Constitutional Taxation

One or two of you may have noticed my comment under Tuesday's Quote of the Day. Fewer still may have followed any of the links. I got a chance to investigate futher today.

From a November 7, 2002 Press Release by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General:

On a much broader scale, the absence of liability statutes raises the specter of widespread government fraud, going all the way back to the year 1913. And, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

The main problem which the SUBPOENA seeks to solve is to confirm, once and for all, the apparent absence of any federal statutes which create a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

(...)

The absence of any statutes creating a specific liability for subtitle A income taxes means, quite simply, that federal income taxes are totally and completely voluntary, in the common everyday meaning of that term. Liability only begins when Form 1040 is signed.

So it would seem that refusing to complete a tax return, or even completing it and refusing to sign it, may legally absolve an individual of any federal income tax liability. I met a man who actually adhered to this strategy in the early 1990's. At the time I thought he was a madman. Now I believe I've found his justification.

But what of that pesky federal witholding that AlexC lamented?

Further stunning proof that these taxes are truly voluntary can be found at IRC section 3402(n). Here, Congress has authorized a form called the “withholding exemption certificate” abbreviated “WEC”. The term “withholding exemption certificate” occurs a total of seventeen (17) times in that one statute alone.

However, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has never created an official form for the WEC.

I haven't yet found any information on the status of the legal action since the date of this press release. (Is there an honest judge left anywhere in the United States Federal Government?) Here, however, is Counselor Mitchell's brief essay "Let's Dismantle the IRS: This Racket is Busted"

Let’s Dismantle IRS:
This Racket is Busted

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

It’s time to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service. This organization has outlived its usefulness.

The hunt was on, several years ago, when activists like this writer confirmed that IRS was never created by any Act of Congress. It cannot be found in any of the laws which created the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The U.S. Supreme Court quietly admitted as much, at footnote 23 in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown. In a nation governed by the rule of law, this omission is monumental.

The search for its real origins has taken this nation down many blind alleys, so convoluted and complicated are the statutes and regulations which govern its employees rarely, if ever.

The best explanation now favors its links to Prohibition, the ill-fated experiment in outlawing alcohol.

The Women’s Temperance Movement, we believe, was secretly underwritten by the petroleum cartel, to perfect a monopoly over automotive fuels. Once that monopoly was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol high and dry as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks, and leaving a federal police force inside the several States, to extort money from the American People.

All evidence indicates that IRS is an alias for the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”), which was declared unconstitutional inside the several States by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935. The result of the high Court’s decision in U.S. v. Constantine confined that FAA to federal territories, like Puerto Rico, where Congress is the “state” legislature.

Further confirmation can be found in a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Diaz-Saldana, which identified the latter as the real “Secretary of the Treasury.” The Code of Federal Regulations for Title 27 also identifies this other “Secretary” as an office in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

This is ominous data. It serves to suggest that IRS has no authority whatsoever to mail envelopes from the “Department of the Treasury.” Such obvious deception is prohibited by federal mail fraud statutes, and defined as a predicate to racketeering.

Moreover, the vagueness now proven to frequent the Internal Revenue Code forces a legal conclusion that the entire Code is necessarily void, read “no legal effect.” The high Court’s test for vagueness is obviously violated when men and women of common intelligence cannot agree on its correct meaning, its proper construction, or its territorial application.

Take, for instance, a statute at IRC section 7851. Here, Congress has said that all the enforcement provisions in subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date “this title” is enacted. These provisions include, for example, filing requirements, penalties for failing to file, and tax evasion.

Guess what?

Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, rendering every single section in subtitle F a big pile of spaghetti, with no teeth whatsoever. Throughout most federal laws, the consistent legislative practice is to use the term “this title” to refer to a Title of the United States Code.

To make matters worse, conscientious courts (an endangered species) have ruled that taxes cannot be imposed without statutes assigning a specific liability to certain parties.

There are no statutes creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the set of statutes that impose the federal income tax.

Look at it this way: if Congress imposed a tax on chickens, would that necessarily mean that the chickens are liable for the tax?

Obviously not! Congress would also need to define the farmer, or the consumer, or the wholesaler, as the party liable for paying that tax. Chickens, where are your tax returns?

Without a liability statute, there can be no liability.

This now opens another, deeper layer in this can of rotting worms. If IRS is really using fear tactics to extort an unlawful debt, then it qualifies for careful scrutiny, and prosecution, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act aka “RICO”.

How fitting, and how ironic, that IRS is legally domiciled in Puerto RICO.

When we get down to brass tacks, we find that Congress encourages private Citizens to investigate and bust rackets, mainly because it perceived a shortage of public prosecutors talented enough to enforce RICO statutes against organized crime syndicates.

This shortage is the real reason why the RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 awards triple damages to any party who prevails, using the civil remedies it provides. And, happily, State courts like the Superior Court of California also enjoy original jurisdiction to litigate and issue these remedies.

All of this would approach comedy in the extreme, were it not also the case that IRS launders huge sums of money, every day, into foreign banks chiefly owned by the families that founded the Federal Reserve system.

Did you think the Federal Reserve was federal government? Guess again!

One of the biggest shocks of the last century was an admission by President Reagan’s Grace Commission, that none of the income taxes collected by IRS goes to pay for any federal government services.

Those taxes are paying interest to these foreign banks, and benefit payments to recipients of entitlement programs, like federal pension funds.

So, the next time your neighbors accuse you of being unpatriotic for challenging the IRS, we recommend that you demand from them proof that IRS is really funding any federal government services, like air traffic control, the Pentagon, the Congress, the Courts, or the White House.

Don’t hold your breath.

Honestly, when all the facts are put on a level table top, there is not a single reason why America should put up with this massive fiscal fraud for one more day.

It’s now time to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service.

Keeping all those laundered funds inside this country will result in economic prosperity without precedent in our nation’s history.

Let’s bury IRS beneath the Titanic, where it can rust in peace forever along with the rest of the planet’s jellyfish.

America deserves to be a living, thriving Republic, not another victim of Plank Number Two in the Communist Manifesto.

About the Author:

Paul Andrew Mitchell is a Private Attorney General and
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org

See also:

“U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Falls Silent in Face of SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes”

“31 Questions and Answers about the IRS”

“What Is the Federal Income Tax?”

“Electronic Censors Found at U.C. Berkeley’s Law School”

“Private Attorney General Backs UCB’s Graduate Instructors”

“Paul Mitchell Blasts Clinton, Rubin for Racketeering”

“Paul Mitchell Applauds House Vote to Kill IRC”

“Paul Mitchell Urges Nation to Boycott IRS”

“The Kick-Back Racket: PMRS”

“Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion”

“Our Proposal to Save Social Security”

“Charitable Contributions by the Federal Reserve”

“Legal Notice in re Withholding Exemption Certificates”

“A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions”

“BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud”

“Income Taxes and Government Fraud”

“A Monologue on Federal Fiscal Fraud”

“Miscellaneous Letters of Correspondence”

# # #

February 20, 2009

21st Century Paul Revere

I'm dubbing CNBC's Rick Santelli the Paul Revere of the 21st Century, and his clarion call is "The looters are coming! The looters are coming!"

Video here (You gotta see this!)

"Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now they're drivin' '54 Chevys. Maybe the last great car to come out of Detroit."

(...)

"They're [floor traders on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange] pretty much of the notion that you can't buy your way to prosperity. And if the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over one then we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get 1.5 trillion back.

(...)

"If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now are just making them roll over in their graves."

The division is not over race, as AG Holder claimed, but over productivity. The "racism" charge is now merely a distraction. The new administration has contempt for anyone who can earn his own living through industriousness and productive effort. Instead they confiscate wealth from producers and lavish handouts upon the lazy and the corrupt. They are, in the truest sense of the term, looters. And they control the levers of power in the administrative branch of our government. We're about to see if the "separation of powers" model can withstand their assault on the Constitution.

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:08 PM | Comments (4)

But jk thinks:

Palin-Santelli 2012!

Posted by: jk at February 20, 2009 1:54 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

Here's another smackdown worth looking at.

Posted by: T. Greer at February 21, 2009 12:52 AM

But jk thinks:

Good one, tg. And by good I mean, of course, very bad. I love the line "...the Ebenezer Scrooge - Rick Santelli plan where we just let these people rot."

I think Chris Matthews is proof that the media rots your mind far worse than politics. He worked with Tip O'Neill and the leading lights of the Democratic party his whole life and came out well-reasoned, polite and practical. Ten years on MSNBC and he became a raving, frothing, hyper-partisan lunatic.

Sorry for the strong words but I'll stand by the comparison. A politician or advisor has to deal with opposition. Once you get your own show you are the law.

Posted by: jk at February 21, 2009 11:48 AM

But T. Greer thinks:

I love this guy. I have spent the last hour viewing youtube clips of the man, and I really think somone needs to make a Sentelli youtube channel.

Here are my favorites:

*Santelli Reams Liesman for Defending Bernake

*Rick Santelli on Market Intervension

*Santelli pissed off about the bailout

And yes, Chris Matthews is ridiculous. But honestly speaking, I think Santelli was the one who came off better there. For one, he never had to resort to asking who the other guy voted for.

Posted by: T. Greer at February 21, 2009 8:29 PM

December 24, 2008

Merry Christmas

Hans von Spakovsky tells the story of Christmas 1919, celebrated by his father and 16 others as they skied across the arctic to escape Communism.

I will not excerpt, you'll want to read it all.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:11 PM | Comments (0)

December 16, 2008

Jacques Plante Journalism

Montreal goaltender Jacques "Jake the Snake" Plante was known for great goaltending, being the first NHL goalie smart enough to wear a mask, and the occasional bon mot. Having worked between the pipes myself, I kept one of his quotes taped to my monitor for several years: "How would you like a job where, if you make a mistake, a big red light goes on and 18,000 people boo?"

I wonder if Secretary Rice feels that way. Long time readers know my fondness for her knows few bounds. She has been one of the most articulate spokespeople for the administration’s foreign policy. (Okay, that’s not too hard.) She also has a compelling biography which has given her an appreciation for civil rights and the true non-duck-huntin' meaning of our Second Amendment rights.

The striped-pants crowd at State has ameliorated her Sharanskyite stance for freedom more than I'd like, but she has been a rock on Iraq and a staunch friend of Israel. On Iran and North Korea, the administration has not been able to achieve all of its goals. Jacques Plante did not shut out his opponents every game either.

The WSJ Ed Page lights the red lamp today and leads the boos with Condi's Korean Failure. My boys have been pretty tough on Rice. Ambassador John Bolton is held in high esteem there. Bolton, whom I admire for promoting American interests in the UN, doesn't realize that the country does not hunger for his bellicosity. He wants to take a tough line on Iran and North Korea, fine. The administration used all of its political capitol holding the line on Iraq.

I think that was the right choice. The six party talks were a good idea, outsourcing a little diplomacy to China. Diplomacy did not work, surprise. There were not many other options. I'd like Ambassador Bolton, and the WSJ Ed Page to admit that.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:18 PM | Comments (4)

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The Refugee generally shares Blog Brother JK's favorable view of Condi. (He points out, with some pride, that Condi, Sec. Gale Norton, Sen. Pete Domenici and The Refugee all hail from the same Alma Mater, Denver University. Of course, so does Sec. Madeleine Albright, but you can't win 'em all.)

However, he must diverge with BB JK on the DoS assessment and side with the WSJ. Condi's tenure has seen no improvement in State's proclivity for appeasement and an unwillingness to call out the world's dictators. We continually "pay it forward" only to get an "NSF" in return. "Foggy Bottom" is more than a locale - it's our negotiating strategy with enemies.

JK is correct that N. Korea and Iran are essentially impossible to negotiation with. However, throughout the 20th/21st century history of Secretary of State, we have yet to have one with the integrity and backbone to say, "Having no deal with these thugs is the best we could negotiate, and no deal is better than any deal."

To close out the hockey theme, The Refugee would like to point out that the seven-time national champion DU Pioneers are currently on a seven game winning streak and ranked 5th in the nation for NCAA hockey. Oh, and one more thing: CC sucks!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 16, 2008 4:12 PM

But jk thinks:

Well, they're really my brother's Tigers, not mine, so I'll let the last line slide -- Go Pioneers!

The Refugee sets a pretty high bar for Secretary Rice. She has not cleaned up the Aegean Stables at State nor improved the proclivities of a mind-numbing bureaucracy. She didn't develop a cure for Cancer either.

But she did pave the way for the President's policies in Iraq and, as documented by Kim Strassel (her tinfoil hat repels John Bolton's poisonous thoughts), left substantive improvements in many of the world's trouble spots.

I put Bolton in the same category as the Free-Tibet and fix Darfur crowd. There is a distinct limit to our possibility to "fix things" and far less domestic appetite for additional intervention.

Posted by: jk at December 16, 2008 5:03 PM

But johngalt thinks:

johngalt's dad was a DU engineering professor in the '60's and '70's so I got to go to a few games as a tyke. I loved the little bearded man ('Boone') in a 'coon skin cap mascot for the "Pioneers." Now, the PC police are running him out of town to be replaced with a stylized pigeon.* Sigh.

Nonetheless, GO PI's!

* I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find a better link than this one.

Posted by: johngalt at December 18, 2008 12:58 AM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

JG hits a nerve with the Refugee, as Boone was the mascot while he attended school. Chancellor Coomb recently killed Boone for all time because "It does not reflect the cultural diversity that we desire," or some such excuse. So, Chancellor, white guys with beards embarrass you? Besides, how does a hawk/chicken/stylized pigeon reflect these values better - what type of student are you recruiting? Are pinfeathers an entrance requirement?? Yeesh.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 18, 2008 3:48 PM

December 15, 2008

Freedom on the March

Blog Brother Boulder Refugee hopes the reflexive anti-Bush partisans take a teachable moment from the shoe tossin' Muntadhar al-Zeidi. My sanguine-meter is set pretty low on this one, but you have to admit, Iraq is looking pretty free and democratic. Here's the WSJ news pages:

Iraqis Rally in Support of Man Who Threw Shoes at Bush

BAGHDAD -- Thousands of Iraqis took to the streets Monday to demand the release of a reporter who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, as Arabs across many parts of the Middle East hailed the journalist as a hero and praised his insult as a proper send-off to the unpopular U.S. president.

I remember the President throwing a strike on a ceremonial first pitch a few years ago. Maybe he should have challenged Zeidi to shoes at 20 paces.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2008

The NYTimes's Vision for Iraq

“That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.”

Don Surber calls it "Despicable." "But Bush stood tall."

