Croc Hunter

On the Death of the Crocodile Hunter:

I saw (via InstaPundit) that the "Crocodile Hunter," whom I learned was really named Steve Irwin, died after an encounter with a sting ray. Austin Bay has some words for the event, with which I find I entirely disagree. He portrays Steve Irwin as some sort of haunted figure, suffering from some dark inner need:

In the komodo dragon show I thought Irwin crossed the line from skilled showmanship to inexcuseable thrill-seeking – wagered mortality is tantalizing, but adds a queasy, dark twist to a family program. I told my wife “I wonder if this guy (Irwin) has a death wish?”

If my comments on the komodo dragon show seem a bit harsh, understand I’ve watched it a half-dozen times. I’ve gaped with the rest of the circus audience.

But I may never watch it again. Irwin died over the weekend, died while filming at-close-quarters another dangerous species. The poisoned barb of a sting ray put a hole in his heart.... [It was a] violent, unnecessary death.

Irwin was idiosyncratic, personable, enthusiastic, informed, and physically courageous. That’s a lot to admire. But what drove him to get too close one too many times?

I myself have seen only one episode of "The Crocodile Hunter," one time -- precisely because I can't stand some of the qualities Austin Bay admires. What he found enthusiastic and personable, I found irritating and noisy.

That said, Irwin may have been the least dark, haunted figure in easy memory. He got close to those animals because he loved them. That is the same reason he read all he could about them, and loved to tell others about them.

Far from a death wish -- a wish easy to fulfill, if it is genuine! -- Irwin seems to me to have had a real love of life and of the world into which he was born. It is a dangerous world, but he refused to be afraid of it. He embraced that world as he found it, and if it killed him, well, it's going to kill all of us, too.

So, no, it wasn't an unnecessary death: he was already going to die. So are you.

It was a violent death, but so what? Violent is not a synonym for bad. Do you really want to die from organ failure in some hospital, or after some lingering illness? If not, you've really only got two options: die suddenly from a heart attack or other quick-acting cause, or die violently.

An argument can be made that a family man has a duty to survive, as long as survival is honorable, in order to provide for his family. Well, I don't doubt that Irwin had laid plenty of investments, so that his family is protected from ruin. His death will surely cause them grief, but so would his death from a heart attack. We aren't entitled to have those we love around forever, any more than we are entitled not to die.

A serious engagement with the deepest philosophical questions in life suggests to me that Irwin lived exactly the right way. He was an adventurer, and if I found his television manner impossible to tolerate, I admire everything else about the man. May I die the same way: engaged in experiencing, and loving, the world into which I was born.

Not fearing death is not the same thing as wishing for it. Neither is it dark. It is the right and proper attitude: the one to which the sages and the religions alike counsel us, and which martial art and meditation both seek to create.

The Crocodile Hunter got that, got all of it. Good for him!

Podcast

Podcast with Abizaid:

The Saint Petersburg Times has an audio interview with CDRUSCENTCOM General John Abizaid. You can download it, or listen to it from the website.

The general emphasizes cautious optimism on Iraq, with a focus on steady progress. However, he also warns that most of what remains to be done has to be done by the Iraqi people themselves -- and if they choose not to, but prefer sectarian conflict, we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq in spite of them. He also warns against US public pessimism arising from negative press reporting in the news cycle.

It's a quick interview, with nothing surprising, but it is good to hear the General expressing confidence.

Geek Grendel

Terror House II:

The actual description of Geek with a .45's trip to Hungary's Terror House is posted. You can, and you should, read it here.

Hungary

Terror House:

The Geek w/ A .45's series on his trip to Budapest takes a turn from the celebratory to the horrific. All the same, this piece deserves to be read.

Strange Story

Strange Story:

I discovered sometime last week that a pair of journalists (FOX News) had been missing and presumed captive in Palestine.

Things looked much better when news came out they'd been released unharmed in Gaza after two weeks of captivity. That was not the expected outcome of the captivity, which made this result unexpected.

However, things go from unexpected to strange when I read about the reason for the release: as recounted by FOX news, they had converted to Islam. (A tip of the hat to Rev. Donald Sensing on this story.)

My first thought was of a sarcastic cartoon I saw years ago. The cartoon featured a Crusader on horse holding a spear at the throat of a Muslim soldier. The Muslim was saying, "I'm very interested in this faith of yours. Why don't you tell me more?"

The point of that cartoon was apparently that the Crusaders weren't likely to meet such people on the battlefield, or convert them. It was modern Western thought laughing at something that was totally foreign to its worldview.

The concept is funny when we think of our distant ancestors doing it. It is less than funny--it is frightening--when we realize that there are men alive today who would do the same to us. Disturbingly, forced conversion is now an example of how to avoid death while in captivity to these men.

As Rev. Sensing comments, avoidance of religious coercion in modern America has reached the level of arguing whether a cross on a city monument is a government agency establishing religion. At times, it seems that certain forces in public life seem bent on removing religion from the public sphere.

And now we learn that some religious men will hold a gun to a man's head as a method of proselytization.

Perhaps we should, as a nation, gladly invite religion into the public sphere. As long as the believers understand that coercion of religious belief is out-of-bounds.

There's a lot more to be said about conversions to Islam, forced conversion, and Western culture--but Rev. Sensing seems to have covered most of it. I'll refrain from repeating what he said.

Budapest

"Ah, the City of Cathedrals"

Geek with a .45 is just back from Budapest. Don't miss his writeup on the statuary of the city, with the help of his guide:

Is statue of liberty. You know, gift of liberty from soviets. Soviets set us free from ourselves. Gee, thanks, soviets. For nothing. Bah. Assholes!

What is a "clean E," anyway?

Long War

The Long War:

A West Point Major and myself discuss it here.

More Neighbor Fun

More Fun With Neighbors:

Some of you will recall that I recently moved. Longtime readers may recall the adventures of Captain Moonshine near the previous residence. Ah, the good old days. He was, at least, over the hill and down the road.

So today I go out to move my tools out of the rain, when all of a sudden I find myself laying in the yard I was clearing of overgrowth from the time when the log house lay unoccupied. "That was a gunshot," I think to myself, putting together why I'm laying down in a field in the rain. It was indeed. Not sixty yards away, someone had fired what was either a small-caliber rifle or a large-caliber handgun -- if a rifle, smaller than .30 caliber, and if a handgun, larger.

They fired again, and I realized that, while they were not shooting at me, they weren't shooting that far away from me either. I heard a scurrying in the bush, where some deer were vacating the area.

All this was right up by the house, where a small bit of tree and bush separates the clearing in which the house is located from a guy's driveway. The guy, my neighbor whom I've yet to meet, had decided to shoot at the deer -- without taking into account the little problem of the house being a few feet from his line of fire. With a ricochet, the bullet could easily be in the house, particulary if it hit a window instead of a log wall.

