Alito

Alito:

Apparently it's time for the next go-round on the Supreme Court appointment. Most of us don't follow judges' careers, but the blogosphere includes quite a few people who do.

The boys at Southern Appeal have been talking about Alito all last week. They can provide you with a sense of what conservative lawyers think about the man, and what his history on the bench and resume provide. They had posts, from earliest to most recent, starting here, and then here, here (a personal anecdote), here, here, here (a cartoon), and here (a parody song). Overall, the mood appears to be one of joy.

SCOTUSblog provides the view from the left, which is respectful of the man's accomplishments but concerned about his philosophy.

Bush, a President who has refused repeatedly to govern from the center, maintained that approach in selecting a judge who is well known as a committed conservative.

Liberal observers of the Court immediately pointed to a handful of Judge Alito's opinions on the Third Circuit as indications of just how conservative they expect him to be. Among those cited, for example, by americanprogress.org were these: 1991, supporting abortion restrictions, in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that later went to the Supreme Court and led to the partial reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade; in 1997, in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, seeming to endorse a limited view of minorities' job rights; in 1991, in Nathanson v. Medical College, appearing to embrace tougher standard for asserting disability rights; in 2000, in Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, finding that Congress had gone too far in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act; in 2004, in Doe v. Groody, embracing broader police search power, including strip searches; and in 2004, Dia v. Ashcroft and Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, taking a hard line against immigrants' rights.

Alito has a lengthy resume, filled with strong indications that he is qualified professionally. Those who know him personally, and those who have served with him and appeared before the Third Circuit, have said he is an even-tempered individual. Some expect him to attempt to become a consensus-builder on the Supreme Court, and to be less aggressive in advancing his conservative views than Justice Antonin Scalia is known to be.

Dave Kopel has tried to sort out Alito's 2nd Amendment views, without much success.

Volokh has some talk about Alito this morning (Kerr is "very pleased"), as well as this Kelo post which is not related but interesting on its own terms.

Nothing from Bainbridge yet, but check back. He was one of the leading opponents of Miers, for conservative reasons, and should provide some useful reading on the topic when he has time.

Libby

"Fitzmas"

Indictments are, as everyone knows, proof of nothing except the prosecutor's intentions. The actual trial, at which a defense is permitted, is the point at which real information is likely to emerge. I have known real-world indictments that were dropped entirely without trial, and the prosecutor forced to apologize, once the defense lawyers got involved and began to unmake the case. This prosecutor, however, seems unlikely to have made gross errors of the sort that lead to such a situation.

My basic principles about government-official indictments remain the same:

1) A desire to defend the weaker party, which wants to see the matter resolved in the favor of the innocent whenever an innocent man is threatened by the state's power.

2) A desire to see corruption in government restrained, which desires to see the matter resolved by hurling any guilty men into the dungeon in this case. This is true whether "the guilty" is Delay, or the prosecutor, should the prosecutor in fact be engaged in a political prosecution.

It is also strange to note that "Scooter" Libby's only appearance at Grim's Hall, as far as I can recall, was just the other day:

My respect for the administration, on the wane somewhat of late especially due to the matter of their ICE appointee, is somewhat reinforced by this exchange. It is good to know that there is at least one among them who knows, and honors, the old forms. It isn't much compared to the great matters of war and politics: but it isn't nothing, either.

That stands. I was, and remain, impressed with gentlemanly and chivalrous conduct -- indeed, to some degree I am more impressed with it, if Mr. Libby knew that the generous letter he was writing was apt to result in his own indictment.

Nevertheless, keeping your oaths is at least as important a part of being a man -- and a gentleman -- as respect and kindness to ladies. It is odd to see that someone who has obviously learned the one lesson so well can be brought up short on the other matter. Austin Bay says he thinks Libby just thought he could get away with it; Sovay, who has been watching the case closely, said exactly the same thing.

The most interesting thing about the facts of the case, though, touches on the Wilson/Plame matter. There are two remaining disputes between Left and Right on the facts of the case: who, exactly, outed Plame; and whether Plame recommended Wilson for the job in Niger. Out of those two disputes grow great differing empires of opinion about the proper resolution of the matter. The biggest difference is this one: whether the "real evil act" here was by the White House, one of whose officers chose to compromise national security in order to secure political points by outing a CIA employee; or by the CIA, which is alleged to have been conducting these missions on their own authority with the intention of undermining the White House's foreign policy (which is not acceptable, if true), or perhaps even to manipulate internal US politics (which is seriously disturbing, if true). A third possibility, which I think is the most likely, is this: the real bad actors were Wilson and wife, who were manipulating both the CIA and the press. This would explain the facts as they seem to be arranging themselves.

The summary of charges makes clear that the CIA and State advised Libby that Wilson's wife had in fact been responsible for getting Wilson sent on the trip. This information is summarized on pages 5-6 in the bullet points. It is also clear that the trip was organized by the CIA on its own authority, with Plame's input, rather than at a higher level.

It is also clear, from the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that Wilson reported one thing to the CIA and another thing entirely to the press. It is also clear that Wilson printed a number of things that were flatly untrue. Lying in the press is not perjury, of course, so there's no legal trouble involved -- but it does appear that Wilson and Plame are guilty of misusing their position to attempt to manipulate US policy and politics.

That does not excuse Libby. The proper response to the existence of bad actors at CIA is not to out them in the press, which -- as the indictment makes clear -- is a matter that seriously disrupts national security, not least by demonstrating that a given corporation is or has been used as a locus for non-official-covers. It can also endanger our foriegn assets' lives. The indictment does not accuse Libby of having done so, but it makes clear that the prosecutor feels Libby hampered the investigation into who did.

Neither does it justify perjury. Oath-breaking is never acceptable.

The plot has thickened, however. The trial is apt to fall on these fault-lines of opinion like a sledgehammer. The radical left is apt to be pushing the "virtuous CIA, Plame not involved in Wilson's selection, Wilson was right, evil White House" narrative into the public, even though the facts plainly don't support it. The radical right is apt to push the "evil CIA/Plame/Wilson conspiracy to manipulate internal US politics" narrative, even though the facts don't support that. Both narratives are likely to undermine public confidence in the secret parts of the government -- the administration and CIA -- that are chiefly running the GWOT. The result could be a disaster for the war.

It could also be a disaster for the truth. The most likely set of facts is that the Wilson pair and Libby were the bad actors. The Wilsonians appear to have manipulated the CIA into sending Wilson, and then deceived the press about what Wilson found in Africa. Libby did wrong, allegedly, by hampering the investigation into the leaks and by deceiving the grand jury. The majority of the administration and the CIA were apparently only trying to do their jobs.

If that is true, as it appears prima facie to be true, then we will have to work hard to make sure that neither of the politically-driven narratives becomes the public understanding of the case. As per my basic principles, I would like to see the guilty hurled in the dungeon and the corrupt restrained. I would also like to see the innocent, those public servants in the administration and intel services who have been trying to do their jobs to protect this nation and further its interests, defended against slander. This case, which until now has been a minor sideshow in American politics, appears to be becoming a true danger.

The Trolley

The Trolley:

Peggy Noonan has written a deeply felt and moving column entitled "A Separate Peace." The reference is to that dishonorable tactics of unreliable allies in war, who are supposed to stand up and fight alongside you, and instead cut themselves a deal with the enemy and leave you fighting alone.

She begins with a feeling, which she says she cannot prove, that the whole world is falling apart.

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.

But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.

Well, it is. Every young man and woman reading this who isn't preparing to fight as well as to think and work had better stop and take stock.

Noonan seems to have woken to this feeling but lately. She wonders in awe how anyone can deal with it.

I think those who haven't noticed we're living in a troubling time continue to operate each day with classic and constitutional American optimism intact. I think some of those who have a sense we're in trouble are going through the motions, dealing with their own daily challenges.

And some--well, I will mention and end with America's elites. Our recent debate about elites has had to do with whether opposition to Harriet Miers is elitist, but I don't think that's our elites' problem.

This is. Our elites, our educated and successful professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us. I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than nonelites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing they can do about it.

I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble. And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I got mine, you get yours."

That very well may be true, about the elites. But not all who remain optimistic are those who have failed to notice. Some of us noticed a long while ago, and began to prepare.

