I will be on one of my regular excursions into the wilderness, from this afternoon until Monday. I'm heading out now, so I wish you all the best until next week.
Going Dark
Going Dark:
Following the Geek, this blog is going dark to protest the blackout of speech led by McCain, and Feingold. This travesty is a direct assault on the kind of free speech the Founders most cared to protect: political speech.
Reason has a good piece on the subject. My curse on all the politicians who participated in this business.
Oddly, for all we've heard about the supposed assault on rights coming from the GWOT, the two worst destructions of our real rights have been in other areas. McCain-Feingold is one, and the Kelo decision is the other. If you want to know where your real rights are being attacked, it's not in the attempt to stop terrorists -- it's in the attempt to undermine those few protections that keep the government from silencing you, or taking your land.
Thailand
Thailand:
That is to say, the internationalists are following the same script in Thailand (versus a key non-NATO US ally) that they are using in Iraq (versus the Coalition). Thailand's conflict has also had it's "Abu Ghraib," in this case, an incident called Tak Bai. Just as with Abu Ghraib, it appears that there was some genuinely awful behavior by the soldiers immediately on the scene. Just as with Abu Ghraib, this has been projected by the internationalists into a vision of a government conspiracy to use excessive, inappropriate force to quell Muslims.
Also following the usual script, Thailand has its own internal political divisions, with the opposition (amusingly enough, the opposition is led by a group called the "Democratic Party") using the internationalist script to demonize the existing leadership. Their spiritual leader in this effort is a man with Jimmy Carter-like stature: former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun.
That's not exactly fair. Unlike Carter, who has been uniformly awful, Anand's record is mixed. Anand became Prime Minister by invitation of the military following a coup against the democractically-elected government. However, he did do yeoman work in restoring democracy and getting the military to agree to step back from politics, though he left the coup leader in power (the general who led the coup succeeded him as Prime Minister), and in increased wealth (the same general became head of a new national telecom firm that Anand helped to set up).
I've met him. He is a charming man and a good speaker, in English as well as his native language. He believes in the internationalist vision of peace through negotiation, which often means giving violent people what they want in order that they should stop hurting folks. And, for what it's worth, that script -- which I despise on principle -- actually seems to have worked in the case of Thailand's politics. The payoffs to the general seem to have bought space to quell the tensions, and Thailand's military today is admirably detached from political turmoil.
Anand leads the way on the dissenting efforts to bring peace to Thaliand's south through the same basic notion: pay off the violent to buy peace, during which you can build institutions that may be of use in keeping that peace.
The problem is that his National Reconciliation Commission advocates giving away the store entirely. Its proposals include submitting to the introduction of Islamic law in the South of Thailand, as well as recognizing Malay as well as Thai as the official language of the state, and disarming the peackeeping forces ('so it will be easier for the Muslims to trust them,' if you want to know why).
Internationally, several leading regional figures have spoken about the issue or visited Thailand, including Haysim Muzadi, who leads the largest Islamic organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama, which has forty million members. Also following script, these leaders have treated the combatants as moral equals: they negotiate evenly between the Muslim rebels, who murder unarmed noncombatants as their normal means of operation, and the Thai government -- those brutes who committed Tak Bai.
All this has led the Thai government to basically ask the UN and the international community to keep its nose out of Thailand. If the UN were to protest, there's little doubt whom they'd protest. It would be the government, which has 'brutalized Muslims,' 'oppressed human rights,' and refuses to enact the simple solutions that the internationalists have already negotiated with local Islamic leaders.
When they came to make those protests, key political figures in Thailand would be right there to endorse them.
InstaPundit notes the problems in Thailand, and asks:
Sounds like ethnic cleansing by terror. Why isn't the UN protesting? If this sort of terror were directed at Muslims in Israel, or the United States, it would be an international cause celebre.So it is, actually, among those particularly interested in SouthEast Asia -- except the Muslims here are said by the internationalists to be the victims. The role of "evil brutes stirring up all this trouble with excessive force" is reserved for those Thai soldiers and police who have brought down the death rate.
