Making Peace:
The NY Times today confirms Amir Taheri, arguing that the Iranian government is trying to destabilize the creation of a secular state in Iraq. Apparently Iranian agents are there, working to stir up the Shia Muslims in favor of an Islamist state. Michael Ledeen offers his advice on dealing with the Shia Muslims here.
I will reiterate my thoughts, which are that a stable state will require giving these clerics a stake in the power. It is necessary that we establish a free, and classically liberal, state in Iraq. It won't look like America, though, if it's going to be a stable state. It will look more like what America looked like at the founding: a constitutional federation of smaller states, each with local autonomy over certain questions. We may have to accept Sharia law in some of these local states in order to have a fully stable Iraq with a secular Baghdad.
This is ok, because power and wealth will accumulate in the liberal areas. In time, they will wield that power to liberalize the backcountry on their own. For the United States, there are just two concerns in Iraq: 1) to provide a stable framework for the gradual transformation and liberalization. This requires giving everyone a stake, provided only that they will forswear terrorism as a method of getting their way. 2) Ending the support of terror groups from within Iraq. This requires keeping friendly ties open with the Islamic leaders, rather than driving a wedge between ourselves and them. Give them local-states of their own, and they will become involved with the running of those states. Appoint ambassadors with knowledge of Islamic culture to those states, and keep a friendly dialogue open with regular gifts--provided that they, in return, help us ferret out al Qaeda and other terrorist infiltrators. Such groups are making it easy for us by targeting Shia holy sites and clerics for destruction. The cooperation of the 82nd Airborne in preventing that most recent attack is worth a division of State Department ambassadors.
It's a long haul, but I think it can be done, and done well. Of course, there are still those who would prefer letting the French take charge, as they are doing in the Ivory Coast. The French-backed "reconciliation government" in la Cote d'Ivorie reports great success in ending the troubles there, excepting those three hundred killed in yesterday's fighting.
Gays and the Presbyterian Church:
Gays don't get a lot of play on my blog, because of my disinterest in (and, let's be honest, distaste for) gay issues and culture. However, today we'll have two items on them, this one via Wren's Nest. It treats a Presbyterian minister who is marrying gays, which is against church law and, I suspect, state law. The fellow's church is apparently given to appointing actively homosexual decons in violation of church rules, which require chastity among unmarried lay leaders. In spite of these violations, the church has limited its punishment to a gentle chiding.
It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell:
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: The Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian, then?
A: The Presbyterian will run the church bus by the liquor store.
The minister in question plans to appeal even the gentle chiding on the grounds that he thinks the rules against gay marriage go against Scripture. This is a new one on me--I've heard of Scriptural interpretations that suggested that the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a failing of hospitality, but I have never heard of any Scriptural argument in favor of homosexual marriage. As I am interested in comparative religion, though, I'll be glad to hear the argument if any of my readers know what it is. Let me know, if you hear anything about it.
Gays don't get a lot of play on my blog, because of my disinterest in (and, let's be honest, distaste for) gay issues and culture. However, today we'll have two items on them, this one via Wren's Nest. It treats a Presbyterian minister who is marrying gays, which is against church law and, I suspect, state law. The fellow's church is apparently given to appointing actively homosexual decons in violation of church rules, which require chastity among unmarried lay leaders. In spite of these violations, the church has limited its punishment to a gentle chiding.
It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell:
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: The Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian, then?
A: The Presbyterian will run the church bus by the liquor store.
The minister in question plans to appeal even the gentle chiding on the grounds that he thinks the rules against gay marriage go against Scripture. This is a new one on me--I've heard of Scriptural interpretations that suggested that the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a failing of hospitality, but I have never heard of any Scriptural argument in favor of homosexual marriage. As I am interested in comparative religion, though, I'll be glad to hear the argument if any of my readers know what it is. Let me know, if you hear anything about it.
Gays & Polygamy:
Another Republican Senator is in trouble for his mouth. You'd think Republicans would just stop speaking in public. This time it's the Honorable Rick Santorum, who said this:
Second, Santorum here seems to be echoing Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has made this argument at great length. See his pieces "The Coming Battle," "The Real Issue" and "Gay Marriage Endgame". He's written more about it, most of which can be found by following the links contained in his articles. Stanley Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan have maintained a running fight about this for months. The Senator is just abbreviating Kurtz's points, with which he apparently agrees. It's unfair to call for his removal for participating in political discourse--that's what we expect of Senators, after all, it's what they are for.
