In Texas? Say it ain't so:

Drudge has this story today, which says that the commanding general at Fort Sam Houston has recommended military men not wear uniforms in public to avoid harassment and possible violence. There have been two incidents, one involving an assault on the car of a drill sergeant and his wife, the other involving two sailors who were accosted by "several men."

The sailors were in luck:

Some Marines who were nearby saw what was happening and went to the sailors' aid. The matter was then taken care of by combined military action.

Semper Fi.

Victory against the Nazis:

Simon Wiesenthal is declaring victory, and ending his hunt for the remaining Nazis. Mr. Wiesenthal, 94, says that any who remain are too old to stand trial. I will trust his judgement on the point. It is good to remember that, for sixty years, people like Mr. Wiesenthal have been making sure that evil does not go unpunished. It is also good to remember that all that evil would have gone unpunished, would in fact have ruled in Europe, if it had not been for the same Anglo-American military alliance that is hunting evil now. Pass the Deck of Death.

Infiltration:

Guerrillas in Pakistan continue to raid India and the Kashmir vale. The US State Department expresses frustration with Pakistan, but how much success have we had controlling the Mexican border? Funny you should ask, says the Washington Times--an occasionally dubious source, mind you. Jay Leno explains:

A dozen Al Qaeda members now hiding in Mexico, trying to figure out how to get across the US border to do us harm. Let me tell you something, if these people are not smart enough how to figure to get across the US-Mexican border, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

The UN, cont.

The UN has become little more than a venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, I said. What else is it? A venue for tactics by socialist bureaucrats to hamper US efforts. Taheri may be right or wrong about Damascus and Teheran seeking to hinder the US reconstruction of Iraq, but it is plain that Paris wants to do so.

On Syria (and Iran):

Amy Taheri has an article in the National Review today which suggests that Iran and Syria are collaborating on ways to make the reconstruction of Iraq difficult for us. The notion she puts forth is that, by making Iraq hard, these two states hope to distract us from dealing with either (or both) of them. Taheri lists several factors that could be brought into play.

On another front, Syria has pledged to rid the Middle East of Weapons of Mass Destruction and has submitted a plan to that effect to the United Nations. The UN has become little more than the venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, as this plan demonstrates:

On Wednesday, Damascus asked the U.N. Security Council to help transform the region into a zone free of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Speaking to reporters in Cairo today, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Charaa said: "After this initiative, this Syrian proposal . . . Syria won't allow any inspection. It will only participate with its [Arab] brothers and all of the states of the world in turning the Middle East into an area free of weapons of mass destruction."

It was not clear if his remarks were a departure from Syria's previously stated position that it would only allow weapons inspections if they applied to all regional states, including Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear arms.

So, in short, Syria seeks a nice-sounding resolution behind which to hide, but has no intention of allowing any positive steps to demonstrate compliance. Meanwhile, speculation is rampant that many of Iraq's WMDs passed into Syrian control before the invasion.

...and keep your spear to hand:

Here is an article on what Norse Mythology has to say about gun control.

More on the Jihadi:

This time via InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, a solution for dealing with the jihadi:

In the densely populated northeastern slum area of Saddam City, U.S. Marines pulled back to allow local people to hunt "mujahideen" volunteer fighters holed up in the area.

"The locals said they wanted to take charge of Saddam City and we said: 'Roger that'," Lieutenant-Colonel Lew Craparotta, commander of a Marine unit that moved back from the fringes of the suburb, told Reuters.

Local leaders told U.S. officers that non-Iraqi Arab fighters were still a threat in the mainly Shi'ite district.

"It's much easier for them to identify the enemy than for us. We really can't tell who is who," Craparotta said.

The U.S. withdrawal will allow local men to carry weapons openly, set up checkpoints and cordon off areas where they suspect the Arab volunteer fighters are hiding....

Local militia and the "mujahideen" fought fiercely through Friday night until after dawn, with the sound of sustained small arms and heavy machinegun fire suggesting substantial clashes between the two groups. U.S. forces were not involved.

On Saturday, sporadic small arms fire erupted in the poor district, indicating the "flushing out" operation was ongoing.

Baghdad is saturated with weapons, so both the militia and the Arab volunteer fighters have easy access to large arms and ammunition caches.

Now this is the way it ought to be. Iraqis are taking command of their destiny, and by force of arms erecting a society free of terror men. It's damned inspiring, and just right. Many have asked if you can impose freedom with an army. Here is the answer: Perhaps not, but you can tip the scales to allow brave men to claim it.

Al Qaeda in Basra?

Via ParaPundit, a report from the London Times:

PRESIDENT Saddam Hussein imported hundreds of well-trained Islamic guerrillas before the war to spearhead his fight against American and British forces, The Times has learnt....

The foreign fighters provide a �direct tie between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organisations�, a Pentagon spokeswoman said last night.