That is to say, the internationalists are following the same script in Thailand (versus a key non-NATO US ally) that they are using in Iraq (versus the Coalition). Thailand's conflict has also had it's "Abu Ghraib," in this case, an incident called Tak Bai. Just as with Abu Ghraib, it appears that there was some genuinely awful behavior by the soldiers immediately on the scene. Just as with Abu Ghraib, this has been projected by the internationalists into a vision of a government conspiracy to use excessive, inappropriate force to quell Muslims.
Also following the usual script, Thailand has its own internal political divisions, with the opposition (amusingly enough, the opposition is led by a group called the "Democratic Party") using the internationalist script to demonize the existing leadership. Their spiritual leader in this effort is a man with Jimmy Carter-like stature: former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun.
That's not exactly fair. Unlike Carter, who has been uniformly awful, Anand's record is mixed. Anand became Prime Minister by invitation of the military following a coup against the democractically-elected government. However, he did do yeoman work in restoring democracy and getting the military to agree to step back from politics, though he left the coup leader in power (the general who led the coup succeeded him as Prime Minister), and in increased wealth (the same general became head of a new national telecom firm that Anand helped to set up).
I've met him. He is a charming man and a good speaker, in English as well as his native language. He believes in the internationalist vision of peace through negotiation, which often means giving violent people what they want in order that they should stop hurting folks. And, for what it's worth, that script -- which I despise on principle -- actually seems to have worked in the case of Thailand's politics. The payoffs to the general seem to have bought space to quell the tensions, and Thailand's military today is admirably detached from political turmoil.
Anand leads the way on the dissenting efforts to bring peace to Thaliand's south through the same basic notion: pay off the violent to buy peace, during which you can build institutions that may be of use in keeping that peace.
The problem is that his National Reconciliation Commission advocates giving away the store entirely. Its proposals include submitting to the introduction of Islamic law in the South of Thailand, as well as recognizing Malay as well as Thai as the official language of the state, and disarming the peackeeping forces ('so it will be easier for the Muslims to trust them,' if you want to know why).
Internationally, several leading regional figures have spoken about the issue or visited Thailand, including Haysim Muzadi, who leads the largest Islamic organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama, which has forty million members. Also following script, these leaders have treated the combatants as moral equals: they negotiate evenly between the Muslim rebels, who murder unarmed noncombatants as their normal means of operation, and the Thai government -- those brutes who committed Tak Bai.
All this has led the Thai government to basically ask the UN and the international community to keep its nose out of Thailand. If the UN were to protest, there's little doubt whom they'd protest. It would be the government, which has 'brutalized Muslims,' 'oppressed human rights,' and refuses to enact the simple solutions that the internationalists have already negotiated with local Islamic leaders.
When they came to make those protests, key political figures in Thailand would be right there to endorse them.
Blades
Bladesmanship:
Cam Edwards apparently had a program recently that treated the dangers of knife-fighters for firearms owners, which is summarized (with links) here. The summary itself can be summarized: carry a gun, stay alert.
Still, it's an interesting read in that the author (and, I expect, Cam) expresses a sense of the threat posed by knives that makes them sound more dangerous than guns. Partially that may be the NRA line: guns are simple tools that all citizens should have, whereas knives are wild dangerous things criminals use.
Partly, though, it's a perfectly accurate statement -- one I've often made here. Just to make it again: at close ranges, fighting knives are more dangerous than guns, assuming the wielder is equal to the task.
If you're choosing a close-defense weapon, then, what makes more sense? A .22 pistol or a .38 pistol? Well, the more-effective weapon, right?
The same principle works here too. Unless you have a physical reason not to do so, learn to use a knife, and carry one. See the "Gunfighting & Bladework" links to the right.
Even in jurisdictions where guns are simply illegal, knives -- at least some knives -- often are not. If you've trained to use them, and have one to hand, they can be better than a gun in many situations in which its likely you will have to defend yourself, or do your duty as a citizen to defend the common peace.
