Grim's Hall

910 Group

UPDATE (2022): This post was flagged for review by what I can only assume was an automated algorithm. Anyone who reads this post will find that it is a call to engage Muslims, understand their ideas, and find ways to work with any whom we can. This post is from 2006, the height of the 'Global War on Terror' and the Iraq conflict, both of which I participated in directly in the surrounding years. It is the opposite of radical hate speech; it was a call to find ways to limit the violence of those conflicts through understanding.

An interesting, internet-based movement brought to my attention by reader A.A. is the 910 Group. It declares itself to be a nonpartisan defense of Western core values and civilization, asking only one thing of prospective members: devoted opposition to what it calls "the Great Islamic Jihad in all its forms."

I gather from their specific comments that what they mean by that formula is 'terrorist violence executed by people who believe in a radical version of Islam, plus also the political movements driven by the same goals.' They expand on what they mean by their movement by an assertion of things you can't believe and be one of them:

There’s no room for responses like these:
I’m opposed to radical Islam, BUT…
*You have to understand the root causes of terrorism. *The problem of Israel and the Palestinians has to be solved first. *It is a legacy of Western imperialism and colonialism. *It is important to understand and be accepting of different cultural values. *Sometimes terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance against oppression.
Nuh-uh. Nope. No way. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances.
If you subscribe to any of the above dependent clauses (or their numerous cousins), then you don’t belong here. This is no place for equivocation; those who have come here recognize the gravity of the present danger.
Root causes don’t matter. Historical grievances don’t matter.
Violence against civilians for religious or political purposes is always, everywhere, and under all circumstances WRONG.
Asserting otherwise destroys the civic and moral fabric of our common society, and we emphatically reject it.
Resist the jihad. Encourage the overthrow of tyrannical Islamist regimes. Work to stop and reverse the encroachment of Wahhabi fundamentalism throughout the Western world.
I guess it's point number three that troubles me. If all it means is "It doesn't matter what your cultural values are, terrorism is still wrong," OK.
On the other hand, it appears to suggest not being interested in the Islamic understanding of why these acts are lawful. The use of the phrase "Great Jihad" is a good example of that lack of interest, as I'll explain below. That is foolish -- and I say that as a dedicated fighter, and a man who believes the military is the 'last man standing' in terms of being an effective branch of the US government. If you scroll down to 'the Executive' there, you'll see for example how I think the US military is now doing diplomacy better than the State department. It's a military response we need. But ADM Fallon's work wasn't done with disinterest toward the cultures of the region -- I have personal reason to know how interested PACOM and its subordinates have been in the cultures of their region.
Take the phrase, "the Great Islamic Jihad." I have to wonder if they didn't know, or have forgotten, or simply do not care that the phrase "Great Jihad" has a meaning in Islam separate from the 'jihad of the sword.' If you declare yourself against "the Great Jihad," a Muslim will have every reason to ask -- doesn't that mean you're really against Islam itself? Aren't you saying that you oppose anyone converting to Islam, or living an Islamic life? In other words, isn't your interest the elimination of Islam?
This plays into the problem. The Muslim understanding of Mohammed's war's, as explained in the same link, is that they were defensive: that Mohammed put up with more than a decade of abuse without fighting back, and were granted permission by Allah to fight back only when the destruction of themselves or their faith was at risk:
[The Quarish] would either annihilate the Muslims or compel them to return to unbelief. In these circumstances came the earliest permission to fight, in verses 39 and 40 of chapter 22, which read:
"Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them - Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps His cause".
Indeed, war with such a pure motive as to establish the principle of religious liberty was truly a jihad, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.
The average Muslim understands Islam's wars in that way. If you go on declaring yourself to be against "the Great Jihad," he will understand you to be saying that you are like the Quarish -- that you intend to force him to return to unbelief (that is, by banning the practical side of Islam) or destroy him.
Better results could be achieved by saying that you believe that the terrorist groups who claim to be waging jihad by the sword are, in fact, murderers -- and are therefore not 'waging jihad' but slandering Islam. It is important to show how the attacks they claim to be "defensive" are actually aggressive; that the United States, while not exactly a friend to Islam (being a secular state), is not opposed to it either; and to show where we have helped Muslims and their nations, as a counterweight to the examples (given lurid daily play in the press) where we have fought in such places.
This is the Special Forces' mode of waging war -- to isolate the extremists from the 'sea in which they swim,' to paraphrase Mao. In that way, they either die of a lack of oxygen, or they become easier to catch and kill.
This isn't a theory with no practical side I'm putting before you. Read "Francis Marion"'s blog for a window into how it is playing out, every day, in the Philippines. He is a Special Forces operator there, waging our war in a region in which there are numerous Islamic forces under arms. Some of them are friends of al Qaeda and our devoted enemies; some are merely interested in local autonomy, and will take help from whomever will give it; and all of them depend on the support of a local population.
You'll see him engaged in operations against the first set (Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf), being circumspect with the second set (MNLF/MILF); and helping spread cheer among the locals -- for example, in his mission as a Special Forces soldier to aid the Philippine Girl Scouts.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) were sponsoring the Philippine Girl Scouts for a two day event at our location and my team assisted by teaching a few classes. Green Berets have a reputation for womanizing and having a team in close contact with a few hundred teenage girls can put a lot of commanders into a nervous sweat.
Events were over before I returned and had a chance to settle in so I did not participate but, from what I have seen and heard, this was one of the most effective combat operations we could have performed. In typical teenage girl fashion, the girls identified a few favored U.S. soldiers. They would wave and giggle as they walked by or swoon when their favorite soldier was announced. It was cute and these guys continue to get teased but the effects have gone far beyond our base camp. These guys have achieved celebrity status here.
Now, when we drive the streets, the girls run out and shout out the names, or nicknames, of the soldiers they recognize. This may have some effect on our egos but, more importantly, it is a tactical victory. Having a few hundred adoring fans will make the terrorists think twice before targeting us and also adds several hundred extra sets of eyes that can warn us of possible danger.
I feel safer.
That's a combat operation, to use his words.
I suspect the 910 group and I agree on more than we disagree. These things are important, however. If you don't get them right, you push us into a very different kind of war -- one I have no wish to fight, though I would fight it if it came.
We are wiser if we avoid it. Francis Marion is right, and it is his mode of war that will be most effective in so many parts of the world. We should think on how we can support him and men like him in their missions. Understanding how to support missions like his requires taking extra care -- but he deserves it.