What does it mean to prepare? First it means to look around, take advantage of the clear moment to see what you can see. Then it means to look back, to see how other men in other generations have dealt with this and worse. Then you put them together, the new troubles and the old power, and you start making a plan. You begin to match strength to peril.

I look at Peggy's list, and think this: Cloning doesn't bother me. Nukes and epidemics have the same answer, already well underway: an end to the cities, and a return to a more rural life. The suburbs and the exurbs are growing fast, as is the population in plain rural areas, and it is there that you will also find a political culture that tends toward the resiliance needed to survive a crisis. The collapse of order in New Orleans only matters if you live in a city. Those outside handled it better.

The old cowboy skills -- cooking under the sky, knowing how to find and clean drinking water, a neighborly watch on each other's backs -- they stood us tall once, and they will again. The economy? Small businesses, not big business, are the road to wealth. There was a time, during the industrial age, when economies of scale required vast workforces at central locations. The information age doesn't require that; and the just-in-time shipping it enables means that even industrial production facilities can be distributed. It's also true for farms. People are part of something bigger, but still own their own business and means of production. This reality also produces a politics, even as the old labor union model did, one that operates on the assumptions of the yeoman farmer. Jefferson's model.

Homeland security? We press the governmen to do better, but we also form the Minutemen. We volunteer for service. We've been passing "shall-issue" concealed weapons laws across the country these last decades, precisely because we saw society threatened by crime and mayhem and determined to set it right. Crime rates are now at a historic low, especially in the carry states. When those wheels come off, we'll be there to pick them up and put them back on.

The political culture has soured. Senators do seem owned, and the court has lost its way so far as to produce Kelo. Well, you can see the reaction: the porkbusting project as to the one thing, and the absolute refusal by the People to accept a crony nominee to the Supreme Court. It's too important. The wheels are coming off. So we make them get it right.

If that is not enough, and things start to fall apart in a serious way, it will mean that we move to more active measures. For now, we're willing to let the political class continue to manage things. Later, you may see more of us stand for office. I've been hearing a lot about the need for a "populist" scouring of the state. You just may get to see one. It won't look much like what those calling for it are expecting. It will be people like us, who have decided that the government cannot be trusted and must be remade. If we have to have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent Kelo from stealing people's homes, we'll do what we have to in order to get one. If that means standing for office and giving up the life we'd prefer, so be it. That's James Jackson's model.

Things that go south in a serious way will be met with a serious response. We'll form lawful militas to keep order if the government breaks down under disease or disaster. We'll volunteer for government-led efforts if they need us, or form private companies to take care of the jobs the government can't handle. Companies like Wells Fargo used to be, when Wyatt Earp worked for them.

What comes, comes, but however hard it is we shall stand and fight it. It is our way, as it is our heritage.

We are the Sons of Liberty. We have nothing to fear. When death comes for us, we will pass into that world of which so much has been written, where there is no fear but love and all love is without pain. If we have done our duty, we will leave behind us those we have bred or trained in the ways of America. They will take up our cause and bury our bones, and our names will be their warcry.

There are names like that written in gold, below. The men they trained will give them voice. They are warriors, heros, and riders of bulls. Perhaps there is a name like that on your lips as you read this: Washington's? Jackson's? Your father's? Another?

So what is there to fear? Live boldly. This is America, the home of the brave.

Thai Rangers

Guns in Thailand:

Another peril of gun registration -- the enemy knows who is armed.

Armed assailants last night made off with a total of 30 firearms in separate attacks in Pattani and Yala - one of the largest arms robberies in recent months.

A coordinated assault on licensed arms bearers won the insurgents of Southern Thailand thirty more arms, in a place where firearms are rare. The insurgents know who to hit, because they know what kind of people will be "permitted" to be armed. There is little danger that any nearby civilians can come to aid their fellows in the course of the raid.

But that's all right, because it's the government's job to protect you:

In talks with former prime minister Chuan Leekpai at parliament, Gen Thammarak said those servicemen included troops attached to a dozen task forces and three regiments of rangers, plus an army rapid deployment force.... Mr Chuan pointed out a number of rangers had been killed by militants recently. The defence minister admitted it was a "mistake" to deploy rangers at road checkpoints, where several had been shot.

Right. We wouldn't want to deploy rangers where they might encounter armed insurgents.

There is no substitute for the individual right to keep and bear arms. There simply is not.

NIS

National Intelligence Strategy:

The new National Intelligence Strategy is out. It's the first major product by the new "National Intelligence Director" (NID), currently James Negroponte. I was always opposed to the creation of an "intel czar," and now I remember why.

This thirty-two page document is one of those corporate creations that Dilbert founded its success on mocking. You can tell that every word was negotiated at length in committee. And what did all that negotiation produce?

Our Vision -- What we will become:

A unified enterprise of innovative intelligence professionals whose common purpose in defending American lives and interests, and advancing American values, draws strength from our democratic institutions, diversity, and intellectual and technological prowess.

Most of this is a corp-speak description of what an intel agency does. However, deciphering the corporate code, we find that there are three pieces of information contained there which show what will be changing, and what will not:

1) From "unified enterprise" and "common purpose": The NID actually intends to unify the intel services. Since that was his job, this is not surprising.

2) From the specific inclusion of "diversity": Stripping away the political correctness that has bedeviled these organizations will not be a priority. It's too hard, and too deeply set.

3) From "advancing American values" and "draws strength from our democratic institutions" -- Negropont is doing just what Bush sent him to do, which is to snap the intel services to heel from an ideological standpoint. The CIA in particular has been an ideological enemy of the President and his policies. This signals that all "intelligence professionals" will be required to share "American values," including the promotion of democracy as a core concern.

Point three is, I gather, the main purpose of this document. It is job one under "Our Mission," with the relevant codewords highlighted:

Collect, analyze, and disseminate accurate, timely, and objective intelligence, independent of political considerations, to the President and all who make and implement US national security policy, fight our wars, protect our nation, and enforce our laws.

The first few words there, again, are a description of what an intel service does. Yet then there is the mention of "political considerations," which must not be allowed to influence intelligence; and the mention of 'the President and those who make our policy,' to remind the intel services that they don't get to do that.

Reviewing the recent history of CIA leaks, particularly of pessimistic or negative intelligence estimates, and particularly during last year's election cycle, I can see why the President thinks this is a desirable thing to do.

Enforcing ideological conformity among intelligence officers, however, is not a good idea. It is an idea with a history, and the history is not pretty.

Jimmy Carter put Admiral Stansfield Turner in charge of the CIA during his tenure. Turner had an ideological thing against covert and clandestine operations. He felt like a lot of human intelligence operations were immoral (which is absolutely true), and that the United States of America should never do anything that was plainly immoral (which, sadly, can't be true in the area of intelligence). As a result, he essentially scrapped the CIA's capability to carry out these ops, and focused on signals intelligence instead.

Didn't work out too well, did it? But we were in luck: Turner was only in charge of the CIA. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) retained a lot of capabilities that the CIA lost. We still lost a lot: intel networks take years, sometimes even decades to bring to full fruition. When one is cut off and withers, it cannot be replaced right away. Clandestine service intelligence professionals (i.e., spies), though they are at best amoral and often immoral, possess a lifetime of valuable knowledge of the lay of a political landscape, the important figures within it, and personal connections that let them penetrate that landscape and learn where pressure ought to be applied to get results. They are a necessary evil, and one that takes years to develop.

What happens if we get a bad NID now? DIA is going to be forced to conform just like CIA will. If there's another Stansfield Turner down the road, we could wreck our whole intelligence apparatus at a blow -- and the tool for doing it, the precedent that allows the NID to insist on ideological conformity, is now forged.

In addition the danger to covert and clandestine networks, the analysis part of intelligence work above all requires genuine intellectual diversity. That, as we know from education, is the one type of diversity that is not meant when the word "diversity" is included in a document of this type. You need people with a fully developed opinion counter to yours, even if you're right and they are wrong, to keep you honest and keep you from getting lazy. You need the challenge.

Consider this debate at Winds of Change, on the subject of whether democracy promotion will in fact reduce terrorism. That's a healthy debate. I side with the pro-democracy argument, but it is clear that an argument is still required, and evidence is yet to be gathered that will inform the argument.