I haven't met this neighbor as yet. I did, however, speak to a deputy sheriff who came out to investigate the reports of gunfire. He assured me, based on my description, that it was perfectly legal given that the guy has enough property and was shooting on his own.

"That's fine," I said, "as I hadn't intended to press charges if it were illegal. I don't care if he carries a gun. I don't care if he wants to shoot his gun. But would you mind asking him not to shoot his gun at my house?"

The deputy said he'd be glad to mention it, although, as noted, there's nothing in the law to stop the fellow from doing so.

I don't much like people, and so I have perhaps been remiss in arranging to meet the neighbors. I shall have to have a talk with this one soon. No doubt we will come to a common understanding on the subject.

Booby Trap

Booby Trap:

The Donovan points out that a new risk threatens our soldiers.

Dogs

Dog Treats:

Andi at Milblogs points out a story I think is great: care packages for canine soldiers.

Iraq poll

A Poll in Iraq:

If you haven't seen this opinion poll of Iraqis, take a look at it. It's interesting: a plurality of Iraqis think the nation is going in the right direction; more Iraqis as a percentage than Americans think so; and sixty percent of those polled give their own local security a favorable rating.

Obviously, this has a lot to do with the quality of information: Americans are depending on a media that won't set foot outside the hotel for the most part, plus hired stringers they're paying to produce "newsworthy" (i.e., bad) stories, plus some news organizations that are actually attempting to produce bad news (e.g., the Italian communist news). The Iraqis actually live there, and can see whether things seem to be getting better or worse directly.

A second factor may be the absence of a retreat option for the Iraqis. From an American perspective, the question "Is Iraq going the right or the wrong direction" will normally be read "Will we be able to leave a peaceful Iraq soon, or not?" Given that there are hostile factions with permanent interests in conflict, the odds of perfect peace in the region are small; Saddam enforced what he called "peace" by killing massive numbers of people, in effect waging a permanant war. America is trying to help build a form of government that will allow those interests to be negotiated, along with a military/police structure capable of encouraging negotiation by being a credible threat. This is taking a while, for several reasons, and Americans are really trying to decide, "Is this all worth it?" Americans are thus not really thinking about the question "Is it getting better?", but are silently inserting "Are we almost done?"

Iraqis, on the other hand, are not thinking about a "real" question when asked if things are getting better or not. If the question is "Are things getting better?", the answer is either yes or no; but whichever it is, the Iraqis aren't going anywhere.

From an American perspective, is it getting better -- which is to say, is this all worth it?

Here we see the problem of answering the one question as if it were the other. Of course it is worth it; and more than that, it's morally required of us. Afghanistan shows what happens when an Islamic state is left in civil war because Western powers lost interest in it. If we, in the 1990s, had stood up to helping Afghans recover from the war against the Soviets that we helped to worsen and continue, there might never have been a Taliban, a haven for al Qaeda, a 9/11. We didn't, because we felt we had no further interest. Iraq, now that we have destroyed Saddam's government, is a place to which we owe a similar debt. Like postwar Japan, if we rebuild it carefully and correctly, it will pay dividends long into the future; like Afghanistan, if we fail it, we shall someday rue that failure of spine and ethics.

Is it getting better, though? Well, there are good signs, and evil prognostications.

My own sense is that the odds of successful negotiation in Iraq are greatly increased by the strengthening of the Iraqi Army, who is now on display in Baghdad, where their example will not be missed; and the completion of the network of border forts discussed here recently, which can serve as an anvil to the IA's hammer if the Sunni insurgents insist on fighting instead of talking. A credible military option always makes diplomacy easier. Those forts and that army gives the central government the power to drive the tribes that refuse to negotiate, break them on the anvil, and then lock their remnants beyond the borders; having that power, they will likely find that the tribes are more willing to accept carrots than insist on the sticks.

My own preferred response to the question of Iraq is the one offered by General Mattis, surely the greatest general of our age.

"It is mostly a matter of wills," Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis said during an exclusive interview with the North County Times. "Whose will is going to break first? Ours or the enemy's?" ...

Mattis, who led the Marines in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and led the 1st Marine Division in the invasion of Iraq and march to Baghdad in early 2003, said he was once asked by an Iraqi when he would leave that country.

"I said I am never going to leave. I told him I had found a little piece of property down on the Euphrates River and I was going to have a retirement home built there.

"I did that because I wanted to disabuse him of any sense that he could wait me out."

Why shouldn't an American be able to build a retirement home on the Euphrates, just as he might build one on the Rhine if he wished? Our forces will someday leave, because they are no longer needed, but we hope to bring Iraq into a wider world. The hope should be that America never leaves -- our soldiers do, but our financiers, our businessmen, our diplomats, friends and companions, these Americans tie Iraq into a world larger than that created by thoughts ever turned to ethnic conflict.

Is that possible? My sense has always been that there is only one way to find out if you can do a thing, and that is to do it. If you succeed, you know for certain that it can be done. If you fail, you don't know for certain that it can't be done: most likely, you didn't do it right. Try again, if you can; or, if you cannot, having suffered some injury along the way that forbids a second chance, let others learn from the failure.

For that reason, I am disinclined to hear that anything "cannot be done," which I have heard from very smart people on the subject of Iraq since the beginning. I talked to a fellow from the CATO institute about Iraq a few months ago, and he was one of the type: his speech was flavored with words like "cannot," "impossible," and "never." Nonsense. Too many of these people, who not only are smart but make their livings by being smart, have said such things and are now committed to them. They must, to continue to be thought smart, be proven right: which means they are committed to failure.

I'll take my stand with General Mattis, gladly.
General, when you're done in Iraq, we need you in the White House. We've been looking for someone like you for a while.

A Law explained

A Basic Law of Economics, Explained:

Here, with thanks to Cowboy Blob.

Not Cutting Aid for wounded soldiers

Cutting Aid for Wounded Soldiers in an Election Year:

A war fought with IEDs produces a larger percentage of brain injuries than in previous wars, fought mostly with rifles. The overpressure of the blast waves, detonated at close range, have been the source of an unfortunate number of such cases.

Congress, of course, is cutting funding for brain-injury programs. Their explanation was that "there were so many priorities" that they could not get to it.

It is plain to see that some things are more dangerous to one's brain than an enemy IED. Service in Congress would appear to be one of them. Unlike the soldiers, however, the Congressmen have no honorable explanation for their malady.

Good Job

Good Job:

It is always good to see these kidnapper gangs busted up, and it is always good to see weapons caches recovered.

Iraqi army soldiers conducted a raid and rescued a kidnap victim after receiving a tip from a concerned Iraqi citizen that led them to a location in Baghdad’s Adhamiyah neighborhood Friday night. The Iraqi citizen lead soldiers from 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, to a house where the victims and a weapons cache were located. Inside the building they seized two rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 20 RPG rounds, nine RPG propellant charges, an AK-47, two sniper rifles and 12 hand grenades. Two suspected terrorists were detained in connection with the kidnapping.