Bill R 2

Bill Roggio Reports, II:

Today's story includes an attack driven off by the Fallujah Police, and the capture of an al Qaeda commander.

BR

Bill Roggio Reports:

He's been on patrol with the Marines in Fallujah, and Route Mobile, one of the two largest and most important roads in Anbar. The Marines described the quiet he encountered as "typical," although he also describes the new tactics adopted by the insurgents to deal with the enhanced security.

Cold poetry II`

A Poem by Doc Russia:

Obviously, being up north is playing with his brain, because he's taken to composing poems about the snow. Actually, the whole piece is almost a poem. I would say it's the first piece in a long time that is "classic" Doc Russia, the sort of thing he used to write before the last year of med school and the first year of his new residency drained away his time.

It's a good piece, in other words.

I have my own memories of the cold and the snow, also from mountain living. It was the winter of 2002-3 that was coldest for us. We lived on a mountain above thirty-three hundred feet, so that it froze in early November and never warmed above freezing, day or night, until sometime in March. There were no roads in or out of the place except private dirt tracks, which were impassable even with a 4x4 when there was any kind of snow. My "neighbor," a park ranger, would join me in painstakingly shoveling off each snowfall the whole long way back, over the ridge and to the switchbacks on the sunny side.

While it was still snowing, it was necessary to hike in and out, two miles over the ridge, to the closest state highway. We'd park over there and hike in. My wife had a new child at the time, and so she was not particularly mobile. I'd have to carry food for them in with my backpack, fifty pounds of flour and canned goods.

Happiest time of my life. No kidding.

The clouds would pass right there over the mountains, and the mists that make up the clouds would freeze to whatever it touched. In the mornings, as the sun rose and I was hiking out for work, every single thing would be covered in a sheet of ice, like in a fairy story where some warlock or evil Queen had cast a spell of doom. It was cold enough that you knew if you slipped and broke your ankle or something similar, you would probably die before anyone found you.