Last, I find the Kurtz/Santorum argument astonishing. It takes this form: "Gay marriage should not be allowed because it would necessarily allow polygamy, and polygamy would mark the real destruction of marriage as an institution." But polygamy has been the main way in which marriage has been practiced for all of human history. It is specifically permitted in the Torah, which gives rules in Exodus for taking a second wife; when Jesus speaks to adultery in the New Testament, he clearly leaves open the traditional polygamist way of Jewish marriage; Mormonism obviously permits it in their scripture; and as for non-Judeo-Christian marriage, there isn't a religion among them that forbids polygamy. All of them have traditions of polygamist behavior historically, and many--Islam for example--have scripture to support the taking of extra wives.
No culture, however, has ever allowed gay marriage. The Kurtz/Santorum argument is perhaps the most extrodinary case of cart-before-horseism I've seen in my life. Polygamy, though problematic, would represent a return to roots, and indeed there are strong arguments in its favor in an era in which traditional families are crumbling and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Gay marriage is a complete departure from everything marriage has ever represented.
Another Republican Senator is in trouble for his mouth. You'd think Republicans would just stop speaking in public. This time it's the Honorable Rick Santorum, who said this:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.There are three things to be said about this. First, bigamy is perhaps the most improperly used word in American jurisprudence. It comes from the Greek, and does indeed mean "two-wifed." However, bigamy was the practice of having a second wife after the death of the first one, not the practice of having two wives at once, which was (and is) polygamy. American legislatures have always gotten the semantics wrong, which is irritating to those of us who like having words for each concept instead of confusing the concepts.
Second, Santorum here seems to be echoing Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has made this argument at great length. See his pieces "The Coming Battle," "The Real Issue" and "Gay Marriage Endgame". He's written more about it, most of which can be found by following the links contained in his articles. Stanley Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan have maintained a running fight about this for months. The Senator is just abbreviating Kurtz's points, with which he apparently agrees. It's unfair to call for his removal for participating in political discourse--that's what we expect of Senators, after all, it's what they are for.
Last, I find the Kurtz/Santorum argument astonishing. It takes this form: "Gay marriage should not be allowed because it would necessarily allow polygamy, and polygamy would mark the real destruction of marriage as an institution." But polygamy has been the main way in which marriage has been practiced for all of human history. It is specifically permitted in the Torah, which gives rules in Exodus for taking a second wife; when Jesus speaks to adultery in the New Testament, he clearly leaves open the traditional polygamist way of Jewish marriage; Mormonism obviously permits it in their scripture; and as for non-Judeo-Christian marriage, there isn't a religion among them that forbids polygamy. All of them have traditions of polygamist behavior historically, and many--Islam for example--have scripture to support the taking of extra wives.
No culture, however, has ever allowed gay marriage. The Kurtz/Santorum argument is perhaps the most extrodinary case of cart-before-horseism I've seen in my life. Polygamy, though problematic, would represent a return to roots, and indeed there are strong arguments in its favor in an era in which traditional families are crumbling and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Gay marriage is a complete departure from everything marriage has ever represented.
Guns & Free Men:
The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:
But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.
Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.
(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)
The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:
But I also understand the reluctance of unarmed bystanders to confront a large man in a homicidal rage. This is called "disparity of force," and it provides legal justification for the use of deadly weapons in self-defense.Maryland's gun control laws--I've had occasion to look into them lately--are far more stringent than the norm for the United States. There is no "shall issue" permit for carrying a firearm, but rather permits are issued only if the state police agree with your reasons for going armed (apparently, "because people are getting beaten to death" isn't a good enough reason). Even if permits are issued, the fees are shockingly high--some seventy dollars even to consider the permit, which is good then only for two years, and must be renewed at fifty dollars a year thenceforth. In Georgia, the fee is three dollars a year, just to cover the administrative costs of the background check. Further, the permit is "shall issue," which means that the state is obligated to give you the permit unless they can prove you are disqualified under the law. They can't turn it down just because they want to.
Unfortunately, because of Maryland's strict gun control laws, no bystander was likely to be armed.
Police officers cannot be present at all violent crimes, but victims, by definition, always are. Without weapons, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.
But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.
Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.
(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)
Aussies Consider the DPRK:
The Aussie press seems to have decided that the US is going to take out North Korea. The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article titled Secret U.S. File: Oust Regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the Advertiser has a piece called US Blueprint to Bomb North Korea. It suggests that we have a plan to strike the Yongbyon reactor and the DPRK's artillery positions on the DMZ line in the event of active reprocessing at Yongbyon.
Of course, these Canberra sources seem to be drawing on Pentagon and DoD sources. The State Department may have other ideas.