I got the special eight-year-commemorative-Bush-Bashing issue of Reason last week and I have been absorbing all the AP-MSM proclamations that President Obama is inheriting a World destroyed by President Bush. And I may have mentioned that Gene Healy ends his otherwise excellent, important book with a three chapter jeremiad on the evil that is W.

He's no President Coolidge, mind you, but I will be throwing some soft cheers through the end of his term. I recommend Elizabeth Strassel's exit interview with Secretary Rice. Chris Wallace had a great one last Sunday with her as well. The Bush Years have not been a model for limited government and fiscal discipline, but he leaves two solid SCOTUS justices and a world that thankfully does not match the NY Times's vision of the Middle East. The number they don't mention in the War stats, observes Surber, is 24 million Iraqis liberated. I would add Afghanistan and the Palestinian controlled areas even though they have not made the best use of self-directed government.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:29 PM | Comments (0)

December 5, 2008

Merry Christmas, My Friend

There is hope this season. On of my leftiest, most Bush-despisin' friends emailed me a poem and a link to a snopes story about it. From Snopes, I learned that the author is Corporal James M. Schmidt, USMC. It has circulated the Internet adapted to Army, Navy, and perhaps Zoroastrian versions. But here is the original, as it appeared in Leatherneck in 1991.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIEND
'Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one-bedroom house made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live.

As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I'd seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.

I'd heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I'd just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.

Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.

I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
"Santa, don't cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don't ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps."

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn't control it, I continued to weep.

I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night's chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.

I didn't want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said "Carry on, Santa, it's Christmas Day, all secure."
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:16 PM | Comments (0)

December 2, 2008

The Food Is Certainly Better

The central question in Reason Magazine's 40th Anniversary issue is whether we are more free than in 1968 or less. As much as big-L libs love to look at the dark side, about all of them were pretty upbeat. Veronique de Rugy highlights the conundrum "Government has grown, but freedom has grown faster."

As Milton Friedman showed in Capitalism and Freedom, such wealth both feeds and is a byproduct of freedom. On one hand, freedom in economic arrangements produces wealth. This, in turn, produces a demand for more liberty, which then produces more prosperity. Thus, increasing wealth is usually correlated with increasing economic freedom. The deregulations of the airline, telecom, and trucking industries in the 1970s, and the marginal tax rate cuts and control of inflation in the ’80s, contributed to the widespread prosperity of the ’90s.

Yet, the wealth accumulation of the last 40 years has also made the government bigger. Real federal spending increased from $774 billion in 1968 to $2.5 trillion in 2008—a 225 percent increase—and federal spending per household grew from $11,800 to roughly $21,000 over that period, in constant dollars. This forms a libertarian paradox: economic freedom and wealth breed not just more political freedom, wealth, and choice but also more government.

David Boaz's book of his collected essays is likewise pretty upbeat. JohnGalt once suggested a freedom meter. Like the end-of-the-world clock, we could dial it up or down based on elections, legislation, and our moods that day.

I watch a nephew discover Ayn Rand and the liberty movement (I gave him my 40th Anniversary issue). I feel sorry that he did not discover the movement when Ronald Wilson Reagan was President. On the other hand, he gets the Internet. Ultimately, I have to accept that the additional wealth is a good tiebreaker for 2008.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:38 PM | Comments (2)

But Keith thinks:

I'll play the contrarian - color me partially unconvinced.

I've read the article, and what stands out to me is that there's no satisfactory definition of "economic freedom" stated. I'm left with the idea that the writer sees "economic freedom" and "having more money to spend on more stuff." Indeed, if we're going to measure economic freedom by the number of poor people (as defined by the Census Bureau) who own air conditioning, color televisions, and refrigerators, then she is right - and it's time to declare victory in the War on Poverty so they'll stop taxing my income to death and using the revenue to buy air conditioners, televisions, and refrigerators for the so-called poor. We have the richest poor in the world here.

But "economic freedom" must also mean "the freedom to spend the money I rightfully earn in the ways I see fit, or to not spend it at all if I so desire." If I own an asset (let us say a plot of land) that I cannot use in a sensible way as I see fit (such as to build a business, as a result of the government declaring it a wetland), then I have wealth but no economic freedom in that regard.

The same applies to what should be called individual unfunded mandates. If I have ten extra dollars, then I have more wealth; but if the government outlaws cheap incandescent light bulbs and requires me by law to spend an extra twenty dollars a year on compact fluorescents, I have less economic freedom. If my wife, who (bless her heart) loves pork rinds, suddenly cannot enjoy them because the nannystate's diet wing bans them now that we can afford to add them to the grocery list, then we lack economic freedom.

Look at the whole concept of Tax Freedom Day. With some fluctuation, Tax Freedom Day has advanced later in the year as time goes by, and that does not take into account those individual unfunded mandates. It also doesn't take into account the effect on the cost of goods purchased with my increased wealth due to government meddling in markets and production. Finally, it doesn't take into account the federal debt, which is a bondage - though a bondage postponed.

Wait until the government gives us universal health care and starts nationalizing industries, and see how much economic freedom we lose.

I see it as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I doubt that "wealth accumulation of the last 40 years has also made government bigger." Instead, I see it more as a matter of, as Americans created more wealth, our government became greedier and demanded a bigger and bigger piece of it. Government does not create wealth; at best, it can provide an environment where the citizens can create wealth. Our government, as a result of its felt need to regulate and dictate more and more aspects of our lives, has cost us freedoms, both economically and politically.

I'll wait until later in the day to scroll down the page and play village contrarian on the issue of immigration.

Posted by: Keith at December 2, 2008 4:02 PM

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

The problem is that you cannot quantify freedom. You're either free or you're not. (Austrian economists like me tend to reject quantification of abstract concepts like "good" and "bad," which we hold cannot be measured objectively.)

We were not truly economically free under Nixon's wage-price controls. We're certainly not truly economically free today. But how do you assign a value to gasoline lines and stagflation versus a federal bailout and New York's mandate that all health insurance cover everything (meaning men are insured for hysterectomies)?

Different times, same BS, same problem. Don't be satisfied today just because you have your iPod, hi-def TV and other toys. A gilded cage is still a cage, so the saying goes. Be willing to demand freedom, even if it means having less wealth.

Ask yourself: do you love wealth more than you love liberty?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 3, 2008 11:20 PM

December 1, 2008

Thanksgiving, CCXIV

A note from a Navy Seal:

Hat-tip: Hugh Hewitt

Posted by John Kranz at 3:57 PM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2008

We Won.

A group is promoting tomorrow, 11-22, as V-I Day to celebrate a US Victory in Iraq.

I haven't wanted to step too far on the sunny side of a fragile situation but today I am ready to claim victory. A prescient pundit (Jay Nordlinger? Mark Steyn?) said -- way back when -- that if we do well in Iraq, we can look forward to their protesting against us, that a free country that hates America was a sign of success. Well.

Yahoo/AP

BAGHDAD – Thousands of followers of a radical Shiite cleric protested a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security deal Friday, burning an effigy of President George W. Bush in the same square where Iraqis beat a toppled Saddam Hussein statue five years ago.

Chanting and waving flags, Muqtada al-Sadr's followers filled Firdous Square to protest the pact that would allow American troops to stay for three more years.

I saw video of shouting and pushing in the Iraqi Parliament yesterday. Folks in suits and nice haircuts were throwing stacks of paper. This blog is named for Natan Sharansky's book that bifurcates between fear societies and free societies. There have been a million mistakes in Iraq, and I am sympathetic to an informed and reasoned suggestion that we should never have gone in. But we have flipped a fear society to a free society -- and I will never apologize for that.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:16 AM | Comments (12)

But Keith thinks:

johngalt: that day can't come soon enough - and with him already being branded a "house Negro" by one of their number, that day will arrive rapidly. The real question is what Obama will do about it when it happens.

I dread the day that these same people decide we're weak and spineless enough to make their next attack on American soil. We could run an office pool on when and where that will happen. I wonder if his fanatical groupies will figure out he's not who they thought he was before that day comes.

Posted by: Keith at November 21, 2008 5:17 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

But those people yelling in parliament can take up guns very quickly... heck, most of them were terrorists (or something close to it) before they got elected.

The problem comes when the factions cannot settle their disputes by means of yelling at each other. Once that happens, it is all too easy to pick your guns back up...

I also do not think it is fear of U.S. retaliation that has kept terrorists from attacking America. Honestly, we can act spineless or stoic- those bent on reaping terror will do so if they can. To imagine otherwise is to lull yourself into a false sense of security.

~T. Greer, nitpickingly pointing out that the "house negro" statement came from Zalwahiri, al-Qaeda's 2nd in command- quite different from the Mahdi mob burning Bush's effigies.

Posted by: T. Greer at November 21, 2008 7:55 PM

But jk thinks:

And the Germans could descend into Socialism -- no, wait a minute -- but that does not nullify their liberation from fascism.

I'm thinking that we have provided Benjamin Franklin’s famous "Republic if you can keep it." Sure it could go bad but its present signs are extremely encouraging.

I hope you're right that our promised future spinelessness will be without cost. Closing up Gitmo, sending terrorists home, pulling out of Iraq on a domestic political schedule and treating future attacks with law enforcement and not military response might scare the hummus out of our enemies but it seems counter-intuitive.

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2008 11:57 AM

But T. Greer thinks:

jk, I don't know if I can buy that argument. After all, couldn't have Bush said the same thing back in 2003 when Saddam was ousted? We did liberate the Iraqis from the Baathists- surely the next five years of violence were just the Iraqis failing to "keep" their society free?

Honestly, I have problems seeing where the cost of our spinelessness comes in. Your average terrorist is a fanatic. He expects to die for his cause. Gitmo is nothing but a source of anger for him. The supposed toughness of America really is an irrelevant factor.

Let me put it this way- did Al Qaeda decide to launch a terrorist attack in 2001 because we elected a Texas wussie?

I will qualify this by saying that withdrawing from Iraq is a bit different than the other examples you mention- like the videos of roadside bombs, footage of American troops withdrawing from Iraq could help the terrorists by letting them claim that they won. However, I think the link between Domestic treatment of terrorists and number of terrorists committed to harming the U.S. is small.

~T. Greer

Posted by: T. Greer at November 22, 2008 8:21 PM

But johngalt thinks:

"The supposed toughness of America really is an irrelevant factor."

I'll argue with that one. The "average" terrorist may be a fanatic but far fewer of them will sign on with a group that is clearly getting its ass kicked around the world by a determined adversary. Volunteering to be a Jihadi Joe was far more attractive when the biggest threats to your existence were UN resolutions, occasional rocket explosions at the neighborhood milk factory, and the very real possibility of jail time should you be unlucky enough to get arrested while visiting New York City.

Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2008 8:56 PM

But T. Greer thinks:

@JG: Someone who chooses to hijack an airplane and ram it into a building is prepared to die. I have a hard time believing that such a man really cares if his failure to kill himself will result in CIA torture or jail time.

Of course, there is a difference between destroying terrorist groups and their affiliates across the world and increasing the level of punishment the odd terrorist receives if he is unsuccessful.

One works and one doesn't.

Posted by: T. Greer at November 22, 2008 9:28 PM

November 15, 2008

Blast From the Past

An Insty post dated 9-15-2001:

BE PATRIOTIC: BUY SOMETHING. That's what Scott Norvell says and he's got a point. I went to the mall yesterday, and it was deserted. It's actually magnifying the terrorism's damage when people stay home and the economy suffers.

Okay, people will make up for lost time soon. But going out to a movie, or dinner, or shopping isn't just good for the economy. It's a way of carrying on life as normal. That's a victory of sorts, too.

President Bush has been completely maligned for telling people to "go shopping" after 9/11. I forget what/how/if he said, but it has joined the lore of President GHWB and the supermarket scanner and VP Quayle's "You Say Poh-taht-oe." When you remember those days and the feeling that we would never return to "normalcy" (Thanks, President Harding!) that we enjoy today, it was pretty decent advice.

Hat-tip: An older, wiser Insty who thinks we may soon be called into service again: "We shall fight them in the strip malls, we shall fight them in the restaurants, we shall fight them online -- we shall never surrender!"

Posted by John Kranz at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)

November 11, 2008

Happy Veterans' Day

Not a better way to spend it than a quick contribution to The Injured Marines Semper Fi Fund

Hat-tip: Hugh

UPDATE: Terri has four choices.

And Taranto links to Cigars for Soldiers Boy, that''s a "Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus" outfit -- how many ways can you annoy a leftist?

Posted by John Kranz at 1:07 PM | Comments (0)

November 5, 2008

Quote of the Day

I spent most of the morning in a room full of Sons of Iraq leadership, watching Al Arabia's coverage of said election. Explaining the electoral college through an interpreter is, in case you've never done it, kind of an adventure.-- Milblogger Bad Dogs and Such

From a nice collection of military bloggers' reactions at Mudville Gazette

Posted by John Kranz at 7:10 PM | Comments (0)

October 22, 2008

American Journalism Dismantled by ... a Democrat

If John McCain is going to win this election it will be with the help of great Americans like Orson Scott Card. A science fiction writer (who's work dagny likes) he's also a Democrat and a newspaper columnist published in North Carolina. And according to Rush Limbaugh (where I first heard this) he's far enough left to be pro gun control. And yet, he takes American newspapers apart:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

(...)

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

(...)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

(...)

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

(...)

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Every blogger should link this column.

Every American should send it to his local newspaper.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:35 PM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2008

Turkmeni Democracy.

Haven't had a real "Freedom on the March" post in a while, but Scholar's Stage links to an article in Diplomatic Courier called Can Democracy Truly Blossom in Turkmenistan? It seems the fiat of wacky "Turkmenbashi" has been replaced by a written Constitution. DC concedes there are issues:

Many feel that the constitution lacks components vital to a functioning democracy, such as a constitutional court and freedom of expression and that the document was designed to please foreign investors. Essentially, the document was not created for the people, but for the elites and to open up markets to stimulate economic reform.

Prosperitarian rule in a land that ends in S-T-A-N is nothing to sneeze at. Nor is the small Asian Republic's willingness to stand up to neighbor Russia:

Nevertheless, Turkmenistan’s move towards democracy is favorable to the West. Acting as an economic ally, Turkmenistan stands to gain more than it would lose by developing amicable relations with Europe and the United States. This provides a counterweight for Western states against a “Resurgent Russia” that they seem concerned about.

