Chris Kromm: The South at War

For Eric:

A few days ago Eric was questioning my numbers on the percentages of the military who are Southerners. I explained that I was following Zell Miller's speech to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. I've been looking into the question more since then.

I'm still not sure where the Honorable Senator Miller got his numbers, but I can report that they match all the numbers I see anywhere else. Anti-war journal CounterPunch, based out of California, puts the number at 42%. Essayist Jeff Adams reports that the percentage during Gulf War I was 41%. As the South's population has grown from about a fourth to about a third of the nation's population, its percentages in the military have kept pace: 33% in WWI, 22% in WWII (a low percentage, I suspect, because of the massive draft; numbers of volunteers would probably be higher for the South in both cases), 40% in Korea, 37% in Vietnam (draft again, I expect), and 41% in Gulf War I. The Institute of Southern Studies--which is actually a group of Southern left-liberals, for the record--puts the number at 42% out of a population they now estimate at 36% of Americans.

That's not as definitive as I would like, but the number is agreed upon by people across the political spectrum. I'm not sure where they're getting it, but they seem to be pulling from a common source.

UPDATE: "Essayist" Jeff Adams turns out to be an officer of the Texas chapter of the League of the South, a rather radical organization that has in the past called on Southerners to refuse to serve in the US Military due to the disdain shown to Southern culture by other Americans. (An aside--I categorically reject this sentiment. Certainly Robert E. Lee would not have understood it. How much less should we understand it, when four more generations of us have shed our blood in the defense of the American flag and of the Republic?) His latest article on the topic can be found here.

Southern representation in the military invasion of Iraq isn't yet available. However, based on the data that is available concerning those killed in action or taken as POWs, and this data can be viewed as a reflection of the makeup of the military population, then Southerners represent 38% of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. There have been some recent surveys concerning the military that estimate the total Southern contribution to the U.S. armed forces in general is pushing close to 50%!

Adams estimates the South's population as about 30%, so he may be working from a definition of the South that's smaller than the ISS--maybe without Floriday, say.

Skewed Priorities (washingtonpost.com)

On Moderation:

We are told that politicians, if they are to be entrusted with any power, ought to be "mainstream" or "moderate." We are, of course, mostly told this about conservative politicians, for reasons explored here. George W. Bush seems to have taken this lesson to heart, to judge from his budget. He has proposed a remarkable amount of spending, to the despair of conservatives everywhere. Many have been speculating openly that his spendthrift nature could cost him the election by alienating his base.

But, since it is so important to be moderate, Bush should at least pick up the solid endorsement of the "mainstream" press. Right? Well, let us see what his festal orgy of spending has inspired:

IF THE FEDERAL budget is a mirror of national priorities, consider this skewed choice in President Bush's spending plan: By 2009, child care assistance would be cut for at least 200,000 children in low- and moderate-income families -- and that's by the administration's own estimates. The real number of children affected could be as high as 365,000. That same year, those with annual incomes of $1 million or more would be paying an average of $155,000 less in income taxes as a result of Mr. Bush's tax cuts.

So, what's needed according to the Post is two things:

1) More spending.
2) Tax increases.

That is exactly the position they would be taking had Bush adopted a responsible budget. He has gained exactly nothing out of his maneuver.

Controlling spending is a civil rights issue, as well as one of the main planks of the Jacksonian party I suspect may soon arise in our political system. Certainly there are quite a few Jacksonians around, and neither party seems at all interested in upholding their views.

The Command Post - Op-Ed - Five Gallons of Gasoline

"Five Gallons of Gasoline"

If you haven't read this essay by Ali at "Iraq the Model", you might want to do so. It seems he's turned the corner, and realized the truth of what all his friends at the BBC have been saying.

Sharp Knife

Sharp Knife:

Sharp Knife has some incisive questions for John Kerry. He's right about all of them--keep scrolling. If Kerry is the nominee, this is going to be a brutal and ugly campaign. I hope America can stand up to it. Divided as we are, I wonder.

Divided or not, though, it is time to answer some of these questions once and for all. Chief among them is this: do we have the will to fight for the Order of the West?

This question weighs heavily on my mind lately. It was brought to my mind most recently by the case of the Talibani child soldiers recently cut loose from Camp X-Ray at GitMo. I have several friends of a liberal persuasion--indeed, sometimes I think my dearest friends of of that persuasion. It is a remarkable thing, that people who disagree so sharply about things so important could be friends, but so far, we are and have been.

The position of my friends, who admitted that they weren't sure just why these children were arrested, was that the US military was plainly doing wrong. Arresting children, shipping them halfway across the world, and holding them incommunicado from their families is certainly a big deal. It's not something you do for no reason. That, at least, was my impression, at the time when I knew no more about it than they did themselves. Their impression was that the military had done it for no reason, or at least, for no good reason, as no reason good enough for such a thing could be imagined.

Well, here is the reason:

Two of the boys were captured during US raids on Taliban camps in Afghanistan; the third was captured trying to obtain weapons for the Taliban, the Pentagon said.

Now let us say a few things flatly. First, the Taliban has freely imported resistance tactics from the terrorists of Palestine, to include the use of child soldiers and suicide bombers. Second, these children were introduced to the war by the Taliban, which was training them and using them to procure weapons against the United States and the Coalition. Third, if the children had not been removed to Camp X-Ray, but had instead been released to their families, it is without question that the Taliban would have tried to use them again. Put otherwise, the decision to ship these kids to Cuba probably saved their lives. It removed them from the war, gave them time and space to be forgotten as assets by the Taliban, and kept them from being recruited to risk their young lives again by their former leaders.

The boys faced stern interrogation in their first few days, according to the only one of them who has spoken out. However, they were not tortured, and he feels he was pretty well treated overall:

"At first I was unhappy with the U.S. forces. They stole 14 months of my life," said Agha, sitting in a relative's general store at the bazaar in Naw Zad, a market town some 300 miles southwest of Kabul....

"But they gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons," said Agha, a smile spreading across his face between a small beard and a white turban that made him look two or three years older....

He was not beaten but was made to sit on his haunches for three or four hours at a time, even when he wanted to sleep, he said....

"For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer," he said.

The Taliban had given him less choice:

The boys were standing outside a shop in a town along the way when they were detained by Afghan militiamen.

'They said, 'Come and join us,' but we told them we are poor people, jobless, and we don't want to join the militia, we want to earn money," Agha said. "Then they said, 'You are Taliban.'

It's an ugly war, to be sure, but the US military seems to me to come out well here. Still, as interested as I am in the facts of the case, I am as interested in the initial impression. That is to say, before the facts were known, my assumption was that the military had good reason for taking what seemed unusually stern measures; my companions, that the military was obviously wrong to do so. For a moment, let us forget the question of who was right and who was wrong when the facts came out. Let's focus just on that initial impression.

These friends of mine--and I claim them gladly, as all of them are dear and good hearted folk--assume, until sufficient evidence appears to convince them otherwise, that our military is brutal. I assume, until such evidence emerges, that our military keeps its professional commitment to the rules of war. The evidence suggests that people who believe as I do, who assume that the military is trustworthy until it is proven otherwise, are not more than half the populace. Indeed, the Honorable John Kerry has made his career on the opposite assertion.

I would humbly suggest that if you find yourself instinctually distrustful of the American solider, during a time of war when American soldiers are dying every day in your defense, you might want to reexamine the core assumptions of your life. Whether you do so or not, however, you've got just this problem: the American soldier's violence is as good as it gets. The Order of the West can not be protected through law enforcement. Law enforcement can't stop the nuclear market we've seen from Libya and North Korea to Malaysia. There are two things that can, perhaps stop them: intelligence, which by its nature involves law-breaking, not law enforcement; and military force. There is nothing else.

When we get to the point that terrorists have access to nuclear weapons, even occasionally, things are going to become worse than you would like to consider. My dear friends--some of you read this site--I beg you to reconsider just how grave this threat really is. Strong measures are required. First among them is belief. It is absolutely necessary to trust the fighting American Solider. He may not always do right, but you must believe that he usually will. He needs your trust to have the freedom of action required to protect you.

The next thing you must believe is that the Order of the West is worth preserving, though it means the deaths of many people. For now it is thousands who must die--we have killed thousands already. I pray that it may remain only thousands, and not hundreds of thousands, or more. The war we have joined is not going away. We can not wish it away. We will wrestle the nuclear genie back in his bottle, or we will see him loosed on our cities. That which must be done for victory, that same thing must be done. There is no alternative.

Believe this now, or wait for it to be proven on our bodies. Fool yourself now, and you may mourn at your leisure.

Her face was like an open word
When brave men speak and choose

Choose.

