he says!

Well, fine. But where can I find a statue of Woden, on public or private property? This gets back to Jefferson's point, which was that the real roots of our culture are in the pre-Roman North of Europe, not in the Greco-Roman tradition. Jefferson was certainly an admirer of Rome--you can see it in the dome he constructed for his house--but he was also a realist about history. One reason that the tradition exemplified by Leo Strauss has had such difficulty making "ancient liberalism" and modern liberalism come to terms is that there is little common ground between them. Greek ideas about democracy did not survive the Roman empire, whose own ideas about the Republic gave way to imperialism.

The Greco-Roman tradition, if anything, worked against egalitarianism and the old views of virtue. The surviving Roman tradition is what turned elective kingship into Charlemagne, and what turned the early, charismatic Christian church into a hierarchy that hunted heretics and squashed dissent. Whatever good may be said about Catholicism--I believe that there is very much good to say about it--it is undeniably true that the Imperial hierarchy it adopted thanks to the interest of Constantine the Great was a force against free-thinking, eh, "heresy." It was that Imperial Church that survived the Empire, and while it may be said that it held Europe together, it must be noted that it did so by imposing a rigid authority.

Those places in Medieval Europe where we see a vision of freedom like to our own are those that had not yet been involved in the Empire, or which had been swept from its grasp entirely: England, Scotland, Ireland, and among the Vikings, who held as we do that all free men are equal.

I haven't spoken to the Viking notions in a while yet, so I'll post just a couple of links for those of you among my readers less familiar with Viking ethics. Just as the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, the Viking tradition upheld that a king ruled by right of consent of the goverened, and that he could be removed--even slain--and replaced if he violated the will of the folk. King Olav of Sweden discovered this when he tried to bully the assembly, called the Thing, at Uppsala:

Now it is our will, we bondes [free land-owning farmers], that thou King Olaf [of Sweden] make peace with the Norway king, Olaf the Thick [ON: Digre], and marry thy daughter Ingegerd to him. Wilt thou, however, reconquer the kingdoms in the east countries which thy
relations and forefathers had there, we will all for that purpose follow thee to the war. But if thou wilt not do as we desire, we will now attack thee, and put thee to death; for we will no longer suffer law and peace to be disturbed. So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us. Now tell us, in all haste, what resolution thou wilt take.

So it was that the French, who were mired in notions of superiority and inferiority among men even in the Viking Age, got a lesson that must have been stirring and chilling at once. When French knights approached a Viking encampment to demand to know who had come unwanted into their kingdom, they got this answer:

"We are Danes", they replied, "we are from Denmark and we are here to conquer France". "But who is your master?" the knight shouted back, but just to receive the famous answer: "Nobody, we have no master, we are all equal".

It was the coming of the Greco-Roman-Catholic tradition that ended elective kingship and egalitarianism in Europe. Men were supposedly born better or worse than each other, and meant to accept their place, an attitude that has its roots in Rome's patricians and plebians, and slaves who were scorned for rising above their station.

Fortunately these ways survived in the fringes of Europe, such as Scotland, and among those classes, like English yeomanry, who were most devoted to them. Thankfully, they blossomed at the moment that a new continent was available wherein they could take root, and the "Scottish Enlightenment" combined with an Anglo-Saxon ideal of "yeomen farmers," pace Jefferson again. We have our vision of freedom as a consequence. It would be wise to remember the truth about its roots.

Murdering Clerics, II:

Terror bombings are not usually an effective way to fight a war. The bombing this morning in Najaf, though was a bad one. It killed Baqir al-Hakim. Al-Hakim was one of the most important Shi'ites in Iraq, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, and brother to one of the members of the US-backed Governing Council, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim.

In form this assassination of a Shi'ite cleric is similar to the Taliban killings of clerics in Afghanistan, as well as the IRA's murder of Lord Mountbatten. This may be more important than the UN bombing before it is over with, and is an event to watch. In any event, Moqtada al-Sadr just became the #1 Shi'ite in Iraq following three attacks on his rivals: Sunday's bombing, Wednesday's gunman attack on the Baghdad offices of the Supreme Council, and now this bombing. Does that make al-Sadr a suspect, or the next target? Mohsen al-Hakim, nephew to Baqir al-Hakim, felt the gunman attack was the work of Ba'athists. I think that's highly likely, but another possibility exists also: that it is the work of forces from Iran, trying to destroy a powerful Shi'ite organization that has been increasingly willing to work with the United States.

