The incomparable Winds of Change has a post called "Limits," in the comments to which Mark cited my post on the Hamadan decision. It's nice to be cited at WoC, which is one of the best thinking-blogs out there.
The author of the post is broadly correct. I honestly don't think we've begun to fight -- not, at least, to fight a war. The gamble in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been about trying to prevent the escalation of the problems we face into a world war.
If it fails -- well, a world war is what America's military was designed to fight. In many ways, the task will be rather easier if North Korea and Iran and Syria and whoever else wants in escalates the situation. We will abandon those restrictions once we pass the point at which we can credibly "police" the situation, once the threat reaches the point at which we obviously must fight rather than manage the problems.
A real war will be bloodier, by far -- but it will also be easier, because we will be liberated from the self-imposed restrictions designed to prevent escalation. We have many purpose-designed tools for such an eventuality, and there are many kinds of leverage we can apply that are only appropriate to real war.
That said, I think we ought to continue trying to win the original gamble. It is harder to do, but better for literally millions of people worldwide. People who genuinely love peace, and who are of good heart -- I think most of the anti-war crowd, particularly that faction led by the Quakers, falls into this group -- ought to support the venture.
They need to grasp that what lies behind the loss of the gamble is not peace, but real war. This is the last chance for peace.
I realize that sounds Orwellian -- 'the Iraq "war" is the last chance for peace' does indeed sound much like 'War is Peace.' Yet real peace is not possible in this world: there is always violence at some level. What matters is choosing the level. Iraq gives us a chance to have a better level of violence in our lives.
Insofar as we are acting like police, we aren't acting like soldiers; insofar as we are acting like soldiers, we aren't acting like murderers. In Iraq, we are acting like police most of the time -- indeed, we are behaving rather gentler than the police of many nations. Even on those occasions when we have escalated into properly military violence (as for example in Fallujah), it has always been with the intent of returning to a policing-level as soon as possible. Our warfighting has been about cracking pockets of enemies, so that we could set up a police force instead.
I keep thinking that the anti-war movement will come to recognize this fact. So far, they seem devoted to the fantasy that the US can be beaten into submission -- that, if only we can be made to lose in Iraq, that's it, that's all, the US will be a whipped puppy and will follow tamely the guidelines of our moral betters at the UN and in Europe, and on the US left.
Such a complete failure to understand America is not reasonable. No culture on earth has such a complete hatred of the idea of failure. Indeed, if there is any common culture that can be called American at all, it would have to be the culture of success -- the notion that a man should take care of himself, and that his failure to do so was a moral as well as a practical failure.
This is not a nation that will respond to a loss of its gamble in Iraq by becoming submissive. It will respond by becoming aggressive. If it cannot rebuild certain nations into successful, peaceful democracies, it will instead destroy those nations. It will not submit to a future of being blackmailed by the most murderous and least free nations of the earth. Nor ought it to do so.
That model of destructive warfighting was advocated by the Kerry campaign in 2004 (among other things it chose to advocate), and by John Derbyshire in the present context. It is a workable strategy. As just demonstrated, it has powerful advocates on both sides of the political spectrum.
If North Korea will not be reformed, it must not be allowed to dictate through terror and nuclear power the future of northern Asia. If Iran cannot be reformed, it must not be allowed to dominate the lives of millions of people in Iraq and elsewhere. If Syria will insist on backing terrorist groups as a matter of national policy, and if indeed it is beyond us to change them, then their state power must be laid waste. The future of humanity, a future in which every corner of the globe is increasingly important to the entirety of humanity, will be brighter if we strike down such tyrants.
I continue to believe in the gamble in Iraq. I continue to believe that we ought, morally, to avoid real war and pursue a type of fighting that will spread freedom and prosperity now. I hate the idea of laying waste even to a tyranny, for there are innocents there who are victims of these evil states. Far better if we can free them, help them shake off the sickness of the mind and heart that tyranny embeds in men, and teach them to rejoin peace-loving people abroad.
My feeling is that the Special Forces have the right motto, which ought to guide America: De Oppresso Liber. That is the right way for us.
But if that way proves impossible, I know America well enough to know that she will not submit. All decent people should look true war in the face, and consider again if they will not back America in Iraq and elsewhere. We have now only three paths before us, and we shall take one of them whether we like any of them: We shall succeed in Iraq and elsewhere; we shall fight a true war; or we shall see the tyrants of the world, some of whom cannot even feed their people, assume a new place of power in the world.
That last one must not be. America will not let it be -- and she does indeed have the strength to stop it. Her military was made for a war of that type. We can fight and win, if we must.
Far better, though -- far better! -- the first. All people who wish the best for all mankind should join with us in bringing peace and order to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and elsewhere as we must. Let us pursue that road as long as there is any light at all to guide us on it. It is the right road, if only we can find the strength to walk it.
Restrictions
Manly
I see that PowerLine has picked up on Cassidy's lengthy post on the desirability of manly men. PowerLine complains that they are surprised at having been omitted.
Not so we. Judging from the pictures selected, what is wanted is a kind of man who wears cowboy hats, carries a long blade, and likes to tie his women up and carry them around thrown over his shoulders.
Grim's Hall appreciates the compliment.
Some Soldier's Mom wants you to help send some boys surfin'. This is a great story, which you should read. They need money (as always, with charitable organizations), but also can usefully benefit from donations of airline miles -- to get some wounded soldiers out to the beach, and teach them how they can surf in spite of everything.
Which, by the way, is more than I can do. I wouldn't know which end of the surfboard was up.
Iraq
CENTCOM sent out a press release this morning, that they'd like you to read. It follows:
Joint Statement byHow will that play in the press? Well, here on the blogs, we'll play it straight -- I just gave you the release to read for yourself. In the papers, though... as Greyhawk said, "It is a shame that the Post reporter couldn't find anything in the Ambassador's prepared remarks worthy of a newspaper headline."
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. George Casey
On the Transfer of Security Responsibility in
Muthanna Province
July 13, 2006
BAGHDAD – Iraq witnessed a historic event today with the transfer of security responsibility in Muthanna Province from the Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) to the Provincial Governor and civilian-controlled Iraqi Security Forces. The handover represents a milestone in the successful development of Iraq’s capability to govern and protect itself as a sovereign and democratic nation. Muthanna is the first of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be designated for such a transition.
As Prime Minister Maliki announced on June 19, 2006, the joint decision between the Iraqi government and MNF-I to hand over security responsibility is the result of Muthanna’s demonstrated abilities to take the lead in managing its own security and governance duties at the provincial level. The transition decision also reflects a joint assessment of the overall threat situation in Muthanna, the capabilities of the ISF there and the provincial leadership’s ability to coordinate security. Transition teams are in place to smooth the transfer process and multi-national forces will stand ready to provide assistance if needed.
With this first transition of security responsibility, Muthanna demonstrates the progress Iraq is making toward self-governance. Several other provinces are close to meeting the criteria necessary to assume security independence. The Iraqi government and the Multi-National Force will continue to transfer security responsibilities in other provinces in Iraq as conditions are achieved.
Australian, Japanese, and the United Kingdom forces have assisted Muthanna authorities as models of international cooperation, providing economic and humanitarian assistance as well as security and stability. As Iraq develops and its needs continue to evolve, so too will the nature of international assistance to Iraq in Muthanna and elsewhere.
The United States will provide $10 million in order to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Muthanna as they take a bold and courageous step forward in the country’s movement toward an independent and secure nation. This event represents significant progress by the Government of Iraq to achieve a constitutional, democratic, and pluralistic Iraq which guarantees the rights of all citizens.
Conservatives/conscience
The latest attempt at defining conservatism as a mental illness is available thanks to John Dean. His new theory, which is really the same old theory, is that conservatives draw from a 'personality type' called "doubhle high authoritarian." He describes it as "self-righteous, mean-spirited, amoral, manipulative, bullying." Of greatest importance, Dean says, is that it is slavishly devoted to authority. The true conservative obeys his leaders without question.
Against which I offer as evidence not merely the recent conservative revolt against Harriet Miers (say what you like about the merits, but it was certainly a rough handling of "authority" by conservatives); but also this post from Chris Roach of "Man-Sized Target." Many readers probably recognize Roach from his own site, and comments on other sites, as one of the staunchest traditional conservatives out there.