The Fever Swamp by Meghan Cox Gurdon on National Review Online

The Mouths of Babes:

Meghan Cox writes at NRO:

[T]he Francophone pachyderm is riding on his mother's back when a hunter shoots her. Babar runs away in terror to a Mediterranean city, where he is drawn up short by the sight of two gentlemen: 'Really, they are very well dressed,' Babar says to himself, 'I would like to have some fine clothes, too! I wonder how I can get them?'

This bizarre Gallic reasoning -- Your mother died today, or was it yesterday? You need new clothes! -- comports perfectly with Violet's world view. No matter what we read, however terrifying Hansel and Gretel's predicament, however ferocious the Beast when he arrests Beauty's father, what Violet wants most is for everyone to look good. Older men are 'kings,' younger men are 'princes,' and all females, unless obviously witches, are 'princesses.' She may be right about this. Certainly she exudes more respect for me when I am wearing a dress.

She is indeed right about it. It is out of the peril of forgetting this fact that all modern errors arise. Men have become accustomed to think of themselves as bankers, or lawyers, or accountants. What dignity has any of those, excepting the lawyer, who at least can claim a kinsman in Burnt Njal? No better dignity than their profession, which is to say, a dignity that is at the mercy of fate, now high and now low. Enron did more to lay low the accountant than a plague could do to lay low man.

The real dignity of man is in being Man. As a child he is a wonder; as a man, a terror. As an elder, he is the repository of wisdom in the world. Books contain much, but only living wisdom is active in shaping the events of the day. Even in America, where Youth is worshipped, it is the old that move the world.

It is wise to consider every man you meet a Prince or a King. This is only to say that you ought to treat them with the fullest respect that might be due to a man of their age; and, if they do not live up to that duty, to scorn them accordingly. This is especially true of Americans, for in casting off ranks of nobility, we have made the free American citizen the equal of anyone. He ought to act like it.

This is what is meant by 'endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.' It means that the dignity of Man is in being Man. Upholding that principle is the foundation of Classical Liberalism, and the rock upon which the Constitution is built. The child has spoken wisely, as children do.

South Knox Bubba

A Regional Candidate:

John Kerry writes off Tennessee, saying he's not running a "regional" candidacy. Well, he's certainly not running a national one. Is there a term in between--"multiregional," say?

It's an interesting question, as Kerry is using the term "regional" as slander against John Edwards' campaign. The argument appears to be that Kerry should be preferred to Edwards because Edwards has regional instead of national appeal.

Surely, though, the opposite is true? The Democratic party has institutional strength outside of the South's "region." A Democrat who can win in the South therefore is the only Democrat who has national appeal. He appeals to non-Southern Democrats who want to replace Bush, and to Southern Democrats who like his message. It's Kerry, not Edwards, who is actually "regional," or multiregional; he will not have nationwide appeal in the general election.

That will put him at a disadvantage against Bush, who will be running a genuinely national campaign. Won't it?

CNN.com - Early tests show deadly ricin in Senate mailroom - Feb. 2, 2004

Bioterror at the Capitol:

The bad news is it looks like today produced a ricin attack at the US Captiol. The good news--today was the day that al Qaeda promised a huge assault that would cripple the US, and cut us off from our forces in the Middle East. So far, nothing.

bloodletting.blog-city.com

Kerry:

Doc Russia has some damning details from Kerry's military career. Surely he didn't write himself up for three Purple Hearts, did he? That would take some guts, though not the same kind as earning three Purple Hearts.

Islam

"Islam: A Threat To World Stability":

Intelligence, we like to say, is always speculative. Sometimes, though, speculation is right. Here's a case of that, from US Army intelligence, 1946. (PDF warning--scroll down to page 26)

Mark Twain - Curing a Cold

Sick?

Doc Russia is sick. As this is the season for it, I offer as a kindness to my readers Mark Twain's "Curing a Cold." Take a few moments to read through it, and see if you can't help him realize his high design:

It is a good thing, perhaps, to write for the amusement of the public, but it is a far higher and nobler thing to write for their instruction, their profit, their actual and tangible benefit. The latter is the sole object of this article. If it prove the means of restoring to health one solitary sufferer among my race, of lighting up once more the fire of hope and joy in his faded eyes, of bringing back to his dead heart again the quick, generous impulses of other days, I shall be amply rewarded for my labor; my soul will be permeated with the sacred delight a Christian feels when he has done a good, unselfish deed.

Having led a pure and blameless life, I am justified in believing that no man who knows me will reject the suggestions I am about to make, out of fear that I am trying to deceive him. Let the public do itself the honor to read my experience in doctoring a cold, as herein set forth, and then follow in my footsteps.

House Democrats claim prayer is 'disrespectful'

A Disrespectful Prayer?

The Arizona Republic has an interesting story today: "House Democrats claim prayer is 'disrespectful'".

The prayer in question was the opening prayer to the state legislator. It was offered by a Republican, Doug Quelland. Apparently it was not his own work, but a prayer that has been around for some time. I had not seen it before:

Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know your word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that:

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.
We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.
We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.
We have abused power and called it political savvy.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
And we have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. In the name of your son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

House Democrats are said to be outraged. I think they have a right to be. First of all, the opening prayer is not like a prayer at a church. A man in church prays as part of a community of believers. It is indeed disrespectful to address the Almighty with, "We confess," when you know that many you are speaking for do not share your sentiments and would not share your confession. It is disrespectful not least to the Almighty, who deserves better than to be approached with a knowing and willful lie.

Earlier today--well, yesterday, now--I wrote that Southerners like religious men, but prefer forthright ones. This is a fine example of what I mean. If Mr. Quelland feels it is important to pray for forgiveness for America's sins--an occupation for which I certainly have some sympathy--I know where he can find some ready made advice on how it might better be done.

SSDB: Not Subject to the Privacy Act of 1974

The Sarge is Being Clever:

I had a good laugh at Sgt. Stryker's post on the News today:

Stealing a page from the 2000 Election, Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard "Comeback Kid" Dean revealed his new "Winning Through Losing" strategy, saying he "did not have to win any of the seven primary contests Feb. 3 to keep his campaign alive." Dean supporters speculate that if Dean comes in dead last in the next primary, he'll have the nomination locked-up. Other political observers noted that by comparing himself to Bill Clinton, Dean's committed a serious faux pas that has felled many a dorky student running for Class President: artificially appropriating the same nickname as the cool kid.

Meanwhile, Dean has fired his campaign manager and, in a sign of stability, asked staff to defer getting paid for a couple of weeks. Hint to Dean staff: Money up front. In a couple of weeks, the campaign that's supposed to be paying you may dissolve.

Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love: Journalistic Jingoism...

OpSec:

I join Blackfive in condemning the Chicago Tribune, and especially Ms. Spolar. Even the anti-war Human Rights Watch noted, in their report on "Freedom of Expression and the War" that US precedent condemns this sort of reporting:

Eric W. Ober writes: "During the Vietnam War, reporters could go anywhere -- anytime -- often with the military taking us along. There were two basic restrictions in Vietnam. First, that no troop movements be reported prior to engagement. Second, that no faces of dead or wounded soldiers be shown before their families had been properly identified. Both restrictions were totally understandable, and there were virtually no violations of the guidelines by any American news organization.

Emphasis added. Meanwhile, the military takes a dimmer view. Military Law Review (PDF warning--long article) points out that:

[We are] reminded of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes oft-quoted observation in Near v. Minnesota that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech does not bar the government from preventing the publication of sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. (Citation: Paul D. Kamenar, Media Restrictions Are Necessary to Protect Doops, LEGAL TIMES, Jan. 28, 1991, a t 19-20. See Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 US. 697, 716 (1931).)

The Pentagon's guidelines for the media during the Gulf War included explicitly:

Any information that reveals details of future plans, operations, or strikes, including postponed or canceled operations.

The government ought to act to defend its right to prevent the publication of this information. I will leave it to the lawyers among you to determine the best course for that action.

UPDATE: The Federation of American Scientists, of which I am a member, has chosen today to draw attention to this report at the Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies. Entitled "Laws And Leaks Of Classified Intelligence: Costs And Consequences Of Permissive Neglect," it was originally published in 2002. It proposes a strict standard for dealing with journalists who publish classified data.

[A] close reading of 18 USC 798 (sometimes referred to as the SIGINT statute) and surely 50 USC 451 [sic--421, I think, is the right section.-Grim] (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), will show that journalists are already legally accountable for publishing leaked classified intelligence. But these statutes (too narrowly drawn, and considerable intelligence escapes their purview) are apparently unenforced to date, and remain to be tested in the courts....