Bring them on:

President Bush said this on July 7th. While back-reading for something, I find that I said it on March 29th, in the course of a rejection of Noam Chomsky. If you don't want to revisit the whole thing, what I said was: "Bring them on: we'll clear the world of them."

I was drawing on Moby Dick for that, one of my favorite lines in the whole novel. I don't know where Bush got it--I won't claim he took it from here. I have to say that I feel the same way today. Osama bin Laden called this tune. On 9/11, he and his took us over the edge from the world of order and law into the world of war. We will not, frankly, have peace again until we have met on the battlefield those who think they can destroy the order of the West through violence, not until we have met them and slain them. There is no one we could surrender to if we would. There is not anyone to negotiate with.

I'm an openminded sort of fellow--for example, I support the northern Sudan's call for Sharia law because I understand that their desire is, by removing judicial power from an illegitimate government that came to power by coup, placing that judicial authority instead in the hands of local imams, to restrain the government's authority. Sharia makes perfect sense under the circumstances, and I wish them the best of it.

With the Islamists who want to bring war against us, though, there is no hope. These lads are dead-enders--and matter of fact, so am I. My father's family left Quakerism to fight in the Civil War, because their hatred of slavery overrode their love of pacifism. I have to say we never looked back. My great-great grandfather killed seven men in one night to prevent a lynching. My great-grandfather stood off his father's enemies in a Tennessee gunfight. My grandfather carried a gun until he was nearly eighty, and used it to enforce peace and justice on his nearby surroundings during the Civil Rights troubles of the 1960s. I don't think there's a single bastard who's trained in an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan whose devotion to his cause rivals my father's patriotism. For myself--well, bring it on and see what you get.

And I have a son, named Beowulf. Yes, Osama called the tune. He wanted a fight for the future of mankind. I welcome it. The Beowulf of old said:

I ask you,
lord of the Danes,
protector of this people,
for only one favor:
that you refuse me not,
fair friend of the people,
do not refuse those who
have come so far the chance
to cleanse Herot.

And so we shall.

From the Texas Mercury:

The Texas Mercury has published some of my poetry in the past, but like the wild El Paso of song, it's a pretty rough and free-for-all place. In spite of that, I'm linking to it because I love their philosophy:

The Texas Mercury is beholden to no interest, genuflects to no god, and endorses no party. We intend to publish every view not now in the useless mainstream press, and publish it without hold or censure. We will be publishing communist, racist, hedonist, and fascistic ideas- anything novel or outside the purview of the staid politics of our day, so long as it be well written and without mercy. As we see it, modern society has all the important ideas of life exactly backwards: we are completely against the belief in sensitivity and tolerance in politics and raffish disregard in private life. The Texas Mercury is founded on the opposite principles- our idea is of tolerance and polite sensitivity in private life and ruthless truth in politics. Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas.

I think that's got it about right. Racist and Communist ideas fall under their own weight in a forum that pulls no punches. Therefore, there's no harm in letting their advocates have an honest try.

This week the Texas Mercury has an historical debate of some interest to Southerners, continued from a previous week, as to the degree of Celtic influence in the American South and West. Excerpt from the debate:

As a prelude, I will say that virtually all people who routinely write �south� and �southern� rather than �South� and �Southern� fall into one of four categories: 1) Yankees; 2) New South liberals (who invariably desire the perverting and refashioning of Southern culture into something acceptable to Yankee WASPs: most �conservative� businessmen from the South of the past 60-80 years have been New South liberals, as are most �conservative� Republican politicos from the South); 3) proponents of American Empire; 4) ignorant.

As I said, it's a free-for-all. If you are inclined to slugfests in saloons, head on over. If you are one of my more delicate readers, please take this warning and enjoy the writings through some of the more refined links.