British investigators are more cautious, but one officer involved in questioning the survivors told The Times: �These are not just zealots who grabbed a gun and went to the front line. They know how to employ guerrilla tactics so someone had to have trained them. They are certainly organised, and if it�s not bin Laden�s people, its al-Qaeda by another name. But they certainly came here to fight the West.�

Tellingly, many of these jihadi arrived on student visas, claiming to be enrolled in the school for Koranic studies. "Talib," from whence "Taliban," translates as "student" with the understanding that it is the Koran being studied. Student visas seem to be a method of choice for AQ agents travelling in the West, though why they would bother with the pretense in Iraq is not clear. Of course, some just listed their reason for coming to Iraq as "jihadi."

When Ladies Wrote Poems of Knights:

The Knight Errant
by Louise Guiney

SPIRITS of old that bore me,
And set me, meek of mind,
Between great dreams before me,
And deeds as great behind,
Knowing humanity my star
As first abroad I ride,
Shall help me wear, with every scar,
Honor at eventide.

Let claws of lightning clutch me
From summer's groaning cloud,
Or ever malice touch me,
And glory make me proud.
O give my youth, my faith, my sword,
Choice of the heart's desire:
A short life in the saddle, Lord!
Not long life by the fire.

Forethought and recollection
Rivet mine armor gay!
The passion for perfection
Redeem my failing way!
The arrows of the tragic time
From sudden ambush cast,
With calm angelic touches ope
My Paradise at last!

I fear no breathing bowman,
But only, east and west,
The awful other foeman
Impowered in my breast.
The outer fray in the sun shall be,
The inner beneath the moon;
And may Our Lady lend to me
Sight of the Dragon soon!

Speak Softly & Carry a Big Stick:

In spite of a half dozen repetitions by administration officials last week that we have no intention of invading, North Korea seems to be making the first placatory noises in quite a while. The Financial Times reports today on what is, on its face, not a big concession--but it is a concession, which is a start.

In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, North Korea said: "If the US is ready to make a bold switch-over in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, [North Korea] will not stick to any particular dialogue format."

Pyongyang had previously insisted the crisis could be resolved only through bilateral dialogue with the US but Washington feared such talks would reward North Korea's nuclear "blackmail". Instead, the US has proposed multilateral talks, involving other interested countries, such as South Korea, Japan and China.

I personally have had no feeling that the Iraq war would inspire good behavior from the DPRK, as I expect it will from Iran and Syria, and others in the Middle East. The DPRK, being probably possessed of nuclear arms, and certainly possessed of ballistic missiles, would stand of US pressure at sword's point. Certainly the DPRK has been working feverishly to bring its reactor online, though technical problems have prevented it in spite of round-the-clock efforts.

The Iraq war does seem to have impressed Pyongyang, however, and more importantly, it has impressed China:

North Korea has come under heavy diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to accept the US offer of multilateral talks. In particular, diplomats said China, North Korea's closest ally, had become much more active in persuading Pyongyang to back down.

Washington and Pyongyang have no formal diplomatic relations but the pair have been communicating in recent weeks through the UN in New York. China is also thought to have passed messages between the two sides.

It's too early to do more than hope--there are serious concerns that make a negotiated settlement highly unlikely to prove successful in derailing the DPRK's nuclear project. Still, Washington's soft-spoken approach hasn't been spineless: there is a big stick held in plain sight. That report is from Japan, and highlights not only the US but also the Japanese stick; this report, from Reuters, spells out Pyongyang's peril in bold letters.

Also from the Economist:

The French do something right.

Tikrit:

The Marines have landed, and the situation is well in hand. The Economist also reports. Resistance is reportedly very light, unlike in Baghdad where stiff firefights still crop up from time to time. This probably means I won't be winning my bet on Tikrit as Saddam's Last Stand. Of course, U.S. forces think he's probably dead, so it may not matter.

Love Thy Enemy:

Truly practiced at welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com. Link via OxBlog.

So Mao Had the Giant Bed...

And Saddam had mirrored walls and shag carpet.

More Songs from Ireland:

Here is a piece of an old Orangeman song that speaks properly of certain fighters in Iraq:

United in blood to the country�s disgrace,
They secretly shoot those they dare not to face;
But whenever we catch the sly rogues in the field,
A handful of soldiers makes hundreds to yield;
The cowards collect but to raise our renown,
For as soon as we fire the croppies lie down.

The song is called "Croppies Lie Down," where a "croppie" is one of the United Irishmen of 1798, who wore their hair short, rather than long in the manner of the old aristocracy. This page is a friend to the United Irishmen, who advocated and upheld the principles of classical liberalism. Most of the founders were educated in Scotland, where David Hume and others had created the philosophical movement that gave us our American constitution. Rather than being a sectarian group, the United Irishmen were a group of Protestants from Ulster who united--thus the name--with Catholic Irishmen who also believed in the classical liberal principles of the Scottish Enlightenment.

"Croppies Lie Down" is thus not a song I've often sung, but I can't help reflect on how appropriate it is to the current moment. Why, there's even this line:

Should France e�er attempt, by fraud or by guile...