I have a tendency deeply rooted in my psychology . . . perhaps it's all too common among blogger types and other highly opinionated people. I am a contrarian, finding fault among the right and the left. Perhaps, I am seeking some Aristotelian mean, or perhaps I'm just plain mean. I don't quite know.The post goes on to examine contrasting positions he's taken, and is remarkably insightful as a self-analysis.
I think part of it is I've never expected much of the left and have always been critical of its excesses, its utopianism, its sentimentalism, and its disregard for truth. Among the right, though, my story has been one of disillusionment and increasing discontent. I've become disillusioned as I've realized how much of the Republican establishment and even the right-wing blogoshere and intelligentsia is not that intelligent, not that committed to principle, and not that consistent.
I think our Mr. Dean would like to find in Roach a "self-righteous, mean-spirited" fellow of the type he's describing. Roach describes himself in almost those terms -- "contrarian," "just plain mean," many other Republicans are "not that intelligent," etc.
Yet the effect is exactly the opposite of the one Dean posits. It doesn't lead to blind obedience to authority, but a rigorous questioning of all claims from all sides. As the self-analysis shows, Roach even questions his own stands and tries to understand how -- or if -- they are really principled:
I accept the possibility I'm just ornery and inconsistent. But I'll let my readers be the judge. Here I stick up for what might be regarded as a certain authoritarian set of values, poo-pooing those that worry about administration data mining that can be and has been used to interrupt terrorist plots. And here I castigate the knee jerk response to various war crimes allegations against American service-members. Are these positions reconcilable? Is my concern for administration authority capable of being balanced with my concern for militaristic trends in our political culture.I have tired of the concept, so often repeated on the Left, that conservatives are just "authoritarian" personalities who refuse to question authority. I'm afraid that dog doesn't hunt, and no amount of so-called "social science" will make it do so. Even among those conservatives who really are "self-righteous and mean-spirited" -- and proudly so -- authority is constantly in danger of rejection, refusal, and rebellion.
Maybe the answer is as simple as the mantra of one of my misanthropic friends: "Everybody sucks."
India bombs
Reader S.F. writes to ask me to show you this link, to a site where you can send encouraging words to the people of India. As you know, yesterday bombers struck Mumbai. S.F. thinks we should all show our support to the Indians who, as we have ourselves, are suffering from the problem of murderers traveling under the name of "militants."
History
Blogger David Hardy points to an article he's written about the American military, the NRA, and World War I. He brought it up because the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme occurs this month; it gave cause for him to remember why the American military of that time wasn't regularly subject to the massive losses seen on the Somme by the British and French.
The thesis of this article is that the NRA played a significant role in making the American military victorious in the first World War; this also caused a fundamental change in infantry tactics used by miliataries around the world. Plenty of supporting facts are offered, including personal correspondence between President Wilson and the Secretary of War.
Continuing my ideas from the previous post, it is possible that Hardy is only telling part of the story. But unlike the most troublesome historical story-tellers, his account doesn't ask me to believe that most of the other scholars are wrong about a subject area. Instead, his account asks me to believe that most other scholars haven't noticed (or have forgotten) what he is writing about.
In terms of being a careful historian, Hardy's article is full of verifiable information. In my reading, I didn't notice heavy use of inference to fill in gaps in knowledge.
Finally, in my case, the reading of this article changed my understanding of the course of World War I--the War to End All Wars, as it was styled at the time. When one nation is training its soldiers to use their weapons with high precision while the other combatants are training their soldiers to fire barrages and march into the fray with bayonets, there is little reason to be surprised that the soldiers who shoot with better precision end up on the winning side. I don't believe it was the sole cause, but it was a strong contributing factor in the victory.
It is also not a surprise that when the American military decided to implement a strict riflery-training regimen that they enlisted the services of the many experts at the NRA.
The article looks good, and reminded me of the way in which warfare was changed by the introduction of better weapons technology and training to use the technology. The combination of technology and training was much more effective than technology all alone.
Doc
Well, some of you. Seems the gentleman is having a hard time of it at his new station -- far from home, far from his beloved wife, and the duty is rough too.
Unfortunately, the scoundrels who frequent Doc's place are unsympathetic:
1. Moriarty made this comment,Perhaps some of our gentler readers might want to drop by and give Doc some encouragement."I got puked on something good and proper by a patient."
Congratulations! *Now* you're a doctor.
;-)...
5. Grim made this comment,
Just wait until you're a father. Then you'll get puked on every night for a year.
The Purges Continue
The Commissar has an interesting post on the subject of how the anti-Lieberman campaign reminds him of the leftist infighting in the Spanish Civil War. I noted in the comments:
A fine professor I once had, a self-described socialist, said that this pattern appears in all “democratically oriented revolutions” (by which he meant Jacobin revolutions and other leftist events, rather than republic-oriented revolutions of the American and British type). I assume there is a body of leftist scholarship on the subject, he seemed so confident in his assertion. Indeed, he was and is a fine scholar, however foolish the politics to which he subscribes, so I don’t doubt that the body of scholarship not only exists, but is fairly well-founded.The Democratic Party is apparently collapsing along these lines. I'm not sure why, but consider the comment by "West" at Captain's Quarters. They had run an anti-Lieberman sneer, and he responds:
The idea, as I recall, is that the initial success of the revolution leads to the establishment of a class of revolutionaries who find — wonder of wonders — that they don’t actually agree. So, they begin to restrict control to smaller and smaller circles, with those left in the outer circles exercising less and less control, and finally being the controlled instead.
A student of Soviet history such as yourself won’t need elaboration to see how this applies there, but it apparently is usual for these sorts of events, starting with the French revolution. Purges of the impure are to be expected in “people power” revolutions.
The difference here is only that the “initial success” of the Kossack revolution was just in building an online community. They never actually had any real-world success. They seem, however, to have gotten right on to the purges.
I think the reason you don’t see this set of events in the Anglospheric model of revolution is the focus on federalism and traditional freedoms. The problem with “democratic” revolutions is that they wish to assert a single correct solution, which is to be binding on everyone — that’s why it is so important to purge the impure. We must all live by the same law, so it must be the correct law.
The idea that the state can include spheres of influence not directly under the sway of the central government is a profoundly radical idea — the existence of states that have real rights, religious institutions that the central government may not regulate, etc. Yet those radical, free institutions provide a space for people with different preferences to each have (at least most of) their way. As a result, classical liberal revolutions do not lead to the cycles of purges, but rather to the unsatisfied minority turning its attention to local politics when it fails to control the federal politics.
I live in CT. Registered Independent, vote mostly Republican at the federal level. I will sign petitions, etc., and vote for Joe, not because I like his politics, but because I respect his integrity. You don't get much of that these days. In some ways, Joe could be viewed as he liberal counterpart to Zell Miller. He did not leave the party, the party left him.It was the same party.
Once it had room for both of them, and others besides. A few years ago it moved to run out the Zell Millers, and prevent traditional Southern Democrats from being able to support the national platform. Now, it's moving on genuine liberals like Lieberman.
For a point of comparison: David Brooks mentioned that Lieberman's "Christian Coalition" rating was 0. I looked up Zell Miller's. It was the full 100.
In the American system, a party which can maintain that kind of real diversity is strong. The Democratic Party had room for serious disagreement on the kinds of social issues the Christian Coalition cares about, not that long ago. Now, even the zeros are being attacked if they don't heave-to on every other issue.
I suspect that the self-destruction will spin off into two separate events. The internal disintegration of the Kossacks will continue. Within the Democratic Party as a whole, however, the next group to be purged will be the Kossacks themselves. The practical politicians will recognize the destruction that these people are bringing to bear on their electoral power, and with it their fundraising capabilities (which are largely based on the ability to deliver actual results, which requires actual power).
How long will it take for that round of purges to get here? I doubt they'll be in time for November.
The Best Defense
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
I read in the news that there is discussion in Japan on re-interpreting their self-defense clause to allow a pre-emptive strike on North Korean launch sites.
The best defense has always been a good offense.
History and Story-telling
[This post is a slightly-edited verson of something posted elsewhere. The novel which helped ignite this train of thought was I, Claudius, written by Robert Graves.]
One of the books I've been reading and commenting about is a work of fiction which tries to present itself as history.
This book raises several questions in my mind.
Robert Graves wrote his book in a way that made it hard to distinguish from translations of actual 1st-Century Roman writings. The bare factual outline of the story is hard to dispute: the succession of the first four Caesers (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius); the death/banishment of many members of the Imperial family; the military victories of the armies of Augustus; the position of lowly Sejanus during Tiberius' years on the isle of Capri; the uneasy stasis between Tiberius' armies and the Germanic tribes; the madness of Caligula. All of these things are attested to in at least one ancient source.