The NIS short-circuits the argument entirely. Democracy promotion is the #3 "strategic objective." If an analyst wants to argue that, in a particular country for particular reasons, it may not be wise to back an apparently democratic movement (e.g., as it turned out not to be wise to back Castro in Cuba), he will now face a substantial risk to his career. He may, in fact, leave "the company" altogether. While he may be wrong most of the time, he may be right on this one occasion. Even if he isn't right, his presence makes the other analysts work harder getting their facts and getting them straight. He's the mark of a healthy intel service, even if he hates the President's guts and is utterly opposed to the policies being put forward -- whoever the President might be.

Again, I can understand why this particular President feels like this is a necessary step. Nevertheless, I think both the NID concept, and this NIS, are extremely unwise.

Two final, unrelated points:

1) The focus of the NIS on asymmetrical threats ignores real symmetrical threats, which could easily be as or more dangerous than any terrorist organization.

Job #1 is counter-terrorism. Job #2 is anti-WMD. Job #3 is democracy promotion. Yet isn't one of the biggest intel threats and challenges China? China isn't a terrorist nation or a terror-supporter; they're happy to prevent the spread of WMD (having foremost in their minds the examples of Taiwan and Japan); and democracy promotion in China, though a worthwhile goal, doesn't really get at the particular nature of the threat posed by China. The place where we need to be building intel assets in China isn't inside its democracy movements, but inside the navy. That's where we will get any forewarning of an invasion of Taiwan.

2) It's good that "the protection of privacy and civil liberties" is mentioned in the strategy. But absent, so far as I can see, is any call for a robust declassification process for information that no longer needs to be secret. The best defense against intelligence services' capability to do evil is sunshine. Of course, sunshine makes it impossible for them to do good as well, so it has to be applied judiciously. When we can, however, we who are citizens of the Republic ought to know what our government has been doing with its secret forces. That is a critical need for the long-term health of the Republic in my opinion, and it deserves more attention.

Const.

The USS Constellation

While doing some research on modern Sigma-class corvettes, I came across this site which treats the "restoration" of the USS Constellation, in Baltimore harbor. I've seen her, but was not aware of the history behind the ship.

During 1852-53 the old 38-gun frigate USS Constellation, a contemporary of USS Constitution, was broken up at Gosport (Norfolk), VA. At the same time, in the same yard, a new 22-gun sloop-of-war was constructed, and was given the old frigate's name. This new vessel was commissioned in 1855. To get around a Congressional prohibition on new ship construction, the new sloop-of-war was considered a "repair" of the old frigate, but she was actually a new ship.

In 1956 the sloop-of-war, by then aged and deteriorated, was donated to a museum group in Baltimore. This group wished to portray the ship as the 1797 frigate, not the 1855 sloop, so they "restored" her by cutting away bulwarks and decks. This weakened her hull structure, and contributed to her eventually [sic] deterioration.

Apparently the restoration included cutting gunports into her bulwarks, so she would look more like what we think of as an "age of sail" fighting ship. The photographs show the process of restoring the "restored" ship, and getting her back out on the water.

Well, she may not be what she's been made out to be, but she cuts a fine figure. Pity, though: an 1855 sloop-of-war would have been a good display piece also, and a better teaching tool. Few people today realize how small and poorly-equipped the US Navy was at that point. Yet, within ten years, it had grown to such a size as to be able to conduct a massive naval blockade that eventually closed every port of the Confederate States of America.

The CSA helped out a bit, by making a notable error: it chose to forgo the purchase of a fleet of ready-made warships that the British had to offer, instead spending the monies it had on the construction of a few modern raiders, such as the infamous USS Alabama. If they'd taken the British up on their offer, they might have been the ones with the momentum to stage a naval blockade. The US Navy, in 1861, was in no shape to stop one.

Anyway, have a look.

Withdrawal

A Political Victory:

Harriet Miers withdrew today. I wish her well, and do truly regret that this whole episode was necessary. May she find that the rest of her career is rewarding and successful.

When the president makes his next selection, I hope he will be guided by the lessons learned here. Certainly enough has been written about this nomination to provide a full guide to what a nominee ought to provide. The Court, and the Republic, deserves no less.

Monument3

Monuments:

Captain Tyler Swisher, commanding Easy company. He has one of those biographies that remind you what is great about America. He had quite a few hardships and obstacles he was born with, but it never stopped him. Through hard work and devotion he gained an education, rank, and a position of high honor.

Corporal Benny Gray Cockerham III. JHD knew him, so I will let him say what ought to be said.

Lance Corporal Kenneth James Butler. He was a bullrider.

Duct Tape

If You Can't Duct It...

I broke my toe about a week ago, and have been hobbling around ever since. Actually, I can walk pretty well, as long as (a) I duct-tape the broken toe to the toe next to it, and (b) don't walk too fast. Today, a week or so on, I decided to try going without the duct tape, but it didn't go too well.

In tribute, then, I offer Duct Tape Uses and Duct Tape fashions as a guide to other things you can do with the stuff. It's just real handy.

GH

Two from Greyhawk:

Hawk has a post today about an organization of particularly admirable women in Iraq. I can't express my pleasure at having read of their adventures.

He also has a helpful suggestion for shrinking the OODA loop.

4th rail

The 4th Rail:

My colleague and friend, Bill Roggio of the 4th Rail, is heading to Iraq to embed with a Marine unit. He would appreciate your support in making it happen.

I've enjoyed working with Bill, and I think we've all been impressed with his work at the 4th Rail: he has really hit his stride this autumn, and has been producing some of the best writing on Iraq out there. Good hunting, Bill.

Two More

And Two More:

2/2's Warlords lost two more on Friday. The names are now being released.

Lance Corporal Kenneth J. Butler.

US Navy corpsman Petty Officer Chris Thompson.

"I can't let my Marines go without me," Chris Thompson, 25, told his father, just before shipping out on his second combat tour. "I take care of them."

His brother David is also a Navy corpsman assigned to Marines. There's a family I'd be proud to know.

M&W

Men, Women, And Why You Should Not Worry:

Glenn Reynolds links to another post on the topic that seems to be causing a constant fret among blogosphere academics, the Men/Women ratio at college. The post is by Ginny at Chicagoboyz, and treats her thoughts and experiences in dealing with young men and women.

The lady has some good thoughts, and I think she even backs into the answer to the problem that concerns her. Unhappily, being overly concerned with people's feelings, she doesn't recognize the solution when she strikes it. That more or less captures the entire business.

After describing herself as "quiet and embarrassed" over a dispute with a colleague on the question, she then reflects that "anger speaking is seldom thought speaking." Her "gut-level anger is also from mothering," which gives rise to fears that her own sons will be distorted by being taught that they are oppressors of women [UPDATE: or possibly that her daughters will be bent by believing men are their enemies?]. She thinks that famed blogosphere psychologist Dr. Helen "is right to draw our attention to this, to worry us with it." And then she proceeds to worry a lot more.

As does Dr. Helen. There, and here also, in spite of some very sharp comments that ought to assuage the concern.

Well, don't worry. Men are pretty good at sorting out problems. It's what we do.

For example, you shouldn't worry -- as she does -- that "The twenty-first century, like the nineteenth, may lead to an even more intense feminization of American culture." Let's examine that for a moment.

When you think of the 19th century, what do you think of? There are some notably feminine images: Queen Victoria, the suffrage movement, the temperance movement. That's about it, though, right? Maybe a few poets and writers?

Queen Victoria was no problem for men. Quite the opposite. Victoria presided over a great masculine reawakening in England, in which art and poetry and literature were joined to engineering and warfighting. The image of the youthful Queen, thrust suddenly into the perils of power, caused the whole nation to remember the King, Arthur, and to take up the sword he cast away. The writings of Lord Tennyson are some of the highest expressions of what men are and ought to be: and they came right out of this dynamic.

The suffrage and temperance movements were certainly problematic for men, who were beaten about the heads by them for half a century. Still, in time they ran their course; women still vote, but beer is back on the shelves. Men survived.