Recognize that government leakers and the journalists who publish the classified materials they provide do the equivalent work of spies. Even if their motives differ, the effects are often the same. Through press leaks, unauthorized disclosures can be every bit as damaging as espionage because of the focused exploitation of the US press by terrorists and hostile governments. If leakers and journalists were caught providing some of this classified information clandestinely to a foreign power, they could be prosecuted for espionage. But if they publish in the press--where their leaked sensitive information becomes available to all governments and terrorists, not just one--they derive effective immunity from prosecution under a government that lacks the will to enforce its laws.

I don't follow his assertion that the portions of the US Code he cites say anything of the sort. I am not a lawyer, but the SIGINT statute clearly applies only to cryptographic information. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act will be familiar to anyone following the Plame business. It's strictly limited on what it criminalizes.

That said, the overriding argument is proper, and the US Supreme Cout has plainly said that the government has the right to prevent the publication of exactly this information. If any of you lawyers wish to comment, I'd like to hear what options you see the government having to protect our warfighters from unscrupulous journalists.

Forget the South, Democrats - Stop coddling the spoiled brat of presidential politics. By Timothy�Noah

The South and the Democratic Party:

Slate has today an article by one Timothy Noah, entitled "Forget the South, Democrats - Stop coddling the spoiled brat of presidential politics." We shall here discuss it.

"There goes the South for a generation," Lyndon Johnson is said to have predicted as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. Actually, it's been two generations, but otherwise Johnson was dead-on.

Insofar as Johnson was right, it wasn't the Civil Rights Act itself, but the use of military force against the South that did the trick. I think that the CRA was less important than Brown v. the Board of Education in that regard. In any event, the South is the only part of the United States that has felt the force of the US military directed against it--twice now, and this last time in living memory.

As I have argued elsewhere, Southerners have come to the point that we ought to admit that things are better in the South in part due to such intervention. Nevertheless--let it be said that I defy the premise of this article, which is that the South is in some way the 'spoiled brat' of American politics. The South provides fully 40% of the US military, and yet is the only region that has had that military used against it. We have served, and we have been struck across the face in our service; and we continue to serve. Therefore is America as strong as she is:

'This blow that I return not
Ten times will I return
On kings and earls of all degree,
And armies wide as empires be
Shall slide like landslips to the sea[.]'

So let us dispense with the notion that the South has been coddled. What else is there in the article?

For 40 years, the Democratic Party begged Southern Democrats to return to the fold. Always undignified, this pleading eventually become futile as well, like Shirley Booth calling for her dead puppy in Come Back, Little Sheba. Now John Kerry, winner of the New Hampshire primary, is taking some heat for saying so. But it's about time somebody did.

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking south," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a Jan. 24 appearance at Dartmouth. And so they have.

Return to the fold? Sir, Southern Democrats still stand right where the fold used to be. It is the fold that has moved away from us. You have, to extend the metaphor, sought other grazing in pastures you thought from afar would prove greener: socialism, identity politics, abortion politics, judicial activism and its illiberal accomplice, the litigation of every aspect of American life. You have turned free and equal citizens into a hierarchy: lawyers, and subjects of the law. That would bad enough, but you have also encouraged the lawyers who become judges to be legislators, rewriting the law at pleasure. Return to you? You tred ground that shows no sign of any previous human foot: nor will it show yours for long, for it is a morass.

What else?

For two decades, it's been axiomatic that Democratic presidential candidates couldn't win unless they were Southerners.... But it didn't work in 2000 for Al Gore--or rather, it didn't work well enough to counterbalance the Supreme Court's decision to hand over Florida's electors to George W. Bush.

Well, as to that, the Florida State Supreme Court set aside Florida law, Federal law, and the US Constitution in rewriting the recount guidelines. That is an example of exactly what I was talking about just above. If you didn't engage in such foolishness, but respected the law, you would find that Southerners were less likely to have a problem with you.

If he'd taken Florida, which in many ways is not really a southern state, he'd be president. (Some people still argue that he did.) Thus Lesson 2: Democrats don't really need those southern votes.

We will return to the question of whether or not you need those votes in just a moment. For now, note that Florida, though I will agree that it is in character different from the South, is also home to an increasingly large number of military voters (you may remember them? They are the ones whose absentee ballots your Mr. Gore had discarded on a technicality? I assure you they remember, even if you don't). As mentioned, the South provides 40% of military forces. Likewise, the military's relative conservatism, patriotism, and respect for tradition and sacrifice make even non-Southern military men more like Southerners than anyone else in America. I wouldn't count on carrying Florida all that often.

Since 2000, many Democrats have questioned quietly why they should expend so much effort trying to win votes in what is now a solidly Republican region. The Democrats' ceaseless courtship of Southern votes has fostered an unhealthy sense of entitlement. Southerners now consider it their God-given right to supply Democrats with presidential candidates or, failing that, to force non-Southern candidates to discuss Him using an alien evangelical vocabulary. (God doesn't hear the prayers of Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or Presbyterians. No use even discussing Unitarians, Jews, and atheists.)

On the contrary: Southerners like Joe Lieberman pretty well. He's neither a Southerner nor a Christian--one of those Jews you seem to think need not apply. But Jews have always done well in the South: one of the nation's oldest Jewish communities, which was addressed by General George Washington, is in Savannah. The South, divided so badly by black-white racism, has generally not noticed 'internal' divisions: Irishmen, Jews, Germans, and so forth have suffered prejudice elsewhere, but not in the South. The sad reverse of that is the famous "one drop" rule, of course.

In any event, we have never asked anyone to talk about God who didn't want to do so. In fact, speaking for myself, I'd rather you didn't. There is little mroe irritating than listening to an irreligious Yankee suddenly start prattling on about Jesus when he starts campaigning in the South (Howard Dean, call your office). Southerners do like religious men--Jews or otherwise--but they like forthright men more.

Overindulgence has also made the South grotesquely hypersensitive to what non-Southern liberals say about it; to quote a famous witticism about the writer John O'Hara, today's South is "master of the fancied slight." Thus when Vermonter Howard Dean made the perfectly innocent remark that he'd like to win votes from "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks"--a comment, incidentally, that indicated he did not intend to write off the South--he had to fall all over himself apologizing to Southerners offended by the shorthand.

This part is fair, as far as it goes. The South is an honor-based culture. In that, it is genuinely different from the rest of America. That does provide pitfalls, one of which is pricklishness to insult by outsiders.

The taboo extends to discussing whether the South has enough votes to justify Democratic solicitude. Kerry's remarks prompted Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, to tell ABC's Jake Tapper, "I'm shocked he would be talking about a strategy of avoiding the South." Tapper also quoted Kerry rival John Edwards, political scientist Merle Black, and Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., emphasizing the importance of the South to the Democrats. But they're all Southerners; of course they think Democrats shouldn't write off their region. (Miller, who's starting to sound like a right-fringe crackpot, has the gall to tell Democrats what to do even though he's already endorsed President Bush.)

It's worth remembering that Senator Miller gave the keynote address when Bill Clinton was nominated for the Presidency. Senator Miller's book, A National Party No More, warns that the otherwise-national Democratic Party seems not to care that it is writing off an entire region, consisting of fully one-third of the voters in the country. Maybe it seems like a winning political strategy to some persons to ceed 1/3rd of the vote, and then fight for a division of the remaining 2/3rds.

To me, it sounds like Miller is right: the Democratic party is choosing not to be a national party, unwilling to do what must be done to compete nationwide for the popular vote. If that is the case, it will become plausible for the Democratic party to be replaced by a party that will do what must be done to compete for the nationwide vote. That may be a new political party, but it might be the Republican party.

What does this spell for the future of the Democratic party? Illegitimacy, for one thing. A party that tries to govern America, having little support except on the coasts, will find that even if it wins the occasional election its policies are very hard to enact or to execute.

It is likely to find, over time, that trying to compete with a party that has a national strategy when it has only a regional strategy will cause it to be increasingly marginalized.

Nothing makes this clearer than the example of the Senate. It is barely possible to win the Presidency without the South: if you win 70% of all races outside of the South, you will have just enough Electoral votes to squeak by. You'll be OK in the House, for a while, because the House is apportioned by population. The Senate is not. There are Senate races in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina this year, which could solidify Republican control of that body. If you don't fight for the South, over time all Southern senators will become Republican. California and New York may stand you fine in the House, but they only give you four Senators together, and both states are in play--consider a Guiliani candidacy, for example. Give the Republicans the South, and you'll never hold the gavel in the Senate again. The Senate's consent is required for all Federal judgeships, ambassadors, major political appointments, and--just in case you have forgotten--legislation. Kiss the South goodbye, and you kiss the Democratic platform goodbye. Even on those occasions you manage to win the 70% of non-Southern races, so that you have narrow control of the House and a Democratic president, you will get exactly no legislation that you want: gridlock will be the best the Democratic party can manage. By the way, don't forget the judges. Eventual Republican dominance of the Supreme Court will be assured by the loss of the Senate.