Links:

If you read down the sidebar, just below the quote from the Old Lay of Sigurd, you'll see I've begun a links section. My current practice is to link to the sites I most admire, plus people who have linked to me. I am considering expanding the section to include some sites I don't admire, but find useful for one reason or another. If anyone has any suggestions, email me by clicking on any of the links on this page that say "Email me."

Sovay McKnight:

Sovay of the Liberal Conspiracy says that a number of you have dropped by to visit her site, but haven't written her. If you've ever wanted to argue with a Reform Liberal who wouldn't immediately call you "stupid" or "hick" or something similar, but who would instead attempt to defend Liberal policies in an extended argument, here's your chance. You can reach her at this address. Now, mind you, she has told me on occasion that she's not really interested in logic--whenever I mention the fact that she's slipped into a named logical fallacy she tends to shrug--but she does eventually come around. Since I've known her I've managed to convince her that guns aren't evil, and that law-abiding citizens ought to be free to carry guns on their daily business as part of their rights and duties as citizens. So have at her--it's fun, and she's one of the few of her ilk who won't try to hide from a good, stand-up fight.

Afghanistan Update:

Afghanistan remains in the news. I'm told by a friend in France that the newspapers there are playing heavily on Afghanistan, linking it to Iraq in order to suggest that there is a general failure of US foreign policy. I myself think that is rather unfair, though there are certainly difficulties. Still and all, US Central Command seems to be sincere in its efforts to address them.

On that score, today in Afghanistan the Afghan Army, backed by US SOF, captured a key pass in the mountains that link Zabul province with Pakistan. This follows a day or so of fighting with one of these Taliban battalions, who seem to be using the old Napoleonic formula of "split to travel, unite to fight." One of my regular correspondants, currently writing from Oz (greetings, lad), says he's seen an interview with a Talib that confirms my hypothesis on this point.

In any event, they're better at moving undetected than they are at holding ground against US airpower, which is to be expected. All is not rosy in Zabul, however, if the Communists are to be believed. This report is from the People's Republic of China, and details Taliban recovery of portions of Zabul province. The fight goes on, and isn't likely to end in the near future.

More on Communists:

Over at InstaPundit.

More on a Pious Fraud:

Having argued, with Jefferson, that the Ten Commandments are not properly described as the foundation of our Republic (see the weekend postings), I must now also note John Derbyshire's take on the subject:

One hundred and forty years ago, one of the giants of British politics was the social reformer and big-L Liberal William Ewart Gladstone. The mathematician Augustus De Morgan caused some mild hilarity in London by pointing out that the great man's name was an anagram of "WILT TEAR DOWN ALL IMAGES?" Is that � tearing down all images � actually the program of modern American liberalism? Does it not occur to you liberals, not even for a passing instant, that by purging all sacred images, references, and words from our public life, you are leaving us with nothing but a cold temple presided over by the Goddess of Reason � that counterfeit deity who, as history has proved time and time and time again, inspires no affection, retains no loyalties, soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice, gives no comfort, extends no charity, displays no pity, and offers no hope, except to the tiny cliques of fanatical ideologues who tend her cold blue flame.

Well said. Much of the rest of the piece is also thought provoking. This page is fortunate enough to have Christian readers, as well as Pagan, Heathen, Jewish, and Muslim readers (if we have others--well, write me and I'll include you next time). I would gladly sit and talk to any of them on points of faith, and I have no problem at all with them tempering reason with their faith when it comes to the execution of their duties as a citizen--including jury duty, military service (conscientious objectors, for example), and so forth. Should they be elected to public office, I would hope that they would have been open and honest about their faith during the campaign, as no one can really set aside their religion when they stand to serve.

"Roy's Rock" is just what Jefferson called it--a pious fraud--but Justice Roy Moore himself is far from a madman, and here is his ipse dixit to prove it. His argument is principled, reasoned and reasonable, and grounded in an understanding of the Founders and the Founding, as well as the traditions and constitution of his state:

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment. . . .

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.

Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

It is not for no reason Jefferson wrote the letter I cited below: he wrote it because Justice Moore had direct intellectual ancestors living in Jefferson's own day, making the same argument with the same force. It is not proper now to suggest that Justice Moore is somehow outside of the rightful American tradition. He is a modern incarnation of a part of the American tradition that has been with us since the Founding.

He is still wrong. He is wrong for the reasons Jefferson laid bare, not the ones brought against him today. His opinion has a respectable pedigree, as old and as honest as any in the Republic. I respect any man who stands on old and honest principles, though I may disagree with him. I feel Justice Moore deserves the respect due a valiant and honorable foe, even as we ready lances to war against him.

A Leftwing Conspiracy:

Yesterday's post about the damned Communists has produced concerns that this page supports a certain psychotic woman. Well, we do, but it's not her--it's our very own psychotic woman, Sovay McKnight, head of the Liberal Conspiracy. Now, Sovay is a Modern, or Reform, Liberal, not a good Classical Liberal like your correspondant. Still, she's clever and well informed, and it's worth taking the time to refute her arguments because you always learn something in the process of shooting her down. Plus, unlike a certain popular Liberal, she doesn't substitute words like "Moron" or "Troll" for an argument, which is one tendency on which Ms. Coulter is correct.

Welcome, Sovay. Now--en garde!

Taliban in Zabul:

The Asia Times finds the Taliban in Zabul province, Afghanistan:

The significant increase in the number and nature of attacks on US targets, as well as on the Afghan administration, provides indisputable evidence that the Taliban are back with a vengeance, especially in the south of the country. It is now as clear as broad daylight that neither an indigenous force nor a foreign force (not even one with massive bombers ruling the skies) can control the resistance movement.
On the face of it, the Taliban are the most isolated guerrilla fighters in the world, with no moral or material help from outside the country. However, there is an intriguing world within Afghanistan and Pakistan that supports and facilitates the struggle against foreign troops.
Across a broad swath of Afghanistan in the south and southeast Taliban-led guerrilla operations are the order of the day. Their attacks initially targeted US bases and convoys, but now the Afghan administration is in the firing line. The reason for this is to frighten as many local Afghans as possible into laying down their weapons, thereby leaving the battlefield clear for Taliban militia to take on US-led forces in the rugged mountainous terrain of the region.
This target has already very much been achieved in the southern Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan, including Zabul and Hilmand, beside Urugzan, which is nearing the point where the US-backed Afghan administration will be forced to flee.

There is a great deal more, and it's worth reading. This space has been covering the Taliban's reconquista of Zabul and the other border regions for some time. It will come as no surprise to any of you to find out that the Taliban are moving in irregular light battallions through Zabul, attacking symbols of authority, destroying caravans, and assassinating clerics and governmental figures.

However! Our fighting men are not idle. Today one of those irregular battallions was located in Zabul province, and has come under fire from US warplanes and hundreds of Afghan soldiers, backed by US forces. The fight is still ongoing at this hour. Give 'em hell, lads.

UPDATE: Reuters is now reporting up to 50 Taliban killed in this engagement.

UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting a lowball figure on casualties, but says coalition forces captured a Taliban staging base in the mountains. Perhaps we'll get some intel out of it. Meanwhile, Radio Australia has a report that puts the figures between 40 and 50.

Staying Power:

So we've been hearing for a while from very many sources, including no less a correspondant than Osama bin Laden, that the United States has no staying power. Certainly it is true that some well meaning family members of US soldiers deployed in Iraq are trying to prove Osama right, to the great delight of Communists and Islamists everywhere (Sure, you say, Islamists like al Jazeera, but Communists? Damn right, Communists, who are rooting for American failure in a big way. See for example The Socialist Worker, or the Guerrilla News Network, or InfoShop, or Mother Jones, or Green Left Australia).

But who is it that has proven not to have the staying power for nation building? It's not the United States, which is increasing its troop presence and shifting intelligence and special operations forces to Iraq. No, it's the U.N. that's flying as fast as it can, all the while promising to stay the course. Them, and the other multinational "aid groups" who feel they are better qualified for leadership than America, like the Red Cross.