The opening of Turkmen markets has the potential to damage Russo-Turkmen relations and hurt Russia’s economy. With Russia being ruthless on payments and on the natural gas supply to Europe including many former Soviet republic and satellite states—Ukraine and the Czech Republic—many are more than likely to flock to Turkmenistan for gas. Turkmen gas will be cheaper and there will be less politics involved. This would threaten Russia’s energy supremacy in Central Asia and in Europe weakening Russia’s status as an energy abundant state.

Perhaps the light of liberty lives, albeit in France, Canada, and Turkmenistan.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:43 PM | Comments (0)

October 3, 2008

Banned By YouTube

Do y'all watch Pat Condell? Samizdata links frequently to his deeply offensive -- and absolutely hilarious -- anti-religious rants. YouTube is blocking it, so samizdat Adriana Lukas is trying to spread the word. I'm happy to oblige:

Posted by John Kranz at 6:04 PM | Comments (3)

But Adriana thinks:

Hm, do we link to him frequently? I saw this guy for the first time on Geoff Arnold's blog and it's the blocking by YouTube rather than his views that got me to link to him...

Posted by: Adriana at October 4, 2008 10:38 AM

But jk thinks:

Frequently being in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I have seen him only through Samizdata and I have seen him three or four times.

Condell is a little more incendiary than I prefer around ThreeSources but, like you, I will lend an IP address to avoid censorship. He has a right to be heard.

Posted by: jk at October 4, 2008 11:19 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Offensive? Only to Islamists. (In this post at least.)

Posted by: johngalt at October 6, 2008 2:55 PM

August 22, 2008

Random House Bows To Catholic Pressure, Pulls Novel

KIDDING!

Had you there, didn't I? Actually it was a novel about the nine year old wife of the Prophet Mohammed, and author Sherry Jones is now looking for another publisher.

"Random House made the decision to cancel its US publication of the novel 'The Jewel of Medina' after much deliberation and with great reluctance," a statement from the publisher sent to AFP said.

"The decision was based on advice from scholars of Islam, among several creditable sources, that publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community and could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

Hat-tip: Eidelblog, where Perry wonders about a possible double standard.

It's strange. I'm trying to think of when Catholics "strongly advised" Dan Brown and Doubleday regarding "The Da Vinci Code," or when Protestants issued death threats against someone for mocking Jesus. You might remember, Catholics did protest against "The Golden Compass," but show me one person or structure that was ever threatened.

This is a dangerous slope. And another reminder of the unseriousness of the civil libertarians. I get goose bumps when I think of the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (man I hate Illinois Nazis!) but that was a long time ago.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:15 AM | Comments (5)

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

This means that the terrorists have achieved some of their objectives. That is, change the behavior of non-Muslims to "respect" Islam. It emboldens further fear and intimidation. More precisely, the double standard that PE notes subjugates all other religions to Islam. We must not allow ourselves to be intimiated.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 22, 2008 11:58 AM

But AlexC thinks:

It's the militant arm of the Salvation Army we should be worried about.

Sheesh... there are literally tens of thousands of people (some may be your neighbors) who are trained to use those bells as truncheons.

Let's not even discuss those buckets. This is a family blog.

Posted by: AlexC at August 22, 2008 12:15 PM

But jk thinks:

(The Knights have those swords, ac!)

Br, your tense betrays you -- as you point out, we have already allowed ourselves to be intimidated. Game over.

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2008 12:46 PM

But Boulder Refugee thinks:

We have certainly lost a few battles, but The Refugee doesn't think the war/game is over yet. Americans have a history of being pushed just so far. This Refugee is not ready to break out the prayer rugs just yet.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 22, 2008 4:57 PM

But jk thinks:

I suspect you're right. It just seems that publishing is now lost to freedom. First it was academia, then media, now to see Random House afraid to publish a book after we saw booksellers capitulate on Salman Rushdie in the 90s.

Disheartening.

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2008 6:09 PM

August 5, 2008

Requiescat in Pace

A blog that takes its name from Natan Sharansky would be remiss to not spend a few words on the passing of his great compatriot and fellow dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I'll offer links to better writers:

James Lileks (HT Insty):

Naturally, I was in the perfect mood to read the entire Gulag Archipelago. I got all three volumes from the drugstore – which should have told me something about the land in which I lived, that one could buy this work from a creaky wire rack at the drugstore – and it taught me much about the Soviet Union and the era of Stalin. After that I could never quite understand the people who viewed the US and the USSR as moral equals, or regarded our history as not only indelibly stained but uniquely so. Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched. Brother, you have no idea.

Solzhenitsyn speaking at Harvard in 1978:

Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:

Solzhenitsyn warned of "an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses," and a "tilt of freedom in the direction of evil . . . evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature." His own prison-camp experience after World War II told him evil was all too real and had to be confronted.

However dourly Russian his warnings often were, Solzhenitsyn fortified the West with the truth and will to triumph in the Cold War. The great, inspiring irony of "Ivan Denisovich" is that it ends with Shukhov concluding that, even amid his icy prison, the day was "almost a happy one."

I read a funny article a few weeks ago about how Hollywood releases a new McCarthyism movie about every year to great fanfare, yet never a movie about the depredation of Communism. I wish they'd skip next years telling of the blacklist and trade it in for a heroic movie about this world hero.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:45 PM | Comments (0)

Shhh. We Won.

Don't tell the NYTimes, or Senator Obama. But the war in Iraq is over and we won.

Bret Stephens claims this in his Global View column on the WSJ Ed Page. And I wholeheartedly agree. Stephens won a $100 bet from Francis Fukuyama "that Iraq would be a mess five years after the invasion." Stephens collected on the basis of troop casualties but takes the time to enumerate what has been accomplished.

Here's a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.

Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.

We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe. As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared "central battlefield," and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles.

We also have -- if still only prospectively -- an Arab bulwark against Iran's encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership.

After "Mission Accomplished," supporters are too chicken to use the W word. But I ain't: we won the war. Much work remains in Iraq, and the wider war continues, but Iraq has been won.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)

July 25, 2008

Quote of the Day

Sen. Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go. -- Obama adviser, Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (Ret.)

From Jake Tapper. Apparently, it would be inappropriate to visit the troops as a campaign stop, but it's fine to have a "citizen of the world" campaign rally in Berlin.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

July 4, 2008

1215 Reenlist in Baghdad

BobKrumm.com:

BAGHDAD – How are you spending your 4th of July holiday? While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.

Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

Happy Fourth! Hat-tip: Instapundit.

UPDATE:

Words fail. To share a country with these young men and women.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:17 AM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2008

Pictures From Ramadi

A superb post about Ramadi reconstruction, starting with a traffic jam on Route Michigan. "Last year it was empty except for US soldiers trading shots with Al Qaeda."

And don't miss this set of pictures (.pdf file). Nine pictures of hope and change that the defeat-at-all-costs crowd is willing to give away,

Posted by John Kranz at 4:40 PM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Hey, I recognize the Arabic on the back of that cart. It means "The closer you are, the slower I go"!

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 23, 2008 1:28 PM

June 18, 2008

Chicks Love a Guy in Uniform

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/this_is_importa_1.html

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 5:58 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2008

Irish Eyes are Smilin'

I'm in the habit of having a beer every day, either with my evening meal or after it. I've got a case of Guinness in the fridge that I use for satisfaction of that occasional craving for cream stout. Tonight, I'll lift not one but two pints of Ireland's proud heritage to the brave and fortunate souls of that fine emerald isle, for they were given a rare say in their own affairs and told the peddlers of 'world government' to piss off:

All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.

(...)

The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley.

Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.

For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.

Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.

Why did he fail to "persuade his nation" to adopt the Treaty? Because the decision was put in the hands of its citizens instead of its government. Each group can be expected to act in its own self-interest and in Europe, as in America, those interests are more and more incongruous.

UPDATE: I beg a thousand pardons for the carelessness of this ill-traveled yank and respectfully replace "British Isle" with emerald isle. (We'll tell the bloody queen to piss off straight away too!)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:57 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

The Republic of Ireland is one of the great, last holdouts for freedom in Europe. Low taxes, generous incentives for entrepreneurship, an interesting health care model. Sadly, they have banned smoking in Pubs, so nobody's perfect.

Enjoy your Guinness, but I'd be a little more cautious about calling it a "British Isle." That's not going to win you a lot of friends, Colonist.

Posted by: jk at June 13, 2008 3:30 PM

May 20, 2008

An Excellent Charity

Spirit of America helps the US Military to help in Iraq and Afghanistan. They get school supplies, and soccer balls, and clothing that US forces can use to help in the communities they serve. I invite you to peruse the website and see the great projects.

It seems that they have a special opportunity to raise funds before Memorial Day, in the form of a matching grant.

Greetings Friends and Supporters!

In honor of Memorial Day and National Military Appreciation Month, an anonymous donor from the Pacific Northwest has presented Spirit of America with a challenge. . .if we can raise $5,000 in the next 72 hours (3 days), he pledges to match that and here's the real bonus. . .if we can raise that $5,000 in the first 24 hours, he will continue to match donations all the way up to $10,000 over the next 3 days!

It is an awesome and very deserving charity. You can give here.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:21 PM

April 28, 2008

A Prize Worth Having

Venezuelan Student Movement Leader Awarded $500,000 Milton Friedman Liberty Prize

Washington, D.C. –The Cato Institute has announced that Yon Goicoechea, leader of the pro-democracy student movement in Venezuela that successfully prevented President Hugo Chávez’s regime from seizing broad dictatorial powers in December 2007, has been awarded the 2008 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

A 23-year-old law student, Mr. Goicoechea plays a pivotal role in organizing and voicing opposition to the erosion of human and civil rights in his country. In his commitment to a modern Venezuela, Goicoechea emphasizes tolerance and the human right to seek prosperity.

Venezuela’s student movement emerged in May of 2007 in response to a government-ordered shutdown of the nation’s oldest private television station, RCTV. In the face of ongoing death threats and continual intimidation due to his prominent and vocal leadership, Mr. Goicoechea has been indispensible in organizing massive, peaceful student protest marches that have captured the world’s attention.

Well done, Yon! Hat-tip: Rick Sincrere

Posted by John Kranz at 4:03 PM

April 15, 2008

Ambassador Bolton

I have great respect for Ambassador John Bolton and consider it a Senate crime that he was not confirmed -- imagine, an American ambassador pursuing American interests at the UN!

All the same, his bellyaching about the President's North Korea policy is becoming tiresome. He has another guest editorial in the WSJ today (I think this is the 491st -- and he has appeared on their FOX News show as well). I have no substantive disagreement with his call for a hard line -- were I President, we'd have invaded last Thursday.

But I don't understand who or what is served by his impolitic tone:

President George W. Bush is fond of comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But as he meets with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington this week, his policy regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program looks more like something out of Bill Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's playbook.

Tearing down President Bush might advance Bolton's popularity, but I don't see it advancing his interest or position. I don't think President Obama is going to be significantly tougher, yet his constant harping damages the Republican brand and makes it more likely that we'll elect someone who will have Kim Jong Il in for a State Dinner.

Of course Republicans can criticize President Bush. We may have done that once or twice here. But the Bolton attacks are constant, relentless, and fail to account for other concerns: Iraq, Iran, the opposition party in Congress. Nor do they seem to include the decorum and respect I think he owes a man who nominated him to the U.N.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:28 AM

April 14, 2008

Putting ThreeSources' Weight Behind Instapundit

With a straight face, I add my nano-influence to Professor Reynolds. I ordered a copy of Michael Yon's book. Yon has done much to promote the idea of liberty and victory in Iraq, has provided an awesome example of blog quality and influence, and has given us some spectacular reads. I gave him a little money a while back. But I think buying the book helps him, demonstrates support for a pro-troop viewpoint -- and I bet it will be a helluva read.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:51 PM

April 1, 2008

Islamic Tolerance

Assemble your own segue:

Jonah Goldberg reacts to Fitna and compares it to "Darwin Fish." (HT-Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err [Happy Blogiversary!])

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

Blog Brother Cyrano sends a link to The Child and the Invader It's on MEMRI TV I cannot embed, but watch a couple of these. These cartoons get their plotlines from Itchy and Scratchy, but cast adorable blue-eyed Persian children as the mice and a cartoonishly evil soldier as the poor cat. The Invader has a Star of David (subtlety is not a family value!)

These cartoons made Brother Cyrano angry, but they kind of scared me. The plotlines are transparently stupid but the production values are very good. The animation itself is clever and professional. Pretty dang good propaganda.

The issue is always always always that good Christians are expected to pony up taxes to support "Piss Christ" while so many of our Islamic friends riot at cartoons. Goldberg is correct in pointing out a middle offense of moderates' tacit approval. Free speech is the freedom to offend, as long as it's not an incumbent Senator within 60 days of an election. Everybody else needs to learn to live with it.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:01 PM

March 18, 2008

Hitch Was Right!

Slate magazine is celebrating the fifth anniversary of the invasion (liberation, anybody?) of Iraq. And boy, do they know how to party:

Slate has asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?"

They made the mistake of asking the question of Christopher Hitchens, and he delivers a beauty:

I am one of those who, for example, believes that the global conflict that began in August 1914 did not conclusively end, despite a series of "fragile truces," until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not at all to redefine warfare and still less to contextualize it out of existence. But when I wrote the essays that go to make up A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, I was expressing an impatience with those who thought that hostilities had not really "begun" until George W. Bush gave a certain order in the spring of 2003.

Though "a hash" was made of the effort so far, Hitchens enumerates the successes:

But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale. A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial. The Kurdish and Shiite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide. A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled. The largest wetlands in the region, habitat of the historic Marsh Arabs, have been largely recuperated. Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made. Elections have been held, and the outline of a federal system has been proposed as the only alternative to a) a sectarian despotism and b) a sectarian partition and fragmentation. Not unimportantly, a battlefield defeat has been inflicted on al-Qaida and its surrogates, who (not without some Baathist collaboration) had hoped to constitute the successor regime in a failed state and an imploded society. Further afield, a perfectly defensible case can be made that the Syrian Baathists would not have evacuated Lebanon, nor would the Qaddafi gang have turned over Libya's (much higher than anticipated) stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

All those writing ass-covering essays in the series need to address why those goals were wrong or not worth the effort expended.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:33 AM

February 25, 2008

Worthy Donation

I hope you all got a chance to see Ezra Levant's defending himself from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It's entertaining to see a pugnacious instead of submissive response to a tinhorn bureaucrat.

Blog Brother Cyrano emails a recommendation too support Levant against lawsuits.