Yet the tale that Graves weaves around these events isn't strictly history. Part conjecture, part prejudicial reading of the available data, this story places blame heavily on certain characters, and absolves or exonerates others. The tales of political intrigue within the complicated familial connections of the Julio-Claudian dynasty are told with a particular slant in mind.
I don't know if I agree or disagree with Graves--the details are too distant, and the crimes seem too unimportant. History has moved on; the vast Empire that was claimed by the power-struggles has crumbled.
But the methods Graves used to arrive at his conclusions and weave his story are methods that are regularly used by historians.
Historians often work with more information than they can present to their audience. Some of the data are from doubtful sources; some of them are widely-known but poorly sourced; some of them are indisputably true. The historian selects these items and arranges his historical rendition around them.
It is simple to say that good historians select only obviously true information and discard the rest. It is too simple: the set of obviously true facts doesn't contain all of the historical data. The historian may have three good sources about Caligula's military campaigns at the northern edge of the Empire. But if they all disagree about the sequence of events and the trail of the campaign, which one is dependable?
Also, facts by themselves don't assemble into history by themselves. The information needs a story to bind them together. Is it a story about the madness of an Emporer who thought he was divine? Is it a story about an army that was sent out without a clear objective or strategy? Is it a story about generals playing politics while politicians played generals?
So the historian often fits the information into a framework--a story--that helps him figure out what the information means. (Of course, scrupulous historians pay a great deal of attention to the information itself, and to its pedigree of trustworthiness. But even that process has subtle interactions with the pre-existing story.) This inner meaning puts some of the information at the forefront, and reduces other information to irrelevance.
Historians also must deal with a different problem. Sometimes, an event will be known to have happened, but the direct cause of the event can't be determined. Many members of the Imperial family died of poisoning: the perpetrator in most of these cases is unknown, as is the motivation.
How does a historian tell that story? Does he invent a plausible story to fill in the blanks in his knowledge? Does he pick the most plausible explanation advanced by contemporaries? Or does he say that he does not know why this event happened? If he uses speculation, does he warn his readers which part of his history is speculation and which is known fact?
I suspect that these processes are also used by other people (non-historians) on an everyday basis. When a person hears information about the world that is outside of their direct experience, they compare the new information to a story about that subject that already exists in their minds. If the information doesn't fit the story well, some accomodation must be made. Either the information is suspect or the story is suspect. The story, if suspect, may need extension, revision, or a complete rebuilding.
Revision of this pre-existing story is much less drastic than rebuilding from scratch. Extension is less drastic than either, although extension and revision are not always distinct.
This process looks simple at first, but can quickly take on confusing complexity. The story isn't constant. Every time information is added or rejected, the story's structure has to change a little bit to explain why.
Other examples from ancient history can be found. Did the end of the Roman Empire occur when it was split into Eastern and Western halves? What about when Rome was sacked? What about the fall of Byzantium? Each one represented a diminution of the power and prestige of Rome. Each event is important in the decline and fall of the Empire.
What about the difference between Medieval Culture and Renaissance Culture in European history? Medieval culture is often defined by its focus on religious thought. The Renaissance culture is described as based on humanistic thought and making heavy use of the rediscovered literature of Rome and Greece.
The greatest poet of Medieval Europe was Dante; his Divine Comedy is peppered with mentions of people and stories from Classical times. Plato and Aristotle (as well as legendary characters like Aeneas and villains like Brutus), appear in Dante's Inferno. The greatest religious scholar of Medieval times was Thomas Aquinas; yet Aquinas read and commented heavily on Aristotle. Classical literature was not unknown during that time. The growth of humanistic thought is probably measurable, but the beginning of the Renaissance is still hard to pinpoint. The historian who tries to draw such a line must depend on a story--usually the growth of challenges to Church authority, the growth of natural philosophy and the sciences, or the growth of voyages of exploration--to help him define where the dividing line should be put.
Examples of overarching stories that define how history is told abound in the political history of the past few centuries. Ask a Marxist disciple about that history, and he will tell you it is a story about class warfare and the exploitation of the laborers. Ask a trans-nationalist progressive about history, and he will tell you about the rise of international institutions which overshadow the dominant nation-states of the world. Ask an American of the Jacksonian tradition, and he will tell a story of America trying to deal honorably with the world--and of America needing to send her soldiers to deal with various enemies around the globe.
This is not to say that none of these stories are truthful, or that all have equal validity. Some of these stories are more trustworthy when used for predictions. Some of these stores produce a need for large conspiracies that beg for the application of Occam's Razor.
When Cuba became a Socialist Worker's Paradise, what happened to its agriculture and economy? Before the Revolution, Cuba was home to a significant number of tractors and other mechanized farming tools. At that time, the street-markets were awash with lemons and oranges, among other products of agriculture. Today, most of the farm work is done by hand and oranges are reputedly rare. Starvation is an ever-present worry. As a more important question, why weren't people getting in rafts to go from oppressive capitalist America to Worker's Paradise in Cuba?
(I have my explanation, which is that "Worker's Paradise" does not describe what was and is going on in Cuba. Likewise for "oppressive capitalism" and America.)
Which returns me to revision of the Big Story, the meta-narrative that I use to analyze history. I don't want to change my version of the story at the drop of a hat. But I also don't want to keep a bad or unusable version of the story. I suspect that I'll continue doing what I've been doing for some time: analyzing incoming data for information that looks discordant with the meta-narrative that I am analyzing it with. I will then test the data to see if it is trustworthy, as well as testing my meta-narrative to see how trustworthy it is. I try to make the overall story, the meta-narrative, more robust as I go on. Generally, this method is successful.
Most of the time, this process goes on without too much conscious thought. Sometimes, it requires a great deal of thought. Occasionally, it produces vociferous disagreement with people who use a different story to define and analyze the information that they come across.
Sometimes, the disagreement is about whether scientific study precludes religious belief; sometimes the disagreement is about the guilt or innocence of soldiers charged with war crimes; sometimes the disagreement is about the necessity of higher mathematics in college curricula; sometimes the disagreement is about the choice of a candidate to vote for; sometimes the discussion is about the definition of "sensible gun laws".
But now, every time I enter into such a discussion, I come fore-armed with the knowledge that the disagreement is probably not about data--it is about the interpretation of which data is important, and why the data is important.
The hard part is convincing the other participants in the discussion that they may need to re-evaluate the story they use to analyze and interpret the data at hand.
Chuck Z Liberia
Chuck Z gives us the lessons from Liberia. I'm trying not to laugh, Chuck, and it's not working. Dude brought a feather-duster to a firefight?
Old War Dogs
I've had the honor of guest-blogging alongside Bill Faith, at Mudville back when Greyhawk went off to war. Bill's opened a new blog for older veterans, called Old War Dogs. "Rurik," a Grim's Hall reader and friend of the blog, is one of Bill's new co-bloggers. It's a pretty impressive crew, in fact, as George writes:
Bill Faith of Small Town Veteran, Steve Gardner, "the Tenth Brother" (ask John "Magic Hat" Kerry if you don't remember what that means), Russ Vaughn the Poetrooper, and several other angry hounds, including 1st Cav Page, Gene "Blood-n-Fire" Harrison, John Werntz, proven bloggers Zero Ponsdorf and Jim Bartimus, and myself, Rurik.Just having Russ Vaughn on board is a coup. I'd be glad to have him blog here, even if it were just to post his poems (which I always mean to do, but only sometimes get around to doing). They've got him, and several other good writers and thinkers besides.
Each of us is a military veteran, each with opinions founded on experience. Between us I believe we have 3 CIBs, 2 Navy Combat Action Awards, 1 Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars, an Air Medal, an Army Commendation Medal, 2 Croix de Guerres with palms, and lots of other awards. One is an emeritus Ivy League professor, and another a published commercial author. Not too bad for nine old dudes. Enough to justify an opinion or two?
You might want to check them out.
Heh-heh-heh
If IANSA isn't happy, I'm happy.
But Rebecca Peters of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms accused governments of letting a few states "hold them all hostage and to derail any plans which might have brought any improvements in this global crisis."Well done, then. Anything that makes Ms. Peters frustrated in her professional capacity is a thing I'm glad to see. Odd list of allies this time, though:
IANSA identified the main players blocking agreement as Cuba, India, Iran, Pakistan and Russia. Other gun control activists named China, Egypt and Venezuela as well.I'm not accustomed to seeing my interests line up with Venezuela's and Iran's. We'll need to look into that, after the party.