The Aussie press seems to have decided that the US is going to take out North Korea. The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article titled Secret U.S. File: Oust Regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the Advertiser has a piece called US Blueprint to Bomb North Korea. It suggests that we have a plan to strike the Yongbyon reactor and the DPRK's artillery positions on the DMZ line in the event of active reprocessing at Yongbyon.
The Pentagon hawks believe the precision strikes envisaged in the plan would not lead to North Korea's initiating a general war it would be certain to lose. The US would inform the North Koreans it was not aiming to destroy the regime of Kim Jong-il, but merely to destroy its nuclear weapons capacity.No word on what kind of weapons would be used in the "precision" strikes on DPRK arty, but the positions they are talking about are extensive and fortified. The US military's precision strike weapons are impressive--this Iraq business has made that clear--but my own impression is echoed by John Derbyshire's article Night Thoughts:
The logic all points one way: to nuclear weapons. The only way to put North Korea out of business without South Korea�s co-operation is by attacking their emplacements along the DMZ with neutron bombs (�enhanced radiation weapons�). Nothing else does the job without precipitating an invasion of South Korea.I have to agree. I don't think we have any other option that allows us to neutralize the artillery positions quickly enough to prevent them turning lose devastation on Seoul. The use of nukes will not pass as "precision strikes" in anyone's book, and I don't think there is any friendly message that Bush can send to talk Kim out of a reply. Once we go to guns on the DPRK, we're committed to a real war. There should be no joking around about this. It may be the right thing to do--I'm increasingly convinced that it is, though I am willing to see how the China talks develop. It should be understood, though, that we are not talking about precision strikes this time, nor a cost-free bombing run to solve all our problems.
Of course, these Canberra sources seem to be drawing on Pentagon and DoD sources. The State Department may have other ideas.
My Favorite American Beer:
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is apparently enjoying a renaissance among the young and hip. It was my grandfather's beer, and the one I took up when living in Hangzhou, China, on those occasions when I wanted beer not cut with rice wine. It's actually very good--leaving aside the microbreweries and specialists, probably still the best American beer. Glad to see it making a comeback. (Story via InstaPundit).
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is apparently enjoying a renaissance among the young and hip. It was my grandfather's beer, and the one I took up when living in Hangzhou, China, on those occasions when I wanted beer not cut with rice wine. It's actually very good--leaving aside the microbreweries and specialists, probably still the best American beer. Glad to see it making a comeback. (Story via InstaPundit).
Guns in Iraq:
The Corner at NRO today has this post from Dave Kopel:
The Corner at NRO today has this post from Dave Kopel:
Although British troops in Basra have been urging residents to voluntarily turn in their guns, American forces in the middle-class Baghdad suburb of Hay al-Qudhat are doing no such thing. Instead, they are simply ordering people not to carry guns in public. Neighborhood residents have been defending their homes from looters. Said one resident, "We all have guns, but we don't want them. We just want peace and stability." The neighborhood is home to many doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.Right. A free man has the right to bear arms. As this page has advocated before, arming and empowering the liberal elements in Iraqi society is the surest first step to creating a liberal, but free, Iraq.
On Wagner:
Via the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily, we have this article from the Guardian on Wagner. I think it neatly captures why I find the culture's constant attempts at satire grating:
Via the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily, we have this article from the Guardian on Wagner. I think it neatly captures why I find the culture's constant attempts at satire grating:
Since then, Wagner's enterprise has acquired its own tragic pathos, as modern producers, embarrassed by dramas that make a mockery of their way of life, in turn make a mockery of the symbolism. Sarcasm and satire run riot, as in Richard Jones's 1994-96 Covent Garden production of The Ring, because nobility has become intolerable.I hope that we may start to see a reversal here. We will have to earn it, but we have an opportunity. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere, have a chance to build an awareness of what real nobility looks like. Our best ambassadors on that project are already at work--which is to say, not ambassadors at all, but those men who go in uniform. Their sacrifices inform us as Wagner's characters meant to:
For Wagner, as for the Greeks, a myth was not a decorative fairy tale, but the elaboration of a secret, a way of both hiding and revealing mysteries that can be understood only in religious terms, through the ideas of sanctity, holiness and redemption....
The gods come about because we idealise our passions, and we do this not by sentimentalising them but by sacrificing ourselves to the vision on which they depend. It is by accepting the need for sacrifice that we begin to live under divine jurisdiction, surrounded by sacred things, and finding meaning through love. Seeing things that way, we recognise that we are not condemned to mortality but consecrated to it.