It's going to need more courage than this to set that part of the world to rights. I think an honest case has been made now that we can no longer afford to let these places fester in tyranny and oppression--that the grim work of repairing these broken citadels, even in the teeth of those who would kill us and drive us out, is still better than the consequences of leaving them feral in an age that rushes toward nuclear and biological terrorism. It may be that only America, the UK, and Australia still have the staying power needed. In any event, I think we can now ask people to kindly shut up about US frailty. It is the US that is bearing its chest to the punishing wind from the Sunni triangle. All the others rush away.

Southern Appeal:

I've just found Southern Appeal, which claims to be "the random musings of a Southern Federalist." I have a sense that this may be an ally, and in any event, I refer those of my readers interested in Southern matters to his site as well as my own.

Jefferson on the Decalogue:

A friend I hold in much esteem pointed out to me today that Jefferson himself had spoken to the issue currently making news in Alabama. Here find Jefferson's letter entitled SAXONS, CONSTITUTIONS, AND A CASE OF PIOUS FRAUD:

[F]or such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.

This is perfectly correct, as we would expect of Jefferson. The Anglo-Saxon constitution--as Jefferson calls it--included many of the rights that were lost after the Norman conquest, and rewon on English soil only after the protracted battles of centuries. Nor were the Anglo-Saxons alone in this: the Scots, and the Continential Germanic-language speakers alike, both knew elective kingship and a profound respect for liberty that fought at length with organized Christianity. As the Saxons' kings were slain by Charlemagne, bringing the "Holy Roman Empire," as the Anglo-Saxon king was destroyed by a usurper who came bearing a banner of war blessed by the Pope, so the "bonders," or independent farmers, of Norway united to repel the overbearing and murderous "Saint" Olav.

We may honestly say that there is nothing in Christianity that is especially democratic, and that in fact it has come rather late to the party, if in fact it has come at all. Christians may be devoted to liberty, but Christianity is not: Christianity is devoted to God. It is a strength of the faith that it can survive in both tyranny and liberty, bringing strength to the hearts of slaves even as it does to free men. Yet it does not require any greater liberty than that free will which some Christians feel God endowed with Men. Christianity has been a powerful help to many in the service of liberty, but it was left to others to secure liberty in this world.

So it was that the sons of Scotland wrote, in Arbroath in 1320:

A quibus Malis innumeris, ipso Juuante qui post uulnera medetur et sanat, liberati sumus per strenuissimum Principem, Regem et Dominum nostrum, Dominum Robertum, qui pro populo et hereditate suis de manibus Inimicorum liberandis quasi alter Machabeus aut Josue labores et tedia, inedias et pericula, leto sustinuit animo. Quem eciam diuina disposicio et iuxta leges et Consuetudines nostra, quas vsque ad mortem sustinere volumus, Juris successio et debitus nostrorum omnium Consensus et Assensus nostrum fecerunt Principem atque Regem, cui tanquam illi per quem salus in populo nostro facta est pro nostra libertate tuenda tam Jure quam meritis tenemur et volumus in omnibus adherere.

Quem si ab inceptis desisteret, regi Anglorum aut Anglicis nos aut Regnum nostrum volens subicere, tanquam inimicum nostrum et sui nostrique Juris subuersorem statim expellere niteremur et alium Regem nostrum qui ad defensionem nostram sufficeret faceremus. Quia quamdiu Centum ex nobis viui remanserint, nuncquam Anglorum dominio aliquatenus volumus subiugari. Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit.

That is, roughly: 'King Robert has borne up like a hero of the Biblical age, and divine providence has made him king. But if he turns aside from the cause of liberty we shall kill him and choose another, and fight on so long as even a hundred of us are left: not for glory, nor wealth, nor honor, but freedom alone, which no good man yields except unto death."

That is the root of our Constitution, our rights, and our duty. It is that old Celtic-Germanic sensation, that freedom is better than everything, and death better than submission.