The rest of the 19th century is a great masculine canvas. We remember the Kate Chopins, but only because they were women. The great writers of the 19th Century, with the possible exception of Jane Austen, were all men: Herman Melville, Mark Twain, Sir Walter Scott, Tennyson and Lord Byron, the writers and poets who can stand on their own are almost exclusively men. And that's in the very temple of the female empire of the modern academy, literature. Take any other field of human endeavour, and see where the women are. The 19th century was a grand adventure of engineering, war, travel, thought, and right at the forefront were men in every case.

Is it really any different today? How many of the great bloggers are women, even with women making up the grand majority of students of writing and literature? How many bioengineers are women, as we stand poised on the start of a new adventure? How many soldiers, as we look towards decades of trying to keep and extend the peace and the order of the West? How many police officers, with terrorism and smuggling the two great concerns of the day?

More, certainly, than in the 19th century. We have made room for women. More than that -- we actively encourage and support them. We are glad to have them along. Some of them, the best of them, stand equal with any of us. I myself don't know what I would do without two of the three most important people in my life, my wife and Sovay. Both are women, and quite remarkable ones.

Yet we are told we ought to worry because a lot more women are getting degrees in literature, psychology, sociology, and the like. If I spare a moment to worry about this, I'll worry about the women. Good luck to them: but it sounds like they're being set up to spend their lives not making much of a difference in the world around them.

If the 19th century is the model, it is the century that saw the foundation of the Texas Rangers and the gambling of Doc Holliday, the great British adventures in India and Afghanistan, the end of slavery on the high seas, the Civil War, and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt. If the 21st century does as much for muscular masculinity as the 19th, we'll be in fine shape indeed.

Ginny backs into this answer at several points, but never quite seems to realize it. She mentions the winning of the West. She hits the answer full on right here:

I suspect they will find other worlds to conquer – and if they have to learn something to get there, they will teach themselves. And, because they want to make money and women want them to make money, our system may be changed in ways that by-pass an increasingly hostile establishment.

That should have been the moment that this whole train of thought went roaring off White Oak mountain. That's exactly right. Society, and the market, will adjust itself -- and men will meet them halfway. They'll learn what they need to know to be where they need to be. If the great concerns of the new century are terrorism, homeland defense, technology and engineering, guess who will be there filling the largest part of the critical roles? The most dangerous jobs, which will consequently -- and increasingly -- command greater and greater respect and pay? The movement is already on: Border Patrol Agents, for example, have in the last few years received an increase in their maximum rate of pay to the GS-11 level. The military has seen one pay raise after another, as the volunteer military tries to compete with the market for manpower. Both jobs increasingly involve academic pursuits, even if they don't involve formal college: second (and subsequent) languages, studies in regional history and cultural awareness. It used to be that every man, however poorly schooled, knew how to mix black powder and pour bullets out of liquid lead. Now, it may be that men who don't go much beyond high school can still speak several languages and know the internal structures of a number of local tribes. If men turn less often to the old institutions for education, they will still be out there learning whatever they need to know.

It may be, in other words, that it is the institutions that are becoming obsolete -- not the men. That's a problem for someone, but I don't see why it should be a problem for men. It seems to me like a problem for those people -- say, women -- who are increasingly attaching their hopes to a foundering social institution. The liberal arts college is not necessarily the best place to learn even the liberal arts, anymore. It's certainly not the best place to get a classical education. The Marine Corps reading list will introduce you to many of the great classics of literature, and they'll teach you discipline and manners and the school of arms, too. If you're an officer, you'll spend half your life in schools of one type or another. You want to be a man like Washington or Robert E. Lee, Roosevelt or Jefferson? Join the military.

I think there is no cause for concern. Let as many women go to college as wish to do so. Good on them! Good luck to them! It does not hurt us men at all. We have our own concerns, and our own adventures, and let each man choose his according to his best hopes and abilities.

2/2

Monuments:

All too soon, Grim's Hall must again join the families of the 2/2 Marines in mourning the deaths of fighting men.

Staff Sergeant Rick Pummill.

Lance Corporal Andrew David Russoli.

Lance Corporal Steve Szwydek.

Also, JHD sends a link to a monument of his own:

I did a small tribute to the Beirut Marines we lost in 83. And yeah, I KNOW is was Oct 23 and not the 22 but they were 8 hours ahead. We had just pulled into the Charleston Harbor from our successful run to supply Beirut when we got the news. It was around 2200 on the 22nd so I always mark that time and date. I received three e-mails telling me I had the wrong date.

May the next world be a better place for these men. Yet if it is not, I imagine they will set about making it so.

An armed society isn't always a polite society. Example: Brazil.

But even so, Brazilians appear to recognize that if you outlaw guns, then only the criminals will have them. So, it seems that a referendum to ban gun sales to citizens has been defeated.

Something to be said for the wisdom crowds, I gather.

USMC Monument

We Are Reminded:

That is the purpose of monuments, such as this one at the head of Forsyth Park, down in Savannah, Georgia. The tag to the photo notes that the monument was laid in 1947, to honor Marine Corps dead from Chatham County. What it does not note -- a remarkable omission -- is that the monument has become a tomb.

There was a time in my life when I knew the sergeant's name by heart, but I must admit that it has been so long since I was in Savannah that I cannot now recall it to mind. I can't quite make it out on the photo. I do remember when he died: in the bombing of the Marine barracks, twenty-two years ago today.

I guess a lot of people don't realize it is a tomb as well as a monument. One day, long ago now, I was walking down in Savannah with two Marines I knew, one of whom was a young man I had grown up with and known almost all of my life. He was in Savannah to visit me, following a USMC Reserve exercise he'd been part of, and had brought along one of his unit mates. I was happy to put them up and show them around the town.

As we were walking through Forsyth Park, we came to that monument, which is at the head of it. While we were standing there reflecting on it, a young jogger wearing headphones came running by. He lept up on top of the monument without breaking stride, did a little dance, hopped down and ran off again.

It was all done so nonchalantly that I can't help but think he did not know that he was, literally, dancing on a man's grave. I know that he avoided a bad time that day only because the three of us were so completely shocked that we couldn't accept that we had really seen what we had seen until he was already half a block away from us.

"Comrade, tread lightly." The world is full of graves.

FLoS

"The Far Line of Sand"

The Belmont Club has an excellent post on littoral warfare, and US Navy efforts to prepare for its increased importance. Another critical warfighting system here is the Virginia class submarine, which is always under attack from Congressional budget cutters (giant bridges to nowhere in Alaska, yes; important naval warships, no).

A little known truth about submarines is this: the diesel ones, which are put into battle by third-world nations like Chile, are stealthier than ours. For one thing, you can turn a diesel engine completely off, rendering it perfectly silent. You can lay on the bottom, listen for anything suspicious on your sonar, and give it a torpedo. This is one thing that gives rise to what Wretchard accurately notes: the US Navy may rule the blue water, but it isn't currently capable of dominating close-to-shore conflicts. This is important: Taiwan, the Malacca straits, and a number of other potentially critical battlespaces are exactly where we are vulnerable to third-world (i.e., asymmetrical) power.

The whole battle with submarines is information, and stealth is a huge part of that battle. Stealth is how you keep information about your subs away from the enemy: where are they, what is their course, what do I need to know to program a torpedo to hit it? Because we are wedded to nuclear technology, partially because we need the range-without-refuelling that you can't get with diesels, we have to make up with high-level information technology what we are losing in stealth.

Braiding in C4ISR technology with advanced stealth technology is the only way to make up for what we're losing by not being able to field diesels. Once again, the symmetry/asymmetry model means that we have to be at our very best to compete with people who aren't nearly as capable on their own.

Football

Football:

I love football, but I almost never get to see any of it.

The main thing is that I end up working most weekends -- seven day weeks are the standard here -- and, furthermore, I refuse to pony up the money for cable/sat TV just so I can watch football now and then. As a consequence, I almost never see a good, or even a bad, football game.

Today, however, I happened to be having lunch at a place that had the Indiana U. / Ohio State game. OSU stompied IU into the earth, winning by 31 points.

I only got to watch the fourth quarter, but I could see why OSU did as well as they did. It was the old cliche that you see in every football movie, because it's true -- they had heart. Up three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, I saw an OSU receiver take a tackle that flipped him head over heels into the ground, when he could have stepped out of bounds instead. All that, just to get one more yard.

It's hard to beat a team that plays that way. They deserve to win. As a result, they very often do.

WOC2

Speaking Of...