The Bowie knife is a weapon particularly suited to the American gentleman. Learn to use it -- or, if you live in a restrictive jursidiction, its closest legal relative. You will be glad that you did, and you will be upholding a tradition -- bladesmanship -- that is thousands of years old and as noble as a tradition can be.
Fitzmas
Speaking of Older Matters:
Too bad about Fitz. He was a good official, once.
While looking back for those older posts, I came across my first post on "Fitzmas." I wrote:
Indictments are, as everyone knows, proof of nothing except the prosecutor's intentions. The actual trial, at which a defense is permitted, is the point at which real information is likely to emerge. I have known real-world indictments that were dropped entirely without trial, and the prosecutor forced to apologize, once the defense lawyers got involved and began to unmake the case. This prosecutor, however, seems unlikely to have made gross errors of the sort that lead to such a situation.Looks like principle #1 was the governing one. Also, I was wrong about Fitz being a good prosecutor: though I was right that the indictment shows nothing except the prosecutor's intent.
My basic principles about government-official indictments remain the same:
1) A desire to defend the weaker party, which wants to see the matter resolved in the favor of the innocent whenever an innocent man is threatened by the state's power.
2) A desire to see corruption in government restrained, which desires to see the matter resolved by hurling any guilty men into the dungeon in this case. This is true whether "the guilty" is Delay, or the prosecutor, should the prosecutor in fact be engaged in a political prosecution.
Too bad about Fitz. He was a good official, once.
thanks to GOP
Thanks to the Grand Old Party:
Mark Noonan of GOP Bloggers wrote to ask me to guest blog over there. I had to decline, of course, because I am a Democrat. It was nice of them to offer, though, and I wish to express my gratitude for the kindness of their words regarding the content of this site.
As to which content, allow me to post a few links explaining why I remain a Democrat. In brief, it is because it is too high and fine a heritage to surrender.
On Kelo.
On James Jackson.
"Both Barrels, and the Bowie Knife."
No offense, lads. But I was born a Democrat, and mean to die one.
The Smell of Death
The Smell of Death:
I have posted a philosophical piece at Winds of Change. It may be of interest to some of you. It's rather long, though, which doesn't work well on a Blogger blog.
Friday Laugh
We've a new "flex-time" option at work... so I decided to head out on Friday, and take care of some things at the University of Houston. While I was there, I decided to declare my minor. I had in my mind either English or Military Science... so I went and spoke with the English department... easy enough, fill out the paperwork and get it stamped. Then I headed over to the Military Science building, walked into the Army ROTC office and was told the Major was out to lunch. That was no big deal, I needed lunch myself... but I decided to walk into the Air Force ROTC building and get the low-down on their military science program. I was promptly told by the Air Force Sergeant that they were not military science and that I needed to speak to the Army.
So there was my Friday laugh.
So there was my Friday laugh.
RV Send
Russ Vaughn Sends:
Russ has a piece for you calling defense contractors to charity. It's worth some attention. I don't know to what degree a corporation is morally required to perform charity of any sort -- they are legal persons, it's true, but unlike real persons, a corporation is amoral and meant to be so. Its moral effects are felt, as Adam Smith reminds us, in the good that arises naturally from people pursuing their own ends.
Nevertheless, these contractors make their living on government dollars, which means that their profits are extorted from us all. We each, therefore, have a claim on what they do with the money -- unlike with truly private corporations, whose monies are their own, earned in the market.
So, give it a read, and see what you think.
Croc Hunter
On the Death of the Crocodile Hunter:
That said, Irwin may have been the least dark, haunted figure in easy memory. He got close to those animals because he loved them. That is the same reason he read all he could about them, and loved to tell others about them.
Far from a death wish -- a wish easy to fulfill, if it is genuine! -- Irwin seems to me to have had a real love of life and of the world into which he was born. It is a dangerous world, but he refused to be afraid of it. He embraced that world as he found it, and if it killed him, well, it's going to kill all of us, too.
So, no, it wasn't an unnecessary death: he was already going to die. So are you.