Bad Translation?
Via the Corner at NRO, there is this story that North Korea may not be reprocessing its fuel rods yet. It is, they say, a mistranslation--they meant, they were ready to do so.
Via the Corner at NRO, there is this story that North Korea may not be reprocessing its fuel rods yet. It is, they say, a mistranslation--they meant, they were ready to do so.
Birth of a Nation:
Iraqi muslims are demonstrating "by the tens of thousands" for an Islamic state in Iraq, and an end to the occupation of Iraq by the United States. Well, we haven't even finished occupying the place yet. Meanwhile, an Iraqi religious leader in Iran is calling for an assembly in Karbala to protest the US efforts to set up an interim government.
This is going to be a lasting problem, and a problem for the long term. There is a model for this from history which ought to be kept in mind: the reconstruction of Confederate states by the Union after the Civil War. Initial efforts at self-government were met with the former Confederate states re-electing Confederate leaders to serve in the government--Alexander Stepehens, vice president of the Confederacy, was sent to the US Senate by Georgia. Unwilling to allow former Confederates such authority, the US government expelled them from their offices and imposed a military government, and required the states to rewrite their constitutions and elect governments approved by the military regime, as well as ratify certain Federal Constitutional amendments (Amendments 13, 14, and 15).
This heavy handed approach resulted in Reconstruction states that were liberal on the surface, but deeply unpopular. As soon as the government retracted its close watch, the populace re-elected Confederate members again--Joe Brown, for example, governor of the state of Georgia before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and then after the Civil War.
Much more importantly, though, was that the countryside fell under the control of terror groups, who grew together to form the Ku Klux Klan. Liberal elements were subject to night-rides, lynchings, beatings, and worse. By the late 1870s, liberal elements were expunged from the government, the state constitutions were rewritten to effectively strip blacks of voting rights, and segregation was in place.
If that is not to happen in Iraq, we will have to be careful in our handling of the place. First, we have to avoid the temptation to shut down these Islamic protests. We have to find a way to bring them into the fold and give them a stake in making the government work. Otherwise, we may find that whatever state system we impose will collapse because of their deep and devoted antipathy.
Another thing we need to do is to fortify liberal elements. There are quite a few of these in Baghdad particularly, especially among those engaged in commerce. The government must also be a thing they have a stake in, and they ought to be encouraged to take small civic leadership roles--the more of them who take such roles, the better. A wise policy would be dividing the cities into many small wards, getting these relatively liberal, commercially minded men into place as mayors, and letting them hire private police forces. Some of the money from the oil wells should be set aside to fund such forces which, being private and each operating according to its owner's personal interest, will not be so likely to fall under the sway of the central government should it turn toward radical Islam. Thus, liberal elements in Iraq would have many strong pockets that would make it harder for terror groups to torment the populace into compliance.
Last, these terror groups need to be eradicated. Special operations teams should begin to be tasked with the regular capture or, if capture is not possible, assassination of terrorist leadership members. It is helpful to remember that they are, in effect, the KKK, and like the KKK they have a core of educated and intelligent men who are leading a mass of uneducated but passionate men. Without the leadership elements, the terror groups can not organize or operate except on a local level. It is when they grow together, as the KKK grew out of many small groups, that they become dangerous to the liberalization of Iraq.
Iraqi muslims are demonstrating "by the tens of thousands" for an Islamic state in Iraq, and an end to the occupation of Iraq by the United States. Well, we haven't even finished occupying the place yet. Meanwhile, an Iraqi religious leader in Iran is calling for an assembly in Karbala to protest the US efforts to set up an interim government.
This is going to be a lasting problem, and a problem for the long term. There is a model for this from history which ought to be kept in mind: the reconstruction of Confederate states by the Union after the Civil War. Initial efforts at self-government were met with the former Confederate states re-electing Confederate leaders to serve in the government--Alexander Stepehens, vice president of the Confederacy, was sent to the US Senate by Georgia. Unwilling to allow former Confederates such authority, the US government expelled them from their offices and imposed a military government, and required the states to rewrite their constitutions and elect governments approved by the military regime, as well as ratify certain Federal Constitutional amendments (Amendments 13, 14, and 15).
This heavy handed approach resulted in Reconstruction states that were liberal on the surface, but deeply unpopular. As soon as the government retracted its close watch, the populace re-elected Confederate members again--Joe Brown, for example, governor of the state of Georgia before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and then after the Civil War.