...Winds of Change, Armed Liberal has a pair of posts taking Matt Yglesias to task over his article advocating surrender in Iraq.

I've got a test for that.

Let Yglesias, or one of his ilk, sit down with JHD's boy and a few of his fellow Devil Dogs, and explain to them that they've lost the war. If he lives through the encounter, I'll be happy to help pack for the withdrawal.

Until then, I'm not buying it.

G.A.

G.A.

I'm pleased to note that one of my current Senators, George Allen, was among the fifteen who voted the right way on the amendment to redirect pork money to a useful project. I'm sorry to see that neither of the Senators from my beloved home state of Georgia, however, managed to get it right.

Winds of Change had a good post about this. From now on, expect to make your own arrangements in case of disaster -- the US Senate can't be bothered with you.

TLB

For the Benefit of the Truth Laid Bear:

I oppose the Miers nomination. I'm going to guess that pretty much all the readers here know why by now, but if you're curious, the fullest expression was here.

BB2

More on the Burning of Bodies:

Some soldiers involved in the "burning bodies" incident have apparently decided to give a defense of the action in the press. This is not what you would expect given that there is a criminal investigation in progress. I am guessing that they are angry at seeing their commander smeared in the press as a war criminal, and want to defend him.

INTEL DUMP has more on the harshness of the press and even the Pentagon's own statements, as well as particulars of the Geneva Conventions that touch on the case. The questions that investigators need to answer are these:

1) Who, exactly, gave the order to burn the bodies?
2) Was the PsyOp team involved in making the decision, or did they simply choose to exploit the decision after the burnings had been carried out?
3) When did the PsyOp team learn of the decision? If they learned of it before it was executed and said nothing about the GC concerns, but simply went about planning a PsyOp, they may still be in trouble. If they found out afterwards, or if they issued appropriate warnings, they should be in the clear.

The Time report suggests that it was Lt. Nelson, acting purely on hygine concerns and after requesting local Muslim leaders to deal with the bodies properly and having them refuse. The role of the PsyOp team is not clear.

The source for the claim is anonymous -- just "one soldier." The investigation will have to sort things out. I agree with INTEL DUMP that the Pentagon has been a little overzealous in its condemnations of the people involved, though I understand why: they're trying to prevent loss of life, either through riots (such as we saw in the wake of the false Koran-desecration claims) or through excitement of young fellows who go off to become terrorists.

If the details in the Time story hold up, the soldiers outside of the PsyOp unit are almost certainly in the clear. The GCs permit cremation under exactly these circumstances (although there is the question of what happened to the ashes, but that's another story). The precise nature of the PsyOp unit's involvement is the main question at stake.

It's important to clarify that, and I'm happy to defend the investigation as I have done. On the other hand, I think it's also important to make sure that soldiers are not prosecuted for the political convenience of the Pentagon. If the facts, once clear, show a GC violation, it must be punished. If not, not, even though the Pentagon apparently really wants to show its determination to protect Muslim sensibilities. As I said in the comments of the first post, this isn't about the enemy's sensibility. It's about upholding our own law. Keeping that kind of discipline is important in war, because it is as much a protection for the soldier and Marine as any armor. It protects the soul.

Kinkade

Artistry:

I can't say that I've ever been a special fan of Thomas Kinkade, but I do agree with JHD: it's pretty cool what he's doing for the boys in the Naval hospital.

Mama

It's Always Nice...

...to see a serious blogger cite "mama" as a source.

I do the same thing myself from time to time. ("My mama always said, 'If you want to eat, learn to cook!'")

GN

Good News:

Congress has passed the ban on reckless lawsuits.

Burning

The Burning of Bodies:

I was not aware until yesterday that burning bodies was forbidden in Islam. Were you? Four years on from 9/11, we've all studied Islam somewhat closely, and yet there remains so much to know.

Apparently, the Airborne unit that carried out the burnings didn't know it was improper either. At least, so says the embed who took the video in this interview. It's mostly a good interview: he's clear that American military forces were extremely open, never tried to hide anything from him as an embed, and that the people who actually did the burning seem to have believed that they were only performing a necessary function for reasons of disease.

However, the PsyOps guys did know. They did nothing to stop it -- and in fact, they made it worse by using it as the basis for a PsyOp.

USCENTCOM has started an investigation.

UPDATE: BlackFive has a post about this. In the comments, I find it necessary to defend the journalist (imagine that -- a blogger defending a journalist) against some outraged folks.

DuPont isn't the enemy here. Watch or read through the transcript of the interview with him -- he is very sympathetic to the soldiers, even the PsyOps guys. He explains that the PsyOps team is frustrated because the Taliban won't come out, and that the program had generated some successes. He is plain that the Americans have never tried to hide anything, and that this was just a decision made on the spot to try and achieve a tactical purpose.

The journalist isn't the enemy this time. He's doing his job: documenting and providing witness to what we do in a way that is both honest and honorable. He has done just what he is supposed to do.

The PsyOps team are the folks who have questions to answer. They are supposed to abide by the Conventions. If they did not do so, knowingly, and if they further used the knowing violation as a weapon of war, they will have to answer for it.

The Conventions also prohibit using civilian guise as cover. The terrorists who do so in spite of the Conventions thereby endanger all civilians. It is an act of barbarism. I've argued that, B5 here has argued it, Bill Whittle has argued it.

The same principle is at work here. You may not abuse the Conventions in order to seek a military advantage. It is wrong when the enemy does it, and it is wrong when we do it.

We are the defenders of civilization. That means we have to do what we have sworn to do. The investigation is right and proper, and if there has been a violation of the Conventions, it ought to be punished.

I think those are the right principles here. I yield to no one in my respect for the US military. That respect in part grows out of the fact that it is the foremost defender of the ancient virtue we once called chivalry. We must do what is right even -- especially -- when it hurts.

Cole & Ritter

Juan Cole & Miller:

Today, while dealing with another matter, it came to my attention that Juan Cole has recently produced a paper on Judith Miller. I have not been following the Plame case with any vigor -- I have always supported the investigation, the questioning of the reporters, and await any indictments that may result. As a consequence, I was surprised to learn that Miller is suddenly an enemy of the Cole faction, who needs to be destroyed.

Well, Juan Cole is the man for the job. Still, even knowing the old fraud's history, I was a little shocked by his audacity in this sentence:

In fact, Iraq's nuclear facilities were found and ordered destroyed after the war by the United Nations inspectors, and they were extremely thorough, as inspector and former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter insisted.

A quick Google proves that Juan Cole knows perfectly well who Ritter is, and yet mentions nothing about him to suggest that Ritter's story be taken with the slightest grain of salt. Given the weight he places on that sentence in making the case that Miller is a bad actor, it's quite an omission.

It would be somewhat like introducing another former officer of Marines, to people who may well know nothing about him, simply as "noted expert on Iranian relations, Lt. Col. Oliver North."

Lights

Once Upon a Time in China:

Speaking of old friends who may or may not be dead...

A number of years ago I lived in China. My wife, an artist, had been invited to come by the Chinese government in order to study Chinese painting techniques. I had studied Chinese history and philosophy, so I encouraged her to accept the offer.

They put us in a run-down structure with the other international residents. It was an amazing place in three respects. First, they had added an extra story to the top of it (with a slate roof!) without making any consideration for the load-bearing design. As a result, there was a giant crack in the concrete up one side of the building. It honestly seemed as if it might fall in at any moment.

Second, because the water in HangZhou is not drinkable, on every floor there were giant water tanks designed to provide drinking water. These were filled with the regular non-drinkable swill from the pipes, but twice a day they would vent live steam into the tanks in order to sterilize the water. (This did nothing for the poisonous heavy metals, which were not filtered out: as a consequence, I lived on Chinese beer instead.) The steam would boil out of the tanks through valves when the internal pressure got too high. Steam rises, of course, so the entire top floor would be floor-to-ceiling invisible twice a day. As you came down levels, somewhat more of the hallway would be visible: the third floor would be three-quarters filled with steam, the second floor half covered, and so forth.

The third thing that was notable was the remarkable incidence of disease. There were two old women who were employed to clean the place, which they did once a day with cold water and no soap. There was no such thing as bleach. We had people from all over the world, and lots of folks from sub-Saharan Africa as China is making big diplomatic moves there. One of these is to invite many of Africa's top students to study at Chinese universities. (This is a wise idea, by the way; one of the ways in which the GWOT has been flawed is that it has cut down on foreign students at American universities.)