Well done -- Iraqi Army working with Iraqi citizens. But the Coalition hasn't left yet either:

In a separate event, Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers rescued three kidnap victims after receiving a tip from an Iraqi citizen southeast of Baghdad Friday afternoon. Soldiers from Company C, 1st Battalion, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, were approached by a young man who informed an interpreter there were kidnap victims inside a nearby house. MND-B Soldiers moved to the house, where they found three victims tied up, blindfolded and lying on the floor with a kidnapper watching over them. Soldiers entered the house and rescued the victims and detained the kidnapper.

Good work all around.

Ithaca:

Ahem. This reminds me of something.

The old man next looked upon Ulysses; "Tell me," he said, "who is that other, shorter by a head than Agamemnon, but broader across the chest and shoulders? His armour is laid upon the ground, and he stalks in front of the ranks as it were some great woolly ram ordering his ewes."

And Helen answered, "He is Ulysses, a man of great craft, son of Laertes. He was born in rugged Ithaca, and excels in all manner of stratagems and subtle cunning."

On this Antenor said, "Madam, you have spoken truly. Ulysses once came here as envoy about yourself, and Menelaus with him. I received them in my own house, and therefore know both of them by sight and conversation. When they stood up in presence of the assembled Trojans, Menelaus was the broader shouldered, but when both were seated Ulysses had the more royal presence. After a time they delivered their message, and the speech of Menelaus ran trippingly on the tongue; he did not say much, for he was a man of few words, but he spoke very clearly and to the point, though he was the younger man of the two; Ulysses, on the other hand, when he rose to speak, was at first silent and kept his eyes fixed upon the ground. There was no play nor graceful movement of his sceptre; he kept it straight and stiff like a man unpractised in oratory- one might have taken him for a mere churl or simpleton; but when he raised his voice, and the words came driving from his deep chest like winter snow before the wind, then there was none to touch him, and no man thought further of what he looked like."

Ah, son of Laertes, here are more fine sons who act 'like rams among sheep.' I'm not sure how formidable in council they will prove, but every man can't be Odysseus.

H/t: MilBlogs.

Happy B-Day Clinton

A Clintonian Birthday:

Russ Vaughn has composed some birthday wishes for Bill Clinton. It's just as off-color as you'd expect, given the Clinton legacy.

Ooh-Rah:

Here's a great story that shows why we should be proud to have the allies we have. This guy is what "British Sergeant Major" is all about.

H/t John (Arrgh!) at MilBlogs.

Plato Sucks

Plato Sucks:

I feel a lot better after reading this critique of Plato from the London Guardian.

[The Republic] is long, sprawling and meandering. Far from holding water, its arguments range from ordinarily leaky to leaky in that zany way which leaves some interpreters unable to recognise them as ever intended to hold water at all. Its apparent theory of human nature is fanciful, and might seem inconsistent. Its apparent political implications are mainly disagreeable, and often appalling. In so far as Plato has a legacy in politics, it includes theocracy or rule by priests, militarism, nationalism, hierarchy, illiberalism, totalitarianism and complete disdain of the economic structures of society, born in his case of privileged slave-ownership. In Republic he managed to attach himself both to the most static conservatism and to the most wild-eyed utopianism.... [Socrates] is shown as the spokesman for a repressive, authoritarian, static, hierarchical society in which everything up to and including sexual relations and birth control is regulated by the political classes, who deliberately use lies for the purpose.

Wow. If that's how the Left treats Plato, I never had a chance. :)

Beer & The Wood

Swords and Songs and Beer:

Today is a day I mark with celebration each year: the day that I first encounter a seasonal Oktoberfest brew for sale. Ah! Autumn, as good as Spring, is coming at last.

The 2004 post celebrating the first October beer is here, and explains the history of October beer for the English-speaking world. Follow the link (or just click this one) to an article called "Dragon's Milk: English October Beer."

On the same topics, a post from back in 2003 on the Merry life of Robin Hood, and a song by yours truly on the subject.

A merry day to you. Would that we could gather over a butt of good October in person.

Swords:

Kim du Toit has cause this week to recommend the keeping of swords. Good on him -- there is nothing better than a sword.

Let me recommend (as I did to Kim) the work of Alex Cameron, one of the last surviving members of the medieval Glaswegian Swordmakers Guild. I own a few pieces of his work, including a customized sword made just the right length for a man of my height and length of arm. It hangs, polished mirror-bright, on the wall of my office.

I have never owned one of these, but I certainly wish I had. If anyone wants a report on the quality of such a thing, enough to help fund the purchase of one, let me know. :)

Camping again

Off Again:

I am taking advantage of three days' unseasonably cool weather to go into the Wild. I will return Monday, or thereabouts.

In the meanwhile, there are a number of good posts at BlackFive. There are also some posts from me there, as I sometimes post things there for that audience I don't put up here. Froggy has more on the Navy SEAL recently (and, sadly, posthumously) awarded the Silver Star. BlackFive himself has reposted an old piece on the difference between the illegal immigration problem, and the Jihadi problem. Jimbo has a good piece on the recent terror attacks, which were thwarted by means that certain people will regard as violations of civil liberties. And so forth.

If you can't get out and enjoy the weather also, by all means enjoy the writing. I'll see you next week.

Chickens

Chicken, Road, Crossing:

John's post at MilBlogs is very funny. The comments include some additional suggestions which are just as funny.

Hate Crimes

Hate Crimes & The South:

Via Southern Appeal, a truly remarkable piece on the accounting of hate crimes. I had always opposed the legislation creating such offenses on the grounds that it criminalized thought -- that, in other words, the crime was already a crime, so all you were punishing here was the attitude. You have a right to think and say what you want, in America, so it seemed improper.

On the other hand, that accounting has made it possible to undermine some old stereotypes, so deeply rooted that even I -- proud Southerner -- am astonished by the results.

For example:

* That it is fifty times more likely that a man will be victim of a race-based hate crime in Minnesota than in Alabama.

* That the bottom four states for such crimes are all Southern states, including my own Georgia.

* That the worst regions of the country are the deepest Blue states, especially the northeast and upper mid-west.

Outstanding. It's the kind of thing you'd want to believe about your homeland in spite of the evidence. How wonderful to see that the evidence, in fact, is on your side.

Goodbye, Cynthia

Goodbye, Now:

Lest anyone think that I am totally opposed to all forms of innovation, allow me to congratulate my Fourth District countrymen on ridding themselves of the worst representative in Congress. Well done!

A Marine finally makes it home after 44 64 years.

Its sad that this gets ignored by the news, because something like this has happened each month this year since May.

Those JPAC people are to be commended.

Update: mea culpa--I can't do simple math anymore.

fool headlines

A Foolish Headline:

From the Associated Press: "Mideast fight ramps up despite diplomacy."