It was a violent death, but so what? Violent is not a synonym for bad. Do you really want to die from organ failure in some hospital, or after some lingering illness? If not, you've really only got two options: die suddenly from a heart attack or other quick-acting cause, or die violently.
An argument can be made that a family man has a duty to survive, as long as survival is honorable, in order to provide for his family. Well, I don't doubt that Irwin had laid plenty of investments, so that his family is protected from ruin. His death will surely cause them grief, but so would his death from a heart attack. We aren't entitled to have those we love around forever, any more than we are entitled not to die.
A serious engagement with the deepest philosophical questions in life suggests to me that Irwin lived exactly the right way. He was an adventurer, and if I found his television manner impossible to tolerate, I admire everything else about the man. May I die the same way: engaged in experiencing, and loving, the world into which I was born.
Not fearing death is not the same thing as wishing for it. Neither is it dark. It is the right and proper attitude: the one to which the sages and the religions alike counsel us, and which martial art and meditation both seek to create.
The Crocodile Hunter got that, got all of it. Good for him!
I saw (via InstaPundit) that the "Crocodile Hunter," whom I learned was really named Steve Irwin, died after an encounter with a sting ray. Austin Bay has some words for the event, with which I find I entirely disagree. He portrays Steve Irwin as some sort of haunted figure, suffering from some dark inner need:
In the komodo dragon show I thought Irwin crossed the line from skilled showmanship to inexcuseable thrill-seeking – wagered mortality is tantalizing, but adds a queasy, dark twist to a family program. I told my wife “I wonder if this guy (Irwin) has a death wish?”I myself have seen only one episode of "The Crocodile Hunter," one time -- precisely because I can't stand some of the qualities Austin Bay admires. What he found enthusiastic and personable, I found irritating and noisy.
If my comments on the komodo dragon show seem a bit harsh, understand I’ve watched it a half-dozen times. I’ve gaped with the rest of the circus audience.
But I may never watch it again. Irwin died over the weekend, died while filming at-close-quarters another dangerous species. The poisoned barb of a sting ray put a hole in his heart.... [It was a] violent, unnecessary death.
Irwin was idiosyncratic, personable, enthusiastic, informed, and physically courageous. That’s a lot to admire. But what drove him to get too close one too many times?
That said, Irwin may have been the least dark, haunted figure in easy memory. He got close to those animals because he loved them. That is the same reason he read all he could about them, and loved to tell others about them.
Far from a death wish -- a wish easy to fulfill, if it is genuine! -- Irwin seems to me to have had a real love of life and of the world into which he was born. It is a dangerous world, but he refused to be afraid of it. He embraced that world as he found it, and if it killed him, well, it's going to kill all of us, too.
So, no, it wasn't an unnecessary death: he was already going to die. So are you.
It was a violent death, but so what? Violent is not a synonym for bad. Do you really want to die from organ failure in some hospital, or after some lingering illness? If not, you've really only got two options: die suddenly from a heart attack or other quick-acting cause, or die violently.
An argument can be made that a family man has a duty to survive, as long as survival is honorable, in order to provide for his family. Well, I don't doubt that Irwin had laid plenty of investments, so that his family is protected from ruin. His death will surely cause them grief, but so would his death from a heart attack. We aren't entitled to have those we love around forever, any more than we are entitled not to die.
A serious engagement with the deepest philosophical questions in life suggests to me that Irwin lived exactly the right way. He was an adventurer, and if I found his television manner impossible to tolerate, I admire everything else about the man. May I die the same way: engaged in experiencing, and loving, the world into which I was born.
Not fearing death is not the same thing as wishing for it. Neither is it dark. It is the right and proper attitude: the one to which the sages and the religions alike counsel us, and which martial art and meditation both seek to create.
The Crocodile Hunter got that, got all of it. Good for him!
Podcast
Podcast with Abizaid:
The Saint Petersburg Times has an audio interview with CDRUSCENTCOM General John Abizaid. You can download it, or listen to it from the website.