This, mind you, is the best case scenario. This assumes that the Democratic party will be able to continue to win the Presidency on occasion, and that its legislative incapacity won't cause it to become uncompetitive in regions outside the South. A more likely scenario is that the Republicans, dominant in the Senate, and eventually the Supreme Court, will dominate the other branches as well. As the Democratic party will be increasingly unable to enact legislation, people who want legislation enacted will have to go to the Republicans. That means the withering of Democratic political support among unions, lawyers, and businessmen. The only supporters that will remain are those who are so opposed to the Republican agenda that they would rather have gridlock. You'd have had their votes anyway, even if you'd made the adjustments to your agenda necessary to be competitive in the South.

Noah argues at some length that the Democratic Party can make up with Latinos the loss of the South. That is a deeply suspicious argument, as Latinos trend socially fairly conservative and religious. A Democratic party that ejects its last conservative principles in order to run with the wolves is not going to be even as appealing to them as it is now; and even now, Republicans are making gains among Latino voters.

There is more still:

But there's an even longer political history of Southerners whining and wheedling their way into disproportionate and undeserved power.

What follows this line is tenditious in the extreme.* But, the core of truth to it is that the South has always been more politically powerful than its numbers. This is mostly because of the Senate, which the South has frequently dominated due to its cultural unity.

The radical changes of the 20th century were all enacted by Democrats. They were possible because the South was solidly Democratic, and lent their power to the party--sometimes grudgingly, and sometimes with loud protests. Since the South began to go Republican, there has been no political change of any real degree in America. When the shift is complete, radical change will again be possible. Just as before, solid control of the Senate means tremendous power across the system.

This time it will be Republicans with that power. What, Noah, do you think they will do? Consider that question for a space, and then consider what can be done to stop it. There is one thing, only: the Democratic Party must return to its roots, and start fighting for the South.

* Tenditious arguments include the following:

-"The South is arguably the most socialistic region in the country; nearly half of all U.S. military personnel are stationed there, and the region was only lightly affected by the post-Cold War base closings of the 1980s and 1990s." The facts are right, but the interpretation is wrong. Insofar as military life is 'socialistic,' it is the socialism of the comitatus, not the commune. There could be no greater difference in the value systems than that.

-"Before that, the South treasonously separated itself from the Union." In fact, the right of states to seceed from the union was taught in West Point textbooks before the Civil War. Besides, the principles of the American Revolution do not make sense if states have no right, ever, to reconsider their association. It was hardly treason to do what Washington himself had done. Unless, of course, you would prefer to consider yourself a British subject, surrounded by a nation of traitors.

-"Before that, the South successfully battled all attempts to end the practice of slavery, which the Founding Fathers well understood was incompatible with the principles of the American Revolution." As to the founders--yes, indeed, although they also did all they could to avoid ending the practice of slavery in their lifetimes. Not one of them released his slaves until his death. As to the South's avoidance of ending slavery--the Confederacy was the first American nation to ban the importation of slaves. Slave ships remained legal in the North for quite some time, and they sailed, as they always had, out of Northern harbors. Their markets were limited to Brazil and the Carribean after the Civil War. The markets there never dried up; it was the British navy that put an end to the slave trade, not an end to the market. Whereas slaves in the American South lived to reproduce, slaves in South America died almost as fast as they could be imported on those Northern slave ships, the ones you'll have read about. So please--if you must dwell on old inhumanities, you might at least do so in an evenhanded way.

-"Of course, without the three-fifths rule, there wouldn't have been a Constitution of the United States--not one that governed the American South, at any rate--because the South wouldn't have ratified it. But that only underscores further the perils of paying the South too much attention." Does it? The three-fifths compromise tells us what, exactly, about the intentions of a Southerner living in 2004? About the quality of his advice? It says nothing at all on either question: it is an ad hominem attack against the region, as indeed are most of the other assertions.

Samizdata.net

Samizdata:

You have probably noticed that Samizdata has a new look. I've been trying to sort out what the pistol is they're using on the top left photo. My best guess is a Sig-Sauer P225, but I think that's wrong because grip isn't the right shape. Anybody want to venture an opinion?

Mudville Gazette: MilBlogs:

Milblogs:

I've joined Milblogs. I wasn't sure how they'd feel about a former member of the USMC who was currently in the mercenary service (or shadow forces as Mudville Gazette calls us, though I don't work for DynCorp). Apparently, it's good enough. For what it's worth, I've kept my oath.

Arts & Letters Daily - ideas, criticism, debate

Marriage:

It's marriage day at Arts & Letters Daily. Staney Kurtz of has a piece suggesting that marriage may cease to exist: Consider Sweden. Then, from the Atlantic, there is a piece sort-of defending Dr. Laura's advice on marriage. (I say "sort of" defending her because the author refers to her as a "fishwife," which according to Roget's means:

A person, traditionally a woman, who persistently nags or criticizes: fury, harpy, scold, shrew, termagant, virago, vixen. Informal : battle-ax.

Some defense. Having heard her show only the once myself, I can only say that I tend to agree.)

Meanwhile, there's a piece on Jane Austen's novels on marriage. I have never read an Austen novel all the way through, but when I lived in China, I noticed that they were very popular among Chinese women. On a slightly related topic, I have a post on FreeSpeech on an upcoming marriage between the PRC and the DPRK. Good hunting, lads and lassies.

Trip to Iraq

Winning in Iraq:

The Honorable Zell Miller, Senator of the great state of Georgia, has a new page up on his recent trip to Iraq. You ought to read his remarks, but don't miss the pictures. They used to fly that plane right over my house, back when I lived in the flight path for Hunter Army Airfield.

Other especially worthy pictures: Miller, a former Marine, signs a USMC flag that flies in Iraq. And, of course, there's Saddam's solid-gold Kalishnikov.

And then, read his remarks to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. You can skip the parts about Georgia economics if it doesn't interest you. The rest of it is magnificient.

It begins with a recitation of the successes of armies of free men against armies designed in tyranny. It demonstrates just how we fit into that tradition. Senator Miller does not shy from the debt the South owes the rest of the country for continuing to be a part of that tradition--he praises Abraham Lincoln. Yet he does not hesistate to remind the nation of the debt it owes the South in turn. He holds high the flag of war, but does not turn from its cost. It is, I think, one of the finest pieces of political writing I have seen in the modern age.

It is too long, and too fine, to excerpt. If you want a Jacksonian party, this is the way it should sound.

New Links:

I've added two new links to the "Other Halls" section: Bloodletting, another Marine blog, and Liberty Dad.

Both of these are blogs who have linked here first. I figured this out by checking site traffic and whatnot. It's been a while since I've said it, though, so let me say it again--I believe in reciprocal hospitality. If you link here, odds are I'll link you. Drop me a line.

By the way, I notice that Bloodletting is calling for the establishment of a Jacksonian political party. If that interests you, you might want to read the first-draft manifesto I wrote for The Jacksonian Party.

The Liberal Conspiracy - Satire, Informed Commentary and 9-11 Research

Bad Conspiracy Theorist! Down!

Sovay McKnight reduces another 9/11 conspiracy theory to dust.

The Corner on National Review Online

Dean Campaigns in NH:

From The Corner, we have a glimpse at Dean's campaign in New Hampshire:

I arrived home from shopping today to find a large yellow manila envelope in my mailbox. Sealed with a giant Dean campaign sticker, the envelope contained:

*1 DVD titled "Howard Dean for America--Fulfilling the Promise of America"

*1 nicely designed trifold color brochure proclaiming that "This is a campaign to unite and empower Americans . . .to move the insiders out and let the people in!" The brochure features such positive messages as "I know what's wrong with America." My favorite excerpt: "As a medical doctor, I have been trained to diagnose an illness and prescribe the proper treatment. I have frequently applied the same techniques as a Governor."

Quite apart from whether or not this line of argument is apt to be successful, I want to remark that it is entirely mistaken. Chesterton wrote on the topic extensively; I quote here from What's Wrong with the World Today. Chesterton was especially prophetic, and what he saw wrong in his day often not only proved to be wrong indeed, but developed into greater wrongs on just the lines of which he warned.

In any event, the very first chapter of this work is entitled "The Medical Mistake":

The fallacy is one of the fifty fallacies that come from the modern madness for biological or bodily metaphors. It is convenient to speak of the Social Organism, just as it is convenient to speak of the British Lion. But Britain is no more an organism than Britain is a lion. The moment we begin to give a nation the unity and simplicity of an animal, we begin to think wildly.... Now we do talk first about the disease in cases of bodily breakdown; and that for an excellent reason. Because, though there may be doubt about the way in which the body broke down, there is no doubt at all about the shape in which it should be built up again. No doctor proposes to produce a new kind of man, with a new arrangement of eyes or limbs. The hospital, by necessity, may send a man home with one leg less: but it will not (in a creative rapture) send him home with one leg extra.