Still, I'm glad to see my letters got there all right:
The meeting was dogged from the start by zealous members of the U.S. National Rifle Association, who flooded the United Nations with letters falsely accusing it of secretly plotting to take away Americans' guns on July 4, a U.N. holiday marking U.S. Independence Day when delegates did not meet.This is a news story, right? Not an editorial? Which part was false? That they were meeting the week of Independence Day? No, they were, and the fact that they didn't hold formal talks on that one day hardly means there were no meetings or conversations going on behind the scenes.
That they were plotting to take away America's gun rights? No, that part was true too. Ms. Peters said so herself.
I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That’s what we’re working for.So -- if you can prove (to Ms. Peters and her ilk) that you have a legitimate purpose, she thinks it might be proper for you to have a single-shot rifle (suitable for hunting). But the Second Amendment has to go -- Americans must live under the same rules as the rest of the world. Rules she wants to write. Yet, of course, it is a fearful-paranoid-false-accusation to say that... well, to tell the truth about what she herself says she wants.
American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove.
I think that eventually Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they’re going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.
I think Americans who hunt—and who prove that they can hunt—should have single-shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world.
If I said I thought "the rest of the world should live under the same laws as Americans," that would be jingoistic Cowboy-speak. Reverse the formula -- "America must live by the same rules as the rest of the world" -- and it's progressive wisdom.
Not on Independence Day. That's what "Independence" means.
Molon Labe. Remember the Spartans? Remember the Alamo?
I do.
BACK TO IRAQ.
Soon I will be leaving our fair shores to return to Iraq. Consequently, I will be taking a hiatus from all blogging activity for sometime. However, I do hope to resume posting upon my return. In the meantime I am sure that my co-bloggers will continue the good fight for freedom.
Semper Fi.
21 yr brk
Our friends at Military.com, who sponsored so much of I MBC, have a great story today. It treats the story of New York City Police Detective Evan L. "Pappy" Schwerner, who recently rejoined his Marines following a short twenty-one year break. Well, who doesn't need a break now and then?
I'm sure the Marines around here will be only too glad to say, "Welcome home, Corporal... that is, Pappy."
NORTHCOM DPRK Missiles
The Northern Command has said that they were good to go for intercept, but determined there was no need. It's good to know that NORTHCOM detected all the launches, and it's good that they didn't say exactly how they did.
According to Reuters, the AP, CNN and Fox, North Korea actually test fired that ding-dong missle of theirs. It appears to have "failed".
But other missles were fired, too.
Like, 5 or 6 in all.
In a two hour period.
All the accounts above are just slightly different.
I'm wondering if that Taepodong-2 missle was in fact, shot down, and the other missles were a response to that.
A battle may just have occurred.
Bookies are cheap
Australian bookies are paying $201 on Bush to win the Nobel Prize this year. Given the nature of the Nobel committee, I'd have to say that a thousand-to-one would be ripping people off. $201 is shameless.
Roundup
Quite a few excellent posts today. MilBlogs has a good running tally, but here are some I noticed:
Cassidy writes about love songs.
The Geek has posted his starry flag on high.
Mudville has posts old and new on the subject of the celebrations worldwide, wherever American servicemen tred.
Laughing Wolf at BlackFive has reposted the Declaration of Independence. However often you've read it, read it again.
Sharp Knife
Normally one can count on Noel for a powerful post on Independence Day. I trust he is delayed by some honorable purpose. In any event, if you missed his Flag Day meditation, it's worth a look today.
Scorpions
I recall that, just prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, there was an interview with a Talib who impressed the Western journalist by conducting the interview while smoking scorpions. This was meant to be terrifying -- after all, how tough would you have to be to smoke a scorpion?
A few years later, we have our answer:
A discerning guest at a Manhattan cocktail party removed a scorpion from its bed of cheese atop an endive leaf and popped it in his mouth, determined to savor the taste unadulterated.See? Even the sort of American who attends "soirees" can munch a scorpion, then give you a critique of its flavor to boot.
"Nutty, sweet," was the verdict of Gourmet magazine food editor Ian Knauer at the recent soiree.
Plus, a lot of Americans are descended from Scots, where there was that... well, read it for yourself.
Happy Independence Day. Remember the example of Little Bill, and don't take guff from anyone today.
Sentator Joseph Lieberman, (Democrat from Connecticut) has announced that he's going to gather signatures for a petition to run as a write in candidate for Senate 'just in case' he loses the Democratic primary.
Plenty of people are not happy with him.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the Senator's decision, really. I mean, he simultaneously ran for Senator and Vice President in 2000.
But what is interesting here is how Lieberman, who has been vilified by the anti-war wing of the Democratic party, is setting fire to his bridges behind him.
I can't imagine that the DNC is happy with this.
So, either the Senator wins his primary, in which case its 'business as normal' sorta/kinda/maybe, or he loses the primary, which sets up a three way contest in which the Senator, by splitting the Democratic vote (assuming that he really does split the vote), may actually give the contest to the Republican candidate.
I'm sure that the RNC is hoping for the latter, but of course, we'll have to wait and see.
I think Bush Derangement Syndrome has just given rise to Lieberman Derangement Syndrome.
(via Memorandum)
The BBC has more on the incident in Mahmoudiya, Iraq in March:
A former US soldier has been arrested and charged with killing four Iraqi civilians after raping one of them, the US Justice Department said.
This is a pretty ugly incident if the guy's squadmates were involved, as is reported in this article from the Army Times.
The Army Times' article reports that:
The affidavit, filed by FBI special agent Gregor J. Ahlers of Louisville, said Green and three other soldiers from the 101st’s 502nd Infantry Regiment were working a traffic checkpoint in Mahmoudiya on March 12 when they conspired to rape a woman who lived nearby.
Which implies to me that a squad team leader is involved, because somebody had to be incharge of that traffic checkpoint.
So the soldier charged was a PFC and was discharged for having a 'personality disorder', which means he had to have been a 'problem child' even before this happened. Now, I can see one crazy guy going off and doing this. But an entire fireteam? There is something wrong in that chain of command.
What a mess this is going to be.
A kind word for KOS
Southern Appeal noticed this diary on Daily KOS, a hate-filled diatribe against the South and Southerners. It is not the first, and doubtless will not be the last, so I was prepared to write it off in that spirit. I hadn't intended to comment on it at all.
The only reason I'm going to do so is the follow-up post at the author's homepage noting that Kos and company had run him off ("like Saint Patrick casting away the snakes," in the author's own words). He has words for Kos in the same spirit as his earlier words for the South, but leave off what he has to say; it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that this was an act of decency by Kos, from whom I had not expected one. It is noted and appreciated.
Hamdan
The body politic is in an interesting place. The most important distinctions are decided time and again by razor-thin margins, yet the winning side gets all. Thus, in 2004, the electoral margin was very thin -- yet the Republicans won both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Though the margin of victory was only a few points, the whole power of the state passed into Republican hands.
In Hamdan, a 5-3 decision that would have been 5-4 if Roberts had participated decided the day. The margin was as narrow as can be, and yet the intent of the other two branches of government was set aside, and the most hardline liberal ruling in years became, for now, the law.
The SCOTUS is designed to 'tack behind' the rest of the government, as lifetime appointees of previous administration continue to hold to an older understanding of propriety. This has a conservative effect on government, in the sense that it slows and moderates change. That is the real effect of Hamdan -- to hold us to a Cold War understanding of the Geneva Conventions.
During the Cold War, terrorists and guerrillas were the regular proxies of both sides, though particularly the Communists. As such, the great powers had an interest in pretending that those groups had a kind of legitimacy they really never deserved -- whether it was the Contras or the proto-Taliban on the one side, or the Viet Cong or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or various quasi-Marxist African militias on the other. The Cold War superpowers each adopted a false morality in order to pursue the real goal of disemboweling the other sides' interest through proxies. We chose to treat these people as if they were noble freedom fighters -- at least the ones whose defiance of the laws of war was beneficial to our own side -- and now we are paying the price. The community of legal scholars who came up during the Cold War considers terrorists to simply be disadvantaged soldiers, and considers the violations of the rules of war that terrorists engage in to be simply a balancing of the playing field. We must treat them as if they were moral equals, if only to show how much better we are.