The general emphasizes cautious optimism on Iraq, with a focus on steady progress. However, he also warns that most of what remains to be done has to be done by the Iraqi people themselves -- and if they choose not to, but prefer sectarian conflict, we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq in spite of them. He also warns against US public pessimism arising from negative press reporting in the news cycle.
It's a quick interview, with nothing surprising, but it is good to hear the General expressing confidence.
Geek Grendel
Terror House II:
The actual description of Geek with a .45's trip to Hungary's Terror House is posted. You can, and you should, read it here.
Hungary
Terror House:
The Geek w/ A .45's series on his trip to Budapest takes a turn from the celebratory to the horrific. All the same, this piece deserves to be read.
Strange Story
Strange Story:
I discovered sometime last week that a pair of journalists (FOX News) had been missing and presumed captive in Palestine.
Things looked much better when news came out they'd been released unharmed in Gaza after two weeks of captivity. That was not the expected outcome of the captivity, which made this result unexpected.
However, things go from unexpected to strange when I read about the reason for the release: as recounted by FOX news, they had converted to Islam. (A tip of the hat to Rev. Donald Sensing on this story.)
My first thought was of a sarcastic cartoon I saw years ago. The cartoon featured a Crusader on horse holding a spear at the throat of a Muslim soldier. The Muslim was saying, "I'm very interested in this faith of yours. Why don't you tell me more?"
The point of that cartoon was apparently that the Crusaders weren't likely to meet such people on the battlefield, or convert them. It was modern Western thought laughing at something that was totally foreign to its worldview.
The concept is funny when we think of our distant ancestors doing it. It is less than funny--it is frightening--when we realize that there are men alive today who would do the same to us. Disturbingly, forced conversion is now an example of how to avoid death while in captivity to these men.
As Rev. Sensing comments, avoidance of religious coercion in modern America has reached the level of arguing whether a cross on a city monument is a government agency establishing religion. At times, it seems that certain forces in public life seem bent on removing religion from the public sphere.
And now we learn that some religious men will hold a gun to a man's head as a method of proselytization.
Perhaps we should, as a nation, gladly invite religion into the public sphere. As long as the believers understand that coercion of religious belief is out-of-bounds.
There's a lot more to be said about conversions to Islam, forced conversion, and Western culture--but Rev. Sensing seems to have covered most of it. I'll refrain from repeating what he said.
I discovered sometime last week that a pair of journalists (FOX News) had been missing and presumed captive in Palestine.
Things looked much better when news came out they'd been released unharmed in Gaza after two weeks of captivity. That was not the expected outcome of the captivity, which made this result unexpected.
However, things go from unexpected to strange when I read about the reason for the release: as recounted by FOX news, they had converted to Islam. (A tip of the hat to Rev. Donald Sensing on this story.)
My first thought was of a sarcastic cartoon I saw years ago. The cartoon featured a Crusader on horse holding a spear at the throat of a Muslim soldier. The Muslim was saying, "I'm very interested in this faith of yours. Why don't you tell me more?"
The point of that cartoon was apparently that the Crusaders weren't likely to meet such people on the battlefield, or convert them. It was modern Western thought laughing at something that was totally foreign to its worldview.
The concept is funny when we think of our distant ancestors doing it. It is less than funny--it is frightening--when we realize that there are men alive today who would do the same to us. Disturbingly, forced conversion is now an example of how to avoid death while in captivity to these men.
As Rev. Sensing comments, avoidance of religious coercion in modern America has reached the level of arguing whether a cross on a city monument is a government agency establishing religion. At times, it seems that certain forces in public life seem bent on removing religion from the public sphere.
And now we learn that some religious men will hold a gun to a man's head as a method of proselytization.
Perhaps we should, as a nation, gladly invite religion into the public sphere. As long as the believers understand that coercion of religious belief is out-of-bounds.
There's a lot more to be said about conversions to Islam, forced conversion, and Western culture--but Rev. Sensing seems to have covered most of it. I'll refrain from repeating what he said.