One might better say, "due to diplomacy." The impending US-French "peace plan" means that a ceasefire demand from the UN will be forthcoming. It is thus increasingly important to all parties to resolve the situation on the ground into something they will find to their advantage in case the ceasefire takes effect. The increased intensity of the fighting is therefore a direct result of the diplomacy.

I know the average reader things diplomacy = peace, but a professional analyst of the events ought to have learned better by now.

Tribes S Iraq

The Tribes Together:

I think this article is an interesting case study. It shows the effect of an authoritarian government on a once-independent tribal structure, and how the fall of that government negatively impacted the tribes. On the other hand, the main tribe discussed here was only too glad to take the risks associated with freedom -- the sheikh ordered no resistance to Coalition forces, and not one shot has been fired by his men.

Though they are still relearning the skills lost during Saddam's regime, the Obide tribes are coming together with the Guerarie, Jabor, and Gueranie tribes to bring renewed prosperity to the south of Iraq. The Iraqi Army, now able to conduct independent operations in many areas, is beginning to have troops they can spare for aiding civil reconstruction missions. Speaking of which, the Iraqi TRADOC has opened, which includes a version of DLI.

The development of an Iraqi TRADOC is an interesting development in and of itself, and it shows that the development of the Iraqi army is full-scale: not just building combat forces to hold the line so the Coalition doesn't have to, but building a fully-independent military capable of developing doctrine and lessons-learned, and coming to its own conclusions about what to do in the future. Rather than simply tying them to US training and doctrine, we've taught them how to build their own.

Another interesting story: the completion of the border outposts in the West of Iraq.

What interests me here is the opportunity to do a little military science. Take a look at the picture of the fort. You can tell from the way a fort is constructed what kind of forces they're expecting to oppose. The high walls and turrets give them the ability to repel attempts to overrun the forts, and provide overlapping fields of fire on any attempt to take any of the walls.

This is a fort set up to repel an infantry attack. It lacks defenses against artillery (such as thick, sloping walls) and heavy cavalry (such as ditches). Given the 20-40 man size of the garrison, they're well prepared to hold off small-scale raids by smugglers or terrorist units, but not heavier opposition.

That's perfectly sensible given the situation on the ground there, and just what you'd expect. I mention it only as an item of interest for readers who are learning about military science, not for experienced hands. There's a great deal to be learned from even a quick snapshot, if you know what you should be looking for.

Christian Muslim

A Christian Muslim American:

Sovay tells me -- and sends a link to back it up -- that our self-described "Muslim American" was a recent convert to Christianity, although he had stopped attending church and turned up at an Islamic center not long before the shooting.

He told the Christian group he'd joined that he'd 'seen too much anger in Islam,' which prompted his conversion. Assuming that statement is accurate, we can read that his community of faith in earlier days was not of the more moderate Islamic type. We all know, having seen it played out in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the angrier sort of imam declares that apostasy is punishable by death and damnation.

If I were a journalist, and could manage an interview, I'd ask him about this. Was this the act of a man who had been raised to believe that apostates went to Hell -- who then left the faith due to concerns about its anger -- and then began to fear for his soul? What if the old imams were right? Would that prompt him to stop attending those Christian meetings -- to return to Islamic centers -- and then, raised to believe in the angry Islamic way, to try to redeem his soul with blood?

The story also says he had trouble holding a job, and was confusing to those who knew him. It's likely that the main thing behind the shooting was his own instability, rather than Islamic teachings.

On the other hand, we've also seen this model before -- in Palestinian suicide bombers, particularly the female ones. Many times they have (as he had) advanced education and good prospects. They often carry out their attacks mainly because of points of honor -- because they have been raised to believe that only in this way can they remove some stain on their soul.

It would be worth asking if that is the case here. We ought to find out -- if we can -- why he felt he should kill in Islam's name, by declaring himself a Muslim just before he opened fire.

Stories from CENTCOM

CENTCOM Still Cares:

More news stories CENTCOM would like you to see:

Iraqi Army captures four terrorists.

MultiNational Division, Baghdad captures four more.

The latter four were dressed up as Iraqi policemen. Good catch by MND-B.

B-M-Spirit

Body-Mind-Spirit:

Jake Ross, one of Matt Furey's disciples, has a similar business built on the idea of teaching you hand-to-hand combat. I've mentioned that I like the Furey exercise program, which works and works well. Somehow I've gotten on Jake Ross' mailing lists, and I have to say, I have my doubts about his program.

He sent an email out yesterday, one of many he's sent, but a particularly bothersome one:

War is very simple, but the simple things in war are very difficult.
To quote a famous 18th century soldier.

And what is a street fight but a war, one guy at a time? So, it's
important that we focus on what makes the biggest difference in street
combat.

Let's think about hunting. The whole point of shooting the prey is to
kill it cleanly. The smaller the weapon, the lesser the energy, the
more difficult the kill. While this may add a certain panache to the
hunt, it's not the intelligent, high percentage way to hunt. So, we see
hunters using weapons powerful enough to kill the prey, with a decent
shot, without taking the chance of a wounding, but not a non-killing,
hit.

So, when you're discussing street defense, the question is always
there, in the back of your mind, like the scent of an old cellar. "What
happens if I give him my best shot and he doesn't fall?"

What, indeed.

So, you need to learn to strike with real power. Enough power to
really damage the person you hit.

Let's talk more about this later,

Jake Ross

I'll start by answering the question he proposes: What happens if you hit a guy as hard as you can, and he doesn't fall? Answer -- hit him again.

The body has several natural defense mechanisms to pain and blows. There are endorphins, adrenaline, reduction of blood in certain areas likely to be affected, and so forth. These mechanisms have developed over millions of years, to make your body able to take a pretty stiff blow without stopping you from doing what you need to do.

However, they do have operational limits. Sometimes, a particularly powerful blow can overcome them -- which is what Mr. Ross is selling. He wants to teach you to hit harder. Good on him, if he can.

But you can also overpower these defenses by hitting more than once. If your best isn't good enough, your best twice or three times could be.

You can test this yourself. Take a hairbrush with a hard back. Hit yourself on the leg with it, hard as you can. Now do it again, same spot. Now a third time.

As you can see, your body's ability to shrug off the pain diminishes quickly. You can take the first blow, and it's a shock. By blow number three, you're not resisting the pain any more -- you get it all. The same principle applies to defensive blows.

(An aside: The Chinese say that life force -- qi -- flows through the body in channels, which flow can be disrupted by strikes along those channels, or at particular points on the channel. Leaving aside the question of whether or not qi really exists or functions as claimed, qi theory also agrees with the multiple-blow thesis. By the third blow, my teacher told me, all the defense is gone, and the body is receiving full damage from the strike. Since it's possible to verify the basic idea empirically (e.g. with the hairbrush), I pass along the information.)

The same idea is at work with firearms. Some people -- like me -- prefer a heavy caliber that hits harder, a .44 Special or .45 Colt. Other people, though, achieve roughly the same result with a light caliber that allows them to deliver multiple shots on target. The body may be able to (temporarily) overcome the shock of a .38 Special wound, but it is not likely to overcome the shock of four of them.