I also wrote a poem that mentioned all that, once, to commemorate the greatest sadness of my life so far. Never mind what it was; think of your own greatest sorrow, and you will understand what I meant.

To die for Freedom

To Die for Freedom:

How important was Thermopylae? A new book considers the question (h/t Arts & Letters Daily).

The author says it was more important than Marathon, because it established a principle:

Two Spartans survived. One, who missed the encounter at Thermopylae because he was on a diplomatic mission, hanged himself in disgrace upon his return home. The other, who missed the battle because of an eye infection (not much of an excuse for a solider, never mind a Spartan), went on a suicide mission in the next major encounter with the Persians. When Spartans said that the only way to return from a battle was with your shield or on it, they meant it.

How, then, was Thermopylae the battle that changed the world if the Greeks lost? It did seriously weaken the Persian forces and spelled their ultimate defeat. But Mr. Cartledge has something grander in mind. For him, Thermopylae was a triumph of "reasoned devotion to, and self-sacrifice in the name of, a higher collective cause, Freedom." The strange capitalization is Mr. Cartledge's and it is a measure of just how seriously he takes the Spartans' stand.

I will say two things about the review. First, the author is correct to note that it's hard to see the Spartans as the ancestors of the West -- spiritual or otherwise -- given how different Spartan culture was from anything else before or since. The closest thing I can think of to the Spartans was the Jomsvikings, or perhaps the orders of the Church Militant. Neither of those, however, proposed to engage the whole civilization in the business -- women, children, families, slaves, and a subject people to pay for it all -- as did the Spartans.

The second is that suicidal displays were apparently more common in the period than they are today, outside of course of Islam. The second review on the page -- of what sounds like a better book, Xenophon's Retreat -- makes clear that whole villages sometimes wiped themselves out to make a point. Nor was this unique to the Greek world, as we know from the later episode of Masada. Indeed, the fact of Masada probably undermines the conclusion that Thermopylae was a Western thing. While the Jewish civilization later became very important to the West, even as late as Masada's mass suicide, Jews were a small and apparently unimportant minority whose culture was not resonant through the Roman Empire as a whole. It was only the conversion of the Empire to Christianity that made old Jewish stories and ways of thinking an area of interest in the larger West.

That said, Thermopylae was and remains a great symbol. The Spartan spirit -- my favorite example being the reply 'Good! We shall fight in the shade! -- has its high qualities.

When the news of the stand at the Alamo became widely known, it was declared by American newspapers to be a Thermopylae. Indeed, the Alamo is a better example of what the author was seeking -- men dying for, if not "Freedom," certainly independence and self-determination. That shows the importance of Thermopylae as a symbol to the 19th century American.

My sense is that, in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have replaced Thermopylae in our culture with the Alamo. It is now the symbol that Thermopylae was, and it is more plainly ours. It's hard to think of yourself as a Spartan, but we can readily understand Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie.

EscapeNY

At last, an exit Strategy:

Or, a reprise of that great concept film, Escape from New York. Good advice for anyone, if you can manage it.

And now for something completely different:

So. I've seen (on a rack of sarcastic and ironic bumber stickers) a bumper sticker that said "If they take our guns away, can we use swords?"

The question, it appears, has been answered in Australia:

A FEUD between two families in a remote Northern Territory community escalated when more than 200 people attacked each other with axes, spears and homemade swords overnight.

The fighting in the Gemco mining town of Alyangula on Groote Eylandt continued throughout the night after a failed attempt to resolve the long-running dispute earlier yesterday, police said.

The two families had agreed to meet with the intention of reaching a peaceful resolution to their problems.

About 200 people turned up for the meeting in the stifling December heat but as the two groups gathered, police said one began to "taunt and verbally abuse" the other.

"The opposing family responded physically," police said.

"The situation escalated with police frantically trying to disarm young men of axes, spears and homemade swords."

Although the officers managed to disperse the crowd, the fighting continued throughout the night with police estimating it caused more than $20,000 in damages to cars and other property.