Budapest
"Ah, the City of Cathedrals"
Geek with a .45 is just back from Budapest. Don't miss his writeup on the statuary of the city, with the help of his guide:
Is statue of liberty. You know, gift of liberty from soviets. Soviets set us free from ourselves. Gee, thanks, soviets. For nothing. Bah. Assholes!What is a "clean E," anyway?
More Neighbor Fun
More Fun With Neighbors:
Some of you will recall that I recently moved. Longtime readers may recall the adventures of Captain Moonshine near the previous residence. Ah, the good old days. He was, at least, over the hill and down the road.
So today I go out to move my tools out of the rain, when all of a sudden I find myself laying in the yard I was clearing of overgrowth from the time when the log house lay unoccupied. "That was a gunshot," I think to myself, putting together why I'm laying down in a field in the rain. It was indeed. Not sixty yards away, someone had fired what was either a small-caliber rifle or a large-caliber handgun -- if a rifle, smaller than .30 caliber, and if a handgun, larger.
They fired again, and I realized that, while they were not shooting at me, they weren't shooting that far away from me either. I heard a scurrying in the bush, where some deer were vacating the area.
All this was right up by the house, where a small bit of tree and bush separates the clearing in which the house is located from a guy's driveway. The guy, my neighbor whom I've yet to meet, had decided to shoot at the deer -- without taking into account the little problem of the house being a few feet from his line of fire. With a ricochet, the bullet could easily be in the house, particulary if it hit a window instead of a log wall.
I haven't met this neighbor as yet. I did, however, speak to a deputy sheriff who came out to investigate the reports of gunfire. He assured me, based on my description, that it was perfectly legal given that the guy has enough property and was shooting on his own.
"That's fine," I said, "as I hadn't intended to press charges if it were illegal. I don't care if he carries a gun. I don't care if he wants to shoot his gun. But would you mind asking him not to shoot his gun at my house?"
The deputy said he'd be glad to mention it, although, as noted, there's nothing in the law to stop the fellow from doing so.
I don't much like people, and so I have perhaps been remiss in arranging to meet the neighbors. I shall have to have a talk with this one soon. No doubt we will come to a common understanding on the subject.
Dogs
Dog Treats:
Andi at Milblogs points out a story I think is great: care packages for canine soldiers.
Iraq poll
A Poll in Iraq:
Is that possible? My sense has always been that there is only one way to find out if you can do a thing, and that is to do it. If you succeed, you know for certain that it can be done. If you fail, you don't know for certain that it can't be done: most likely, you didn't do it right. Try again, if you can; or, if you cannot, having suffered some injury along the way that forbids a second chance, let others learn from the failure.
For that reason, I am disinclined to hear that anything "cannot be done," which I have heard from very smart people on the subject of Iraq since the beginning. I talked to a fellow from the CATO institute about Iraq a few months ago, and he was one of the type: his speech was flavored with words like "cannot," "impossible," and "never." Nonsense. Too many of these people, who not only are smart but make their livings by being smart, have said such things and are now committed to them. They must, to continue to be thought smart, be proven right: which means they are committed to failure.
I'll take my stand with General Mattis, gladly.
General, when you're done in Iraq, we need you in the White House. We've been looking for someone like you for a while.
If you haven't seen this opinion poll of Iraqis, take a look at it. It's interesting: a plurality of Iraqis think the nation is going in the right direction; more Iraqis as a percentage than Americans think so; and sixty percent of those polled give their own local security a favorable rating.
Obviously, this has a lot to do with the quality of information: Americans are depending on a media that won't set foot outside the hotel for the most part, plus hired stringers they're paying to produce "newsworthy" (i.e., bad) stories, plus some news organizations that are actually attempting to produce bad news (e.g., the Italian communist news). The Iraqis actually live there, and can see whether things seem to be getting better or worse directly.