For my NASCAR-fan readers:

Dave Shifflet on Jesse Jackson's attempts to shakedown NASCAR. Now, I think this business is unfair to NASCAR, in that it fails to appreciate the sport's real diversity. NASCAR fans may be the sort of people who go to Iraq and win our wars there--but the sport is so popular these days, that there are plenty of NASCAR fans who were deeply opposed to the Iraq war too (some of them read this page on occasion and write me letters).

I was wrong:

It's always nice when a blogger admits a mistake, right? Well, I wrote a piece on boneheads in Congress a few days ago that was wrong. However, I'm pleased to say that I wasn't the only one who misread it, and I'm even more pleased to have been mistaken.

Thankfully, Jed Babbin has the real deal over at NRO. Mind you, this doesn't mean Congress doesn't have some boneheads in it.

Guerrillas:

From Lebanon's Daily Star, a list by a member of the US Naval War College that outlines guerrilla groups in Iraq with analysis on their origins and allegiances.

Afghanistan Update:

Winds of Change has the most encouraging story I've seen from Afghanistan in a while. It shows that CENTCOM is employing some creative thinking in the Afghan rebuild:

US military officials have developed hybrid groups, comprising soldiers and humanitarian aid workers, to hasten the reconstruction of Afghanistan�s unruly provinces. The groups, known as Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), are designed to help extend the influence of Afghanistan�s government beyond Kabul. So far, however, PRTs have found that the influence of warlords in the provinces will not be easily reduced.

Three US PRTs are operating in Afghan provinces � in Kunduz, Gardez and Bamiyan. In addition, a 72-member British PRT started working in late July in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. "PRTs are an innovative means to extend central government authority to the regions, enmesh local government with the central government and help with reconstruction" said General F.L. "Buster" Hagenback, the acting commander of US forces in Afghanistan. "Over time, as security improves, these military-led PRTs will mutate into [a] civilian organization[.]"

Now that's outstanding on several counts. The first is that the military is not clinging to traditional models, but looking around to see what is needed in this particular situation.

The second is that they're already engaged with models that are meant to "mutate" into civilian authorities over time. This has, in my opinion, been one of the weak points of our nationbuilding strategies in the past. Nationbuilding requires enforcing authority so that, with your authority, you can also enforce order. However, in the process of knocking down challenges to your authority, it can be easy to knock down all the developing institutions that could take over power from you when you leave. Such institutions work best if they are organic, growing naturally from within the community you'd like to hand power to on your way out. Sometimes you need to plant some seeds, though, and these PRTs might be that.

(An aside: General "Buster" Hagenback had a memorable quote earlier in the Afghan war that ought to be remembered. After guerrillas had killed the first US soldiers in battle, he said:

�This is not the last battle of this war, but so long as [al Qaeda & the Taliban] want to send [guerrillas] here, we will kill them here. If they want to go somewhere else, we will kill them there.�

I think I can see why Rumsfeld picked him for the job. That reads much like what you'd expect to come out of the mouth of the SECDEF.)

In Iraq, there are a number of people calling for Shi'ite militias to guard holy sites from US plundering and unfortunate accidents. For now, calls are for an unarmed militia. I think the CPA will probably view this as an unacceptable challenge to their authority, but I think it would be wiser to embrace and work with it. With some negotiation, we could probably reach an agreement that would allow these unarmed militias to do just what they want to do, which would remove a source of friction between US forces and the Shi'ites. More importantly, these unarmed militias represent an organic movement that could begin providing stability and security to parts of Iraq. If we reach out to them and provide a space for them straightaway, they become a useful tool for our goal of founding a stable, independent Iraq that we can eventually leave.

If we suppress them, on the other hand, two things could happen. At best, we could lose that potential pillar of support for a stable and independent Iraq. At worst, they become like the Black Panthers: originally a scrupulously law-abiding militia movement designed to protect citizens against abuse by the authorities, when suppressed it became an underground guerrilla movement.

Without Comment:

This is from the Coalition Provisional Authority/Iraq's website, containing advice on contacting the CPA:

If you would like to send us your constructive criticism, encouragement or thoughtful suggestion, please pick the ministry that you feel would best profit from your words.

If you have a threatening message or wish to express hatred and hostility, please look inside your own heart and count to 100 before writing. No one needs more negativity in their life.