So far, 11 people have been taken into custody and will be charged with being armed in public, taking part in affray, being armed with an offensive weapon and inciting others to commit an offence.

Send those people some armor, I say. Or not. So far it appears that nobody has got hurt. C'mon people, you can do better than that.

Contra-Gentleman

I would like to make two apologies. First, I do not have even a quarter of the writing talent that Grim, or my co-bloggers, possess here in the Hall. Finally, my apologies for not using the comments area for this, as my reply is something that I feel needs it’s own post.

I do believe that we should, in some ways, model our conduct on the gentlemen of old. I do not believe that every American man can attain the status of Gentleman. No matter how good his character, devotion to arms, or other abilities driven by steadfast resolve.

Put simply, we will always fall short in one key area: Nobility.

From a linguistic perspective, a Gentleman is strictly defined as a man of superior, noble, social station. This is why I feel it is a dishonest usage.

Blackstone confirms that requirement right from the start:

“ALL degrees of nobility and honour are derived from the king as their fountaina : and he may inftitute what new titles he pleafes.”
Blackstone Book I Chap 12

To compound the problem, we have an intrinsic, as Americans, misapplication of what nobility truly means.

George F. Jones pointed out in both Honor in German Literature & Southern Honor, that the understanding of ‘noble’ had drastically changed when the Christian Guilt Culture supplanted the Germanic Shame Culture (incidentally, giving birth to the, then foreign, concept of Chivalry), and again changed in the North East during the birth of our United States and finally changing that last bastion of the Old South during the post-Civil War era.

Jones’ point is that noble is something recognized and confirmed by a sovereign and not something one feels about ones self. I would agree as I take deeds as the measure of a man. As such an action is not a noble action unless recognized. How you internalize an action is between you and your God or Gods; neither of which means anything to me. When a man says, “I am a man of honor”, it is a meaningless statement to me. While I will give leave of Right Good Will, and thus give you the benefit of the doubt, I will come to judge your deeds.

The next problem goes back to Blackstone; who are we to confer that status? Staying true to the roots of sovereignty, I could confer noble status only as far as my reach. Meaning, if thirty men swore oath to me as liege, my confirmation has meaning only among those men and their families. In the United States that is officially meaningless as we do not recognize peerage.

So I have a problem with the use of gentleman as anything other than a term of politeness in speech; “Ladies and Gentleman, if I can have your attention”, “That gentleman over there is Mr. Smith”, etc. Yes, an incorrect usage as well… but one that is not as dishonest in my eyes.

I feel a greater honesty in saying that Grim is an Honorable Man as opposed to a Gentleman. There is my recognition of honorable conduct, without the assumption of a shared sovereign with reach over us both, nor dependant on contrary views of nobility.

Saddle Time

Saddle Time:

This has been a hard year for lots of us. I see that BloodSpite has found a source of solace: teaching a young man to break horses.

Thanks to reader S.S. for the link. I should get by BloodSpite's place more often.

Rig lights

"Rigging up the Lights!"

My sympathies, Heidi. I think we're on day four of trying to get the decorations rigged, here.

Get 'em, Bill

Bill Roggio Reports:

Coalition Task Force 145 has taken down some high value targets. Our old friend Bill Roggio is back on the scene, giving it to us straight about our "hunter-killer" teams.

Gentlemen Defined

Gentlemen Defined:

I am told I have the bad habit, for a writer, of putting my point last, and the evidence -- in the form of long narratives -- first. The result, for those who read to the end, is that suddenly a long and apparently separate series of events comes together, and has a clear lesson. Unless you read to the end, though, you may never know what I was talking about at all.

For that reason, I'll state my intent clearly this time: "Gentleman" is a word that is not understood today. This must change.

The other day I ventured down to Gwinnett county, which is named for Button Gwinnett, signator of the Declaration of Independence. Gwinnett died in a duel with Lachlan McIntosh, a Continental officer who later became a Valley Forge veteran and general in George Washington's army. I encountered, while walking around, a posh store with very fancy appointments, declaring itself to be "for distinguished gentlemen."