Much more importantly, though, was that the countryside fell under the control of terror groups, who grew together to form the Ku Klux Klan. Liberal elements were subject to night-rides, lynchings, beatings, and worse. By the late 1870s, liberal elements were expunged from the government, the state constitutions were rewritten to effectively strip blacks of voting rights, and segregation was in place.
If that is not to happen in Iraq, we will have to be careful in our handling of the place. First, we have to avoid the temptation to shut down these Islamic protests. We have to find a way to bring them into the fold and give them a stake in making the government work. Otherwise, we may find that whatever state system we impose will collapse because of their deep and devoted antipathy.
Another thing we need to do is to fortify liberal elements. There are quite a few of these in Baghdad particularly, especially among those engaged in commerce. The government must also be a thing they have a stake in, and they ought to be encouraged to take small civic leadership roles--the more of them who take such roles, the better. A wise policy would be dividing the cities into many small wards, getting these relatively liberal, commercially minded men into place as mayors, and letting them hire private police forces. Some of the money from the oil wells should be set aside to fund such forces which, being private and each operating according to its owner's personal interest, will not be so likely to fall under the sway of the central government should it turn toward radical Islam. Thus, liberal elements in Iraq would have many strong pockets that would make it harder for terror groups to torment the populace into compliance.
Last, these terror groups need to be eradicated. Special operations teams should begin to be tasked with the regular capture or, if capture is not possible, assassination of terrorist leadership members. It is helpful to remember that they are, in effect, the KKK, and like the KKK they have a core of educated and intelligent men who are leading a mass of uneducated but passionate men. Without the leadership elements, the terror groups can not organize or operate except on a local level. It is when they grow together, as the KKK grew out of many small groups, that they become dangerous to the liberalization of Iraq.
Worse news from Pyongyang:
So North Korea is now reprocessing its fuel rods. These talks we're going to have with them in China will be very interested. Sure, if you're Kim Jong Il, you'd want to be negotiating from behind a growing stockpile of nukes, too. That's the strongest possible position for North Korea.
However, these talks have been "brokered," to use the Washington Post's word, by the People's Republic of China. This bad-faith move by the DPRK is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the PRC. There is nothing the Chinese hate more than being humiliated in public. In the long run, therefore, this could be a good sign--China may now feel it has to take a hard line with the DPRK to save face.
So North Korea is now reprocessing its fuel rods. These talks we're going to have with them in China will be very interested. Sure, if you're Kim Jong Il, you'd want to be negotiating from behind a growing stockpile of nukes, too. That's the strongest possible position for North Korea.
However, these talks have been "brokered," to use the Washington Post's word, by the People's Republic of China. This bad-faith move by the DPRK is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the PRC. There is nothing the Chinese hate more than being humiliated in public. In the long run, therefore, this could be a good sign--China may now feel it has to take a hard line with the DPRK to save face.
Bad News from Ulster:
This is the biggest story out of Northern Ireland in several years. Scotland Yard has disclosed that British security forces aided Protestant hit squads in Northern Ireland. The Washington Post has the story as well.
The credible suspicion of this sort of thing fueled a lot of US donations to the IRA during the pre-9/11 days. I was myself pro-IRA in my misspent youth, just exactly because I believed--truthfully, as it turns out--that the British government was involved with murder raids on Northern Ireland Catholics. It's really only been 9/11 that brought many of us Americans to take a second look at the IRA, and realize what a band of thugs it is. But if part of it was that we didn't understand what terrorism really was, there was also the fact that the British were behaving brutally.
It's important to realize that MI5 isn't the whole of the British government, though. In the days after 9/11 we often read in the UK newspapers that we Americans needed a domestic security service like MI5. No, we don't, thank you kindly. This is the kind of thing such groups do.
This is the biggest story out of Northern Ireland in several years. Scotland Yard has disclosed that British security forces aided Protestant hit squads in Northern Ireland. The Washington Post has the story as well.
The credible suspicion of this sort of thing fueled a lot of US donations to the IRA during the pre-9/11 days. I was myself pro-IRA in my misspent youth, just exactly because I believed--truthfully, as it turns out--that the British government was involved with murder raids on Northern Ireland Catholics. It's really only been 9/11 that brought many of us Americans to take a second look at the IRA, and realize what a band of thugs it is. But if part of it was that we didn't understand what terrorism really was, there was also the fact that the British were behaving brutally.
It's important to realize that MI5 isn't the whole of the British government, though. In the days after 9/11 we often read in the UK newspapers that we Americans needed a domestic security service like MI5. No, we don't, thank you kindly. This is the kind of thing such groups do.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)