The proper shape of society is not, as Chesterton goes on to point out, a thing as certain as the proper shape of a man.

But exactly the whole difficulty in our public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would regard as worse maladies; are offering ultimate conditions as states of health which others would uncompromisingly call states of disease. Mr. Belloc once said that he would no more part with the idea of property than with his teeth; yet to Mr. Bernard Shaw property is not a tooth, but a toothache. Lord Milner has sincerely attempted to introduce German efficiency; and many of us would as soon welcome German measles. Dr. Saleeby would honestly like to have Eugenics; but I would rather have rheumatics.

Dr. Dean would have you believe that society is sick, and that he is going to cure it. It is wise to be wary of all such men. Another point for Chesterton; it's a pity that no one is keeping an honest account of the score.

The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

From the Command Post:

The Command Post reports that the Dean campaign has "paused" its nationwide ads, in favor of a focus on New Hampshire. That sounds like a tacit recognition of the truth: if Dean comes in third or later in NH, he's done. The only thing he can do at that point is bring his big war-chest to bear as an enticement to sway the real nominee to give him a good position in the new government, should the party be successful in the general election. It's therefore important to conserve that resource.

If Dean manages second or, against the odds, wins in NH, he'll be back to his 50 state plan. As has been reported, Kerry has limited funding to campaign across the country. Edwards, who everyone agrees was really Iowa's big winner, has a different problem. South Carolina is the next big poll, yes; but even if he wins, there will then be eight more non-Southern states, including two more New England states, before any more of the South votes. Edwards has to make the argument that he is the most electable nominee stand in the face of those eight states' returns, which are not as likely to favor him as the South.

So, it's possible that Dean, if he can survive in NH, may likewise survive being brutalized in South Carolina to fight on through the eight states that follow. (Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Michigan, Washington State, and Maine, if you're keeping score.) The week after that, Tennessee and Virginia vote.

Since people are offering their reads on these things, I'd say Dean has to pull first or second in NH to stay in the game. If he's feeling bold, he might try to stick it out even with a third place finish, but the evidence suggests he's already making contingency plans to buy the influence he can't win through the electorate. Edwards can survive whatever comes in NH, but if he wins SC, and then the next week carries TN and VA, he can probably ignore the results in the eight states and win the nomination on the strength of the Super Tuesday vote. If he loses SC, TN, or VA, he's not likely to win the nomination. Still a long shot, but not nearly as long as he was.

As Mark Steyn reports, the Democratic party's political functionaries seem to have rallied behind Kerry. That may go a long way to undo his finance troubles. It may be Dean can buy him, too, which infusion would be all he likely needs. If he does carry NH strongly, I'd say a Dean purchase and Kerry as the nominee are most likely, but with Edwards not being out of it until after TN and VA vote--he could still win if the bulk of the party decides on the evidence that he can split the South in the general election.

They like Bush, and they are not stupid - www.theage.com.au

"We Have Always Stood Up for Freedom"

De Beste commented on the strength of the Australian-US relationship a few days ago. I notice an article in Australia's The Age that suggests why our relationship is so strong:

The Iraq war has cost the lives of about 500 American soldiers. Some would have you believe that this makes Iraq a quagmire. But the truth is, if Western nations have come to the point where 500 deaths is an unbearable war-time loss, then we should also say we are no longer prepared to fight wars, because about the same number of soldiers die every year, in peacetime.

Americans are not casual about casualties. Each and every one of the lives lost was precious to them. I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: "No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?"

Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: "I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all."

It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war....

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

"But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people."

Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day.

Former Green Beret Guides GIs in Thicket of Iraq (washingtonpost.com)

Chaplain Corps:

Hail a hero, "12-year Green Beret, Persian Gulf War combat veteran, Special Forces company commander, demolitions expert, high-altitude jumper and deep-sea scuba diver" turned chaplain: United States Army Captain Daniel Knight.

John Derbyshire on Space Exploration on National Review Online

On Space:

I remain a big fan of the private colonization of space. There are good arguments that it may not turn out to be the "libertarian paradise" that is suggested by many, number one of which being: it would be easier and cheaper to go and colonize Antartica, if it came to that. Conditions are less rough, really. Still, the colonization of space has a flair to it that may inspire Men where Antartica does not. If we want to do it, we probably will.

A good argument as to why the space program can't be left to the government is made today by John Derbyshire. John correctly points out that the only real government interest in space is, and will remain, military:

The things we must do are all military. The main one is, protection of our assets in orbit. When a US Special Forces scout in the Hindu Kush gets down from his mule, unpacks his laptop, takes a GPS reading and calls in an air strike on an al Qaeda camp in the next valley, he needs to know that GPS satellite is in orbit and functioning. If it is, then he is the Angel of Death. If it isn't, he's just a guy with a mule and a game of solitaire. This is important.

He lists several more examples, all of which are essential and military, and none of which require manned space programs. Ultimately, American tax payers will probably not support huge projects that have little practical value. Unless something changes the practical necessities--Chinese military expansion into space, for example--we'll probably stay right here if we leave it to the government.

Kerry Wins Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucuses (washingtonpost.com)

Dean a Distant Third in Iowa:

This seems like an early indication of good news for the NRA and my liquor cabinet. Of course, Iowa is a little strange as predictors go. Still, it's interesting that the candidate with the largest Democratic fundraising and a famed organization should finish a distant third, having managed only roughly half the delegates of the second-place finisher, John Edwards. That gives Dean fewer than one in five of the total delegates.

The Dean blog carries some pretty sorrowful notes just now. "Jane Doe" speaks for the movement, I expect, when she says: "And now, I move to France. Goodnight America. I wish you luck." Don't let the door hit you, Jane.

I think the Edwards finish is the story of the night, really. I expected him to be out of the race by now. He seems like a nice young fellow, a good Southerner and a resolute in refusing to go negative. Unlike Dean, he could do well in the South. If this finish gets some attention for him, his campaign may pick up from here. He's still a very long shot, but it's no longer implausible that he could win.

A Death in the Family

A Death in the Family:

Alas! I have heard that one of our own has passed on. It is a tragic tale, one of the harshest I have known. It should never have been like this.

Her name was Leslie, and she entered the family by marriage to one of my cousins. She was smarter than he was, by far, and more disciplined besides. They met at the University of Tennessee, and he often credited her that he ever managed to finish his degree at all. She went on to Mercer, a private university in Georgia, where she got a graduate degree in pharmacology.

I remember their wedding, a grand affair at a Baptist church in Rocky Hill, Tennessee. Their feast, on the green lawn of my Uncle Gene's back yard, was as joyous a time as I can recall. Everyone was happy. My cousin, the firstborn of our kin in his generation, was married to a woman of strength and character, brilliant and beautiful. Everyone was happy.

When Leslie graduated from Mercer, I went to the ceremony. It was both majestic and Medieval. The faculty wore hooded robes in the heraldic colors of their departments. The President of the college bore a mace as a symbol of authority. When Leslie got her degree, my cousin let out a "Yee-ha!" whoop, a Rebel Yell, such as earned him many scowls from others of my family for showing low class in a gathering of such ceremony. We had dinner, after, at one of Atlanta's finest restaurants.

I saw them rarely after that, but Leslie was mother to one of my favorite cousins, Jennifer, born like me in the Year of the Tiger. She also bore another son, Zack, and they moved into what had been my grandfather's house. Everything should have gone well.

It did not. A pharmacist, Leslie gave in to temptation--as do we all, at times--and found herself addicted to her own concoctions. Her needs grew, and divorce followed. She tried, and failed, to win custody of the children. She fell back in to her mother's house, banned from practicing her profession, and never won free. She died yesterday, having lost all her teeth, grown from a beauty to a creature of two hundred pounds. It was her liver, which failed her at last.

In a way it makes sense, but I finally fail to understand. It is a tragedy that something which began so well should end so badly. I trust that kindness follows in another place. For those who read this, guard yourselves with strength and ready blades. Even for the shining, death and ruin await.

REL Day

Happy REL Day:

Southern Appeal remarks on how this is the birthday of another famous Southerner.