SCOTUS will come around on this one, as more justices retire and are replaced. Justices chosen after 9/11 will not be soft on terrorists, as the old-school justices have learned to be.
Nor will the international situation continue to be so kind. The Cold War is over. The great powers have changed: they are now the United States, China, and a declining European Union. There is a rising India. Of those, only the EU has an interest in continuing to treat terrorists as a sort of criminal, rather than as a sort of barbarian. The EU's power declines steadily, as it strangles itself with regulations and tries to force economies as different as Frances' and Greece's to obey the same rules. India has no love for terrorists, as it suffers more from radical Islamic terrorism than anyone; China has already adopted the issue as a way of dealing with "splittists."
The tide is strongly against Hamdan and its advocates. I join those who suspect that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress will set out to overturn it as their major business between now and the 2006 elections. They will not find it hard to do, as the groundwork is already lain. Hamdan, though stern, is a last stroke from a once-strong champion. Once that model of thinking bestrode the world. This was its last hour of strength.
As for what lays beyond, Chester has some interesting thoughts. I myself simply believe that the Republican Federal powers will undo the work of the SCOTUS, and gain political strength in doing so. The Congress will be asked for new authority, and will grant it gladly. Abroad, there is nothing at the international level that is strong enough to resist the combined interests of the United States, China, India, and Russia into the bargain.
There will be no great new rights for terrorists. They will not enjoy the full protections of courts martial, as if they were honorable men. The tide turned long ago. All we see in Hamdan is proof that a few old men and women failed to notice.
Birthday Cake
The boy is four years old now. We were moving during his birthday, so the celebration was postponed until tonight. My mother, his grandmother, made him a birthday cake.
I haven't said much about my mother (here and here are the only times I recall), but you probably know that Southern women are polite and sweet, yet stern and iron-willed.
My mother is all those things, and also rather assertive on the question of health food. This is a departure from when I was a boy; in those days, she hardly cooked at all. I left home knowing how to make everything from pancakes to lasagna from scratch. At our house, if you wanted to eat it, you'd better know how to cook it. At some point, though, she decided that she wanted to eat right and have better health, and naturally therefore she accomplished both goals. Nothing in her house is low-fiber, full-fat, or otherwise potentially unhealthy.
Which brings us to the birthday cake.
I swear this is true: his grandmother made him a prune-bran birthday cake.
She really did.
Move
I've been quiet for a few days while moving house. A few notes on the experience:
1) I've never driven a truck quite that size before. It was a very large Penske rental, right at the upper limit of what a non-commercial license allows.
2) Naturally, therefore, the first part of the drive included crossing the Blue Ridge mountains.
3) In the worst rainstorm on record.
4) Having gotten off the mountains and into the Shenandoah valley, where the rain was even worse, we came across (in the little village of New Market) an absolutely horrendous wreck involving six semis and numerous smaller vehicles. "Great," I thought. "Even the professionals can't keep the big rigs on the road today."
5) "Perhaps it was a fluke, though," I thought, carrying on down the road. About ten miles later, there was another wreck, this one involving two semis.
6) The rain was so bad that, on some occasions, traffic just stopped. After a while, people shut off their engines and waited for a break in the rain.
7) A "break" still meant very heavy rain.
8) Penske's trucks are top-notch. I loved the thing -- beautiful, powerful, outstanding.
9) Penske's service sucks. The truck was more than half a day late showing up. Nothing they told us about it was true. No proper instructions were given for anything, including the question of whether it could accept low-sulfur diesel fuel or how it was to be returned.
10) Did I need a truck that large? Yes and no. Only about one third of the truck was actual furniture or household goods. The other two thirds? About half of that was the wife's art supplies and artwork in progress. The rest was flowers. Tons of them, pot after pot, three shelves full lashed together to make big platforms and then all the floor space. I can't understand how she could acquire so many flowers.
11) OK, I can understand it -- she grew most of them from seeds. But still.
12) In spite of everything, we survived. All is well, more or less. Hope you've had a good few days.
If this report is true,
Israeli warplanes buzzed the summer residence of Syrian President Bashar Assad early Wednesday, military officials said, in a message aimed at pressuring the Syrian leader to win the release of a captured Israeli soldier.
I think the Israelis are about to take the gloves off.
Update:
I guess it is true.
This doesn't leave much wiggle room, either:
Earlier, Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that Mashaal, was a target for assassination due to his ordering of the kidnapping of Shalit.
"He is definitely in our sights ... he is a target," Ramon told Army Radio. "Khaled Mashaal, as some who is overseeing, actually commanding the terror acts, is definitely a target."
Well, it isn't like Hamas isn't asking for it.
The fellows over at Situational Awareness are going through a major change.
I wish them good luck in their new endevors, and it seems that they already more to say. Yeah, I agree. Keep bombing.
Outstanding
OOH-Rah -- I tell you what, every now and then that Bush fellow really gets one right.
Speaking of getting it right, Michelle Malkin's WWII-poster Photoshop contest results (here and especially here) are something to see. I hope we'll be seeing serious prosecution for these leakers, who took oaths to keep our secrets and then betrayed them. In the meantime, as Darleen's Place put it:
Don't Kill Her Daddy with Careless Talk!
Terrorists love soft targets.
It's you that's threatened by this.
Coffee
This afternoon I took the wife to the Borders bookstore in Warrenton, so she could look at art magazines. She loves to look at art and flower and horse magazines. Actually, she's the biggest magazine-reader I ever met. In addition to looking at these things at the store, and then buying the ones she likes best, she has numerous subscriptions. She reads every one of them cover to cover. Last Tuesday the mail brought two of them at once. When I handed them to her, I said, "Well, there goes a week's productivity." She hit me.
(Yes, Cassidy, I know.)
Anyway, we went to Borders. After the first hour or so, I had looked at everything in the store twice and decided to just go get some coffee.
The coffee shop is upstairs on a ledge overlooking the rest of the store. That's just the way they designed it.
I went upstairs and there was this young guy running the coffee stand, flirting with his female customer. He was laughing and passing her coffee and change and receipts, and making what were intended as witty comments and trying to make her laugh. Finally, he turned and suddenly tossed her the container of cream cheese for her bagel --
-- which missed her by quite a bit --
-- and landed at my feet.
He looked abashed, looked at me, looked more abashed, and managed to get the girl out of there quickly and without any further witty banter. She left, and he watched her go as he spoke to me. He was twirling a roll of tape around his finger as he talked -- 'welcome to Seattle's coffee, what can I get you' --
-- when suddenly the tape came off his finger --
-- flew past my head --
-- and landed just behind me.
He cleared his throat. I handed him his tape back, and ordered a cup of regular coffee.
He nods, turns around and sets up the cup, and opens the tap so that coffee starts to pour into my cup. He steps away to get the cream, asks if I want cream, I don't want cream, all right no cream then -- he puts the cream back.
By this point, the coffee is pouring over the top of the cup and off onto the floor.
He turns around, sees it, and with a shout -- 'Ah!' -- he shuts it off. "Well," he said, "seeing as that cup is now scalding hot and soaked I'll, er, get you another one."
He looks at the coffee machine, and notices he has poured all the coffee out on the floor.
"Would you prefer a lighter or a darker roast?" he asks.
"Dark," I said.
"Oh, good, that's all that's left." He fetches a new cup and fills it from the "DARK ROAST" pot at the end. I paid him, and sat down to read the newspaper.
A little while later, I saw two soldiers walking through the bookstore below. They were in uniform, and I noticed they were wearing the flag patch on their shoulders. They walked up into the cafe and off to the restrooms.
While they were in the restrooms, I went over to the guy and told him that -- whatever they ordered -- he was to refuse to take their money, and just let me pay for it. I told him not to tell them who'd done it. I have a good reason for that. If someone does something nice for you, you think, "What a nice guy." But if something nice is done for you by someone unknown, you think of all sorts of different people who might have done it. You think about why these people might have done it. And that gives a better sense to the soldier of just how much they really are owed.
They got their drinks and left. I studiously ignored them, in case they were searching for a sign of who might have bought them drinks. I didn't want them to know, so I just continued to read the paper.
A little while later, the wife finally came upstairs. I asked if she wanted some coffee. She said she did, so I gave her some cash and told her to go over and get whatever she wanted, and pay the man what I owed as well. She didn't understand why I would owe anything, but I told her -- don't worry about it, he'll know. She gave me a funny look, and went to pay.