Over the past month, the public’s reaction to seeing their government interrogate a journalist has snowballed into a national discussion about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the separation of mosque and state. What started out as an issue reserved to the blogosphere and talk radio has jumped into the mainstream media, and even into Parliament. To my delight, the Canadian public – across the political spectrum – has been overwhelmingly supportive of free speech and critical of these Orwellian commissions, and groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists and PEN Canada have recently weighed in, too, and very vigorously.

We’re winning in the court of public opinion – and I say “we”, because it was the blogosphere that moved this story from the “undernews” to where it is today.

Well, now I’m being threatened with a lawsuit because of our campaign for freedom.

Not a bad way to spend a few bucks, if you can. The way I see it, you're either with Levant or you're with the 7th Century fanatics who cannot weather a cartoon.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:06 AM

December 26, 2007

A Thank You Letter

On Michael Yon's site from LTC Jim Crider, thanking America for letting him serve us so proudly.

The experience of war changes people. For some it is a negative change but most manage to absorb the experience and use it to make themselves stronger. I have said goodbye to a mortally wounded soldier in the hospital, spoken to grieving family members of our casualties, and tried to comfort soldiers who just lost their best friend in a single violent moment. I have been under fire, looked insurgents in the eye, and seen corruption up close. I have also seen people emerge from oppression and live with hope for the first time in years. I have seen children reach up and grasp the hands of American soldiers just because they trust them. I have felt the desire to help and then been given the resources to do it. Finally, I have felt the close knit camaraderie that develops when you serve with a group of people fighting for a cause larger than self. Yes, this experience has changed me. I am stronger, more driven, and humbled all at the same time.

Those who know me know I am not often speechless. But this one time...read the whole thing.

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 5:53 PM

December 20, 2007

Me and Vlad

As a former TIME Magazine Person of the Year laureate myself, I was saddened by this year's choice. I don't line up with Hugh Hewitt and Governor Romney too frequently, but they are right this time.

General David Petraeus should have been the pick. Putin will use the cover to propagate totalitarianism, Petraeus -- and the troops -- should be rewarded for their unexpected and improbable accomplishments.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:04 PM

December 13, 2007

Diyala or Duluth?

Nope, it's not apples-to-apples and it is not statistically meaningful. But that does not make it uninteresting:

The tragedy of Ice and IEDs

Tragically, 32 people have died in the US since Sunday as a result of ice storms in the midwest

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that during the same time frame (Sun-Wed) only 2 US military service members have died in Iraq, and only one of those was due to hostile action.

Interesting, and a great reminder to the "grim milestone" crowd that a 0% death rate is not the standard of comparison for peacetime.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:35 PM

November 27, 2007

The Twelfth Imam

Osama Bin-Laden had it all wrong. Why convert the Infidel with the sword?

The 7th Century is over and the Great Satan is now for sale:

NEW YORK - Wall Street rebounded sharply Tuesday after the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said it will invest $7.5 billion in Citigroup Inc. — a vote of confidence for the nation's largest bank, which has suffered severe losses amid the ongoing crisis in the mortgage market. The Dow Jones industrials rose 150 points.

Don't think I have lost my free-trader instincts. I do not seriously mean to compare Bin-Laden religious hooliganism with a legitimate business trade (especially one that sent the DJIA up 150 points!) At the same time, I'd suggest that the Muslims of the world embrace modernity (as all of my Muslim friends have) and engage people with ideas and trade.

UPDATE: I removed a line with which I was not comfortable, celebrating Persian and Arab successes in innovation and trade. It was complimentary but I don't want to get into ethnic stereotyping.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Well, if the turban fits, right? :)

Arabs were among the greatest traders, which is one of their great lost legacies. Sinbad the Sailor wasn't an adventurer first; his seven voyages weren't pleasure cruises.

As I pointed out to someone yesterday, the dollars come home to roost. Arabs gain nothing by sitting on the cash they receive by selling us oil. And how wonderful the U.S. economy might be that even a troubled company like Citi (if you believe the news hype) can draw that kind of investment.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 28, 2007 3:41 PM

November 20, 2007

Don't Tell the "High Life' Man

Even the NYTimes is reporting good news from Baghdad today, Breitbart finds
Baghdad by night -- juice bars, neon lights, bustling streets

And then, suddenly, you've arrived and the mirage has become an oasis of generator-driven light; a colourful jumble of trendy juice bars, cosy restaurants, fruit shops, roadside eateries and fish vendors, where children play, families dine and lovers meet.

"Even two or three months ago we would have been afraid to come here at night," said 20-year-old Hussein Salah, an off-duty soldier, slurping a milkshake with his wife, Shihad, at the Mishmesha (apricot) juice bar in Baghdad's relatively safe Karrada suburb.

"Now we sometimes sit outside here till one or two in the morning. It is quite safe. The security situation is vastly improved," said Salah, the orange light from a nearby flashing palm alternatively brightening and dimming his clean-shaven face.

Declines in Iraqi civilian casualties and a sharp reduction in bomb and mortar attacks have sparked optimism that the capital is at last starting to revive.

It's a short step from juice bars to Appletinis, however, and soon I fear the Miller High Life Man will pull up in an armored Humvee and revoke some poor Iraqi's Miller license...

Hat-tip: Hugh

Posted by John Kranz at 4:47 PM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Strange, I can't post a reply to this one.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 22, 2007 3:04 PM

November 7, 2007

Freedom of Worship

Insty posts an email and this pic from Michael Yon:

I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope. The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. 'Thank you, thank you,' the people were saying. One man said, 'Thank you for peace.' Another man, a Muslim, said 'All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.' The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

A beloved but moonbat relative of mine works almost full time now to establish a US Department of Peace. I recommend 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry, they seem to be doing a hell of a job.

UPDATE: Chris Muir's take.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:24 PM

November 6, 2007

There's a Grim Milestone in There Somewhere

Wait, wait -- there's gotta be some some bad news in here...Hold the Presses!! I found It!! Before it got better, it was worse!

AP: 2007 is deadliest year for US in Iraq

The grim milestone passed despite a sharp drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths here in recent months, after a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.

Those AP guys are good, give 'em props.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:00 AM | Comments (2)

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I hear before modern alternative medicine, MILLIONS died from the flu. EVEN WHEN YOU GAVE THEM THE VACCINE! If they had only chanted and burnt eco-sensitive incense ...

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 6, 2007 12:11 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Sick thing is, while 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq, the month-by-month numbers show a DRAMATIC decrease after the surge.

Oops! Something the MSM left out, huh?

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 9, 2007 10:20 PM

November 3, 2007

Dissident Down But Not Out

ThreeSources patron saint Natan Sharansky is profiled in a nice interview in the Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal (free link) this weekend. First, the sad truth:

The fortunes of Mr. Sharansky and his ideas about freedom rose and sunk with President Bush's opinion polls. His "The Case for Democracy" came along, three years ago, when the administration seriously looked to push it in the Muslim world. The president loved the book, and Mr. Sharansky became the in-house philosopher for the Bush Doctrine. "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book," blurbs Mr. Bush on the back cover of the paperback edition.

But democracy is a dirty word these days. So Mr. Sharansky is lonely too, bounced out of Israeli politics and out of favor. He, Vaclav Havel and other former Eastern European dissident faces of the freedom agenda are dismissed as Cold War naïfs, pernicious Utopians, or worse--men whose moral Manichaeism has no business in the "complex Middle East."

Even with the freedom movement "on its back foot," Sharansky is pretty sanguine about Russia, and moderately upbeat about the Mideast. It's a great read.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:20 PM

October 8, 2007

Happy Columbus Day

I know nobody in ThreeSources Land has to work today on the big holiday, so take some time to enjoy Jules Crittenden's celebration of "the most unPC holiday of the year."

That’s why I intend to celebrate it doing the most unPC thing I can think of. Working for a living.

Columbus Day celebrates the arrival of Europeans in the New World, which critics note marked the onset of a lot of death, power shifts, slavery and domination of the continent by new ethnic groups. Essentially, a continuation of history as usual as far as the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia were concerned, all of which had practiced those things repeatedly. Only in the Americas, an acceleration of history, something different.

From this complex, sometimes disturbing history of boldness, vision, determination, misery, blood and hope in the cauldron of New World, emerged the greatest nation history has seen, founded on noble ideas, some of which we are still finetuning. An example to the rest of the world, which is still having trouble with a lot of the basics. Happy Columbus Day.

I finally scared off my last leftist friend a while back. He stayed with me through my support of the War in Iraq, free markets and all. But in our last email exchange, I pointed out that there was scant evidence of human rights in the 1000 years before the Europeans arrived. He directed me toward the Iroquois Constitution. I must admit, that was more sophisticated than this "great white hunter" (my new nickname with this particular interlocutor) had known.

Yet it is basically a defense pact, open only to those who spoke a particular language. There was a stab at self government, but I still see nothing of individual rights or freedom. That came on boats.

Standard disclaimer: the abrogation of treaties with indigenous Americans is one of our great shames and is completely indefensible. A nation of laws should have done better. But we (we, kimosabe?) came and established a free enough society that Samuel Colt could prosper and invent interchangeable parts, economically manufacturing firearms. The settlers did not have guns because they won the lottery.

And that's your racist, ThreeSources hate for the day -- have a great Columbus Day! Hit all the sales!

Posted by John Kranz at 10:50 AM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

So what you're leftist ex-friend is saying is it's only OK to forcefully defend yourself from others if you're part of a group, and then only if that group is non-European.

While the nativists protest parades in Columbus' honor, I'd like to protest his federal holiday. How many tax dollars go to pay people not to work in the name of this "genocidal racist?" (1/365th of what it costs to get them not to work year round in their government jobs, I suppose.)

Were someone to press this issue, however, they'd just change the name of the darned thing like they did with Presidents Day. Something like, "Continental Discoverers and Exploiters Day."

Posted by: johngalt at October 8, 2007 3:25 PM

But jk thinks:

Amen on the holiday. We lack for sufficient days to honor those who truly had a part in making this nation great. Having Washington and Lincoln share "President's Day," whatever. At least I like it better than Labor Day.

Posted by: jk at October 8, 2007 3:33 PM

But jk thinks:

Y'know, I thought said leftist friend had stopped speaking to me, but now I remember: it was he who sent the "six black lab puppies Internet mail hoax." I guess we are friends after all.

Posted by: jk at October 8, 2007 3:37 PM

October 3, 2007

General Pace's Speech

This was posted on Hugh Hewitt's site:



Thanks to all who serve.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:03 PM

Mission Accomplished

Instapundit links to an essay titled Mission Accomplished, with a very optimistic look at the future of coalition involvement in Iraq.

The great question in deciding whether to keep fighting in Iraq is not about the morality and self-interest of supporting a struggling democracy that is also one of the most important countries in the world. The question is whether the war is winnable and whether we can help the winning of it. The answer is made much easier by the fact that three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. The only neighbours threatened by its status today are the leaders in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran.

Weekly Standard? National Review? Nope, across the pond.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:03 AM

September 29, 2007

Not Everyone Has been Convinced

General Petraeus’s testimony and report has brought a sizeable number of people back into belief that our cause is just in Iraq and that the US military can succeed.

A good friend of this blog sends a link that reminds that the belief is not yet unanimous. "Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has consistently led the way in telling the story of what's really going on in Iraq and Iran. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to him about America's Hitler, Bush's Vietnam, and how the US press failed the First Amendment." Der Spiegel counters Hersh's worldview with hard questions like "Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?"

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

My correspondent mentions that he is right about that: some people never learn.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:28 PM

September 28, 2007

Vaclav Havel on Burma

In a just world, Vaclav Havel (or Vaclav Klaus) would be Secretary General of the United Nations. A good friend of the blog sends this link to a Guardian -- yes, the Guardian -- column by Havel:

On a daily basis, at a great many international and scholarly conferences all over the world, we can hear learned debates about human rights and emotional proclamations in their defense. So how is it possible that the international community remains incapable of responding effectively to dissuade Burma's military rulers from escalating the force that they have begun to unleash in Rangoon and its Buddhist temples?

For dozens of years, the international community has been arguing over how it should reform the United Nations so that it can better secure civic and human dignity in the face of conflicts such as those now taking place in Burma or Darfur, Sudan. It is not the innocent victims of repression who are losing their dignity, but rather the international community, whose failure to act means watching helplessly as the victims are consigned to their fate.

The world's dictators, of course, know exactly what to make of the international community's failure of will and inability to coordinate effective measures. How else can they explain it than as a complete confirmation of the status quo and of their own ability to act with impunity?

This Sharanskyite becomes despondent. I believe that we could militarily pursue stability in Iraq and promote freedom elsewhere, but it is obvious that our political class cannot. With the US pinned down by Senator Levin, the despots of the world know impunity quite well.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:31 AM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

There's certainly an argument for our direct intervention. Some say "but only if the people want it, because we can't determine for a people who their leaders should be." But didn't the Iraqis want Saddam ousted? Isn't it obvious that the Burmese want their military dictators ousted. But there's a problem: where does it end? If we intervene in Myanmar, why didn't we in Darfur? There are so many conflicts, and we can do only so much. That's why I personally favor something akin to our support of the Contras, delivering the weapons and equipment so the people can free themselves.

I think there's an argument for some action in, and if we do things right, it wouldn't take much for us to go in and kick some ass. But it will be bloody for the Burmese people, who I think will be slaughtered in revenge by a retreating Burmese military.

Just send in John Rambo, but won't happen till next year.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 28, 2007 1:37 PM

September 18, 2007

Bring it on!

Stand and be counted, Democrats Legislators.

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.

Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday night he would have agreed to turn his summer deadline into a nonbinding goal if doing so meant attracting enough votes to pass.

Let's get those votes on record. Who's with MoveOn.org and who is with the forces of freedom and modernity?

Posted by John Kranz at 8:58 PM | Comments (1)

But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

See that part?

"non-binding goal"

That's like playing poker with worthless chips. Voting for "non-binding" legislation allows politicians to make the "courageous" attempt to support something, without facing the consequences of actually supporting it via statute.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 1:14 PM

September 13, 2007

Blink

Or, as the WaPo calls it "Democrats Push Toward Middle on Iraq Policy."

After two days of congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, the battle lines in the House and Senate over the war have begun to shift, with moderate members of both parties building new momentum behind initiatives that would force the White House to make modest changes to the military mission but not require a substantial drawdown of troops by a set date. Democratic leaders, who have blessed the new approach, now believe that passing compromise legislation is the first step toward more ambitious measures aimed at ending the war, although that tactic is likely to result in stiff opposition from Democratic activists who want a rapid troop withdrawal.