The point here is this: if your enemy doesn't fall to your best shot, that doesn't mean you can't beat him. You can. Hit him again, just as hard, in the same spot if you're able.

This brings me to what I really wanted to write about today.

In every fight between men, there are really three contests going on at the same time: a contest of bodies, a contest of minds, and a contest of spirits. Of the three, the spiritual contest is the one that matters most. The mental contest is second. The physical contest, though not unimportant, is really the least of the three.

The Jake Ross method seems to be focused on the physical. He scorns the importance of the mental contest -- see how his letter is satisfied with citing "a famous 18th century soldier." The source of that quote, readers of Grim's Hall know well, was Clausewitz, whose On War remains one of the most important texts of military science ever written.

If you're serious about teaching people how to fight, you have to teach them how to think about fighting. You have to take that aspect of it seriously. The paraphrase of Clausewitz refers to his doctrine of friction, which is one of the most important ideas ever recognized by military science.

The spiritual aspects are even more important. Mr. Ross is selling by suggesting that you should be afraid -- 'what if he doesn't fall'? That's the wrong attitude to take to a fight. The right attitude is, "Whatever it takes, he's going down."

Mr. Ross wants to teach you to hit harder. Well and good, but it's not the real answer. The real answer is to learn to keep hitting. It's the area of the spirit in which contests are won, whether fights between men in the street, or wars between nations.

Consider the conflict in Iraq, if you doubt it: there is no way that the enemy can defeat the United States physically or mentally, yet it could still win if it exhausts the spirit of the nation to see through to victory. It has always been the case, from the beginning, that the only place where we could be defeated was in our own national will.

By the same token, the United States can clear the field of its foes every time they raise their heads. Yet the real arena of victory has always been the hearts of the populace.

Another of Clausewitz's theories was the culminating point of victory, that point at which a fighting force is excused by the populace for whatever it does, because the populace identifies with it. In Iraq, in spite of the continuing difficulties, we are approaching that point. The population wearies of the militias, of the kidnappings, of the constant danger hanging over their heads. Sunni and Shi'ite alike weary of these things. The Iraqi Security Forces have just promised to handle security nationwide by the end of the year. The people are increasingly placing their faith in those forces, and turning against the militias. When we cross the tipping point on this one, we will at last have stability in Iraq.

The opposite is happening in Lebanon. Israel began with attacks on civilian transportation infrastructure, from naval blockades to attacks on the airport. This, combined with the deaths of Lebanese innocents caused by Hezbollah's dishonorable tactics of hiding among civilians, has led to a resurgence of support for Hezbollah. For the moment, at least, Lebanon identifies with Hezbollah. Israel may be able to achieve strategic goals in the area, as for example reducing the number of rocket launchers and perhaps creating a buffer zone. It will not be able to win an existential fight with Hezbollah at this time, however: for now, Hezbollah is safely across the point at which many of the people of Lebanon will protect and shelter them, and even aid them out of a sense of identity.

(Another aside: this idea of a buffer zone is a doubtful strategum, it seems to me; if the UN sends a force to secure such a zone, as it says it may, why wouldn't Hezbollah simply carry on attacking from that zone? Does anyone think the UN will really be able, to say nothing of being willing, to stop them? If Israel needs to respond, it won't be attacking merely the sovereign territory of Lebanon -- it will be attacking territory guarded by the armed forces of several nations, each of whom will then be interested in reprisals. Hezbollah will be given a safer haven than it has now.)

It is the realm of the spirit that really matters. This echoes through the writings of the greatest martial artists and military scientists alike. Napoleon said that "Morale is to the physical as three is to one." The Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote that "seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." How to do this? Either you have out-thought him, so that there is no point to his trying to fight you from the inferior position into which you have put him; or you have convinced him that he cannot win, and thus defeated his spirit without having to fight his body.

Then there is Clausewitz again. In his writings on what he called the 'trinity,' he said that there were three elements that governed success in war: National will, political strategy, and the sum of the ways that the various skirmishes and other conflicts worked out on the ground according to the wager of battle. The first was the most important, he wrote.

And what is that trinity, but a restatement of the same idea? National will is the realm of the spirit; politics and strategies the realm of the mind; and the conflict itself is the physical realm. The first and most important is the will -- it is the spirit. If we find ourselves flagging, that is what we must turn ourselves to reinforcing.

So, if you are approached by a man you think you may have to strike in self defense, do not fear that you can't knock him down even if you hit your hardest. Resolve, rather, that you will.

Proportionality

Proportionality:

The Economist has a good overview of what the Just War tradition has to say on the subject, and how it applies to Israel today. They finish:

In the end, some philosophers think, debate about the ethics of war will have to reintegrate two ancient questions— about the right to go to war, and the methods that may be used— which have become artificially separated in modern times. To put it more simply, nobody will be impressed with a line that goes: “We didn't start this war, so our cause is just—but now that it's begun, we'll fight as dirty as we like.” Augustine saw the questions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello as intertwined—and so, probably, should modern man.

The Just War reading of proportionality, which began with Augustine, does have a jus in bello aspect which is not mentioned in the article. It is based on the idea of nationalism, which was once an ideal for whom men held great hopes. Like some advocates of democracy promotion today, advocates of nationalism believed that it could bring an end to war -- or at least lessen it notably.

The idea was that every group of people had a unique take on life, and needed its own space so that it could have laws that accorded with that take. Scots needed to be Scots, not ruled by English laws; the same for the Irish. The same for the Slavs. The same, some argued, for the Jews.

When such nations came to exist, they were seen as having a real sovereignity: this is, indeed, why we today view the nation-state as the righteous seat of sovereignty. These nations were viewed as arising from natural law, and a hedge against the horrors of war. Should such a state fall and come to be dominated by others, advocates of nationalism believed, war could be the only result: a righteous war for independence.

Insofar as Israel today can demonstrate that it is facing the destruction of its state, it can therefore justify almost any conduct as "proportionate." It's not just a question of whether you get to go to war; it's a question of what you can do in war. If you're fighting to preserve a nation, you can do most anything -- because the international system views the survival of your nation-state as almost the highest good of the system, the best way of ensuring peace.

What we're seeing in Israel today is just what we've seen ever since these ideas were instituted. Nationalism proves to be a better engine for war than for peace. If every group with a definable ethnic or cultural identity deserves its own nation, what if two of them claim the same piece of land (as in Northern Ireland, where Protestant majorities exist with Irish Catholic minorities who consider the others not Irish but "New English")?

What if there's a disagreement about whether a given group is properly independent, or should properly be subject to a central authority? Consider the case of Taiwan -- definitely ethnic Han Chinese, but wishing to be independent of the People's Republic, which in turn claims to be the rightful government of all Chinese eveywhere.