Standing outside, wearing a Stetson hat and blue jeans, I realized that these fellows had a very different definition of "gentleman" from mine. I doubt they understand the concept at all.

"For distinguished gentlemen!" A Google search on the term yields botiques, perfumes, and escort services.

This is not right. A gentleman is defined, as noted in Blackstone's commentaries, as "one qui arma gerit."

That is, "one who bears arms."

The manners and grooming aspects are entirely -- entirely -- secondary. I will explain how they came to be associated with gentlemen in a moment. For now, I will note Major Leggett's objection to gentlemen focusing attention on fashion:

I think that any self-respecting individual should take the time to ensure that their grooming and apparel standards are up to snuff. Nevertheless, I categorically reject the idea that an obsessive concern with the latest fashion trends is the hallmark of gentlemen. That is the hallmark of a fop. Remember, the concept of the gentleman comes the tradition of chivalry, which was itself an ethical system for fighting men, not fashion models.

Blackstone notes, as does the Oxford English Dictionary, that the "arms" in question are heraldic arms -- that is, symbolic ones. Those symbolic arms, however, were the later representation of what was earlier a very real right: the right to bear not only weapons, but armor onto the field. Heraldry describes the shield of a fighter. In the Middle Ages, the sort entitled to such a shield were those with the literal right to bear arms. It is only in these more decadent ages -- in more decadent countries -- that this right has become purely symbolic.

Why did the state recognize that right, in a time before the Declaration that Gwinnett signed? It did so because it depended on these fighters, knights and noblemen and squires, who later became the gentlemen. It needed them to defend itself. Before the Napoleonic era, wars were a matter of professional armies and levies raised by the fedual structure. The right to bear arms arose from the fact that you could be counted upon to defend your country and its civilization at need.

That is what it means today. Fine manners and courtesy pertain to the gentleman because he is, through their use, upholding what is fine about civilization. He defends it symbolically as he defends it practically.

In America, the right to bear arms is secured in the Constitution itself. If you wish to register heraldic arms, the link to the American College of Heraldry is on the right. If you wish to bear literal ones, you have the right to do so. Every American man can be a gentleman.

To do so, though, requires that you constitute yourself a defender of your country and its civilization. It is not enough to say, as did Dutch humanist Oscar van den Boogaard:

"I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

No, that is not a gentleman, though he wears the finest clothes and writes the finest novels, keeps the best society, and has the finest manners. He has only the accidents of a gentleman. He has nothing of its essence.

The essence is to bear arms, in defense of country and civilization. That is the real thing, the root of the tradition. The arms may be symbolic, or they may be actual. The defense must be devout.

That may sit ill with some, but there it is. Honi soit qui mal y pense, goes the motto of the greatest of England's knightly orders. For the rest of us, there lies the gage.

Set Theory

Set Theory:

Over at The Geek w/a .45's, Charles is positing a set theory for political correctness:

It seems to me that when a bad act is discussed in academia, or the media, the offenders are described as part of whatever grouping includes both the offenders and white Christian American men. For example, Christian snake handlers or abortion clinic bombers are identified as Christian, while Muslim terrorists or Aztec human sacrificers are religious....

I think he's got something there.

Aso nukes

Aso: Japan Can Have Nuclear Arms

"...like, next week, if we want them."

I'd say that was clear enough. So is this, the purest example of an exception swallowing a rule that I've ever seen:

Aso reiterated his belief that the constitution's pacifist clause does not prevent Japan from having nuclear bombs for the purpose of defense.

The constitution's Article 9 bars Japan from the use of force to settle international disputes.

"Possession of minimum level of arms for defense is not prohibited under the Article 9 of the Constitution," Aso said. "Even nuclear weapons, if there are any that fall within that limit, they are not prohibited."

So, the clause permitting "minimal" arms now permits the most dangerous weapons ever developed.

I've got no problem with Japan developing nukes -- and, as Aso notes, it doesn't matter if I do have a problem with it. I'd just like to point out that that's the healthiest Living Constitution I ever saw.

Another leak

Another Leak:

This time, the full text of a secret memo is printed in the New York Times. It's OK, though, so we're told by RedState.