Frontier Justice:

If we could just do this in Afghanistan, preferably with mixed US/Afghan companies:

Throughout Iraq, as the nation cracks through the totalitarian shell Saddam Hussein spent decades building, a reliable, trustworthy system of law and order is essentially being built from scratch.

It's closer to frontier justice than it is to the legal training. [US Marine Capt. Sean] Dunn, 35, received at Louisiana State University or the kind he practices as an associate at Duncan & Courington in New Orleans. Indeed, he's known around Al Kut as simply "The Judge," albeit one who wields a pump-action shotgun rather than a gavel.

At times, the weaponry comes in handy. One of the problems coalition forces confront in Iraq is the mobility of evil: A bad guy exposed in one area sometimes melts away only to crop up in power somewhere else. That happened in Al Kut with Mayeed Sahleh, a judge so profoundly corrupt that even Saddam once fired him. After being chased out of Najaf, he drifted to Al Kut, where he landed a post as a magistrate judge.

Locals who wanted to hang Sahleh from the nearest date palm told Dunn almost immediately about the newcomer's dark past, but Dunn told them he couldn't act without hard evidence of corruption. Eventually, Sahleh made a mistake -- showing up at the police station one night to spring a handful of Islamic fundamentalists on a signature bond -- and Dunn told Mahood to fire him. Two days later, however, Dunn spotted Sahleh operating out of a new office tucked under a courthouse stairway.

"The guy tried to say he had a few things to take care of, and I said the only thing he had to take care of was getting out of the building immediately. 'You're fired,' I said. 'Get out of here now,' " Dunn recalled, shaking his head at the man's brazenness.

At that point, the deposed judge took his hands off the desk and pushed back.

"He's got a gun!" one of the Marines on Dunn's detail cried, rushing forward with his M-16 leveled at the judge's chest. Dunn, shotgun ready, sprang behind the desk and relieved the judge of a handgun he was reaching for, concealed in a shoulder holster.

Now that's what it's all about.

My Answer:

I asked in the piece on Afghanistan today what other plans were out there. Well, here is the answer: shift intelligence and special operations forces out of Afghanistan in order to fight in Iraq. I don't think that's likely to improve the situation.

It just doesn't work:

The Washington Post points to rapidly increasing violent crime in D.C. as a reason to prevent efforts to reduce gun control.

So on one night last week, violence struck with a vengeance: Five women and three men were shot outside a Northeast Washington nightclub, two women were shot on Oates Street NE, a man was shot on Atlantic Street SE, two men were shot on Kenilworth Avenue NE, and a man was found shot to death on 13th Street NE. In all, the five unrelated shootings in three hours produced 13 injuries and one death.

Those statistics demonstrate the absurdity of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's proposal to legalize gun possession in the District of Columbia. The city needs fewer, not more, lethal weapons in homes and on its streets. It could, however, use more officers, especially tactical and undercover officers working crime-ridden neighborhoods, as well as a uniformed presence in targeted communities to work with public-spirited citizens. Most of all, nothing short of the apprehension, prosecution and conviction of violent offenders will bring District residents the sense of security and safety that they deserve.

Now, maybe I'm reading something into this, but it sounds like all these people were shot in the streets, not in their homes. Five unrelated shootings--there must have been a lot of lead flying around the nightclub to drop eight people (mostly women!).

What this means is that the D.C. police have lost control of the streets--a fact I find easy to believe, as I almost never see a police officer in D.C. except when they are escorting some dignitary somewhere, or if I go to the Mall. The Post's answer is more cops and tight gun control, in the town with already the strictest anti-gun legislation in the country. Well, let's analyze that.

The cost of hiring lots of new police is very high: officers must be found, trained extensively, supplied with lots of expensive equipment, monitored by a bureaucracy, and provided with a pension and health benefits in addition to, of course, salary. The cost of reducing gun control is very low: an officer to run background checks, another to handle the applications. And what do you get for your money?