What if existing borders of states encase several ethnic groups, some of whom later decide they'd prefer their own nation? For example, consider the case of Indonesia, which won its independence from the Dutch and established its borders based on their colonial borders. Now comes the East Timorese, wanting to separate from this new nation -- and now the Papuans.

The system recognizes, in theory, all of these claims -- and justifies almost anything in the name of establishing a free, or protecting the independence of an existing, nation-state for each such group.

This is partially why we find the terrorists getting treated with kid gloves by so-called "international law" types: they are viewed, usually, as valid liberation movements or resistance to colonial oppression. As such, whatever they do is justified.

If you've been wondering what the root of this cancer is, now you know. It's the shattered bones of the last great attempt to find peace on earth.

More Muslim Mayhem

Israel's War Comes To Seattle:

He says: "I’m a Muslim-American. I’m angry at Isreal."

So he shoots six unarmed women.

What courage! What devotion!

Oh, and what skill -- he kills only one of them, even though there was no appreciable resistance and he had the only gun in the room.

I don't want to hear that Muslim-Americans are angry at Israel, so they kill Jewish-Americans. Jewish-Americans are probably angry too. What is supposed to matter, though, is that these are fellow Americans.

It's natural to have a sentiment for the old country, and it's only human to feel more strongly for those whom you regard as brothers (as Muslims do among themselves) than for those whom you don't. Still, America is an idea as much as it is a country: a place where we leave the old tribes behind, and become a new people. E pluribus unum.

In other words, if you're a Muslim who wants to shoot Jewish-Americans in response to Israel's policies, you're not a "Muslim-American." I don't care what your citizenship is. I don't care if you were born in Fargo. You haven't got the idea. You are not one of us.

If you can't leave the old tribe behind -- just enough to avoid killing other Americans who aren't tribesmen, that's all we ask -- you should rethink whether or not you want to be here. It won't be hard for the rest of us to rethink whether or not we want you in the community. We don't strip people of their citizenship in America, but neither are we bound to accept people that make war on our women, or exercise their tribal ideas of religion by shooting up social clubs. We can put you in prison, or we can kill you. We have the death penalty here, and many of us are not unarmed victims.

On which point, I should like my Jewish female readers to note that they are targets. You know who you are. There are people who want to kill you. This guy is said to have been a lone maniac. Perhaps he was. You know there are organized groups that want the same thing. You know this is true.

There is only one way to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen to your families. You need to get over whatever aversions you have, pick out a handgun that suits your frame, and learn to use it, more accurately than these people.

Fortunately, that's not a high bar to cross.

You're the only ones who can stop this. The police will not be there. If this isn't to happen where you are, you have to stop it.

The NRA will help you find a teacher here. Wherever you are, they can help you.

Drop me a line if you want to talk about it.

I won't stand by and let people break America, not for Israel and not for Islam. Frankly, neither are worth it in my opinion. She is our common charge. We are the Sons of Liberty. This flame will not die. That is a promise and a warning.

Military Blue States

OP-FOR on NRO:

John at OP-FOR has a piece at National Review (a good piece, Eric?). He's chastizing, properly, so-called "elite" schools for their treatment of military recruiters, and their discouragement of their students from military service.

Which brings us to the comments at BlackFive, when Jimbo posted about the piece:

True story: I tried joining the Army a year ago and had to get one of those fancy $1,300 psych evaluations that only a professional civilian consultant can do in order to get a waiver at MEPS ["Military Entrance Processing Station" -- the place where you go to get the paperwork done and your medical exams]. Within the first 5 minutes of the interview with the psychologist I convinced him I didn't have any problems. Then instead of ending the interview there, he went on and on for the next 15 minutes about how someone like me shouldn't be joining the military. Apparently I had a 95 on the ASVAB and was doing well in college (3.6 GPA) and he was telling me, to summarize: "You're just going to be cannon fodder in the miltary. You have too much potential. Read some anti-military books to see how much of a mistake joining the military is. Your MMPI-2 results show you can take criticism, but they're going to yell at you in boot camp!"

At MEPS he faxed over his 1 paragraph evaluation that said because of my goal orientation, and ironically, my ability to handle stress, I wouldn't be fit for the military because I potentially could be insubordinate at Boot Camp. The opposite of everything he said to my face about me. Basically, the guy was your typical smug blue state anti-war liberal who wants to rescue those who don't need rescuing. He rescued two other kids that day with the same evaluation -- he just changed the names at the top of the page.

It's a year later and my recruiter gave me a call saying I can now take another psych evaluation. I'm not really sure what to think. Maybe I'll act dumb and desperate and try failing the evaluation this time?

I get called a chickenhawk by the same kind of people who keep me from enlisting.

So, basically the psych doctor didn't feel even a little bit bad about getting this poor guy damned as a psycho who couldn't be trusted to serve as a private, in order to keep him out of the military. For the rest of his life, if he applies for gov't service jobs, the kid is going to be asked, "Were you ever refused entry to the military?" and he'll have to say, "Yes, I was found psychologically unsuitable."

Can he prove he's not? It's not like proving that you don't have an ulcer. With a real medical condition, they can look and see. You can't "see" a psychological condition. How does this kid clear his name?

The best he can do is find another civilian expert, pay out another grand, and then -- if it goes well, and he doesn't get another anti-military jerk (or some psychologist who feels that young men with such feelings of aggression that they want to join the military need to be medicated and feminized) -- he'll have a "he said / she said" defense. 'Only one of them thinks I'm crazy! And they can't really prove anything one way or the other, so... um, why are you looking at me like that?'

Psychology should simply be banned from federal hiring decisions, and also from court proceedings. It is not a science, it's fortune-telling. We wouldn't let a tarot card reader ruin a kid's life and put something this damaging in his permanent record. We shouldn't let a "scientist" like this do it, either.

Arganti

Arganti:

Praise a day at evening, a wife when dead,
a sword when tried... and beer when it's drunk.

-The Havamal

Today I can praise a very good cat, who went by the name of Arganti. She came to me as a kitten out of a hurricane the size of Texas, which left the areas near Savannah filled with wrack. The moment she saw me, her tail shot up, and she started running. Fool that I am, I took her in when she literally followed me home -- and then sent her off to live with Sovay, which she has done in queenly comfort these several years.

Sadly today I hear that she died suddenly, though not without such help as science can offer. She was always good for the things that make cats good: she was temperate toward people, not so to vermin, and she would sit on your shoulder like a pirate's parrot while you walked around.

Farewell, then, to a very good cat. I am glad to have known her. Men and dogs have an ancient alliance both pure and noble, but the cat remains a surprise.

Web of Trust

"The Web of Trust"

Bill Whittle's latest is, as always, a remarkable explanation of the things that underlie our lives. Whittle has mastered the art of seeing what Chesterton saw when writing of the stoplight, called in his day a "signal box":

A great many people talk as if this claim of ours, that all things are poetical, were a mere literary ingenuity, a play on words. Precisely the contrary is true. It is the idea that some things are not poetical which is literary, which is a mere product of words. The word "signal-box" is unpoetical. But the thing signal-box is not unpoetical; it is a place where men, in an agony of vigilance, light blood-red and sea-green fires to keep other men from death. That is the plain, genuine description of what it is; the prose only comes in with what it is called.