Egyptian Islamist Leaders Fault Al-Qaida's Strategy

From FBIS:

FBIS, the Federal Broadcast Information Service, is a part of the CIA's Division of Science & Technology. It monitors not only broadcasts but also publications for open-source intelligence. Since what they are picking up is open-source to begin with, they often don't classify it. Here is an interesting piece: Egyptian Islamist Leaders Fault Al-Qaida's Strategy. These Islamists have some pretty well-structured ideas about where the GWOT is going, and also about its character. On the question of whether the US is a Crusader power, and whether the war is inevitable or desirable, they say:

The fact is that it is the strategy of Al-Qa'ida that strengthened the Christian currents that are hostile to Islam in the United States and the West. Al-Qa'ida's strategy strengthened the voice of those who call for all-out war against Islam. We do not believe that this crusader war actually existed. Some may say, 'so what is wrong with igniting a war against America and the West on the basis of religion? This would mobilize the energies of the Muslim nation and nip these schemes in the bud'. To this we say we disagree with this logic. We disagree not only because the Muslim nation is not ready for such an option. We disagree also because we believe that awakening the Muslim nation from its deep slumber and helping it to rejuvenate its civilization and bounty require us not to fall in the trap of clash of civilizations.

That is, of course, 'not only would we lose a military war; currently, we would lose a cultural competition as well.' I think that's an accurate assessment. An open-eyed view suggests that, if forced to choose sides, most Muslims would prefer an open and largely secular society over Islamist rule. That is not to say that they would prefer domination by the West to domination by the Imams, or that the secular society they would choose would be secular in Western terms. Probably it would look a lot more like Alabama, circa 1930, than Los Angeles today: a state that was in theory secular, but which was permeated by religious influence because of a shared culture.

That represents a step forward. In fact, it may even be preferable to LA 2004. The only thing to complain about in 1930's Alabama, aside from the Depression, was the oppressive racism. Lacking that source of misery, such a culture could be both stable and pleasant. It's not an option for the United States, who has let the genie out of the bottle. It might be one, though, for Egypt, where the jinn is yet confined.

CIA-SOF

The CIA & Special Operations Forces:

PDF warning: The Federation of American Scientists has obtained a new report by Col. Kathryn Stone, USAR, on the topic of integrated CIA-SOF warfare. Col. Stone notes that it has worked pretty well lately, but that there are a number of problems with the concept that haven't been resolved. Among them:

1) CIA paramilitary operations by their nature usually need deniability. Having large-scale SOF integration with their own special operations units could make it harder to carry off a truly deniable op. Too many US fingerprints, that is.

2) Furthermore, the two kinds of forces each have a different legal status. US military SOF are legal combatants, entitled to Geneva convention protections. CIA paramilitaries may reasonably be defined as illegal combatants, which would remove from them any GC protections; or, in fact, as spies, as which international law says that they can be shot without trial.

Taking a hard but practical example: if an op fails and our people are captured, the SOF would have to be separated out. They're taken off to a POW camp, where they are entitled to freedom from interrogation beyond name and serial number; they get hot meals and decent living conditions. The CIA men get none of that. It would be wise, then, if they pretended to be US military as well, both from a personal and an operational standpoint (e.g., they might avoid interrogation that could reveal US intelligence information). There, of course, goes deniability. Or, they could all pretend to be something other than US operatives. There goes the Geneva Convention protections for the soldiers.

3) Apart from the question of whether the combatants are legal, there is the question of whether the operation itself is legal. As the Colonel gently puts it:

CIA covert paramilitary operations may be contrary to customary international law or the laws of the country in which the activity is taking place, whereas U.S. military forces routinely operate in the public domain in a legally based forum requiring them to follow international law.... Covert actions do not imply that U.S. law is superior to that of another country's, or that of international law, but that, instead, there are overriding national interests (vital interests) that must be protected outside the framework of international law and regular diplomatic relations.

That is to say, CIA operations are frequently illegal. The distinction may seem a small one, given that US military SOF undertake some rough-and-ready missions themselves. For the brass, though, it's a real difference. They're a little nervous about sending their boys off to get themselves into serious trouble.

4) That ties directly into the next problem for the military, which is this:

[T]he combatant commander has the responsibility for missions in his geographical area of command, and commands all military forces assigned to his area of responsibility. The combatant commander, however, has no specific statutory authority over other U.S. Government personnel in his area of operations, such as CIA paramilitary operatives. Accordingly, when CIA paramilitary operatives are integrated with SOF in a warfighting operation in a combatant commander's area of operations, the combatant commander has no authority over those CIA paramilitary operatives[.]

Now this is the kind of thing that can make a field commander sweat bullets. It's bad enough when these paramilitaries are off doing what they think they need to do in your area of responsibility. It's worse when they're integrated with units you actually command, but they themselves don't have to obey orders. The Colonel notes that the President can give orders authorizing the military commander to command the paramilitaries, and I read the paper as suggesting that such an authorization be considered an absolute necessity for integrated ops. Yet, as she notes, CIA special operations occur only because they have special permission from the President himself. Even with a Presidential order demanding compliance with military commands, the CIA operative knows he has another Presidential order of equal weight demanding he complete his mission. If the CIA team decides that it needs to act in defiance of orders to accomplish the mission, it could do so just as readily as it could defy the order to complete the mission in favor of the order to obey military command.

The Colonel's report is highly complimentary to CIA teams, and recognizes that their capabilities are different from--and in certain cases superior to--military capabilities. The CIA is better, she says, at identifying correct targets, which cuts down on civilian casualties. She says that:

[T]he CIA's targeting process is usually quicker, more fluid, and encompasses fewer decision-makers in its "trigger-pulling chain of command" than DOD's.

The problem, though, is that having identified the target is not enough. The integration problems mean that the CIA is left either taking out the target with its own assets, or submitting its target to the DOD for approval. The first one is fine, if it falls within their capability (i.e., if a rifle can do the job). If an airstrike is needed, though, the approval process is actually lengthened even though the targeting was done more quickly.

Sadly, the Colonel reaches a predictable and mistaken conclusion: that these difficulties require a massive new bureaucracy to address, monitor, and control them. In this, she is acting exactly as one would expect a Pentagon officer to act. However, if her recommendation is followed, it will strip the CIA operatives of most of the things that make them useful to have around: freedom of action, fluidity, and the power to assume risks on their own authority, without needing multiple levels of authorization.

That is the minimum price. It could be that a joint bureaucracy would also, out of the timidity that is native to bureaucracies, handcuff the CIA in other matters. For example, one of the things the CIA can readily do is pay out cash to warlords who might be of use, as in Afghanistan. Since SOF usually don't have authority to do that, the payouts could be a signal that an operation was CIA or joint. "We can't allow such signals!" would be the natural cry of the bureaucrat. "They compromise operational security." And, therefore, the payments would be banned, and a level of freedom lost.

A better recommendation would be to increase the authority given to DOD SOF. This is particularly true in the case of the Green Berets, who have many of the same capabilities as CIA paramilitaries in terms of their ability to interact with the local populace. By giving A-team commanders freedom of action similar to the paramilitaries', you would increase the headaches and ulcers of all area commanders everywhere. You would also, however, fight a more successful GWOT.

Black Marketeers

Black Marketeers:

Over at FreeSpeech, I have written a long piece on the current state of the Iraqi black market. Exec. summary: mostly good news, but we need to get ammo to the cops and medicine to the people.

TNI - Back Issues Archive of The National Interest

Jacksonian Democracy:

Blackfive has a link to a long tale, one full of wisdom, on why Jacksonian interests are the paramount ones for American politicians. If there is to be a new party on Jacksonian lines, this seems a good omen for its success.

FreeSpeech.com: The Price Of War.

Another Comment:

There are some good debates going on FreeSpeech. If you are interested in honest debates, you ought to visit FreeSpeech. Del's site is unusual in how many thoughtful people it attracts from all sides of the spectrum. This one is called "The Price of War." Will B., an anti-warrior, has this to say:

It seems to me that there is little room to walk away with any other conclusion than lives are being lost so we can protect the American way of life the general grew up with. That is fine, but are Iraqis paying that price with the cost of their lives as well? I think so! Then if so, don't they deserve more sympathy from our administration? After all, what do words cost?

Some will say the cost of Iraqi lives are paid for by the lives that will be saved with Saddam removed from power, therefore, no apology required (not that I ever heard the administration make that argument). Well, o.k., fine. But doesn't that seem like hollow sympathy to you? It certainly doesn’t seem to me like the heart of the country I thought I lived in. Then again, perhaps I am one of those "crazies" who feel our country could do better if we make the effort.

To which I reply:

Brother Will,

What would you have said by the powerful? I am honestly curious. The price of war is high, yes; but it has to be compared with the price of not having war.

I am willing to agree that a calculation of lives saved v. lives lost is a poor way to judge the worthiness of war. But there has to be some way to do it. If we aren't going to make utilitarian calculations, then we are left with principles.

And what principle is it that does not justify this war? It is not merely the principle that we should care for the weak, or look out for those who might suffer from war. We have looked out for them, by war. It is war alone that shattered the iron bands that guarded them by day and by night. It was our war that did.