Just months ago, Democratic leaders gave short shrift to any bipartisan bills deemed insufficiently strong by their left flank. A Senate measure to institute the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican former secretary of state James A. Baker III and Democratic former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton, never came to a vote after Reid slammed it as "weak tea." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) blocked consideration of a bill to force the Bush administration to plan for withdrawals after antiwar Democrats denounced it.

Now if we can just do something about Senators Warner and Lugar...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:20 AM

September 11, 2007

Hsppy Patriots' Day!

Y'all tired of this picture yet? I'm not.


Instapundit readers will want to know that I shot it with a Palm iiiC

Posted by John Kranz at 11:00 AM

September 10, 2007

Petraeus!

K-Lo at NRO has a great collection of quotes from General Petraeus’s testimony today:

2006 was a bad year in Iraq. The country came close to unraveling politically, economically, and in security terms. 2007 has brought improvement. Enormous challenges remain. Iraqis still struggle with fundamental questions about how to share power, accept their differences, and overcome their past. The changes to our strategy last January—the surge—have helped change the dynamics in Iraq for the better. Our increased presence made besieged communities feel that they could defeat al-Qa’ida by working with us. Our population security measures have made it much harder for terrorists to conduct attacks. We have given the Iraqis the time and space to reflect on what sort of country they want. Most Iraqis genuinely accept Iraq as a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian society—it is the balance of power that has yet to be sorted out.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 5:01 PM

September 6, 2007

Senator Schumer's Worst Moment

It's hard to pick, but I watched video of this speech on Hugh Hewitt's site yesterday and I was appalled.



J.D. Johannes posts commentary today with video of one of those loser Lt. Colonels whom Senator Schumer sent to war and now calls a failure. Don Surber weighs in as well (HT Insty on both)

Schumer heads the Democratic Senate campaign for 2008. Remember when James Clyburn of the South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, said that good news from Iraq would be bad news from the Democrats?

Small wonder Schumer wants to downplay the success of our military in Iraq. For shame.

Shame indeed.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:18 PM

September 4, 2007

Neighborhood Watch Program

Baghdad. Kimberly Kagen has a superb guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal Today (paid link) titled The Tide is Turning in Iraq

Skillful combat -- and skillful negotiation -- have transformed the area formerly known as "the triangle of death" into a region of dawning, if precarious, stability. As Coalition forces consolidate their gains in these areas, they are also striking Shiite militia sanctuaries east of Baghdad and further south and east along the Tigris River valley. Gen. Odierno and his division commanders cleared territory gradually throughout Phantom Thunder and Phantom Strike, so that they could hold it after clearing operations.

The tribal movement begun in Anbar has spread throughout central Iraq, as thousands of Sunnis have either volunteered to join the Iraqi Security Forces or formed local defense groups under Iraqi government and Coalition auspices. These "concerned citizens" groups springing up throughout central Iraq have not been previously observed on this scale in the country. They permit U.S. and Iraqi forces to hold territory they have cleared more effectively. The volunteers who make up these groups, recruited and deployed in their own neighborhoods, have incentives to protect their families and communities. They are not independent militias, however. They are partnered with Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition forces.

The Baqubah Guardians, one such group, recently helped the Iraqi police in that city fight off al Qaeda insurgents until Coalition helicopters arrived. The Taji Neighborhood Watch association searched hundreds of homes for weapons caches. Iraq has hitherto lacked a local policing initiative, relying instead on national and regional models. The concerned-citizen groups are filling this gap while the U.S. and the Iraqi governments work to expand and improve the Iraqi Security Forces that many of these volunteers hope to join.

The President's surprise visit to Anbar was a shrewd move to show the gains that have been made. His political foes can hope for failure and pray for spectacular carnage in the next few weeks. I think most Americans are beginning to see some gains, no matter what Katie Couric thinks.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:40 AM

August 27, 2007

Bastiat On Iraq

ThreeSources's friend Josh Hendrickson at Everyday Economist has a smart piece this morning. He takes on those who now think that more command-and-control would have helped the Iraqi economy and concomitantly impeded the insurgency.

The EE links to reports that claim a slavish devotion to free market ideology spoiled an opportunity to keep services and jobs active in state-owned enterprises. He then responds with Bastiat's "seen and the unseen."

Messengers Thoma and Holland fail to take account of what is not seen on more than one account.

Thoma and Holland behind the veil of what is seen, conclude that had the administration should have kept the infrastructure in place. It is easy in hindsight to make this call, but it ignores what is unseen. Suppose the infrastructure had been maintained and that the United States “put people to work doing something, anything.” Would this have improved the economic circumstances in Iraq? Bastiat certainly wouldn’t believe so:

I hate to tell people what to do, but I'd suggest one reads the whole thing.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:55 AM

August 20, 2007

Sharanskyism, circa 2007

This blog was christened in the heady days of the Orange and Cedar revolutions. Secretary Rice and President Bush were photographed with Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. The second inaugural address was a book report.

The WaPo carries a comprehensive and sobering look at Bush's goal to end tyranny. Peter Baker's piece is titled "As Democracy Push Falters, Bush Feels Like a 'Dissident'" The President says he wears the "dissident" label with pride but I don't think anybody can be satisfied with "falters."

The days after the speech were heady. Eight million Iraqis went to the polls to elect an interim parliament, their purple-stained fingers a global symbol of emerging democracy. A political assassination in Lebanon triggered demonstrations known as the Cedar Revolution that toppled a pro-Syrian government and forced Damascus to end a three-decade occupation. And protests over a stolen election in Kyrgyzstan ousted another entrenched leader in the Tulip Revolution.

"There was this sort of euphoria," recalled Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, which promotes democracy worldwide.

Bush and his team tried to demonstrate their commitment. The president met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia for a tense discussion about the Kremlin's crackdown on dissent. And when Egypt arrested opposition leader Ayman Nour, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a trip to Cairo. Two weeks later, Egypt released Nour.

When the Iraq poll numbers were nose diving, I told people that I was the last Sharanskyite. Now that the ambition is being blasted from Senator Carl Levin and Rep Ron Paul, I read this blog's beloved tag line and affirm myself to the Case.

Some people I respect around here are comfortable with a Hobbsion bellum omnium contra omnes but I see American economic and security interests are well served by the propagation of liberal values. Today, totalitarian regimes -- maybe someday even the U.S. State Department.

It's going to take time. I would have been a little kinder than Sharansky:

Still, after an invigorating start in 2005, progress has been harder to find. Among those worried about the project is Sharansky, whose book so inspired Bush. "I give him an A for bringing the idea and maybe a C for implementation," said Sharansky, now chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Israel. "There is a gap between what he says and what the State Department does," and he is not consistent enough.

The challenge Bush faced, Sharansky added, was to bring Washington together behind his goal.

"It didn't happen," he said. "And that's the real tragedy."

Posted by John Kranz at 11:24 AM

July 9, 2007

Is the GOP set to fold on Iraq?

A good friend of this blog emails today. Last week saw signs that the illustrious and brave GOP Senate coalition (yeah, right!) is set to cave with Senator Lugar's dash to the exit, Senator Domenici's joining him -- all as positive signals come out of Iraq

A NYTimes fromt page story today asserts that the White House is seeking an exit strategy before September based on GOP defections.

“When you count up the votes that we’ve lost and the votes we’re likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim,” said one senior official, who, like others involved in the discussions, would not speak on the record about internal White House deliberations.

That conclusion was echoed in interviews over the past few days by administration officials in the Pentagon, State Department and White House, as well as by outsiders who have been consulted about what the administration should do next. “Sept. 15 now looks like an end point for the debate, not a starting point,” the official said. “Lots of people are concluding that the president has got to get out ahead of this train.”

Far be it from me to argue with "some administration officials" and people in the State Department, but I believe the President can and will hold this together.

We're a couple weeks away from the August news doldrums, when the Washington Press Corps will have to resort to chasing this year's Cindy Sheehan around this year's Crawford Texas for news. Our courageous Senators will go home to hide under their beds.

While the Senate cowers, our brave men and women in uniform will continue their successful counterinsurgency operations around Baghdad. When Congress reconvenes, they will wait two weeks for General Petraeus's report. And I feel Petraeus will surprise to the upside.

As I emailed, I have no dispositive proof that the Senate won't cave before recess, but I have faith in the President's resolve. I don't believe the New York Times and the anonymous leakers who just happen to agree with them.

In the meantime, I hope the remaining GOP Senators read the WSJ Ed Page, as well as the NYTimes:

The Democratic Presidential candidates are trying to out-compete each other to see who can demand a pullout faster. The goal for nearly all of them (save perhaps Senator Joe Biden) isn't to create some bipartisan policy that the next President could inherit and sustain; it is to use Iraq as a partisan club to win the 2008 elections, and only then worry about the consequences.

Republicans may think they can distance themselves from all this, but they'll get no credit from voters if they contribute to an ugly outcome in Iraq. Their best prospect for making Iraq less important in 2008 is military progress that allows for a reduction in U.S. forces with honor and a more stable Iraqi government. A divided Republican caucus that undercuts America's military efforts while chasing the mirage of bipartisan comity will only make their own election defeat more likely.

I am further heartened that the GOP Presidential candidates are united in their support for the battle in Iraq and the larger war. (Rep Paul is an exception, but he makes a principled stand against "foreign entanglements" which differs in my book from cut-and-run. Besides, George Stephanopoulos says he won't win anyway.)

The GOP will soon have a new leader, and that leader will be resolute -- this will help stop defections.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM

July 7, 2007

Scots Wa Hae!

John Smeaton is a hero. Fame is so ill deserved for most, but not for Smeaton, the Glasgow baggage handler who kicked a flaming terrorist. Fan websites are springing up. A PayPal account to "buy him a pint!" now has more than $9000.

Being a good scot, he "prefers Wiskey" and seems to be handling his fame with dignity and modest aplomb.

Mr. Smeaton described his role more modestly. He says he joined police officers and others in subduing the attackers -- taking a kick at Bilal Abdullah, who on Friday was charged in the attacks. Then, Mr. Smeaton came to the aid of an injured bystander who'd joined in the rumble.

"I did nothing special," Mr. Smeaton said. "I just ran in and booted a guy."

His brogue is so thick that his interview required subtitles -- in Australia! Cheer up sons and daughters of the Enlightenment. The land of Adam Smith and David Hume has supplied another hero.

Twas doon by the inch o' Abbots
Oor Johnny walked one day
When he saw a sicht that
troubled him
Far more than he could say...
Now that's no richt wur
Johnny cried
And sallied tae the fray
A left hook and a heid butt
Required tae save the day.
Now listen up Bin Laden
Yir sort's nae wanted here
For imported English radicals
Us Scoatsman huv nae fear

All this from a Wall Street Journal story (paid link) which never mentions the anatomical target of the attack. Are they backing off, or is Dow Jones too suave to discuss "goolies?"

Posted by John Kranz at 11:14 AM

June 30, 2007

Near Miss

I have never seen Keith Oberman before. I have read about him, but didn't get the full KO Experience until I saw this YouTube clip on HotAir (Hat-tip: Insty I think)

He interviews a former CIA guy (Larry Johnson, who seems to be well known around the blogosphere as well -- I need to get out more). Johnson asserts that the London car bombs would have made a lot of noise but were unlikely to hurt anybody unless they were inside the car with the bomb. He and Oberman then go on a joint tirade about why we're in Iraq and why the London bomb gets more attention than bombs in Baghdad.

I'll cede that petrol and propane and nails seem less sophisticated than Iranian IEDs. But it plays into a media narrative that every foiled plot was "a bunch of jokers," "dropouts from al Qaeda," &c. The war isn't really real, terrorists aren't dangerous, we've been at war with Eurasia all along...

Imagine that 9/11 had been foiled. What a bunch of losers! Get this, they had box cutters. And they thought they would take over the plane and -- wait for it -- take over the cockpit and fly these planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

What a bunch of bozos -- clearly, we have nothing to fear from the likes of these losers.

Posted by John Kranz at 8:43 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

Don't forget the spent the nights before going to tittie bars!

Posted by: AlexC at June 30, 2007 10:35 PM

But Harrison Bergeron thinks:

I am guessing that the reason a car bomb in London gets more publicity than a car bomb in Baghdad is because there isn't a war going on in London.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 1, 2007 5:40 PM

But jk thinks:

You are never going to get invited on Keith Oberman's show using goofy-ass logic like that. (Damn, I said "Ass.")

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2007 8:13 PM

June 28, 2007

Two Views of Iraq

A good friend of this blog sends a link to a Tony Blankley column in Real Clear Politics. Blankley's a smart guy and uses the same hair stylist as Senator John Kerry. But I don't agree with his downbeat assessment. He, like Congressional Democrats, is not waiting for September for General Petraeus's assessment. Blankley has an advance copy:

From all this and more, let me save you the bother of waiting for the September deluge of reports from the four corners of our government. Come September it will be the received wisdom of Washington that: (1) the Maliki government is hopelessly incapable of ever effecting the necessary political compromises to make Iraq a functioning government, (2) we cannot maintain our current troop strength in Iraq with the current size of our military, and (3) the Iraqi military will not soon be ready to replace our forces in combat or even heavy police duties.

That is the "metaphysical certitude" conventional wisdom, and one cannot pretend that that is not a likely outcome. But I have been heartened of late by reading Austin Bay, Michael Totten, and Michael Yon. Those guys serve it up pretty straight, and all three are cautiously optimistic about new operations and rules of engagement. Petraeus may surprise to the upside. I am joined in this belief by Victor Davis Hanson:

But for all the justifiable criticism of the Iraqi reconstruction, two truths still remain — the United States is taking an enormous toll on jihadists, and despite the terrible cost in blood and treasure, has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq.

The Sunni front-line states, who subsidized jihadists and still enjoy our misery in Iraq , , but they are now terrified that these killers, in league with the Iranians, will turn on them. The net result is not just that some Sunnis are helping us in Iraq, but that they are being urged to for the first time by those in the Arab world, who would prefer to see the Iraqi government, rather than the terrorists, succeed. And if Iraq is still a terrible disappointment, Kurdistan is emerging as a success few envisioned, refuting some conventional wisdom about the incompatibility of capitalism and constitutional government with Middle Eastern Islam.

Theocratic Iran is not exactly as “empowered” as is generally alleged, but in the greatest crisis of its miserable existence. As the mullahs up the ante in the region, they could very soon not only lose Iraq, but also their own dictatorship.

Blankley is ready to install what my emailer calls a new Saddam, and return to more decades of realpolitik and realism. VDH notes that the United States "has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq." I'm not ready to either. Senator Lugar and Tony can throw in the towel. I will be the last Sharanskyite.