Democracy and Tolerance, II:

The London Spectator has an excellent article by Roger Scruton this week on different views of the function of law. He discusses the degradation of tolerance in Britian, one of the two healthiest democracies:

Law, in a liberal democracy, is concerned not to impose moral conformity but to maintain peace, order and goodwill between people, all of whom are free to pursue their own conception of the good life, to the extent that they can do so without harming others. The main contours of this view � tellingly argued by Mill in On Liberty � were until recently accepted among educated people, most of whom would concur in the judgment that it is both reasonable to regard adultery as immoral, and oppressive to make it a crime. . . .

The reason why the case of hunting is important, even for those who disapprove of hunting and would like to see it banned, is that it is the cornerstone of an indigenous way of life. To ban hunting is to criminalise a large and generally law-abiding minority. To justify a ban therefore requires some other argument besides the mere fact of moral disapproval: we need a clear conception of the benefits not only to animals but also to people. But the parliamentary opponents of hunting have refused to enter the argument about these complex matters, having seen that it is an argument that they might lose. Morality seems to them like a better resource, since of its very nature it is absolute and irrebuttable. Invoking morality is a way of saying, with Luther, �Here I stand; I can do no other� � in other words, a way of refusing to engage with your opponent.

The DPRK:

ParaPundit has a strong article on North Korea today.

City-fighting:

Christopher Lowe, who is a staff writer for Army Times Publishing, has a piece in the Daily Standard. It's a bit late and says nothing substantive that hasn't been said on, or linked-to from, this page before. He does, though, give some specifics on equipment used, particularly UAVs, that hasn't appeared here before, as well as some military jargon that is in current use.

Democracy and Tolerance:

The Foreign Policy journal which suggests that Muslim attitudes towards women and homosexuality may make them unsuitable as potential democrac polities. Citing large-scale intolerance of homosexuality, as well as what is commonly known as "women's liberation," the piece concludes:

The United States cannot expect to foster democracy in the Muslim world simply by getting countries to adopt the trappings of democratic governance, such as holding elections and having a parliament. Nor is it realistic to expect that nascent democracies in the Middle East will inspire a wave of reforms reminiscent of the velvet revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in the final days of the Cold War. A real commitment to democratic reform will be measured by the willingness to commit the resources necessary to foster human development in the Muslim world. Culture has a lasting impact on how societies evolve. But culture does not have to be destiny.

Well, what about the Republic of Ireland, in which divorce and abortion were both quite illegal until recently? Democracy came first, though it was largely at first the "trappings" of democarcy--the Fianna Fail, for example, could not take their elected seats in the Dail for years because they refused to take a loyalty oath. It took some time before democracy's trappings became democracy, which in turn did eventually yield to the social reforms that the Foreign Policy piece seems to want in place before democracy.

Indeed, the FP piece includes this paragraph:

But economic development generates changed attitudes in virtually any society. In particular, modernization compels systematic, predictable changes in gender roles: Industrialization brings women into the paid work force and dramatically reduces fertility rates. Women become literate and begin to participate in representative government but still have far less power than men. Then, the postindustrial phase brings a shift toward greater gender equality as women move into higher-status economic roles in management and gain political influence within elected and appointed bodies. Thus, relatively industrialized Muslim societies such as Turkey share the same views on gender equality and sexual liberalization as other new democracies.

Well, then, it sounds like democracy is JUST the way to liberalize the Middle East, doesn't it? Turkey has long been a "democracy" in name only, with the army in real power. Only lately has "democracy" been giving way to real democracy. But already the social reforms the author desires are beginning. There is more:

In every stable democracy, a majority of the public disagrees with the statement that �men make better political leaders than women.� None of the societies in which less than 30 percent of the public rejects this statement (such as Jordan, Nigeria, and Belarus) is a true democracy. In China, one of the world�s least democratic countries, a majority of the public agrees that men make better political leaders than women, despite a party line that has long emphasized gender equality (Mao Zedong once declared, �women hold up half the sky�).

So why the conclusion? All the evidence they cite points the other way. Even partial democracy--early Irish Republic, or Turkey--seems to start the "modernizing" transformation that is linked to sexual liberation. Lacking partial democracy, even strenuous attempts by the government to enforce ideas of gender equality fail.

But on the Same Page:

Mr. Marshall says this about the Marine who wrapped the 9/11 flag over the statue of Hussein:

It's also one of those gives-you-faith-in-America moments to find out that the Marine who hoisted the flag -- Cpl. Edward Chin -- is apparently Chinese-American.

What? How could it be reprehensible to suggest that blacks are presumptive drug users, but perfectly fine to imply that finding a patriotic Chinese-American is cause for celebration? This is racism too, but the sort that is apparently acceptable to reform liberals of Mr. Marshall's stripe. Neither view is welcome on this page, which asserts--as the Marine Corps does itself--that there are no black Marines, and no white Marines (nor Chinese-American Marines either): there are only Marines. The same is true of Americans generally. Semper Fi.