A few minutes later, I hear this exchange:
"I'd like a frozen vanilla coffee. Oh, and my husband wanted me to pay what he owed."
(It turns out another clerk had come on duty, so I hear a female voice). "Who's your husband?"
"The gentleman over there."
"Hm. I don't know. Let me ask [the name of the male clerk]."
So the lady clerk called over the other clerk, and my wife repeated, "My husband said to pay what he owes."
"Who's your husband?" the male clerk asks.
"The gentleman over there," my wife ever-so-patiently repeats.
"Oh," said the clerk. "The gentleman with the hat and the big knife?"
"Yes, that one," the wife agreed.
"He doesn't owe anything," the clerk replied. "Neither do you."
And then he opened up the register, and gave her back the money I'd paid him for my coffee.
"Your drinks are on the house."
I tried to talk him into taking the money, but he flatly refused. It's a good world, you see -- sometimes.
Joking?
Heidi at Euphoric Reality points me to a story about a Nike advert that is apparently causing some objections among incredibly brain-dead kind-hearted British folk. The image in the ad is of a soccer player, who has painted himself white with a red cross that makes up his hands and arms, and from his face to his belly. The red cross is done in a ragged sort of style, with the effect that the soccer man looks a bit like a bloody albino.
It isn't the bloody-albino effect causing the protest, though, but rather:
Rev Rod Thomas of Church of England evangelical group Reform was not convinced. ‘It’s quite a disturbing image and because the paint is wet, it really looks like blood,’ he said. ‘It therefore brings to mind the crucifixion to many people, and why Nike would want to do that, I haven’t a clue, unless it is simply as a publicity stunt.’Now, we all know -- as does the Reverend Rod, who mentions it later -- that the red cross on a white field is the Cross of St. George, which happens to be the national flag of England. It is also the flag used by supporters of England's soccer team. So, as to why you'd want to paint an English soccer player with the Cross of St. George, it takes very little imagination for a thinking man to sort that out.
As for the intentional crucifixion imagery...
That was really the whole reason for the flag.
Hot
I don't know about this, but in my part of Virginia, it's too hot to think. I trust you will all forgive me, but it's almost 9 PM, the heat index is still over 92 degrees, humidity is high and rising, and I haven't had much of a coherent thought in hours.
Blackhawk, sir, when you are ready to claim your hat, please drop me an email.
Oh, yes -- the DOD did finally decide on that contract it's been pondering over for three years. It awarded it to some firm I'd never heard of until a few days ago. I've obviously made many plans and options ready in case of such an action -- when you're working on "you might be unemployed in 20 days!" for three years, your thoughts do tend to turn to contingencies -- but if anyone out there is in possession of an especially adventurous option, I would be inclined to hear it.
Oh, Boy
Celestial Junk Blog warns us to prepare for the outrage:
As news reaches us that two US troopers were “slaughtered” by Islamo-fascist terrorists, we must brace ourselves for the inevitable Mainstream Media outrage, human rights organization fury, and overall international do-gooder annoyance. It’s going to be quite something as page after page of editorials from BBC to NYT scream headlines like, “US Troopers Denied Geneva Rights”, or, “Islamist Crime Evidence that Freedom Fighters are Just Terrorists”. Daily KOS will launch into days of angry profanity filled rage against the Islamist thugs who committed the crime, and even Al Jazeera will bemoan in giant headlines, “Islam Slandered Once Again by Islamist Extremists.”I'd better go get ready.
Brace yourselves boys and girls, it’s going to be ugly. Amnesty will of course decry the fact that Islamist terrorists, after this sadistic act, are now even more depraved than the Abu Ghraib bum-pile perverts. Leftist blogs the world over will warn Muslim fanatics that they had better start wearing uniforms if they want to be accorded Geneva convention rights. And, the CBC in Canada and the BBC will come to the conclusion, that the murder of the two US servicemen, proves once and for all that “Terrorism is the enemy of all Civilization”.
H/t: The Dawn Patrol at the Mudville Gazette.
Gitmo
Strong words from Austria:
The EU has welcomed US president George W. Bush's statements on ending the Guantanamo prison camp, with the Austrian chancellor saying after Wednesday's bilateral summit that it is "grotesque" to claim that the US is harmful to world peace.I think we'd all like to see GitMo closed. The problem is -- what do you do with the people there if you close it? Bush says he'd like to send them home, except a few to be tried in US courts. I have opposed, and still do oppose, the idea of using criminal courts to try terrorists: they aren't criminals, entitled to the protections of a civilization even when they defy its laws. They're hostis humanii generis, enemies of all mankind, like pirates.
That idea has some currency in odd places. Amnesty International, for example, is trying to push nations to adopt the idea of hostis humanii generis as a way of getting at nations that engage in torture:
Initially, a federal judge dismissed the Filartigas’ claims on the grounds that Paraguay’s treatment of its own citizens was not governed by international law. But the Court of Appeals rejected this reasoning. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that torture was a violation of international law, and that torturers—like the pirates of the 18th century—were hostis humanii generis (enemies of all mankind) who could be brought to justice anywhere.Amnesty and I agree that there are enemies of that type -- people for whom civilization should set aside its protections. The questions on which we differ are these:
In the Filartiga v. Peña-Irala ruling, the appeals court relied on the 1975 United Nations Declaration Against Torture and All Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United Nations promulgated following Amnesty International’s first international campaign against torture. The relationship between human rights activism and success in the courtroom could not have been clearer.
The Filartiga case led to dozens of other cases over the next two decades against human rights violators found within the United States, including Ferdinand Marcos and Radovan Karadzic. Under the ATCA, the federal courts accepted claims of torture, extra-judicial killing, prolonged arbitrary detention, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
1) Which protections should be set aside? Amnesty for example, is willing to set aside the protections of jursidiction and national sovereignty. I am willing to set aside the protections accorded to "ordinary decent criminals" by the Western criminal court system, and pursue these enemies instead as unlawful combatants subject to the laws of war.
2) What punishments should these enemies of mankind face? Amnesty, though willing to set aside crucial parts of the justice system, wishes even humanity's worst enemies to be treated with a special gentleness: they oppose not only the death penalty, but also "supermax" style prisons that would allow you to separate people who might try to recruit others to their poisonous ways. I think that torture should be forbidden, but that execution for terrorists and unlawful combatants who hide among women and children -- because they glady endanger the lives of women and children -- should be permitted, following a proper military hearing on their status according to the forms of the Geneva Conventions.
3) Who exactly are the enemies of mankind? For Amnesty, they are mostly government officials -- which is a wise position, honestly, a wiser one than the United Nations system credits. The UN system believes that rights belong to states, and the "rights" of individuals are to be protected through the various nation states. This is why Cuba is now on the UN's Human Rights watchdog group.
For me, I am glad to agree that government officials can be the enemies of mankind, and that the worst ones ought to be hounded out of the civilized parts of the world. But these terrorists, these people who hide among the innocent and murder, they really are like the pirates of the 18th century. Lawless, stateless, mobile through the uncontrolled parts of the globe, they prey and murder and wage war against mankind.
The old idea ought to be upheld. GitMo has been our place for sticking these enemies of mankind while we decide what to do with them. It is, I think, a mistake to go through the courts, and accord criminal protections to these people -- giving them the status of criminals is too good for them. They are barbarians, outlaws, and ought to be treated as such.
Meanwhile, let's remember Austria's kind words, for which I thank them.
Feuding families bring road to a standstill
I can just hear Irene Ryan yelling "There's gonna be a feud?"
Lucky that isn't Appalachia. There'd be a body count already. Heh.
HT:Fark
Addendum
The Geek with a .45 notices a little tampering with a review of the new Superman:
Quote:Commenter Rick C notes that the trailer contains a similar formula:
-----------
In "Superman Returns" (written by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris from a story they cooked up with Singer), the caped crusader for truth, justice, etc. (Brandon Routh) returns to crime-ridden Earth after a five-year detour...
-----------
Truth, justice, etc?
Perry White demands to see if he still stands for "truth, justice--all that stuff."
I'm guessing that devotion to The American Way would be one of those 'ancient and archaic' views I keep reading about. The movie company, of course, intends to sell the film overseas -- indeed, I have heard that overseas profits are now at least as important as domestic take to some films. They don't want to go to the trouble of making an "international cut" of the film that drops the American rhetoric, and Hollywood has been out of the business of trying to sell the world on "the American way" for a long time. So, rather than make two editions of the film, they simply write the script to avoid any references to anything as 'ancient and archaic' as patriotism.