UPDATE: And do not miss J. D. Johannes's views on NRO.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:59 AM

June 21, 2007

Email Support to Marines

The Fighting 6th Marines are in the thick of it in Fallujah and one of their Colonels has asked for email

COL. SIMCOCK: (Chuckles.) I'll tell you what, the one thing that all Marines want to know about -- and that includes me and everyone within Regimental Combat Team 6 -- we want to know that the American public are behind us. We believe that the actions that we're taking over here are very, very important to America. We're fighting a group of people that, if they could, would take away the freedoms that America enjoys.

If anyone -- you know, just sit down, jot us -- throw us an e- mail, write us a letter, let us know that the American public are behind us. Because we watch the news just like everyone else. It's broadcast over here in our chow halls and the weight rooms, and we watch that stuff, and we're a little bit concerned sometimes that America really doesn't know what's going on over here, and we get sometimes concerns that the American public isn't behind us and doesn't see the importance of what's going on. So that's something I think that all Marines, soldiers and sailors would like to hear from back home, that in fact, yes, they think what we're doing over here is important and they are in fact behind us.

On their blog, they thank Michelle Malkin and Blackfive for linking, and say that the effort is going well.

Just by way of an update, we've reached our halfway mark of 3000 e-mails. This is after despairing yesterday when the deluge had slowed to a trickle by yesterday evening. Then we got 900 e-mails over night. All in all in the past 24 hours we've gotten 1300 e-mails. I'm not counting the various spam e-mails, either, though "Queen Amallah," I hope you eventually find your money.

If you have the time and inclination, why not register with Vox, drop us a comment and join our community? We've got a great readership here and lots of good regular commenters and plenty of content. I hope you stop by regularly; we update as often as is feasible.

The e-mail address for the campaign is rct-6lettersfromh AT gcemnf-wiraq DOT usmc DOT mil

Hat-tip: A Second Hand Conjecture

Posted by John Kranz at 8:13 PM

May 28, 2007

Happy Memorial Day II

I have read a dozen great posts about Memorial Day. But don't miss Dean Barnett's late entry:

Even if we put the tendentious political agenda aside, commemorating the fallen as victims does them a profound disservice. If the fallen were anything like any of the men I’ve spoken to who have served in Iraq or who are serving in Iraq or who will serve in Iraq, they would far prefer being celebrated as heroes than mourned as victims.

Heroes are what the fallen were. They didn’t want to pay the ultimate price for their country, but they were willing to do so. Their lives were marked by courage and honor. On this of all days, let’s honor them by doing what they would probably prefer we do - celebrate their virtues and thank God that our country has been blessed with so many men who had such virtues in such abundance.

And let’s further count our blessings that we still have so many of their kind walking among us.

Amen to that.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:10 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Toby Keith put it thusly:

"And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
I’ve counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh and I don’t want to die for you, but if dyin’s asked of me
I’ll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don’t come free.

I’m an American Soldier an American
Beside my brothers and my sisters, I will proudly take a stand
When liberty’s in jeopardy, I will always do what’s right

I’m out here on the front lines, sleep in peace tonight
American Soldier, I’m an American, Soldier."

Thanks to all the HEROES who serve.

Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 8:00 PM

Happy Memorial Day

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." -Thomas Paine

I'd suggest Michael Yon's "Memorial Day Message" (that's his photo as well). He shares two stories of bravery from wounded soldiers under fire that must be read. He ends, sadly, sadly:

Both men often lamented to me how frustrating it was to be back home and realize that the average American is not aware of practically any of the progress that’s been made in Iraq. Both men darken with something closer to anger when they consider the sacrifices made by fallen soldiers and the fact that while the media most likely counted the deaths in all instances, they also most likely failed to mention any of the good things their fellow soldiers had accomplished while in Iraq.

Thanks to all who serve. Today, special thanks to all who gave all their tomorrows for our todays.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:14 AM

May 19, 2007

Letter from Iraq

Max Boot posted this letter from LTC Steve Miska.

Given that reality, we need to stand by the Iraqis. How long, you ask? I am on my second tour following a year in Tikrit from 2004-2005. A realistic goal is to have stabilized this region by the time my eleven-year-old son is old enough to serve in the military. Not that he is preordained to serve, but my hope is he will not have to deal with the complexity and tragedies that I have witnessed in Baghdad over the last eight months. My only other goal is to be able to look myself in the mirror every day, knowing that I stuck to my principles and did as much as possible to win in this very dangerous environment.

If our government decides to prematurely pull out, I would fail to reach both goals, and my son and his generation may find themselves embroiled in something far worse than what we experience now—all because my generation couldn’t get the job done.

I'd sure read the whole thing, but it's your weekend.

Hat-tip to Instapundit and another round of thanks to all who serve.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM

May 13, 2007

Medal of Freedom Recipients

George Tenent has written a book to defend his reputation. While everybody has focused on some of his attacks on the administration, the Weekly Standard has pointed out that his book speaks much about al Qaeda presence in Iraq, the efficacy of aggressive interrogation procedures and the current threat from Iran. He thinks the Bush administration is discrediting him, but he did receive the nation's highest civilian honor: the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Another recipient takes to his own defense, more credibly and succinctly. L. Paul Bremer has an editorial in the WaPo today, defending both the decision to de-Baathify Iraq and to disband Saddam's Iraqi Army:

Our goal was to rid the Iraqi government of the small group of true believers at the top of the party, not to harass rank-and-file Sunnis. We were following in the footsteps of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower in postwar Germany. Like the Nazi Party, the Baath Party ran all aspects of Iraqi life. Every Iraqi neighborhood had a party cell. Baathists recruited children to spy on their parents, just as the Nazis had. Hussein even required members of his dreaded intelligence services to read "Mein Kampf."

Although Hussein and his cronies had been in power three times as long as Hitler had, the CPA decree was much less far-reaching than Eisenhower's de-Nazification law, which affected all but the lowest-ranking former Nazis. By contrast, our Iraqi law affected only about 1 percent of Baath Party members. We knew that many had joined out of opportunism or fear, and they weren't our targets.

I'll confess that I had seen Bremer before the War and was mightily impressed by his apparent intelligence and competence. When he was picked to head the provisional government, I thought it was a great pick. When a then slowly-decaying Andrew Sullivan blamed him for the troubles in Iraq, Colon cancer, and the lack of good parking places in Provincetown, I wondered if I had misjudged.

Bremer admits some failures in judgment but defends himself from the CW.

Hat-tip: Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err who points out that the editorial also reminds us of Saddam's depravity.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:55 PM

May 3, 2007

Stories from Occupation

Do. Not. Miss. the four part essay on Estonian Independence on Kojinshugi. I started reading Sam on his Unigolyn blog when he was in Estonia. He moved to British Columbia and I have kept up with his less political kojinshugi.

He recently returned to Estonia and has posted four parts of an essay on the nation's history, annotated with stories his relatives and memories from childhood. This, from the second part, caught my eye:

I remember signatures being collected in schools for the language law. I don’t know what the signatures were for, or why they were asking nine-year olds to do it. But I remember signing it and I remember feeling joy doing it. We were told we didn’t have to wear our Octobrist pins anymore. That day I went home and asked my mom for a hammer. I sat on the front steps of my house and I beat that grotesque pentagram and Lenin’s bald head into a flat piece of metal. I now wish I’d kept it, but back then I just wanted to be rid of it.

They gave us new schoolbooks. The old ones all started with a four-page adulation of Lenin, the Lover of Children and Our Great Father. They said we could throw the old ones away. My school was only about 50 meters away from the Bronze Soldier and the Eternal Flame, a recessed gas fire, was still burning there. Me and some of my friends didn’t feel like dumping the books in a trash can. After school, we went to the Flame and we ripped those books to shreds and burned them. Keep in mind we were nine year-olds. No one told us to burn those books. We weren’t politically savvy. But we knew almost viscerally that this shit they had been forcing on us was pure, unadulterated evil.

My mother in law had the same feeling at a similar age, The occupying Japanese forces came to school on the first day and supervised the kids' cutting every reference to the United States, a Dollar Sign, or the American flag out of their schoolbooks. Mom knew, too, that that was wrong though she did not know how wrong or why.

You'll not find either Sam or my Mother in law at a peace rally holding up a "War Is Not The Answer" banner (well, Sam might be infiltrating the assembly for a podcast or something...)

I'm only half through. I will bug you again when I have finished it, but this is incredible stuff: the real prized jewels in the blogosphere,

Part One

Posted by John Kranz at 5:04 PM

May 2, 2007

We Win. They Lose.

Never know about the efficacy of an online petition, but I could not resist this one:

We win. they lose.

When it came to defeating the Soviets, Ronald Reagan made it simple: "We win, they lose." Now more than ever, the defeatists in Congress must hear that same message. America will never surrender.

WeWinTheyLose.com is a new site where you can get involved in the fight to support our troops and secure victory in the War on Terror.

Sign the petition.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:46 PM

April 14, 2007

"Contest for survival"

For at least several years there has been a quiet underground movement to secure the rights of liberty and freedom for citizens of a major nation on the world stage. Brave national patriots, both within their country and in exile, expose themselves to boundless peril at the hands of the authoritarian regime that rules the country with an iron fist. America has committed military force to defend these ideals in Iraq and Afghanistan. But western nations give not even diplomatic support to those struggling for the same freedoms in this other, critically important, nation - at least not publicly.

This major nation is not Iran, nor Venezuela, China, Vietnam, North Korea or Zimbabwe (nee Rhodesia). It is one of five veto powers on the UN Security Council: Russia.

One Russian patriot, Alexander Litvinenko, has already lost his life in pursuit of the cause.

Another, billionaire Boris Berezovsky, lives in the UK under political asylum - a status that is continually threatened by Russia's Putin regime.

And today, world famous Russian chess champion Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Moscow for "shouting anti-government slogans."

Activists had planned to gather at a city centre square about one km (half a mile) from the Kremlin to protest at what they say is Putin's trampling of democratic freedoms and demand a fair vote to choose a new president in 2008.

Teams of riot police, acting on a ruling from the city authorities banning the protest, pounced on protesters as they appeared in small groups near the square and swiftly loaded them into buses, Reuters witnesses said.

Surprisingly, Kasparov was able to make statements to reporters:

"Today the regime showed its true colours, its true face," the former chess grandmaster said during an adjournment.

"I believe this was a great victory for the opposition because people got through and the march happened."

Moscow police explain just how important it was to forcefully detain these "dangerous" citizens:

Moscow police chief spokesman Viktor Biryukov said about 170 of the "most aggressive" protesters had been detained.

"Thanks to the well-coordinated actions of the riot police and Moscow police, we were able to prevent an illegal gathering being carried out," he said.

This all serves as stark evidence why free men must never grant complete trust to government.

"For ordinary people in Russia today, it's a contest for survival," Anastasia Krampit, 39, said as she watched the protesters drift away.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:22 PM

April 11, 2007

If I Die Before You Wake

There's something in this flash video to offend eveybody around here: a countrified voice, religious overtones -- but I bet you're all gonna love it.

Hat-tip: my brother via email.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:10 AM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Yes God, bless the men and women who volunteer to defend freedom and understand that there are fates worse than death.

And God, may you damn straight to hell every so-called American who believes that evil may be left to fester on the other side of the world without concern that it may come this way again.

Just as does John McCain, I hold the American soldier in awe and reverence.

(No, I don't believe in God, but 90% of those soldiers do. And 90% of anti-war [anti-freedom] piss-ant Democrats do too.)

Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2007 11:00 AM

March 27, 2007

CornHuskers For Surrender

ThreeSources friend The Everyday Economist, emails a link to this article and suggests that "Somewhere, Osama is smiling."

Sad to see the US Senate voting for defeat. Curious to me was that the reasonably red state of Nebraska supplied both the switchers that allowed this one to pass.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to swing behind the measure.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Insert your own Taranto joke about Senator Hegel, I would be surprised if many of the good people I know in that great state will be happy that their two Senators gift wrapped this present for enemies.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:21 PM

March 20, 2007

Well then don't play

Colorado Rep Marilyn Musgrave (R-Atlantis Farm and environs, I believe...) has a good record on spending and the war, and I was happy to see her win a close re-election in 2006. But she opens herself to the old joke "We've established what you are. We're now quibbling over price."

She may just go ahead and vote for defeat in Iraq so that she can bring home some Federal jack to her constituents:

"She hates the games the Democrats are playing," said Guy Short, chief of staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for drought relief and agriculture assistance. "But Representative Musgrave was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and farmers, and they desperately need this assistance."

If you hate the game so much, Rep Musgrave: don't play.

Hat-tip: Instapundit, one of whose readers wonders "Um… I thought the Democrats had a 'mandate' on Iraq? Why do they need to buy votes?"

Posted by John Kranz at 2:39 PM

March 19, 2007

A Question for War Opponents

Today's Democrats can be divided into three groups:

• Those who regret supporting the war;


• Those who never supported the war;


• Those who would not have supported the war if they "knew now what they knew then."

I'll concede that there are some Democrats who still support the war, but they have no representation in party leadership, so I dismiss them.

I encourage everybody to read Michael Totten's amazing report on progress in the Kurdish north. He compares a visit there fourteen months ago to a recent visit. Erbil, the "capital" city of Iraqi Kurdistan (Totten eschews the scare quotes) is a bustling and booming metropolis, rivaled in growth and construction only by Dubai. Totten notes plans for the tallest building in Iraq, as well as mobile-phone billboards (with attractive, unscarved females!), construction -- all the signs of commercial life.

Kurdistan’s rise flips Iraq on its head. The Kurds are ahead, but they started from nothing. Under Saddam’s regime they had the worst of everything – the worst poverty, the worst underdevelopment, and worst of all they bore the brunt of the worst violence from Baghdad. 200,000 people were killed (out of less than four million) and 95 percent of the villages were completely destroyed.

The Kurds seem happy and well-adjusted. Scratch the surface, though, and any one of them can tell you tales that make you tremble and shudder. Everyone here was touched by the Baath and by the genocide. If living well is the best revenge, the Kurds got theirs.

“You see this place now with its government, its democracy, and its system of laws,” my guide Hamid said. “It wasn’t like this even recently, believe me. Before, it was a jungle.”

It is an awesome read. Totten is not very optimistic on Baghdad or Anbar, and the desire for Kurdish independence, which I have supported for years, has some troubling repercussions.

All the same, the liberation of the Kurdish North from Saddam Hussein is a huge success -- dare I say "Mission Accomplished?" This region is showing its neighbors the advantages of freedom and plurality as it gives hope and opportunity to its citizens. This could not have happened without coalition troops.