A second factor may be the absence of a retreat option for the Iraqis. From an American perspective, the question "Is Iraq going the right or the wrong direction" will normally be read "Will we be able to leave a peaceful Iraq soon, or not?" Given that there are hostile factions with permanent interests in conflict, the odds of perfect peace in the region are small; Saddam enforced what he called "peace" by killing massive numbers of people, in effect waging a permanant war. America is trying to help build a form of government that will allow those interests to be negotiated, along with a military/police structure capable of encouraging negotiation by being a credible threat. This is taking a while, for several reasons, and Americans are really trying to decide, "Is this all worth it?" Americans are thus not really thinking about the question "Is it getting better?", but are silently inserting "Are we almost done?"
Iraqis, on the other hand, are not thinking about a "real" question when asked if things are getting better or not. If the question is "Are things getting better?", the answer is either yes or no; but whichever it is, the Iraqis aren't going anywhere.
From an American perspective, is it getting better -- which is to say, is this all worth it?
Here we see the problem of answering the one question as if it were the other. Of course it is worth it; and more than that, it's morally required of us. Afghanistan shows what happens when an Islamic state is left in civil war because Western powers lost interest in it. If we, in the 1990s, had stood up to helping Afghans recover from the war against the Soviets that we helped to worsen and continue, there might never have been a Taliban, a haven for al Qaeda, a 9/11. We didn't, because we felt we had no further interest. Iraq, now that we have destroyed Saddam's government, is a place to which we owe a similar debt. Like postwar Japan, if we rebuild it carefully and correctly, it will pay dividends long into the future; like Afghanistan, if we fail it, we shall someday rue that failure of spine and ethics.
Is it getting better, though? Well, there are good signs, and evil prognostications.
My own sense is that the odds of successful negotiation in Iraq are greatly increased by the strengthening of the Iraqi Army, who is now on display in Baghdad, where their example will not be missed; and the completion of the network of border forts discussed here recently, which can serve as an anvil to the IA's hammer if the Sunni insurgents insist on fighting instead of talking. A credible military option always makes diplomacy easier. Those forts and that army gives the central government the power to drive the tribes that refuse to negotiate, break them on the anvil, and then lock their remnants beyond the borders; having that power, they will likely find that the tribes are more willing to accept carrots than insist on the sticks.
My own preferred response to the question of Iraq is the one offered by General Mattis, surely the greatest general of our age.
"It is mostly a matter of wills," Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis said during an exclusive interview with the North County Times. "Whose will is going to break first? Ours or the enemy's?" ...Why shouldn't an American be able to build a retirement home on the Euphrates, just as he might build one on the Rhine if he wished? Our forces will someday leave, because they are no longer needed, but we hope to bring Iraq into a wider world. The hope should be that America never leaves -- our soldiers do, but our financiers, our businessmen, our diplomats, friends and companions, these Americans tie Iraq into a world larger than that created by thoughts ever turned to ethnic conflict.Mattis, who led the Marines in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and led the 1st Marine Division in the invasion of Iraq and march to Baghdad in early 2003, said he was once asked by an Iraqi when he would leave that country.
"I said I am never going to leave. I told him I had found a little piece of property down on the Euphrates River and I was going to have a retirement home built there.
"I did that because I wanted to disabuse him of any sense that he could wait me out."
Is that possible? My sense has always been that there is only one way to find out if you can do a thing, and that is to do it. If you succeed, you know for certain that it can be done. If you fail, you don't know for certain that it can't be done: most likely, you didn't do it right. Try again, if you can; or, if you cannot, having suffered some injury along the way that forbids a second chance, let others learn from the failure.
For that reason, I am disinclined to hear that anything "cannot be done," which I have heard from very smart people on the subject of Iraq since the beginning. I talked to a fellow from the CATO institute about Iraq a few months ago, and he was one of the type: his speech was flavored with words like "cannot," "impossible," and "never." Nonsense. Too many of these people, who not only are smart but make their livings by being smart, have said such things and are now committed to them. They must, to continue to be thought smart, be proven right: which means they are committed to failure.
I'll take my stand with General Mattis, gladly.
General, when you're done in Iraq, we need you in the White House. We've been looking for someone like you for a while.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)