With the police officers, you get a few extra police on the streets, whose presence may delay crimes for a few minutes until the police pass on. With liberalized gun policies, you get thousands of armed citizens everywhere in the district, inclined to obey the law and unwilling to endure barbarity. Which gets results, to say nothing of results per dollar? You bet.

Besides, what is this nonsense about nothing making us feel safer except more prosecutions and arrests? Reading about people being arrested for murder does nothing to make me feel safe--it makes me remember that I live in a violent city. What makes me feel safe is a loaded .44 Remington Magnum revolver, and a wife watching my back with her 10mm Automatic. Jeffersonian Democracy at work--let the brutal beware.

Let them beware of us, citizens.

US Marines V. Pirates of Niger Delta

Yet another African deployment looms for the US Marines. This time it is all about oil, some 300,000 barrels of which are lost daily:

THE Federal Government is under pressure to deploy United States Marines to the troubled Niger Delta region to protect American oil companies' installations. Gov. Diepreye Alamieyesegha of Bayelsa State, who dropped the hint in Yenagoa at a meeting with stakeholders on sea piracy and oil pipeline vandalisation, said the Federal Government had lost patience with the spate of crises in the region and was getting frustrated with measures introduced to curtail the scourge.

The Marines were founded in part to battle pirates on the high seas, of course. And there is some good news: at least these aren't Space Pirates:

[Gov. James Ibori] "The perpetrators of these heinous crimes against the society are not people from outer space."

That's good to know.

A Second Raid:

Just hours after the raid mentioned in the last item, a second attack involving hundreds of Taliban hit another police station in Afghanistan. The raiders took hostages before withdrawing in apparently good order.

Unlike the guerrillas in Iraq, the Afghan fighters have all the cards that have historically made guerrilla fighting successful. They waited to start their resistance until the US was distracted elsewhere, and most US forces withdrawn. Whereas we have nearly a hundred seventy thousand fighting men in Iraq, in Afghanistan the number is closer to ten thousand. The Afghan fighters can withdraw into secure areas--the lawless tribal areas of north and south Waziristan, Kurram, Kyber, Mohmand, and Bajaur, which serve as buffer states with Pakistan. We can send people after them, but there they have a secure base with devout popular support. And, if the frequent rumors of ISI support are true, they even have the backing of a regional power--or at least some rogue elements in it.

Iraq will sort itself out--we've got the men and the commitment to make it work. Afghanistan is in danger of being lost. We need to get serious about counterinsurgency, and fast. My plan is below: who has another?

Today in Afghanistan:

The Guardian has an AP report on a major attack in Afghanistan:

Insurgents attacked a police headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan, sparking a battle Sunday that killed at least 15 fighters and seven Afghan police, a police chief said. It was part of a disturbing new surge of violence in the country.

The siege began shortly before midnight Saturday when about 400 guerrillas attacked the police headquarters in the town of Barmal in Paktika province, about 125 miles southeast of Kabul, said provincial governor Mohammed Ali Jalali.

The fighters, firing rockets, grenades and heavy machine guns, took over the office and held it until 5 a.m. Sunday before destroying the building and retreating amid a gunbattle with police, said police chief Daulat Khan.

This is large-scale guerrilla action. It argues for a new counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, at the same time that we're fighting one in Iraq. This is one reason I argue for a Texas Rangers model--see below--in which mixed companies of US Army Rangers and Afghan soldiers are given martial-law authority and tasked to patrol the countryside.

Recruiting for the army is expanding in Afghanistan, though, even in the troubled areas:

One of the keys to Afghanistan restoring stability is believed to be the strengthening of its national army, which now numbers just 5,000 soldiers. The government wants it to have 70,000 troops over the next several years.

U.N. spokesman David Singh said Sunday that the army opened its first recruiting center in the east of the country. Other recruiting centers are due to open in at least five other regions, Singh said.

It's not just numbers, it's training. Those 70,000 men need to be trained in mountain-fighting and counterinsurgency, in how to stage an organized ambush and how to fight out of one. They also need to be trained as lawmen, and given the authority to execute the law on a moment's notice, as they will be the only arm of Kabul likely to reach the border areas for many years to come. That is to say, they need to be Rangers, not soldiers.