I ask all those who have abandoned -- or who proudly proclaim they've never given -- support to the mission if the liberation of the Kurdish North is not in and of itself a good reason for war. And if you think I'm going too far with that, how can you deny the opportunity for freedom to the rest of Iraq? It is a credit to the coalition troops that they gave opportunity to all Iraqis. Some have embraced it and some have elected to pursue tribal vendettas and brutal power struggles.

But you cannot read this and call the war a mistake and a failure.

Hat-tip: Insty (all my links today are: Coals to Newcastle...)

Posted by John Kranz at 4:59 PM | Comments (1)

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

The Kurds started to benefit from the US the day we started the Northern No-Fly Zone. The peshmergas (sp?)gladly joined out troops 4 years ago (Today as the MSM keeps drumming into our heads, BTW) as gratitude.

I, too, would LOVE to see an independent Kurdistan we can call an ally in the Middle East.

It probably won't happen because we're too busy keeping the Turks happy so we can maintain our presence at Incirlik.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 19, 2007 8:35 PM

March 9, 2007

News Item of the Decade

What's that? Did Bill Gates promise to buy Apple Computer and divide all of its stock amongst all the AIDS patients in Africa? Did Mahmood I'mInAJihad just convert to Christianity? Did Hillary divorce Bill? No.

Gun Ban in D.C. Overturned

Owning guns in D.C. may soon become legal, as federal appeals court ruled that the right to bear arms applies not only to militias.

Three years ago, a lower-court judge had told six D.C. residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection that they don't have a constitutional right to own handguns.

City argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

Today judge held that the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to militia service, or to people with "intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Just what was this D.C. gun ban? From the Cato Institute via P.R. Newswire: "Under existing law, no handgun could be registered in the District, and even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban could not be carried from room to room within a home without a license."

Well, what's wrong with that CNSnews? If that is the "democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia" then who cares that, "Even though the nation's capital had one of the strictest gun bans in the country, it also suffers from one of the five-highest murders rates of major cities nationwide?" I guess two out of three federal appeals judges care:

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

(...)

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

The opinion of the lone dissenting judge is telling. Her foundation for supporting the 30-year old law was not that individuals are not militia members, or that handguns are not hunting tools. Instead she wrote, "the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

Can I believe my eyes? I'm still not sure I believe a sitting federal judge actually wrote this. The reporter must have misrepresented, right? I wonder if she would also argue that the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth (take a breath), twenty first, twenty second, twenty third (oh really?), twenty fourth, twenty fifth, twenty sixth and twenty seventh amendments don't apply to D.C. because "it is not a state?"

For some time now I've been considering creation of a "Slave-o-Meter" that reflects the global movement toward collectivism and away from individual liberty modeled after the Union of Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock." I was dissuaded by the notion that the "Slave-o-Meter" would only ever move in one direction: toward collectivization of humankind. (And because I still haven't thought of a better name than Slave-o-Meter.) This development in D.C. is one rare, delicious, possibly temporary case where it moved noticeably in the other direction.

UPDATE: [13 March] I am eternally grateful to JK for his comment link to the WaPo editorial on this. It allows me to share this remarkable quote:

"While the ruling caught observers off guard, it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."

So in the document that begins ... We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, an interpretation by the "National Rifle Association and abetted by the Bush administration" that one of its amendments applies to "individuals" is "unconscionable."

DUDE! WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?!

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:50 PM | Comments (5)

But jk thinks:

I humbly suggest "Serfdom Miles." How far down Hayek’s road we are. Like the clock, it will be hard to weight multiple parameters into a single, scalar quantity.

I am not so pessimistic as you. It is disturbing to see the free word give up its liberty by bits and pieces -- at the same time, I look at the Heritage /WSJ index of economic freedom and see that more and more people are escaping from the least free nations.

In a Sharansky sense, I'd say this planet is doing well, although in a Friedmanite, Hayekian sense, we may be giving back some gains.

Following the Constitution in the US Capitol is a good sign.

Posted by: jk at March 9, 2007 6:07 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Thank GOD a court in this country FINALLY understood what the Second Amendment really means!

Now,..how soon before the knee-jerk reactions from the "let's talk" liberal crowds??

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 9, 2007 8:34 PM

But jk thinks:

Not sure what time the WaPo hits the streets, tm, but the answer is "less than 24 hours."

Dangerous Ruling: An appeals court ruling would put handguns back in D.C. homes

Quelle Horreur! Guns in homes...

Posted by: jk at March 10, 2007 12:26 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Thanx for the link, jk

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 11, 2007 12:02 PM

But dagny thinks:

The WaPO article JK links to above is hysterical, in more ways than one. However, I recommend reading the comments to the article. At one point a commenter notes that the comments are 82% in favor of the ruling. Perhaps there is hope for DC yet????

Posted by: dagny at March 12, 2007 7:31 PM

Capitalism for Campesinos

ThreeSources's "Freedom on the March" category was created in January of 2005. Freedom seemed in true ascendancy. Iraqis were showing their purple fingers, Libya was giving up on its nuclear programs. The cedar and orange revolutions were just around the corner.

Freedom has lost some ground since then, I won't dwell on it.

Yet I don't think Latin America has scored a post in this category in all that time. Today, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page calls for (paid link, sorry!) more free trade with Latin America to counter the new left of center message with one of freedom and prosperity.

This is the root of the U.S. problem in Latin America: the lack of trade leadership. The 2002 Bush steel tariffs did their share of harm, but the biggest obstacle is Congress. The Central American Free Trade Agreement barely passed last year, and now Democrats are saying they want to renegotiate bilateral deals with Peru and Colombia that have already been signed. Trade is by far the biggest leverage the U.S. has in the region, and the best tool for improving living standards and strengthening democracy. If Congress fails to renew "fast-track" negotiating authority this year, the problem will get worse.

The best alternative to Hugo Chávez's Marxist revival is the vision Mr. Bush offered earlier this week to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: "Latin America needs capitalism for the campesino, a true capitalism that allows people who start from nothing to rise as far as their skills and their hard work can take them." It's a shame Mr. Bush can't reinforce that message with greater promises of access to the U.S. market.

It doesn't look good, but it reinforces my pragmatism. President Bush fumbled the ball when he enacted the steel and softwood tariffs and the GOP Congress has sucked on trade issues.

But I watch Rep Charlie Rangel, and Senator Webb and it appears that protectionism has completely taken over the Democratic Party.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:12 PM

March 5, 2007

A Toast to Baghdad

Muhammad and Omar from the great blog, IraqTheModel, have a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, saying the things I am thinking but am afraid to say out loud: the surge is working.

So after only a couple weeks we can feel, despite the continuing violence, that much has been accomplished. Many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city. This change in mood is something huge by itself.

The brightest image of the past two weeks was the scene of displaced families returning home; more than a thousand families are back to their homes under the protection of the Army and police. This figure invites hope that Baghdad will restore its social, ethnic and religious mosaic.

Marketplaces are seeing more activity and stores that were long shuttered are reopening -- including even some liquor stores that came under vicious attacks in the past. This is a sign that extremists no longer can intimidate people and hold the city hostage. All of this gives the sense that law is being imposed.

Checkpoints are not seen as scary threats to the innocent. They look more professional and impartial as they include members of the police, Army, Multinational Forces and even traffic cops with laptops verifying registration papers. We've lost the fear that checkpoints might be traps set by death squads; they search everyone, even official convoys and ambulances.

We feel safer about moving in the city now, and politicians who used to hide behind the walls of the Green Zone are venturing out. Watching Mr. Maliki walking on Palestine Street in central Baghdad gave a positive impression that the state, and not the gangs, owns the streets.

No doubt dark days lie ahead. But if Iraq can gain some security in its capital, that sets a foundation for order.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:06 AM

March 1, 2007

Seven Minutes

I had heard about this, but I finally followed an Extreme Mortman link, and watched this speech by Rep. Sam Johnson’s (R-TX).

Must watch.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:56 PM | Comments (1)

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

I did a few weeks ago. It sent chills down my spine!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 1, 2007 9:53 PM

February 26, 2007

They Don't Make Democrats Like This Anymore

Senator Lieberman, in a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal (free link)

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

That's a responsible opposition position. He understands the gravity of the fight, the souring position held by the electorate. He doesn't line up and salute but he supports his own vote to confirm General Petraeus.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:17 AM

They Will Hold Their Manhood Cheap

...that they did not fight with Prince Harry on St. Crispen's Day.

I join Bret Stephens of the The Journal Editorial Report in applauding a particular UK troop deployment:

[Paul] Gigot: Next, on the heels of the British government announcing it will withdraw some troops from Iraq, comes news of a notable deployment. Bret?

Stephens: Yes, well, once upon a time, there was an English prince, who went by the nickname Harry--most of us know him better as Henry V--who had what you might call a misspent youth and then found his place in history on the battlefield called Agincourt. Well, today, there's another English prince, also called Harry, also with something of what you might call a misspent youth, who is now, by his own choice, going to be deploying to Iraq to lead a squad of soldiers in southern Iraq. And I think a lot of people wonder what the purpose of an aristocracy is, especially when most European aristocrats spend their time disgracing themselves on the pages of HELLO! I think young Harry is showing what that purpose is. It is to set an example. And I think he's made the British very proud.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:01 AM

February 25, 2007

Murtha Stumbles

Those are the words of WaPo staff writers, Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton, not me. They point out that the plan was to unite Democrats and divide Republicans. But...

But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

Sorry Rep. Murtha is having a bad day, but when you can't get the Washington Post on board for some antiwar and anti-administration politicking, you have a problem.

I'm thinking some "Don't blame me, I supported Irey" T-Shirts might be good right about now...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:59 AM

February 23, 2007

Democracy Midwifed

There is another casualty of the partisanship that has turned the Iraqi liberation into "Bush's War" and formed a solid line of Democrats in opposition. We're missing the political twists and turns as a new nation is birthed in the fecund Mesopotamian crescent.

The Wall Street Journal (news pages) reports today that Ahmed Chalabi has a new position in the government.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration's new push to secure Baghdad succeeds.

In a new post created earlier this year, Mr. Chalabi will serve as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city. The position is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy.

I don't blame partisan wrangling, the insurgency has been very adept at impeding the birth of civil society. I think the opponents have played into their hands.

Put me in those polls where a majority of Americans still see and demand success. Give General Petraeus a chance. Then, instead of sniping at the administration from the sidelines, watch an inchoate nation unfold, real time.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:12 AM

February 20, 2007

IBD Poll

Among many great reasons to be depressed, it's hard to top the polls showing that Americans do not believe they can win in Iraq, do not feel we can win in Iraq, and do not care whether we win in Iraq.

I suspect it has been finely inculcated, yet still stand silenced (not my normal state) when I hear my countrymen are willing to allow another Vietnam outcome. I risk cherry-picking a poll, but Larry Kudlow references an Investor Business Daily Poll that tells a different story.

Speaking of Investors Business Daily, they posted tremendous polling data last Friday on Iraq that you won’t read about in the mainstream media.

Contrary to common wisdom, most Americans want to win in Iraq.

The poll was conducted by IBD’s polling partner TIPP. This is Raghavan Mayur’s company and they are very accurate pollsters.

Based on 915 respondents, the IBD/TIPP poll revealed that as of February 7th, 66% believe that it's “very important” or “somewhat important” to win in Iraq. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Independents, and 53 percent of Democrats.

It goes on to say that 58 percent are “very hopeful” or “somewhat hopeful” of a U.S. victory in Iraq.

I am very hopeful and believe it is critical to win.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:46 PM

February 15, 2007

Screw TNR!

If I may recount: TNR comes out boldly for the Iraq war, then turns tail and attacks the mission when it gets difficult, piling on to support antiwar candidates and help pull the President’s party out of power.

Now, its editors are crying into their 1945 Château l'effete that It's becoming obvious: No one is going to save Darfur

Precisely because neither of these [UN] options ever seemed likely to work, we have argued over the past year that nato intervention is the best way to end the genocide. We still favor that approach, but we have no illusions that the Bush administration will ever undertake it. Last week, speaking at a panel in Washington, D.C., John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group urged Western governments at least to weigh the possibility of military action against Sudan--but then conceded, "It's a laughable concept as we sit here today." True enough. At this point, we would be happy to see the West take any action that has even the remotest chance of stopping the genocide. Some efforts, such as a no-fly zone over Darfur or a naval blockade of Port Sudan, could, at least in theory, be undertaken unilaterally or by a small group of countries. Other proposals, such as travel bans that target government leaders or sanctions against Sudanese oil, would require broad consent from the international community to be effective.

Unfortunately, none of these measures seem likely to happen any time soon. For one thing, when it comes to Darfur, we have shown time and again that we simply lack the will for substantial steps of any kind. For another, China--a major consumer of Sudanese oil and a longtime supplier of equipment to Khartoum's military--would almost certainly foil efforts to punish Sudan economically.

And so the West either isn't going to act or isn't going to act strongly enough, and the plight of Darfuris will become more dire by the day. Indeed, as recent reports of attacks on aid workers piled up, one humanitarian group, Médecins du Monde, decided to pull out of Darfur. If others follow, millions of displaced persons could soon be without water, food, or medicine.

Afghanistan, a good TNR journalist would say, is reverting to lawless Talibanism, and Iraq is a Quagmire and a mistake of the current administration.

The UN is powerless and disinterested, and TNR wants the administration to organize a coalition of the willing. Let's nuke China and free Tibet while we're over there.

Former TNR Editor Peter Beinart's book is subtitled "Why liberals, and only liberals, can win the war on terror and make America great again." I respect Beinart (and Martin Peretz) but his old magazine disproves his thesis almost once a week.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:33 PM

How Many Republican Defeatists?

I guess that's the last remaining question in the House. I'm relearning what a friend the "cooling saucer of the Senate" is to a minority party. Even with all our squishes and RINOs, the Senate GOP stalled the defeat resolution under Sen. McConnell’s bold leadership.

But, as they say, you can pass a Ham Sandwich in the house (if the majority party is not hallah or kosher) and we will soon see a bill "supporting the troops" but denigrating their mission and attempting to withhold the tools for victory. How many House GOP members will join the pusillanimity club? The WSJ Ed Page issues a warning: (free link)

All of this is something that House Republicans should keep in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha "slow-bleed" strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However "non-binding," this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember.

History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:11 PM

February 3, 2007

A Resolution I Can Support

Fellow Colorado blogger Terri at I think ^(link) therefore I err has written an alternate non-binding resolution, and one I could most certainly support:

1) Continue to let the troops know they have my full support and not in a William Arkin sort of way.