Chinese medical care is an iffy proposition, although they did require a full physical of everyone admitted. Still, we had residents coming down with foreign diseases and dying; and most everyone was sick all the time. I myself caught tuberculosis, although apparently I defeated it with the aid of the aforementioned Chinese beer.

One of my fellows there was a giant of a man from Western Australia, a fine fellow who carried a big brass lock in lieu of brass knuckles. He was a complete scoundrel: a former professional gambler, who was currently making his living by conning the Australian government into believing that he was mentally ill and in need of a full pension.

Aside from him, my wife and I were the only native English speakers in the building. Many people spoke no English at all; French was more common, among the Africans, which meant that I could communicate with them with some difficulty. So could the Australian, who spoke a number of languages in a vague way -- but when he was in serious pain, as one night he was, English was the only language he could manage.

This was shortly after we arrived. I had not met the man, though I had once before seen him around the building. He came knocking on the door, though, and I answered it.

He was in such pain as to be unable to move, except with the greatest difficulty. He had managed to lumber down the hall to where our room was -- it was only a single room, and very tiny and drafty, without bathroom facilities or anything of the sort -- and he almost begged for me to go out into the Chinese night and find him some pain medication.

My Chinese at that stage could only with charity be called "broken," but all the same I promised to do my best. As I was leaving, he stopped me.

"I have to tell you something important," he said. I nodded.

"I believe very strongly," he said, "in giving your best shot, and then taking what comes. Go forth to the first place you can find, and do your best. If you cannot find the medicine there, come back. It will be all right."

I nodded again, and left; but I had no intention of doing what he asked. He had his beliefs, and I have my own. He had taken his one shot, and spent it on asking me for help. My belief is that when you undertake a quest, you see it through to its conclusion. As a result, I must have gone to ten places trying to find someone with whom I could communicate well enough to explain what I needed and get it.

When I got back, I found the poor Aussie leaning sadly against a wall. "What is it?" he said when he saw me. "You've come to tell me that that you couldn't find anything. Well, that's all right."

"No," I answered. "I've come to bring you this." I gave him the medicine, and he went on his way.

The next day he said that the stuff hadn't kicked in for almost two hours after he'd taken it, and he had been planning to murder me in my sleep with a meat axe. However, once it finally started to work, he found himself able to drift off to blissful sleep. He and I have exchanged letters for half a decade now; I never know if there will be another one, and I suppose in truth he never knows either.

That seems to me an illustration of what I was trying to say earlier, but to be honest, I'm not sure why it seems so. The reader may try to sort it out.

S.D.

An Old Friend Returns:

Grim's Hall is delighted to note that our old friend Steve D. is still alive. He was one of Grim's Hall's original readers, and sent a kind letter this morning apologizing for his long absence. Since he lives most of his life at sea, one never knows when he'll turn up or if he ever shall again.

He says he wouldn't mind if you dropped by to consider his thoughts on Iraq. For that matter, I don't guess I've mentioned my own thoughts on Iraq since the Constitutional Referrendum. They are these:

Omar's video from Mosul tells you what you need to know about Iraq and the mission there. It is a noble cause, as noble as any ever contested: to free the oppressed, De Oppresso Liber, and bring the light of liberty to their world.

It is fashionable on the anti-war side to ask, "What is this war about?" I have always offered that answer. The response is usually to scorn it: Bush didn't mention it, rarely mentioned it, mentioned other things, some of which turned out not to be as big a deal as he suggested. Yet, as far as Iraq goes, this is what I have always cared about: to end tyranny and free the oppressed, and to see a new dawn for liberty in the cradle of civilization. I heard Bush's speech at the start of the war, but I can only remember one detail of what he said: that this war would bring an end to the rape rooms. That was what impressed me, and as far as I am concerned, it is why we fight.

The success of this referrendum -- whether the Constitution had passed or failed, it was a success because of its extraordinary turnout and low violence -- demonstrates that liberty is taking hold. It will not be a smooth journey, I am sure: our own was not, but is littered with bones. Yet it is happening. We shall have the victory.

I do not know, though I think, that the victory in bringing democracy to Iraq will reduce or limit terrorism. It is not necessary that it do so to be a worthy cause. What matters is freeing men and women to live the right way, according to their own hearts, and to build the fire of freedom ever higher. Perhaps this will reduce violence in the world; perhaps it will increase it, as tyrants band together to put out the flame. Let them come. I do not fear them.

The Dangerous Life

The Dangerous Life:

I warn you that this is a long essay on a serious topic.

Ex Nihlio has a review of Serenity. It focuses on 'love, and its twin, belief.'

Everyone in the film (when they find themselves) is driven by love, but the interesting thing is that Serenity (amazingly! fortuitously!) manages to blend that love seamlessly with its twin, belief. In Serenity, there can be no true belief without a love that covers the sins necessary to defend that belief. There can be no love without foundation—without a belief in something, anything. And all of the actors in the tragicomedy are driven by their idealism—personal or political—their loves-cum-beliefs-cum-lives. They are all, to quote the movie, “true believers” by the end. And it is on that level that we connect with them—we are people who, even lacking it, long for true belief. Unconditional. Unequivocal. An excuse to love without care or worry of personal consequence. A belief that moves mountains or armies.

That is right.

Love and belief are twinned in this way. There is a deeper conflict at work, though. The Operative believes in a vision of a world without sin, and loves it so much that it covers his sins of murdering children. He can only be opposed, we are told, by men who believe in something else -- but who also truly believe.

We see that true belief gives a power that can be used for good or evil. In that way, faith is dangerous. It is dangerous in just the way Tolkien described:

’Dangerous?,’ cried Gandalf. ‘And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet. . .And Aragon is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers. . .for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.’

It is therefore truth that the best thing in the world is to be dangerous. It is also the worst thing. A man should believe, and love, without fear or reservation. I believe this, and have lived this way, sometimes to great joy and sometimes to great pain.

We were talking just yesterday about the true believers who, seeking to obliterate their lives, let their faith move them to terrible things. How can we judge between the kind of faith that heals, and the kind tht poisons?

I doubt it is possible to judge between the religions, and prove that one is right and another wrong. I think, however, that we can examine the ways of belief, and show what a righteous man ought to look like. I will not tell you what to believe, but I will tell you how to believe.

Consider Robert Winston. He asks, "Why do we believe in God?" He tells an interesting tale about snake-handlers and psychologists.

Many years ago, a team of researchers at the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota decided to put [a theory that religion was linked to mental illness] to the test. They studied certain fringe religious groups, such as fundamentalist Baptists, Pentecostalists and the snake-handlers of West Virginia, to see if they showed the particular type of psychopathology associated with mental illness. Members of mainstream Protestant churches from a similar social and financial background provided a good control group for comparison. Some of the wilder fundamentalists prayed with what can only be described as great and transcendental ecstasy, but there was no obvious sign of any particular psychopathology among most of the people studied. After further analysis, however, there appeared a tendency to what can only be described as mental instability in one particular group. The study was blinded, so that most of the research team involved with questionnaires did not have access to the final data. When they were asked which group they thought would show the most disturbed psychopathology, the whole team identified the snake-handlers. But when the data were revealed, the reverse was true: there was more mental illness among the conventional Protestant churchgoers - the "extrinsically" religious - than among the fervently committed.

Snake-handling promotes sanity? Yes, apparently, because it can only be practiced by those who have learned the right way to believe. The answer ought not to be surprising, nor to have needed a study of psychology, because it was so ably explained by Chesterton's Orthodoxy, in "The Maniac."

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man's mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliable; and generally there is a vague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and sticking straws in it. Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

So that is part of the picture. I suggest reading Chesterton in his entirety, as time permits.

Here is another part, again from the Winston essay. It discusses another psychological theory, which happens merely to be a repetition of an old religious truth.

A Harvard psychologist named Gordon Allport... suggested that there were two types of religious commitment - extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic religiosity he defined as religious self-centredness. Such a person goes to church or synagogue as a means to an end - for what they can get out of it. They might go to church to be seen, because it is the social norm in their society, conferring respectability or social advancement. Going to church (or synagogue) becomes a social convention.