Shall I bother to get angry about that? What would be the point? The producers are money-chasers in the extreme, and the actors are mostly anti-patriots by sentiment. The latter can't be convinced by any argument of the rightness of pro-American movies, and the former have already been convinced by the only argument that matters to them -- profit margins. Nor is it worthwhile to get angry at them for caring only about the profit margins, as it is clear that Hollywood is dying. As it becomes easier to make independent films of a similar quality (this one was done years ago now, and is at least as good conceptually, and almost as good actually, as anything Lucas produced), independents will arise to produce the domestic, patriotic content that Hollywood can't afford. It is bound to the mass-market model, and that model is dying. Just as Americans will soon be making films for Americans again (so, why see a billion-dollar Hollywood job that insults us?), so shall every nation have films appropriate to it (so, why see a Hollywood job that doesn't really care about us Basques/Hindus/Whatever?). Their days are numbered, their span is dwindling, and their light is going out of the world.
So be it. Once great men lived there, kings, gods -- once, but long ago.
Why Patriotism
Much has been made of the anti-patriotic rant by one or another of the Dixie Chicks:
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."What makes this an astonishing question is that the Dixie Chicks arose from a tradition whose most famous members have directly addressed the very question asked here. Maines can't be ignorant of the answers proposed, because no one who once made a successful living as a country music singer could have failed to encounter those responses. She will have heard, for example, John Wayne's direct answer to the question, which begins:
And so he does, at length -- not only in the song, but in a book of the same name. John Wayne, feared and loathed by parts of the Left even to this day for his iconic power, was in love with a land of beauty -- truly, and purely, in love.You ask me why I love her?
Well, give me time, and I'll explain.
Nor can the Dixie Chicks have failed to hear "The Ragged Old Flag" by Johnny Cash, composed during the last period of native anti-patriotism. It takes a different tactic, less about the majesty and beauty of America than about her history. No excerpt will do the piece justice -- nor, indeed, do the lyrics do it justice. It was meant to be heard, and ought to be: but if you have not heard it, and have no access to it today, read it through.
I'm reminded of an old Warner Brother's cartoon -- another American icon, that -- starring Porky Pig, called "Old Glory." It features a lazy, child version of Porky, griping about being forced to learn the Pledge of Allegiance in school. He drifts off to sleep, and is visited by Uncle Sam, and given a vision of all that has gone before. On waking, he is insipired with a newfound sense of awe at what has gone into the making of his nation, and he learns and pledges allegiance in a pose of solemn respect.
Have you seen this cartoon? If not, watch it here.
What strikes me about all of these answers is this: to the patriot, they are beautiful, moving, inspiring, the kinds of things that make you want to get up and shout. To the anti-patriot, they are not convincing in the least. As the Salon article about John Wayne demonstrates, they look at the same things and shudder. As the fellow wrote:
For my part, I've spent the last three years working on a novel that features a thinly disguised John Wayne as the villainous central figure in a 13-year-old girl's coming-of-age story.Why should John Wayne, of all people, seem villanous -- particularly to a 13-year-old girl? My wife tells me that she spent her childhood dreaming of growing up to marry John Wayne. Still, some people do think he is a secret villian, somehow dark and evil.
I think this is a point of departure, a breaking point at which there is little to say. The answers given by Johnny Cash and John Wayne do not convince: you were either convinced when you got here, or you cannot be convinced. The loyalty of the patriot is supernatural. It is like the love of a man for his mother; it pre-exists thought, but instead arises naturally.
Sometimes, perhaps, it tries to arise -- and is instead hurt or twisted by the evil and cruelty of the world. Perhaps the anti-patriots are sensitive but flawed souls who had believed in beauty and happiness, but find that beauty fades in spite of art, and the greatest sources of happiness are also the worst sources of pain. The Salon author, drawn to Wayne though he despises him, writes:
Wayne's greatness lies in his ability to embody this figure utterly while somehow retaining a hint of innocence, of hope. He's the hard-boiled man out on the frontier, after all, not trapped in the decaying, decadent city. While personal psychic redemption may be beyond him, he stands a chance of breaking clean ground for others, of protecting the women and the fresh-faced, naive young men (Montgomery Clift, Jeffrey Hunter and, most oddly, the 54-year-old Jimmy Stewart in "Liberty Valance") who wander into the unfinished, dangerous West. America might have a chance for greatness on the back of a man like Wayne, but he'll always take others to the mountain top, never get there himself. He's seen too much ugliness, in the breaking and mastering of this wild land, in the purging of the hostile natives. In himself.Yet this is just what the patriot can do, that the anti-patriot cannot. He can love in spite of his pain; it does not twist his love into something else. The world has hurt him, yet it is still his world. The country, his mother, they are not perfect -- but they are his country and his mother. His loyalty is not diminished. He retains hope, and love, and faith.
This is precisely the quality absent in the anti-patriot. It is struck out of them, for whatever cause, a wound in the soul. People bent by such things hate as strongly as we love -- they speak of mother or country, as Maines does, through clenched teeth.
What can we do? Pity them; hope for them to heal. Otherwise, nothing. They are beyond us. Supernatural things are not for men. Perhaps a spirit will heal them. We cannot, any more than we can understand them.
They have left us.
Stetson giveaway
Quarterly taxes being due yesterday, I don't have much to offer to Project VALOR IT right now. I will, however, make a personal sacrifice if anyone will make a donation to the cause: I have a Stetson I would send to any reader who wishes to wear one of Grim's own hats (or decorate your horse with one, or whatever). It is a Chevron, which is more suitable for city wear than most Stetsons, yet still good for the countryside. It's in size 7 5/8 (or "61," in the Australian terms).
Readers must pay for shipping, and make a donation to Project VALOR IT. The size of the donation isn't as important as getting some money toward serving our wounded -- pick any amount you think fair. Email or comment if you're interested.
UPDATE: Blackhawk's offer states that he needs a hat right away to deal with the Texas summer sun. I'll leave this open the rest of the day only, to give all readers a full workday to encounter the offer and consider it, but if there are no other bids I shall close the offer tonight. We wouldn't want a man going hatless in this weather.
Bush
I have only one comment about this story: these people have outstanding taste in gifts. I'd be happy to receive any of those things.
OP VALOR IT
Grim's Hall has always supported Operation VALOR IT. Sadly, events here continue at a pace such that I haven't been able to blog much -- or read much outside of my professional readings -- the last week or two. As a consequence, I haven't mentioned the current drive to fund the operation. If you haven't seen it at other websites, please visit the link.
Read this from Monday, too.
Bedside manner
I went into see the doctor today to get a tetanus shot, on account of having stepped on a rusty nail. It took three hours -- it's getting hard to get in and out of a doctor's office, as I imagine all of you have noticed.
While I was there, I got a little taste of Gunny Therapy. It wasn't a bad wound, and I wouldn't have gone in at all except for the tetanus risk -- I cleaned it out carefully with a knife and some rubbing alcohol yesterday, so by this morning it was mostly healed and just a little sore if I put my full weight on it. After sitting for two hours waiting on the doctor, she finally turned up and asked to see the wound.
"Not much to see," I said, but she insisted, so I pulled off my boot and sock. She peered at the foot for a second or two, and so did I.
"Could be this is the wrong foot," I said. That's when she hit me.
Hey, I told her I just needed a tetanus shot.
Nice girl, for a New York Yankee. She was a vet -- Air Force -- and we talked for a little while before she went on. I did get my shot (another hour later, when someone could spare the time to give it to me), so it all worked out. Got home just in time to go pay the taxes. Happy Second Quarter to you, too.
Intelligence Coup
When I began hearing about large numbers of Al-Qaeda in Iraq members being rounded up or killed during the past week, I assumed that some sort of intelligence success had been achieved during the search for Zarqawi, and that American military, Iraqi military, and Iraqi police were moving quickly to make use of that intelligence.
It turns out that a significant amount of information was unearthed from the house that Zarqawi died in.
According to a recent announcement by Iraq's National Security Advisor, a good deal of information was found in digital form, on a laptop computer and a portable drive. (Captain Ed links to one news article; BBC news also reports about it.)
When I read this, I mused for a few moments about the term "information density", a phrase often used in computing. Information density refers to the amount of information that can be stored in a physical space--like a room full of magnetic-tape drives, a portable hard disk drive enclosure, or a thumb-drive in a person's pocket.