Whittle sees the poetry in things that few pause to consider, and from that can envision the whole grandeur of civilization. He can see the men laying fiber cables and other men molding plastics, and still more men training for years in the use of inventions like radar -- itself a wonder. And he can put it all together for us, and show us how all that work underlies the business of bringing a plane down to the earth.

Yet I find that I think he has misread something fairly fundamental to his argument, something he says is coastline rather than map. The idea that "human beings are interchangable" is simply not quite right. The truth is that human beings are not interchangable at all -- each one is individual. This isn't just because of upbringing, as Whittle suggests, and why it isn't is a truth of the same material as the rest of his argument.

Let me explain. Whittle writes:

I mean that had Baby Billy been dropped off in the heart of the Amazon rainforest and raised by Yanomami tribesmen (and according to my mother there were times when I was in real danger of this happening), I would have spent my youth learning to hunt monkeys with my bow and 6ft. long arrows, and generally hanging around the shabono sleeping in till almost 6am. Likewise, if Baby Kopenawa had my parents, he’d probably be cranking out online essays at irregular intervals and shooting instrument approaches in experimental canard airplanes.

I think we can all agree that it's entirely plausible that Billy Baby could have been given over to Yanomami tribesmen, and grown up to hunt monkeys. There would be nothing strange in that.

Yet it is very unlikely that Baby Kopenawa would have grown up to crank out essays of the type and quality of Whittle's own, to say nothing of having his fascination with airplanes. It is not impossible, but it is not likely.

Civilization not only entails the web of trust that Whittle discusses, but it also requires a far greater degree of specialization. Whittle-the-Amazonian would have learned to hunt monkeys because everyone has to hunt monkeys. Kopenawa, by contrast, would have found himself facing a whole array of choices, to which his native intelligence and individual aspects would have inclined him to some and away from others. To succeed, which means to survive, Whittle of the Amazon would have had to do more or less exactly what everyone else did. To succeed, which means to prosper, Kopenawa would have to do what he did best.

What would that have been? There is a fair amount of research, and a great deal of practical experience, that suggests that there really are genetic inheritances that pertain to kinds of intelligence as well as physical attributes. Individual variation is more important than group membership, but if one were to exchange not one baby but thousands of babies, there would be trends that we could identify. One of the consequences of civilization and its specializations is coming to terms with that. As whole nations and peoples become civilized and specialized, the market begins stratifying them according to which intelligences are most marketable. As we understand more about the mechanism, we may wish to think more about whether to try to modify the market's results -- and if so, how we could do so.

As we become more capable of editing genetic traits, new questions arise. These questions will become more rather than less important, and more rather than less numerous, with each scientific success.

Let us say, for example, that one could modify a set of genetics so that you could replace a prediliction for one kind of intelligence (say, the kind that lets you perform a given task without growing bored for hours on end) with another (say, the ability to do higher mathematics with ease and comfort). Now let's say we have a genetic group that tends toward the first kind, and which has therefore (because the market prefers mathematicians and engineers to janitors and clerks) become identifibly poorer than other groups. What do you do about that? Anything? Nothing? Does it matter? Once it becomes in our power to change, ethical issues arise that don't exist when it is beyond us.

We cannot, therefore, adopt Bill Whittle's idea as ideology -- not that he would wish you to do so. He says to look at the coastline, not the map, and that is what we must do. His point that culture is more important than genetics is certainly true. However, as part of the business of civilization, we have to look at the genetics as well.

We should think about these things, because they are the next challenge -- the mental bridge Whittle mentions, to be considered before the first rivet is driven. There is the chasm before us. We had better give it some thought.

Posts

Things To Read Today:

The discussion, as soon as I have time to sit down and discuss, will be on Bill Whittle's newest piece. Give it a read today, and we'll talk it over tomorrow.

Also, CENTCOM has a new release on a raid north of Balad.

A case of verification. Or sock puppets. Or both.

In this post, Karrde muses on basically "How do we know what we know and how do we know who to trust?" (Or something like that).

An interesting example of trust and credibility has occurred, dissected at great length by Eric Scheie of the blog Classical Values.

Starting here, (actually that may not be the start, its just where I picked it up), and continuing here, and here and here and finally (as of my posting), here Mr Scheie starts digging into the people supposedly working at (and others quoted by) a site called Capital Hill Blues, which is supposedly a sort of newsletter site covering Capitol Hill. Or something like that.

It appears that the whole site may be the work of one guy, constantly inventing new people and quoting non-existant scholars, doctors and so forth, none of them real. Or not real in so much as Google can reveal.

This has affinities with a phenomenon called 'sock puppets' --usually referring to the antic of defending or supporting oneself with a different screen name or email address---for a classic example of sock puppetry, see Ace of Spades HQ and this post on Glenn Greenwald. Actually, there's plenty more there on that affair, and it makes for curious reading.

So, reader beware. If such things are happening, they are happening everywhere.

PJM release

PJM Sends:

The folks at Pajamas Media are proud of their coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, and have put out a press release to get the word out. As regular readers know, I have very little interest in the conflict, but given the possibilities for spillover into the Iraq conflict, I have been reading up on this particular engagement. PJM's coverage really has been good, and they deserve the pat on the back (even if it is self-inflicted).

Dollard

JHD Sends:

JarHeadDad wants you to know about Pat Dollard's interviews. "Just WOW!" he writes, which is a pretty good endorsement -- I've noticed you can measure how well he likes something by looking at how few words he uses to describe it. Two words? Pretty great. Five thousand words? He hates it, has written all his congressmen, and is still mad about it.

So anyway, this is a two-word site. Go see the thing.

CENTCOM PR

CENTCOM Sends:

Continuing the regular series of things CENTCOM wants you to know, a press release they sent this morning on Iraqi Security capturing three primary targets during raids. No friendly casualties in the process.

Well done.

There is none

"From the scissors of Delilah, and the tenpenny nail of Jael, to the scimitar of
Goliath..."

In which the Geek w/a .45 and company give yours truly a hard time in the comments section, due to my inability to resist a severe temptation.

Links

Reader-Sent Links:

A few links that turned up in my email box this morning.

Reader JW sends a link to an editorial that explains US behavior according to computer science models.

CC sends a WizBang piece called "Tell it to the Marines."

MilBlogging.com writes in their weekly newsletter, "I used to think Chuck Norris was a pretty cool guy, but that was before I featured Jack Army." Jack's deploying. Go see why he's cooler than Chuck Norris.

Politics Central:

I am somewhat remiss in not having mentioned the PJM "Politics Central" site, about which Pajamas Media tells me they are most excited.