Allport thought that intrinsic religiosity was different. He identified a group of people who were intrinsically religious, seeing their religion as an end in itself. They tended to be more deeply committed; religion became the organising principle of their lives, a central and personal experience. In support of his research, Allport found that prejudice was more common in those individuals who scored highly for extrinsic religion.

What is this, but an intellectual's restatement of Matthew 6? Yet it tells us a great deal. The suicide bomber is motivated by conditioning: he is being fed a constant line of mythology by the group that wishes to move his heart. He is convinced that they believe him to be a hero, and then told what they expect of a hero. And so he 'does his alms with a trumpet in the street, that may have glory of men.'

We have identified three signs of right faith, then: it is complete, so that the faithful man sheds those things he does not believe, and focuses his heart and his life on what he finds that he does; it is mystical, rooted in imagination and courage rather than logic and conformity; and it is secret, kept within the heart, though some signs of it may shine through even from the most private rooms.

There is another: it is fearless.

To return to Firefly for a moment, there is a scene in "Out of Gas" when River finds Book reading a Bible. "Don't be afraid," she says. He looks at her, and she nods to his Bible. "That's what it says, 'Don't be afraid.'" "Yes," he answers.

Here is the Bhagavad Gita on the subject:

Many there be who come! from fear set free, From anger, from desire; keeping their hearts Fixed upon me - my Faithful - purified By sacred flame of Knowledge. Such as these Mix with my being. Whoso worship me, Them I exalt; but all men everywhere Shall fall into my path; albeit, those souls Which seek reward for works, make sacrifice Now, to the lower gods, I say to thee Here have they their reward.

And here is Chesterton:

Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing.

That is the right way to believe. It is, to be certain, dangerous. It will lead you to great pain, and only might lead you to great joy. It has led me to both. It will take you on foolish quests, and lead you to break yourself on high mountains. It will lead you to declare your love and live it out, both when the consequences are good and when they are hard. You may rise again, stronger or weaker or wiser; and then again you may not.

I think you will be the right kind of man, though, while you do live. You will be dangerous, as Gandalf or Aragorn is dangerous, and not as the evil are.

Perhaps there is more. All the faiths proclaim something better in the next world, at least for the righteous. I hope for that, too. But whether that is real or an illusion, and whatever form it may take, at least you will have lived fully and well in this world. That is all I have to promise you, for I am -- as the Havamal counsels -- only 'middle wise.' Of demons and heavens I know nothing, though I have heard much, and believe certain things; but of men and the world of men, perhaps I have learned a thing.

Judge for yourselves.

Yet Another Really Great Blog:

Well, they're not shy now are they? Still, I recognize many of the names of the contibutors as commentors I've run across on various blogs.

There's lots of intersting stuff there. Check it out.

The Legion

The Legion of Dishonor:

A genuine look at our enemy's thinking can be obtained here, by looking at their recruiting successes among converts.

“It’s striking, the number of converts engaged in terrorist activities,” said Michael Taarnby, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies who has studied the recruitment and radicalisation of Islamist militants.

Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France’s top anti-terrorism judge, told the newspaper Le Figaro in an interview: “The converts are undeniably the toughest. Nowadays the conversions happen more quickly and the commitment is more radical.”

They wonder what prompts such a large percentage (though still a small number) of converts to Islam to become radicals. The theory is that the enemy is actively recruiting among the small-time criminal population.

Drifters and small-time crooks: Some of the best-known extremist converts whose cases have come to trial were drifters on the margins of society.

David Courtailler, a Frenchman convicted last year of abetting terrorists, was drawn into radical circles when he converted to Islam at a British mosque and was approached by a stranger there who gave him money and an air ticket to Pakistan. Reid, Rowe and Ganczarski all had records as small-time thieves or drug dealers.

“They are people who feel devalued, despised and by becoming terrorists they suddenly become supermen, heroes,” said Roy.

Once they converted, the experts said, such people often moved towards violence quickly, driven partly by a need to prove themselves. They might also be more easily manipulated by extremists because they lacked the cultural grounding to distinguish between true and distorted versions of Islam.

“Basically, you can tell them just about anything and they’re willing to believe it,” Taarnby said.

The kind of people who make up the small-time criminal and drifter class is poor, generally not well educated nor particularly intelligent. They are easy to manipulate, which is why criminal organizations have manipulated them for time out of mind. Whether Columbian cartels, the Mafia, or al Qaeda, this type of person is a useful and essentially disposable tool.

Just what you need when your favored weapon is the suicide bomb.

In interviews with Reuters, European experts said the vast majority of those who converted to Islam did so for legitimate personal reasons. Some convert in order to marry Muslims.

Many converts were drawn, the experts said, by the appeal of a universal faith that transcended national and ethnic barriers, offered a sense of belonging and brotherhood and provided a new identity, including the choice of a Muslim name.

However, a small fraction were extremists who saw in radical Islam a vehicle to challenge and overthrow the existing world order, said Olivier Roy, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

Many of those "legitimate personal reasons" are likewise apt to draw radicals as well. You should never underestimate the power of the chance to escape an old, failed life and find a new name and a new brotherhood. Sometimes it is an honest motivation. That was, for so many, the appeal of America.

It was also the appeal of the French Foreign Legion, which drew also from this same population of Western drifters and small-time crooks, and turned them into one of the most fearsome fighting forces in the world. The converts came willingly, looking for a new life and a new pride, a life that would be lived under a new and swaggering name, and often lived in a new language -- French, or for al Qaeda, Arabic. The clean break, the heroic image and mythic past, all this drives many who have ruined their own lives to seek out a new, firm guiding hand.

Al Qaeda, by all accounts, does not train its soldiers as well as the Legion did, or does today. That is why they do not enjoy the successes the Legion have enjoyed. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that they find such a ready group of suicides. Many of these people came to them exactly because they wanted to obliterate their lives.

AFA/Scheuer

"Through Our Enemies' Eyes"

Michael Scheuer, who was a top CIA officer and as "Anonymous" wrote critiques of Bush's GWOT policies, has performed a skit for the Air Force Association. The conceit is that he is pretending to be an Al Qaeda operative inside America, writing to update "Brother Osama" on the course of the war.

The fellow has some good points as to the advantages we enjoy:

First, the huge downside of this war ... We are, to put it simply, being hunted and attacked by the most powerful nation in the history of the world and despite the heavy personnel losses we have suffered, may God accept them as martyrs, the United States has not yet made the full destructiveness of its power felt.

Still, its people hate us with a vengeance for the blessed September raid and their efforts against us are powered by a wonderfully, even amazingly productive economy. In addition, the American population, although far from perfectly equitable is on the whole tolerant, including toward their Muslim fellow citizens.

At this point, brothers, we do not have the advantage here provided by the aggressively racist and anti-Islamic policies followed by most countries of the European Union. But on that score, as you have said Brother Iman, Allah will ensure that the cradles of Muslim homes will ultimately return Andalusia and all of Europe to the Muslim Ummah.

A final point of danger that I must stress is that American military, emotional, patriotic, and economic power has been neither harnessed nor focused. The latent power of this country is enormous and we have yet to fill its impact. God willing, the Americans will continue to slumber.

He also has one good point as to a serious detriment to our efforts:

And Brothers, the Americans have not found serious men to lead them. God has blessed us with this reality for at least 15 years. Four years after 9/11, American leaders have not closed their borders or found out who is in their country. Truly only God could have provided our movement with such a miracle. Amazingly, Brothers, the Americans' politicians lack the moral courage to first enforce the laws they themselves have passed. God is great. They refuse to find out who is in their country and to stop illegal immigration because, they loudly assert, America is a beacon of liberty to the world that we do not want to dim. Truly, Brothers, there is nothing more beneficial to us than having American politicians prefer to have the United States be seen as the glowing beacon of liberty rather than a country of enforced laws. Long may American maintain and enhance this glow of liberty which provides a light that warms, guides and shelters Al Qaeda and the many Jihadi groups who we have inspired around the world.

Fair enough.

Now, for what he thinks is our greatest weakness:

Brothers, believe me, the Americans are either soundly asleep, unwilling to face reality, or fundamentally stupid. Based on my observations and discussions they do not appear to have a clue as to what this war is about. This is, thanks to God, our greatest advantage...