A significant amount of information can be held in the palm of a one's hand, using modern computer technology. Computers also make accessing and searching the data easy. That fact worked against Zarqawi's associates in this case: an Iraqi policeman was able to pick up in his hands information that would have filled at least one file-cabinet if it was reproduced on paper.
It was good news to hear that Zarqawi had been eliminated. It is even more good news to hear that his files have been ransacked and many of his compatriots have been dealt with.
Some have described the death of Zarqawi as a symbolic event, with little actual effect on the struggle against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This news belies that claim: it appears that Zarqawi's death is significant.
Russ Sends Again
Via Russ Vaughn, again:
Thank God our safety is in the hands of these guys from the Midwest and South and not those snivelly effeminates from Brown, Brandeis, Columbia and NYU. If it were so, we'd by now all be prayer rugs.Just don't forget our brothers in Texas, who deserve their own mention.
Dumézil
Despite how pissed I get, the majority are not morons. What they are is ignorant of military culture and open, through thousands of years of distrust/wariness/prejudice, to being prey to a minority with an agenda.
Televising and embedded reports, even on the scale we have today, is not enough to overcome the millennia of wariness directed towards the warrior functions. The book I reached for this afternoon was Georges Dumézil’s The Destiny of the Warrior. Dumézil is a philologist who identified a stratified society in Indo-European cultures, made up of a Sacral (First) Function of kings/priests/magicians, Warrior (Second) Function, and a Common (Third) Function made up of the everyday Joe. To get to the point, he states that no other function of society straddles the ethical boundary of society in the manner of the warrior.
Warriors train for, and engage in, actions seen as reprehensible to the greater society. Warriors make killing and deception part and parcel of their lives... they train in the very acts which threaten society in order to defend society.
Short of removing that minority, I’m not sure what we can do to overcome the fears. Intense military marketing? Compulsory military service?
Anyway- just a thought before I head out of the office for a long weekend.
AZ Cartoon war
A wee cartoon from the Arizona Republic:
Russ Vaughn sends, and suggests that you might want to write them a letter. Which, of course, is the point -- we'll be writing letters. Even the mention of "war" in the headline is just a reference to old Bugs Bunny cartoons. The blood-soaked, murderous Marines that the media loves to scorn will express their wrath with carefully-worded letters. They will explain, again, the honor and discipline of the Corps; its extraordinary history of service and the glory of its battle-record; and so forth and so on. It won't make any impression at all, except we might get a letter of apology from the editor, who probably told his administrative assistant to go ahead and dash one off for him at the same time he decided to publish this cartoon.
Not to mention any names, but I can think of some people who get more respect from various cartoonists these days. Something about arson and death threats, I think. Apparently that's the path to respect where the newspapers of the world are concerned. Maybe someday they'll stop to reflect on that fact, and what it says about them.
Bounty Hunting
Thailand has an interesting new counterinsurgency strategy it is considering: pay civilians to shoot insurgents.
As you read the article, it will help to know that Pattani is one of four Muslim-majority provinces in the south of Thailand, which are experiencing a bloody insurgency. Like most such things, this insurgency has mainly directed its violence at the defenseless -- monks, schoolteachers, immigrant workers from even poorer countries than Thailand -- though insurgents have demonstrated a capacity for fighting off the Thai military and police on occasion. Thailand, whcih has strict gun control, began arming teachers some time ago, and certain trusted citizens. Police General Chitchai Wannasathit, in addition to being Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, was recently the acting Prime Minister -- in other words, a very important man. General Sonthi is the chief of Thailand's army, also a very important man, and the first Muslim to occupy that position. It was hoped his appointment would 'win hearts and minds' among the southern insurgents, but it has not: he is a Muslim, but an ethnic Thai, whereas the insurgents are Muslims but ethnic Malays.
Now that you know all that:
The governor of Pattani wants to offer cash rewards of 50,000-100,000 baht to civilians who kill or injure insurgents in gun fights. He says rewards would give people an incentive to fight back, but academics and law experts argue it would just encourage more extra-judicial killing."People should trust the government" is not a very reassuring slogan, but "people should learn to proctect themselves" certainly is.
However, caretaker Justice Minister Chidchai Wannasathit and army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin appeared to second the idea yesterday.
Pattani governor Panu Uthairat said his proposal was a security measure aimed at protecting the lives of innocent people in the province. ''In some cases, people want to retaliate. Some have fired warning shots into the sky. Others clashed with insurgents who were killed or wounded in the process,'' he said.''Some wounded insurgents were caught. In the past, we handed out 5,000 to 10,000 baht in cash to civilians to boost their morale so they will fight back in self-defence,'' he said.
A source said civilians would be given 50,000 baht each if their return fire hit any insurgents, leading to their capture. The amount would double if the insurgents were killed.
Mr Panu said the authorities could not provide security for people around the clock. People should learn to protect themselves. They should be permitted to carry guns but only use them in self-defence, he said.
Legal experts questioned the Pattani governor's authority to offer a cash reward. Outgoing Bangkok Senator Sak Kosaengruang, formerly president of the Lawyers Council, said the idea was dangerous and unlawful.
If the reward was offered to police, it would lead to extra-judicial killing by unscrupulous officers, he warned....
Pol[ice] Gen Chidchai, also a deputy prime minister, downplayed fears a reward-system would give rise to extra-judicial killings. He promised to consider both sides of the proposal.
Gen Sonthi said the reward offer was a strategy by the governor to stimulate people to be extra careful. People should trust the government's judgment in tailoring anti-insurgent strategies to the region.
I remain convinced that, as we see the continued development of asymmetrical warfare, we will eventually have to distribute warfighting capability across the whole society. The tyrannies of the 20th century were based on the massed standing army, and civilian gun control to ensure that the army need not spend much of its time fighting the civilians. They could be kept at bay by free nations, but only with massed armies in return.
The new, would-be tyrants avoid the armies, and slip into our societies to take cover among civilians. Civilians are also their primary targets, in order to wreak such terror as to obtain by destroying a nation's will what they otherwise lack the strength to gain. Only the armed citizen could be assured of being present enough of the time, at enough places, to defend against such an enemy.
The Thais are finding that out. Despite their attachment to the idea of gun control, which they would very much like to believe is the right and moral policy, they are having to abandon it because it is not sustainable in the face of a modern insurgency. Irony abounds: the insurgents, by proving that they are capable of defeating the Thai army, are making free men and citizens out of the subjects of Thailand's King.
The new tyrants bypass hard targets to seek soft, defenseless ones. We must therefore harden the entire society. This is not a sentiment, but a truth. Even those who are sentimental about gun control, as is Buddhist-majority Thailand, come to realize it. The citizen ceases to be a mere unit of production for supporting the state's endeavours, important only because he works to build the nation's economy, pays taxes to support government spending, and is kept disarmed so that he can't protest too loudly about the taxes.
Instead, the citizen becomes what he was meant to be. The nations of the world will find that they need him. They shall have to arm him. Therefore, they shall also have to listen to him.
Rite of Passage
It seems that I've been away from the Hall for too long. I return, partly because I have a question to pose to the membes of the Hall.
In the recent past, I have had many opportunities to think about rites of passage. Most recently, I went through a significant one myself, having earned an M.S. degree in my chosen field of study. However, I have also seen family friends celebrate the commencement of high-school education, and one of the friends of the Hall has received an M.D. (I haven't heard of many Marines who received that honor after their service...)
All these events are rites of passage. They mark the achievement of a goal. They mark the honoree as having left one class and entered another.
The question that comes to mind is this: is there a specific rite of passage that turns a boy into a man? Is there an event that we can say qualifies a young man as having risen to full (adult) manhood?
During my pondering of this question, I remembered a comment from Grim that I originally took as a joke:
With a possible exception for certain foreign countries, there is no such thing as a gun-free man.I would be happy to accept this as the mark of manhood--but if you feel that something else should be used, feel free to comment on it.
All Active duty branches have met their targets for the year so far for both new recruits and and reenlistments. Even the Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve are at 103%, 96% and 100% of their YTD goals respectively.
These look like better than pre-9/11/2001 numbers. Interesting.
Can you just imagine the conversations going on right now at Gitmo? I'll bet you some procedures are going to get rewritten.
(Not that I particularly care that those guys offed themselves, mind you.)
Stratergy
Iraq's new leader, Nouri al-Maliki, has written a piece for the Washington Post. He explains to Americans, and anyone else who cares to read it, the agenda for his new government. I wish him the best of luck with it.