It is not the principle that we should love our neighbor, for we have loved him. At the cost of the blood of our own, we have scattered an army of oppression, collared the Mukhabarat, and begun to empty the graves they were so long in filling. As we turn over to the families skeletons of long dead beloved, we avenge neighbors scorned by the cruel.

It is not the principle that we should do no evil. That principle is answered by the Doctrine of Double Effect, which you and I have discussed before. We have been justified in the evil we have done, which was accidental and unwanted, but was only a much-resisted side effect of destroying foes that were at once ours and the peoples' of Iraq.

It is not the principle that we ought to avoid entangling alliances. The entangling alliances sought to prevent our action, and to allow tyranny to continue.

It is not the principle that we should uphold human freedom. Never, in that, have we done prouder than now.

What would you have me apologize for doing? Alas, alas! for every dead innocent. In a society where public prayer has been all but banned, though, that sentiment can not be expressed by a public official.

We have done all we can do to preserve the innocent. What guilt remains, when all human efforts fail, can only exist between ourselves and God--and that prayer can not be said by the President of a secular nation. We may well prostrate ourselves alone, and sob, and pray, when we look upon the evil face of war.

But having sobbed, and having prayed, at last we must be Men and stand to our duty. We have been; we have done. May God forgive us. Will you have more said after that?

bloodletting.blog-city.com Yellow legs sent me this

On Marines:

Hat tip to Mike. He's right about this one: you ought to read it.

TCS: Tech Central Station - Cowboys on Mars?

Cowboys on Mars:

The puppy blender has an article today that is worth looking at just for the graphic. Sounds like a plan to me--I'll saddle up.

Site Updates Continue:

As requested, I've installed a comment feature. Please be aware that I will be enforcing the a code of conduct by deleting offending entries. This code I adopt from the Texas Mercury:

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.

1MARDIV:: 1924.org ::

1MARDIV:

Just a warning to my brothers in arms who may be headed to Iraq. Any other Devil Dogs reading this site who aren't yourself First Marine, but know someone who is, drop them a line. Islamist website 1924.org has picked up that super-edited CNN clip called "US Marines Execute an Iraqi to the Cheers of Fellow Marines."

If you haven't seen it before, I'll give you the skinny on it. It's not an execution, it's the end of a firefight. It was taken during the war, and the Iraqi forces shown under Marine Corps fire were staging an ambush. The clip is so tightly edited that you just see a wounded Iraqi gunman trying to rise, and getting shot while tracers go over his head. You don't see that the firefight is ongoing, or that other Iraqi gunmen would plink any Marine who tried to walk over and arrest the wounded Fedayeen. The clip has been making the round on anti-war websites for months. The children who inhabit those sites, knowing nothing about the rules of war, just take the headline at face value and assume that this is video evidence of Marines committing war crimes, while their buddies cheer. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's made the front page of an Islamist webpage right before Marines are deployed in the Sunni Triangle.

Your enemies are watching you. Keep your eyes open, too.

NBS: Flummery: Howard Dean Says Something

NBS:

I vote for this.

Sanity

Sanity:

That most pugnacious of liberals, Ed Koch, has endorsed Bush for re-election. His reason is exactly the same as my own, which spells doom, I think, for Dean. When a New York Democrat and a Georgia Democrat are thinking exactly the same thing, you can be sure there's an unusual alignment of the planets:

Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

The Democratic presidential contenders, unfortunately, inspire no such confidence. With the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has no chance of winning, the Democrats have decided that in order to get their party's nomination, they must pander to its radical left wing. As a result, the Democratic candidates, even those who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, have attacked the Bush administration for its successful effort to remove a regime that was a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to world peace.

The Democrat now leading in the race, former governor Howard Dean, is a disgrace. His willingness to publicly entertain the slander that President Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks and his statement that America is no safer as a result of the capture of Saddam Hussein should have been sufficient to end his candidacy. But the radicals who dominate the primaries love the red meat that is thrown to them, even when it comes from a mad cow.

Meanwhile, The New Republic has endorsed Joe Lieberman. I myself--and, it sounds like, Koch--would be glad to rethink my endorsement of Bush if and only if Lieberman won the nomination. It's impossible, as Koch points out, but TNR is making a most honorable case:

Fundamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkish liberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party. In 1991, he broke with every other Northern Democrat in the Senate to support the Gulf war, then broke with George H.W. Bush when the former president allowed Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia in the war's aftermath. In 1998, Lieberman joined with McCain to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the United States to regime change in Baghdad. And, in the 2000 campaign, when the younger Bush was still peddling neo-isolationism, it was Gore and Lieberman who insisted that the United States be prepared to use force to stop genocide and promote democracy.

Reaction to TNR's endorsement from Dean supporters has been to cast TNR out of the left. This is somewhat like the passenger in a motorcycle car casting himself off from the motorcycle: he's freed himself, yes, but what he has freed himself from is the real engine of progress, and a wreck is certain. The Armed Liberal engaged this debate over who is "really" able to speak for the traditions of the Left, and is reminded of Communists who conducted purges of the impure: "We've been here before, of course. Remember POUM? And go read Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' to get a sense of what I'm talking about." One of his commenters makes a point on the topic:

The Democratic center has collapsed. Centerist Democrats have no candidates and they are repulsed by their choices in the General Election. This is a perscription [sic] for a large number of voters to check out of politics completely for several election cycles.

We also have with Dean a recognition that the organizational barrier to entry for creating a national party organization has falled [sic] radically.

This is the historical perscription [sic] for collapse of the Democrats and the creation of a new major American political party.

If it comes to that, I will start a new party myself--I think we will call ourselves the Jacksonian Party. I mean, of course, James Jackson, and therefore a Jeffersonian party; but people who like Andrew Jackson will be welcome too. It's a big tent for American Classical Liberals, and ought to be able to pull from Republicans as well as Democrats. It will be founded on the real, and honorable, left of American culture: Jefferson's vision, which James Jackson shared, and for which he fought so valiantly.

It is that left which does not merely idolize the poor, but upholds them and finds ways to make them powerful. The support of unions is one way. Another is by supporting their right to bear arms, so that they do not rely upon a distant and disinterested state for their personal security or that of their families. Even in the city, the state is distant when the bandit is already in your home. Furthermore, and more importantly, an armed citizen is not merely more independent of the state. He is personally capable of defending the state, the lawful order, and the common peace, wherever he goes. Whether it is felons or terrorists who threaten that order and that peace, he is ready. The disarmed citizen is a ward of the state. The Armed citizen is its guardian. The state is his to uphold.

Another matter: we need a renewed focus on the rights and duties of the citizen, so that the poor will understand the power they already have by statute, but have forgotten how to wield. Consider jury nullification. Special interests may write the laws, but we have every right to make exceptions. The powerful and the rich do not sit in judgement over us: we judge ourselves.

Another matter: the defense and support of small businesses, who are the "Yeoman Farmers" of the city. No man is freer than he who employs himself, whether it is the owner of his own land, or the owner of his own shop. If we are going to fiddle with tax policy, let's fiddle with it in a way that encourages and supports small businesses and farmers.

Another matter: education culture. Private-sector unions are a defense for the poor, but public-sector unions are the enemy of everyone outside themselves. Private-sector unions encourage profit sharing, but there is no profit in the public sector--there is only tax money, which must be drawn from the poor as from the rich, and which is drawn at the point of a gun. Restraining public spending is a civil rights issue. The less money you must send to the government, the more you can use to build your own personal capital, and pull yourself up from poverty.

On the same topic, educators should themselves be educated. This should be a real education on the topic they intend to teach, not an education in "educational theory." No one needs that. By the time they are prepared to teach, they have had the most practical education in educating--they have attended twelve years of public school, four years of college, and have at some point had the practical apprenticeship of being an teacher's aide and a student teacher. They have seen education done for more than a decade, have a number of working models in mind, and have practiced the art themselves. What they need is to know their subject matter. We need historians teaching History, and mathematicians teaching math. A large majority of the public is being educated by people whose knowledge of a given subject is no greater than the textbooks they have been assigned. They can't enlarge upon the text, and they can't tell the students when the text goes wrong.

In foreign policy: we should recognize that international terrorist organizations actually are subject to an existing international law: the law of the sea. Precisely like the roving bands of brigands and pirates of the 1600s and 1700s, they are organized against civilization, travel through multiple jurisdictions and through lawless areas alike. They are not combatants of any state, and are protected therefore by neither the Geneva Conventions nor the rules of war. Like pirates, they are subject to summary execution by the officers of any nation that comes into control of them; or by interrogation and some more merciful response, if we prefer and at our discretion. This brutality on the part of civilized men is justified for the exact reason it was justified of old: the threat these bands pose to the transportation infrastructure is a dagger at the heart of civilization. We cannot maintain our cities, our populations, our ability to combat disease or famine, or our relative freedom from total war over resources, without the massive but fragile transportation capacity we have developed.