They would today like you to hear this interview from an Israeli bunker.

Somme

The Somme:

This year is the 90th anniversary of the Somme. Our faithful friend Arts & Letters Daily points us to an article, from The Scotsman, on a new book revising the history.

I link mostly for Eric Blair's benefit, but others may also enjoy it.

Trust but verify

Trust but Verify:

In my continued thinking about history and historical sources (and following up on Grim's excellent comments below about Mexico and colonial history), I am continually returning to the issue of trust. My thoughts about trust involve both history and current events.

Historians trust certain sources. Other sources are considered cum grano salis, as the Romans would say.

Most of this trust can be defended on analytical grounds. Along the lines of what Grim said about colonial Spain and plague in Mexico, a careful review of the data can show which sources are trustworthy.

The same was true about earlier claims that surfaced: claims about who or what was most responsible for American success during the first World War. It is quite likely that the NRA-guided training program for members of the American Expeditionary Force was influential on the battles fought by the AEF in Europe. But there is also evidence that many members the AEF was trained in the field by Sergeants and Lieutenants who saw the need for accuracy in rifle use on the field. Not to mention that America's military hadn't spent 5 years sending wave after wave of soldiers against barbed wire and machine-gun-nests.

If there is a lesson about militaries to be found here, it is that an army that is able to learn from its experience and adapt while in the field is more likely to be a winner than an army that learns from its experiences and adapts after the war is over.

If there is a lesson about reading history, it is that if the source makes some claims that can be verified, it is often wise to check up on a few of those claims. Sometimes the facts are right, but the claimed results aren't fully supported.

One thought that hovers in my mind as I write this is that similar questions are raised every day when I read news stories, browse blogs, or watch the entertainment extravaganza known as TV News. Do I trust the source to report the facts accurately? Do I trust them to report the background accurately? Do I trust them not to insert unwarranted assumptions into the story? Do I trust them to do research about what they are reporting on?

Lastly, is there any way that I can verify what the are telling me?

It is questions like these that use to filter through claims of bias. It may also help identify poor reporting, sloppy research, or dependence on a single, biased source.

Megadeth Mexico

"Megadeath in Mexico"

A fascinating article by that title appears in Discovery's online site this issue (h/t Arts & Letters Daily). It's a good piece on how modern scientific research combines several disciplines (in this case, epidemology, botany, and history) to overturn the received wisdom of the ages. A combination of new documentary evidence, the clinical eye of an expert, and supporting evidence from other scientists can produce the need for serious revisions in the historic record, as well as advances in our understanding of medical history.

It's a very good read for those reasons, but that's not why I brought it up.

I bring it up as an ally to Karrde's recent piece on history and story-telling. It's tossed off almost as an aside in the Discovery piece, but the greatest threat to humanity coming to understand the truth is exactly what Karrde recognized it to be: humanity's unwillingness to hear it.

This raised two questions. First, were people prepared to absolve the Spanish of responsibility for one of the great evils of the colonial era? The destruction of ancient Mexico's culture by the Spanish invaders is an integral part of every Mexican's understanding of the country's history. The miseries of the plague years are taken as object lessons in the evils of colonialism. "My grandmother wrote histories, and the terrible things that the Spanish did were always a part of them," says Acuña-Soto.

In fact, as the new evidence shows, the Spanish didn't bring the disease, which was instead native; the Spanish didn't try to spread it as a means of destroying the native culture. In fact the King of Spain sent his personal physician to learn what they could teach him of native medicines, and while there this Spanish doctor invested a great deal of his effort (the written notes ran to fifty volumes) in trying to understand the causes of the disease and how it might be treated.

That's the truth, at least, it seems to be truth in the scientific sense: the best-supported interpretation of the facts given the present evidence.

Yet Mexican histories need Spain to be evil. It's part of the founding myth. Indeed, it is a critical part. The evil exploitations of Spain, heroically thrown off by the Mexicans, set the stage for the evil manipulations of the Hapsburgs and especially the Yanquis, the brave Mexican resistance to which define the post-European period of Mexican history. The national myth is entirely founded on the idea of foreign exploiters, European and American, striving to oppress the Mexican raza.

Destabilizing that founding myth wasn't the intent of the research. It isn't, indeed, very interesting to the scientists themselves, who toss off a brief paragraph about it in a long article on the more fascinating questions of evidence. I wonder if they really know what they are unleashing here.

No matter. It is done. Historians, not only Mexican ones, must now contend with the data. History is unique in being both art and science: the story-telling and myth-making contend with the scientific development of the facts. Here is an earthquake, the aftershocks of which will trouble many a thinker and writer for a long time to come.

UPDATE: Another such earthquake comes in a new book just reviewed by Mark Steyn.

Knights

Knights of St. George:

An odd coincidence, that this story should appear at BlackFive the same day as Noel directed us to the story below. That is St. George's cross on the shield.

Congratulations, Sir Craig -- that is, sergeant.

A Dragonslayer

A Dragonslayer:

Noel was right. This is just the sort of piece that I think should be more widely read.

My reader will recall there were dragons in those days, and the lair of one was in a marsh near Selena in Lydia. It required human sacrifices. Cleodolinda, daughter of the king, drew the lot and was escorted to the marsh in bridal garments. St George, a tribune in the Roman army, happened to ride by. Making the sign of the Cross, he confronted the dragon. Pinning it to earth with his lance, he slew it with his sword. Having converted the Lydian king, and all witnesses, he then rode on to Palestine, where he died a martyr under the same Roman persecution that claimed St Alban.

This fanciful story from out of the Golden Legend (13th century) only adds to his mystique. But it was not part of the legend of St George, when he appeared before the Crusaders as a herald of victory. Or became an honoured and holy figure in Muslim legend, too, under the name Jirgis Baqiya....

We should always honor the dragonslayers. As Greyhawk said in his letter to his children, "Some must go to fight the Dragons. And if you think such things don't exist then it must be I read you the wrong sorts of stories when you were young." And then he went -- a man, like St. George was a man, who felt that he was called to it by something above his duty as a soldier.

Restrictions

On Limits:

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.

Manly

"I'm Surprised She Didn't Mention Us":

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.

Surfin' USA:

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 Sends -- Iraq Handover:

CENTCOM sent out a press release this morning, that they'd like you to read. It follows:

Joint Statement by
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.

How 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."

Conservatives/conscience

"Conservatives Without A 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.

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.

The post goes on to examine contrasting positions he's taken, and is remarkably insightful as a self-analysis.

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.

Maybe the answer is as simple as the mantra of one of my misanthropic friends: "Everybody sucks."

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.

India bombs

Bombs in India:

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

Piece of 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

Doc Russia Needs You:

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,

"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.

Perhaps some of our gentler readers might want to drop by and give Doc some encouragement.

The Purges Continue

The Purges Will 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 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.

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:

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

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution states:

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.

Bill Faith virgins

Bill Faith...

...and the Virgins of Paradise.