The Bush Administration in the past has rightly decried the leaking of classified information from intelligence sources whose motives may or may not have been largely partisan in nature. But the deliberate leak yesterday of a classified analysis of Iraqi's embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley should be seen in the context of statecraft and not necessarily the typical Washington bureaucratic game of "gotchya" - a difference that may be lost on some but is telling nonetheless.

The distinction isn't lost on me. Certainly this allows Bush to frame the meeting with Maliki along very honest lines -- perhaps more honest ones than the forms of diplomacy would usually allow. The memo is good, I think: insightful, direct, and focused on suggestions for actual steps that can be taken to improve the situation.

Surely the summit will be improved by an open and direct statement of where the White House's internal deliberations are.

I disagree, though, that the memo targets "an audience of one," Maliki himself. I think it is meant to give an impression to the People of the United States. It shows a willingness to ask hard questions, demand firm answers, and suggest positive steps for change. That can only be meant to shore up support for the administration's approach on Iraq, which has been criticized for being apparently unwilling to do any of those things.

Insofar as that is the case, let me go on record as saying: I appreciate being 'let in on' the deliberations, and indeed it does do something to shore up my confidence.

I would, however, have had my confidence shorn up far more by a President who had the guts to put this out officially, with his own approval clearly stated. Where's that cowboy diplomacy? A cowboy is meant to speak his mind, when he speaks at all.

It's a mistake to appear to legitimize the culture of oathbreaking by making use of its forms. If you wanted to declassify this, declassify it!

congrats flygirl

Well Earned:

CWO Lori Hill of the 101st Airborne has been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Read why.

Now there's a woman America can be proud to have raised.

Failure

Failure:

The New York Times reports today that Hezbollah is training the Mahdi Army, according to a 'senior American intelligence official.'

Well, we've had rumors in the media mill about Hezbollah acting in Iraq all along. Michael Ledeen had this back in 2003:

Anyone who has worked on terrorism for the past 20 years will recognize the murderous techniques employed in the most-recent monster bombings at the Jordanian embassy, the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, and the shrine of Ali in Najaf. They all bear the imprint of Hezbollah's infamous chief of operations, Imad Mughniyah, the same man who organized the terrible mass murders at the U.S. Marine barracks....

Mughniyah — who has changed his face, his fingerprints, and his eye color, since he knows he's one of the most-hunted men on earth — has been in Iraq for several weeks....

[T]here are many Hezbollahs, one of which is now growing in Iraq, under the leadership of the young Sheikh Muqtada al-Sadr, who was named chief of Iraqi Hezbollah by Iran's strongman Mohammed Hashemi Rafsanjani several months ago. And, as luck would have it, the young sheikh just happened to be absent from Friday prayers at the shrine of Ali when the car bombs went off.

Was it true then? Probably? Not at all? How about in 2004?

Although American officials have called attention to the presence of about a hundred Hezbollah members in Iraq, few believe that they are organizing violent resistance. Every Hezbollah official I spoke to vehemently denied such reports, some indicating that they would welcome diplomatic relations with the United States.

The source there is Adam Shatz, writing in the New York Review of Books.

So, was Hezbollah in Iraq or not? Are they working with our enemies, bringing their advanced lessons on guerrilla warfare -- or just doing social welfare work? Did they have to do with the 2003 bombing at the Shrine of Ali mosque, or not? Are they even there now, or not?

Consider the take from Talking Points Memo.

Is it true? Is Hezbollah training the Mahdi Army? I have no idea. And regrettably, under current management, the fact that senior intelligence officials or senior administration officials say it, really doesn't mean much one way or another.

That is factually correct. If we -- and by "we" I mean both sides of the political divide in America -- have learned anything in the last few years, it's that leaks from unnamed sources in the government can't be trusted. For that matter, plain statements from the government can't be trusted to be reliable: from the CIA's "slam dunk" leadership to Colin Powell's presentation before the UN, the details of which appear to have been earnestly believed and largely wrong.

Intelligence work means getting things wrong sometimes, because you're playing the odds. It's a form of gambling, in which you never have the complete picture -- like with poker, where you know the content of your own hand but not the content of others'. Even in stud poker, where you have partial information about the latter, you end up having to gamble because some information is hidden. Sometimes, even the wisest gamble will result in a loss.