This is not idle or of small importance. A small increase in transport costs kills at the margins--for example, aid to Africa is reduced as it is more expensive to transport, but resources are fixed. A large increase threatens civilization itself. Our cities do not contain enough food to feed the populace for more than about three days. That is no problem; more food is coming. But if the ability to transport that food is severely harmed--starvation, and in many regions of the world, disease. A serious disruption could unleash a resource war by nations that see mass starvation if they don't capture food, oil, and other needful things. Such a disruption is possible if these terror groups continue their infiltration of the West, and come into possession of WMD.

For that reason, the reform of terror-sponsor states is paramount. So is the reform of failed states that are not necessarily terror-sponsors, but where terrorists are able to travel freely due to bribes of local officials or through outright lawlessness. So long as we can do so while maintaining an all-volunteer force, the United States ought to feel free to act on these places one by one. This has the practical matter, for a Jacksonian party, of bringing liberty and strength to the poor and unfree abroad exactly as we wish to do at home.

There are other matters, but this is enough for now.

FreeSpeech.com: Comment on A Challenge to all Lefties

A Comment:

On FreeSpeech, I wrote this:

At the risk of being deleted by AW for being off topic--this isn't really about Bush lying--I'd like to ask you a question about your last post. What about leadership?

Consider the point made by your anonymous: "The US cannot go it alone, militarily or economically. The French, Germans, Canadians, et al are not any more greedy than we are."

Fair enough. But if America can't go it alone, neither can any of these. We need each other, yes. But that need is at least as strong on their side as ours--stronger, I should think.

If, as seems to be the case, the French &c. come around to our way of seeing things, what we have is not a rift but a momentary disagreement. If France and company chooses debt relief for Iraq, aid to NATO/Coalition missions abroad, and a stronger line toward Islamism (as, for example, a ban on the hijab such as France has undertaken); well, then, perhaps they have not been driven away from us, but awoken by us to a duty they have been ignoring. That duty--to preserve the Order of the West, with its unique vision of human liberty--is the real cause. It is the only cause. It has been America's cause from the Founding, even if individual Americans have lost sight of it.

Is it possible to fight in that cause without seeking the reform of terror-sponsor states? Was there a means to the real reform of Iraq short of regime change? I am open to evidence, as you know. I haven't seen anything to convince me that we have done wrong here. If it was wrong to dwell on WMD, it was wrong not because it played up an argument that was dubious. It was wrong because the WMD dance at the UN delayed the freedom of Iraqis. It extended the reign of terror by a year. If any innocent Iraqi blood is on our hands, it is that blood.

France will come around--indeed, has come around. If we had come around to them, would the world be better, or would tyranny still darken Mesopotamia?

Leadership is needed, for these are deadly times. I think I am an honest observer--as honest as any. I have seen nothing to suggest that anything other than the union of the West offers hope. But not just any such union.

Only this union: a union of the West devoted to fight for the cause of liberty on any front, in any fashion. If that can be inspired through rhetoric, so be it. If it can be inspired through action, as well. If it must be inspired through example, we ought to stand to the labor.

There are many Westerners who do not agree. There is no alternative but to convince them, and no means but leadership to do so. That leadership means taking them places they fear to tread, and it will for that reason necessarily cause resentment and wrath.

It must be done, nevertheless. They will turn to our side. They do so even now. It is what they were born for, though they fear it; it is what their proudest traditions sponsor. Even the French remember the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. It is the cause, and the duty, of the West.

ScrappleFace: NARAL: Abortionist's 34-Year Assault Sentence 'Cruel'

Satire:

It used to be said that the Bards could produce a satire so cruel that it could wither a man. I always thought that was an exaggeration, until today. From ScrappleFace: NARAL: Abortionist's 34-Year Assault Sentence 'Cruel':

'This is cruel and unusual punishment,' said NARAL President Kate Michelman. 'Rather than confine this man behind bars with a bunch of brutal murderers where he cannot use his prodigious gifts and talents, Dr. Finkel should be returned to his practice to continue his service to the community.'

In two decades of service, Dr. Finkel performed some 30,000 abortions. His crimes consisted of kissing and fondling his abortion patients against their will.

'We cannot condone the disgusting things Dr. Finkel did to women who trusted him,' said Ms. Michelman, 'However, we must consider the greater good of the community. If he is returned to his professional work, then ultimately it will reduce the number of women who might be victims of sexual assault by reducing the actual births of boys and girls who grow up to be sexual assailants and victims.'

NARAL-funded studies show that unwanted fetuses, whose mothers fail to choose abortion, are more likely to become involved in sexual crimes as adults.

'If Dr. Finkel is able to prevent just one sexual assault by aborting the potential assailant or the victim,' she said. 'It will, in a sense, atone for his crimes against women.'

That must be the cruelest thing I have ever read, and perhaps one of the truest. Abortion is one of those things people believe must be morally OK, exactly because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. It makes one shudder.

Daily Kos || Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

More from the Daily Kos:

One more thing I forgot the first time out. In a piece called "Which is the party of states' rights?", Kos says this:

The Democrats never claimed to be the party of states' rights, so that rules them out.

Er, what? That's going to come as a bit of a surprise to every advocate of States' Rights for 140 of the last 160 years. But hey, we don't do history on the left; we're progressives. It's time to move on, isn't it? Isn't it always?

Samizdata

Samizdata:

We mentioned Samizdata yesterday. Today, we note with pleasure that they have agreed to exchange link-hospitality with Grim's Hall. You'll find them under "Other Halls," to the right and down.

One of our Own

One of our Own:

Bravery Needs No Translation.

David Yeagley's BadEagle.com

Bad Eagle:

Bad Eagle has some thoughts on empire, including a picture of Sherman's grave. May he... well, I am from Georgia, after all.

DoD News: Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing

Hallelujah:

May it always be thus:

Elsewhere in Baghdad, individuals inside a white Opel fired small arms at ICDC personnel at the Al-Amil gas station. The Civil Defense Corps soldiers returned fire, and Iraqi customers waiting for fuel also fired at the Opel. The assailants broke contact, and a search of the area met with negative results.

Emphasis added. Hat tip Samizdata, our brothers in England.

Grim's Hall

On War:

It is time to speak seriously about war.

I am brought to the topic by Kos, who approves of a line being taken by Howard Dean on the topic of the war in Iraq. Kos seems to think that this will prove to be a winning argument:

We've not paid attention to al-Qaida. We've spent $160 billion, lost over 400 servicemen, and wounded and permanently maimed over 2,000 people because we picked the wrong target.

First of all, it may be said that the claim that we've paid no attention to al Qaeda is wrong on its face. The same period has seen a USMC mission against Qaeda targets on the Horn of Africa; the capture of Khalid Shiek Mohammed; allied arrests and prosecutions; continued SOF operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere; and indeed, more "focus" on al Qaeda than can easily be rehearsed. But that is not what bothers me.

What bothers me is this gleeful counting of American war dead. Kos replies to Dean: "Checkmate. And that's beside the fact that we've lost 34 soldiers since Saddam was captured, not ten. (Someone update this guy's notes!)"

Here is my reply:

In this argument, you have drunk yourselves full from the cup of despair. If 400 dead soldiers--heroes and volunteers!--represents failure to you, then there can be no success. America fielded 150,000 troops in this war. In nine months it has lost less than five hundred--less, that is, than one in a hundred of those it deployed onto the field of war. If 99% survival is not acceptable to you, then war is not acceptable to you.

This is no small sacrifice to make. If you will not fight war, you give over to those who will. In a poem to one of the war dead, Lance Corporal Ian Malone--I am told it will be published soon in a volume called Eternal Voices or something like that--I wrote this:

What, one Irish fighting man
to free millions from cold chains?
Not noble words, not gracious plan
could make real such gains.

Or--Is our time so coy,
so wild and free a thing?
Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy
of Killarn, not the Brian King

Freedom bought at such a cost,
where glory's priced so steep:
Where the name of each good man lost
Can memory's Herald keep.

It is still true. Of old, men memorized epics: even the Iliad. Should our foes succeed in killing three times as many of our soldiers as they have done, so that 2,000 Coalition men lie dead in Iraq, yet one man who wished could remember their names. He could, if he devoted himself, remember their names, their ranks, and something of the history of their units. It lies within the power of the human mind.

And for this sacrifice, we have achieved something that passes human power to estimate. Three hundred thousand dead! And their widows and their children, and the fear in the night. It is gone, on the winds of morning. It is gone, forever.

Run against that? You fools, you cowards, you children of cold hearts. If this is a winning argument, we deserve destruction. We are no longer fit to bear the sword, for we have not the courage to lift it.

But it is not so. We do remember the strength of old steel.

De Oppresso Liber.