They do not understand our motivation. In American terms, they have not “figured out what makes us tick.” Their political leaders of both parties, as well as their media, military, economic and social elites continue to claim Al Qaeda hates America for what it believes and how it lives and not for what the United States does in the Islamic world. And you saw for yourself, Brothers, how Bush and Blair responded to July's blessed London expedition—like trained parrots they exclaimed that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and not for what we do.

Honestly, Brothers, only God's love for Muslim believers could have kept American believers so dense for so long.

Mr. Scheuer adopts that favorite tactic of a certain type of intellectual, of which there are all too many at the CIA: claiming that people who disagree with him are simply too ignorant or stupid to understand the issue. Well, it isn't ignorance: Is there anyone left in America who hasn't heard the "It's our policies!" counterargument, and had occasion to think it through? I doubt it, excepting only children, the very elderly, and those who simply care nothing about politics.

"Our policy in the Muslim world" is the real source of our problems, is it? Well, let's go down to the question-and-answer section with the good military men who attended the skit. What was the first question?

Q: One of the tangible justifications Al Qaeda used for 9/11 with respect to the Koran was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Given that we have silently moved our troops out of that country, is there any evidence of windfall within the Islamic world?

Mr. Scheuer: No, I think on that particular occasion we pulled the wool over our own eyes. Within the eyes of Muslims, the Prophet's home is the Arabian Peninsula, not Saudi Arabia. There are no States in the theological sense on the Arabian Peninsula. We simply moved from Saudi Arabia to Qatar and Kuwait, which is still on the Prophet's homeland. It's kind of been treated, at least within the websites and the internet journals of Al Qaeda and its allies as something of a joke that points to the depth of the American ignorance about Islam.

So, the first piece of serious evidence on the question is: moving the troops only changed the complaint. It didn't relieve or even moderate the complaint.

Yes, and if we'd moved the troops to Egypt? To Turkey? To Spain? Mr. Scheuer himself jokes about Bin Laden returning the cradles of Islam to Andalusia. It isn't ignorance or stupidity that is moving us to reject this policy as a "first cause." It's just that we've been watching and listening too, and we've drawn different conclusions.

Let's take another question:

Q: Carmen bin Laden, a sister-in-law of Osama bin Laden, believes Al Qaeda is in no hurry to attack US soil, but rather can bide their time. Do you think this is true, or have we just been successful in actively fighting off another attack?

Mr. Scheuer: I think we have done a wonderful job of taking out Al Qaeda leaders, but we still categorize Al Qaeda as a terrorist group. Our leaders from both parties have a lot to say about seizing 5,000 or 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters, which seems counter-intuitive—I'm not sure there's a terrorist group that has 4,000 or 5,000 fighters.

The one difference between Al Qaeda and the United States, Al Qaeda and the West, Islam and the West, is the tremendous sense of patience on the enemy's side. When they talk about another attack soon in the United States they're speaking of anywhere from a year to a decade. Our idea of soon is this afternoon or next week or October 1st at the latest.

Ah, yes, that's the real reason al Qaeda doesn't hit us more often: their immense patience.

Actually, I think it might be their lack of capability. If they could hit us more often, does anyone doubt that they would? We've watched their bombs fall off in effectiveness everywhere outside of Iraq: 9/11, Madrid, London is the usual chain, but take a look at their allied group in Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah. They have a lot more freedom to move and train, and safe havens in parts of the Philippines. In 2002 the Bali bombing was hideous; in 2005, they bombed Bali again, and killed very few by comparison.

Here's another question:

Q: In your opinion, what is the impact of Syed Qutab’s writings on the Al Qaeda world view?

The answer is useless, so I won't bother to quote it. What should be obvious here, however, is that the Air Force people here are hardly ignorant of Muslim culture. They have been studying the roots of this dispute at least as seriously as Mr. Scheuer.

They've also studied the evidence about what we're doing, and how it changes the war. I can tell you for a fact that they don't just consider GitMo or Abu Ghraib a 'public relations problem.' I know that they're intensely interested in reaction, and are taking steps not only to correct problems but to create measurements so that they can tell whether what they are doing is making things better or worse.

As for the treatment of the Koran, I think we all remember the military's admonition that our fighters handle it with literal kid gloves? We accept the enemy's assertion that we are too unclean to handle his holy book, rather than give cause for offense.

The whole skit, and the question and answer period, is worth reading.

Slow

Slow Blogging:

I apologize for the light blogging of these last couple of days. I've just finished two back-to-back 16 hour days trying to sort out something for work. Today, I'm going off for a pleasant day with my wife, Sovay, and the little boy. I hope it will be great fun -- I could use some.

Should be back tomorrow.

Cass

Cassandra:

She writes:

for so long
silence has beckoned
fought off
with
a torrent of words

i'm no longer
afraid of falling

so peaceful
to drop like a stone
into the dark
and be lost forever

That is a lovely and powerful image, but probably more fearsome than I hope she intends. One of the great dangers in writing a farewell poem is that you will sound like you're threatening suicide. I've had the same problem myself: what is meant as a meditation on the pain that can come from saying goodbye, reads later like the meditation of someone who forgot his medication. Well, if poetry were easy, it wouldn't be art.

Since she isn't actually committing suicide, but only hanging up the blog, I assume we'll see her around in the comments section from time to time. I believe she understands she will always be welcome?

Beans

Beans the Dog:

Welcome to Beans the dog, now an American. Beans was the pet of the 3/25 Marines in Iraq. She's been adopted by the mother of one of those who didn't make it home. Apparently, he loved the dog -- and now, so will she.

Holy. Freekin. S***.

Iowa Hawk, in a rather entertaining manner, envisions the ultimate results of comparitivism on the Supreme Court. (via Normblog)

I don't regularly read Iowa Hawk. But I think I'm going to. (Also, I'm a homey of his and all).

T&Sen

Torture & the Senate, Updated:

There is an important update to the post on Torture & the Senate, below. Greyhawk calls it a 20 yard punt, but that may be an understatement.

2/2

A Bad Week:

I have put this off as long as I can. The families are now notified, and the obituaries have run.

Grim's Hall mourns the passing of four warriors from our adopted 2/2 Marines.

Corporal Nick Cherava.

Lance Corporal Shayne Cabino.

Lance Corporal Patrick Kenny.

Private First Class Jason Frye.

Lance Corporal Kenny leaves behind a sister, Katy, who has just completed Boot Camp. All of them leave behind friends and fellow Marines who will remember, and avenge, their loss.

HRH Mike

His Royal Highness, Mike:

Sovay sent me a story about the trueborn King of England, at least if you believe that kingship is rightfully inherited. Turns out, the fellow lives in the Aussie Bush:

A documentary team from Britain's Channel Four conducted extensive research and concluded Hastings' ancestors were cheated out of the crown in the 15th century, meaning he should rightfully be the British head of state.

"When the producer landed in Australia and said he was coming to see me he was very vague about what it was all about," Hastings tells AFP in his broad Australian accent.

"I thought he was drunk to be honest ... then he came here and laid out his evidence, it came as a total surprise to me, it left me stunned.

"I reckon I might send Lizzie (Queen Elizabeth II) a bill for back rent, the old girl's family have been living in my bloody castle for the last 500 years."

The documentary's historian Michael Jones found documents in Rouen Cathedral he believes show that Edward IV, who ruled from 1461 to 1483, was illegitimate because when he was conceived his parents were 200 kilometres (124 miles) apart.

Well, actually, there have been a few other families in there since 1461. Since King Mike I is a part-time historian, who volunteers at a museum devoted to his town's last armed robber, I assume he knows that.

Anyway, sounds like his house is more fun than the palace anyway:

He said the documentary makers brought copies of royal crowns and other regalia worth several hundred thousand dollars to Jerilderie

"The grandkids are pretty boisterous and were running around the house in the robes," he said. "(The program makers) were getting really nervous and saying 'um Mike, I think one of them's sitting on the crown'."

Well, that will happen.

LA-PC

Posse Comitatus:

R.M. mails to let us know that Legal Affairs is hosting a debate on Posse Comitatus. Our friends at INTEL DUMP will be carrying the pro- side of the argument, and have provided a place for reader commentary at the above link.