But this culture of leaks, this culture of oathbreaking by officials who have sworn to keep our nation's secrets, has left us with a complete failure of trust. TPM thinks it knows the source of this leak -- Dick Cheney -- but it's just guessing. It knows no more about that for certain than it knows if Hezbollah is in Iraq. Or, if it is, what it's doing there.

Our agencies' official statements are at once undercut by internal leaks from people with agendas. Their ability to consider possibilities in a confidential manner is undercut by leaks of those documents. Intelligence is sometimes going to be wrong, but we are left wondering if it is ever right. Worse, we are left with a picture of intelligence services internally at war with themselves. How can we place confidence in even their official statements -- to say nothing of these leaks in the press?

TPM goes on to say -- I can only assume tongue-in-cheek:

Everybody's enemy's enemy is a friend. We do know the Israelis are knee-deep in Iraqi Kurdistan, right?

That's another one of the persistant rumors of the Iraq war, with Sy Hersh recycling it over and over. His sources always seem to track back to Turkey, where the government has an interest in spreading among Muslims the notion that independent Kurdistan is an Israeli puppet. But it might be true, even so -- right?

The media isn't doing better than the intelligence services seem to be. Consider Flopping Aces, which has demonstrated that a whole series of reports alleging serious atrocities in Iraq were invented in whole cloth.

The 'fog of war' is the phrase Clausewitz used to refer to the uncertainty that arises in battle. We have reached the stage at which that uncertainty has encompassed the entire war. In spite of the presence of massively-funded intelligence services, and a press that may be covering this war more intensely than any other in history, we know nothing for certain about what is going on.

A great revealation is made by a senior intelligence official in the New York Times, alleging Hezbollah is fighting alongside our enemies in Iraq. On both sides of the American divide, the response is: "Why should we believe anything you say? You, the media, or you, the leak -- or even the agencies in which the leakers serve, when even their senior officials so regularly keep no loyalty to their oaths, but forever try to undermine each other?"

If we are to succeed, in this or any war, we must address these problems. War is a test of wills. Will requires confidence. And we have no confidence, nor any cause for confidence, in the institutions that are charged with informing us. The intelligence services and the media have both failed us.

Laughter justified

Not Injustice:

Captain Ed reports some details about the six imams removed from a US Airways flight. Apparently, the men switched seats without authorization from the airline, seizing positions in the front row of first class, the exit rows, and the rear. This was a technique used by the 9/11 hijackers:

That would normally be enough to get any flight delayed while the seating arrangements got straightened out, especially if passengers deliberately take seats other than those assigned to them. However, the men kept interfering with the boarding process by going back and forth to talk amongst each other. Their seating pattern -- again, not that assigned by the airline -- positioned them at every egress point from the aircraft.

And those seat-belt extenders? Once they received them from the flight attendants, the imams put them under their seats, and not on the seat belts that purportedly would not fit them. Anyone who saw that would understandably wonder why the imams requested them in the first place, especially the flight crew, which has primary responsibility for flight security.

Small wonder, then, that US Air kicked them off the flight. Two pilots from other airlines confirmed that they would have done the same thing under the same circumstances. One pilot indicated that the repositioning of the group within the plane has been identified as a terrorist probe technique.

Seat belt extenders can, of course, be used as a weapon of sorts. Given the rigorousness with which the other passengers are disarmed by our own government before boarding the aircraft, real harm could be done by someone with such a strap who has trained in using it as a field-expedient weapon.

I remember shortly after 9/11 someone suggested that we just issue all airline passengers a Louisville Slugger. That would, at least, remove the chance of someone using a seat belt extension (or a box cutter) to hijack a plane. It would probably also cut down on "probes" like this one.

However, for now that concept is not in the cards. Too many people still think that we can best achieve security by disarming. In fact, security requires that we be capable of upholding the peace.

Condolences C-Elobby

Mourning:

Grim's Hall extends its condolences to D. J. McGuire of China e-Lobby, due to the death of his mother. You might wish to drop by and leave a comment.

Subscribe To