2) Not vote for any Senator who votes for a non-binding, or a binding resolution requesting extra benchmarks or no extra troops as requested

3) Actively campaign against Senator Salazar who has decided to now call the Iraq war a quagmire along with his Democratic colleagues because he thinks it's expedient I'm sure. He was voted in as a moderate and now he thinks he was voted in because of a Democrat "surge". He's incorrect.

4) Continue calling the numbers on Hugh's website to voice my opinion!

Scroll up to the Global Warming resolution as well.

UPDATE: And Welcome to the blogroll. A good excuse to add a Colorado section.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:39 AM | Comments (1)

But Terri thinks:

Hey thanks for the link and the Blogroll!
You've been added to mine too, but I needed to switch over to wordpress. Beta blogger was not working on my Mac for longer than I wanted, so I went ahead and switched. Same name, just .worpress

Posted by: Terri at February 13, 2007 12:45 PM

January 16, 2007

Hope They Don't Practice

Second Iraq Hanging Also Went Awry - New York Times

BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 — Iraq’s turbulent effort to reckon with the violence of its past took another macabre turn on Monday when the execution of Saddam Hussein’s half brother ended with the hangman’s noose decapitating him after he dropped through the gallows trapdoor

I for one am glad that the new Iraqi government is showing so little proclivity for efficient executions. The last group was, perhaps, a little too good?

Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM

January 15, 2007

Give The Surge a Chance

Larry Kudlow points out that world markets are treating the President's new Iraq strategy more optimistically that the media, Democrats, and Senator Hagel, or as they're known in the blogosphere, the MSMDH.

But President Bush’s overhauled Iraq strategy, including a tougher line on Iran, is being viewed by investors as a plus for security in the Middle East. Two large aircraft carrier groups and 16,000 sailors have been positioned in the Persian Gulf. There also are indications that the U.S. will provide Patriot anti-missile defense systems to allies in the region. So, putting all this together, geopolitical risk premiums are actually declining — hence lower oil prices.

While pundits and politicians are saying the new Bush plan won’t work, market investors are voting with their money for a much more positive verdict. And after surveying the details of the new Iraq strategy, I’m casting my lot with the investors.

The U.S. military buildup — including the strengthened naval presence — not only will provide better security for Iraq’s democratically elected government, but also enhanced security for the entire region.
[...]
Think of it: Falling oil prices not only reflect lower war and political risk, but they are actually doing enormous damage to one of the Middle East’s top risk producers: Iran.

Political opposition by Democrats and Republicans to Bush’s new strategy may be hardening, but financial markets are pointing to a much more positive scenario. Might the president’s new plan actually work? World markets are saying give it a chance.

I agree.

Me too, Larry.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:45 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

The contemptable General Wesley Clark was on FNC with Shawn Hannity last night saying, "We won the Cold War through diplomacy, we should be trying to win this war diplomatically too."

That's right Wes, the diplomacy of MX missles, Trident subs and a 600 ship navy. Not a shot was fired militarily, but a full economic broadside was required to bring down the "evil empire."

The same strategy could be effective now, perhaps even more so than with the Soviets. How? $20/bbl for oil would be a good start. Encourage domestic drilling in all the places we currently "preserve" and the bottom will fall out. Even if it required federal subsidies it would cost far less than $270 billion.

Posted by: johngalt at January 15, 2007 3:30 PM

But jk thinks:

General Clark won the war in Bosnia. I don't remember that they were dropping treaties and resolutions from 30,000 feet, but that was a long time ago. I might have forgotten.

Posted by: jk at January 15, 2007 4:52 PM

December 30, 2006

[sic] Semper Tyrannis

Wow. The AP is on hand to tell you all you need to know about the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. In U.S. tolerated, then villified [sic] Saddam you learn from one Calvin Woodward that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy (well, apart from those atrocities) but that America just has a need to personify its struggles -- especially one with a moustache.

WASHINGTON - When U.S. leaders decided it was time to despise Saddam Hussein, he made the perfect villain.

He was cocky and cunning. He looked dangerous and deranged standing at rallies firing a gun into the air, conduct unbecoming a head of government.

He was Hitler Lite, or as the first President Bush put it, "Hitler revisited," lacking the endless armies, but close enough for U.S. purposes. He had a history of atrocities. His black mustache heightened the aura of menace.

Had Hitler shaved, I'm sure we'd have left him alone. (George Carlin had a great routine: "Stalin had a beard. Teddy Roosevelt had 'whiskers.'")

It just gets worse. The death of a ruthless dictator who has put hundreds of thousands of his countryman to death is such a grand occasion to do a little America bashing. Don't make fun of the AP mispelling in a headline though, you'll anger Joseph Rago and expose yourself as one of those petty bloggers.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:00 PM

December 29, 2006

JK Questions Their Patriotism

A terrible thought occurred to me a few weeks ago. It's not necessarily original but I think it deserves a hard look. And, today, I got the perfect segue to discuss it thanks to Perfesser Reynolds.

A strain of CW says that support for the war in Iraq has dropped because the struggle has been more difficult than anticipated. I have certainly believed this, and I have admitted to war opponents that I thought it would be easier.

But what has changed for the war opponents? We're not rationing gas, holding blackout drills, or conscripting their family.

War opponents are Bush opponents and they are merely being opportunistic. They count the casualties and await macabre, invented benchmarks: "more people have died in Iraq than have hit over .250 in the major leagues!” The problem is not lack of will, the problem is a lack of belief in American exceptionalism.

Instapundit links today to a Dave Kopel piece about long standing tribal conflict between "the Anuak, Nuer, Majangir, Opo and Komo." It's another lugubrious tale of tribal conflict than has gone on for n years, and you cannot help but glaze over, because the story is as common as it is sad. Reynolds links, and closes with this- startling yet true statement:

Nobody has cared, but now that Ethiopia is opposing the Islamists in Somalia with U.S. assistance, we'll no doubt see a sudden surge of "human rights" advocacy on the subject, though the whole disarmament thing might make it politically tricky . . . .

Nobody cares that people are killing each other, until the United States should have a strategic interest in siding with one tribe over another. To oppose the interests of the US, we will suddenly face education on the perfidy of the Ethiopians and the gentle goodness of the Anuak.

I remain in the shrinking population that supports the war because I think we have a far better life to offer and that we will ultimately reap security rewards for our efforts. Aside from the occasional Cindy Sheehan, it strikes me that the people who are doing the sacrificing, as a general rule, are prepared to continue sacrificing to achieve the mission. Those who have "grown weary" will not and never did sacrifice, they just do not believe in what America has to offer.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:33 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

What has happened is that by failing to win the war, Bush has given the looney left every opportunity they could hope for to persuade the wishy washy "centrists" that the cost is not worth the reward.

(The only good part of this is that reward is being judged in terms of "American interests" and not "world security." Of course it would have been better for both had the war been conducted by warriors rather than diplomats.)

The looney left is not only uninvested, but counter-interested in American power projection in the mideast and around the globe. The centrists, on the other hand, ARE invested by way of taxpayer funding of the military mission.

Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2006 10:19 PM

But jk thinks:

Obviously you're right on the tax issue and it seems out of character of me to downplay it. Considering the fungibility, lack of clear accounting and debt structure of the Federal Gub'mint, I question whether this is felt as a sacrifice.

Posted by: jk at December 30, 2006 12:21 PM

December 26, 2006

The Booming Economy You Don't Hear About

Nope, not here. As Larry Kudlow has been mentioning, a boom in Iraq.

Larry links to an Amir Taheri piece in The New York Post

Four years ago, this was a jumble of rusting quays, abandoned houses and gutted buildings. By the spring of 2003, its population had dwindled to a few dozen, along with hundreds of stray dogs. There was even talk of abandoning it altogether.

Today, however, Um Qasr is back in business as a port with commercial and military functions. Hundreds of families that had left after the first Gulf War in 1991 have returned - joining many more who have come from all over Iraq.

The boom in Um Qasr is part of a broader picture that also includes Basra (the sprawling metropolis of southern Iraq), the Shi'ite "holy" cities of Najaf and Karbala, Mandali on the Iranian border and much of Baghdad.

When the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank reported two years ago that the Iraqi economy was heading for a boom, skeptics dismissed it as misplaced optimism. Now, however, even some of those who opposed the toppling of Saddam Hussein admit that many Iraqis share that optimism.

Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting that "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are."

Of course they're more optimistic. The New York Times doesn't deliver that far.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:57 PM

December 15, 2006

Thank You Mr. Taranto

I know most of you read Best of the Web everyday, so I have not linked. But if you have missed any of the eight "Responding to Rangel" letters he ran during his vacation, Click on over and read every one.

I wrote a brief letter to Taranto to thank him. I always knew that the folks who wore our nation’s uniform were courageous, honorable, patriotic. But it is good for this Vietnam era brat to be reminded just how wrong Sen. Kerry and Rep. Rangel are to disparage their intelligence and capacity to compete in the private sector.

Mr. Taranto:

Though I missed BOTW, my wife and I read the letters every day this week. I suspect we both cried every time.

What a gift to share a country with such people. What a Christmas gift to be reminded.

I gave little thought to a military career, although in Junior High I wanted to be like Capt./Maj. Nelson in "I Dream of Jeannie." I'm not one for regrets, but if I had it to do over again, I would have served.

Hope your vacation was enjoyable -- thanks again for the letters.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:33 PM

November 30, 2006

Changing the Narrative

President Bush's opposition, both in politics and in the Press, has successfully undermined the Iraq liberation with a constant focus on WMds. They are very good at this kind of myopic focus. I would cite the defense of President Clinton "It's all about sex" and the press redemption of Anita Hill, who went from discredited witness to feminist hero in a couple years of NYTimes and WaPo puff pieces.

That's all old hash (dude, did he say something about hash?) but they are being just as successful today advertising that the war was based on a lie and that the reasons crumbled when no WMD stockpiles were found.

A realistic look at the reasons for war must include the sanctions. And any discussion of the sanctions should include the widespread corruption unearthed by the Volcker report.

Nobody seems to be looking for either WMDs or Oil for food corruption anymore. But the WSJ Ed Page reports that Australia is proceeding with prosecution of an Aussie firm that paid bribes.

The Australian government started to act once Mr. Volcker's probe began turning over the rocks. Apart from the U.S., no other nation has launched a full-scale, independent criminal investigation into the crimes committed as part of Oil for Food. Mr. Cole's thoroughly readable report is available at www.oilforfoodinquiry.gov.au. He has recommended 11 AWB employees, plus a BHP Billiton executive, for criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, most other countries have done little or nothing to come clean. France, which was given preferential oil allocations, has only a lone prosecutor moving ahead, with little support from the Elysée Palace. Russia, which facilitated the oil allocations and blocked moves on the Security Council to investigate kickbacks, refused to assist Mr. Volcker, much less prosecute anyone. Ditto for China, which received huge oil allocations, and Vietnam, whose state-owned food companies paid kickbacks in exchange for business contracts.

Regarding the U.N., Mr. Cole notes that "The United Nations knew that Iraq was breaching sanctions by requiring payment of inland transport fees and surcharges or after-sales-service fees. It knew this between 1999 and 2003. . . It took no steps to publicize or warn member states of the Iraqi practices, and it took no steps to stop the practices." Mark it down as another coda to Kofi Annan's disastrous legacy as Secretary General.

Count me in the 40% who still support the war. The status quo was not an idyllic kite-flying paradise portrayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11" but an untenable dystopian fear-society where a corrupt leader was skirting sanctions to become a more dominant player in the politics of an important region..

Posted by John Kranz at 10:26 AM

November 20, 2006

While Time Magazine Slept

A ThreeSources reader sent me a link to Time Magazine's article on Pope Benedict XVI over the weekend. The suggestion was that BXVI might be as important an ally in the War on Terror as JPII was for Reagan in the Cold War.

The article was good and I hope my friend is right. I took the time to complete an online survey at Time.com, where I gave them a harsh assessment of their product and a stark evaluation of how frequently I visit their site (Never, unless somebody sends me a link).

sisu does a much better post on the article than I would have, under the title While Time Magazine slept.

The blog post points out that somebody paying more attention would not have been quite as surprised as Time, that then Cardinal Ratzinger had shown definite proclivities, and that perhaps a real news organization should have paid more attention.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:24 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

Before Pope John Paul II died, there was discussions of the next Pope being from a country that has a "Islamic" problem, must like JPII was from a country that had a "Communist" problem.

The front runner was a Cardinal from Nigeria, some Catholics (myself included) were surprised that a German was picked. Though after reading Marc Steyn's "America Alone," it's easy to see how prescient the Pope's selection was.

It's obvious that Pope Benedict is willing to take on Islamicfascism head on. Witness his speech from a few month ago.

He's going to keep doing it, too.

Posted by: AlexC at November 20, 2006 3:24 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Alex, Germany has a sizeable Turkish population. Turkey straddles the divide between East and West and therefore Christain and Muslim (as well as secular and religious).

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 20, 2006 8:57 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Trekmedic, I know... that's the thrust of my 2nd paragraph. Europe is slowly evoling into Eurabia, and Germany near the head of the pack.

Posted by: AlexC at November 21, 2006 12:39 AM

November 17, 2006

My Kind of Diesel Mechanic

WCCO.com reports on a beauty queen who is giving up her title to serve our nation and the cause of freedom.

Jessica Gaulke is trading in life as Minnesota's queen of the lakes for a year in the Iraqi desert.

"There's obviously preconceived notions about beauty queens," said Gaulke, who was chosen as Minneapolis Aquatennial Queen of the Lakes in July.

Gaulke is giving up her title because her National Guard unit has been activated for duty in Iraq. The 22-year-old Augsburg College sociology student will be going to the Mideast as a diesel generator mechanic.

Senator Kerry could not be reached for comment. ThreeSources wondered if he would retract his famous comment: “You work on your poise, you get your lipstick right, you find an evening gown that fits, you can do well. If not, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Hat-tip: My lovely wife.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:38 AM

October 27, 2006

Times Do Change

I don't think anybody can be totally sanguine about the political situation in Russia. Arrested journalists and business leaders, renewed nationalism and expansionism. The promise of freedom when the Berlin Wall fell has not been realized.

Yet, in the long term, we can't forget the improvement from Sharansky’s incarceration to this:





I'm still on the British Midlands International email list, though I haven't been back to Blighty in years. BA has one flight per day to Denver; it's much smaller competitor flies twice into Moscow. Interesting.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:39 AM

October 6, 2006

Islam

I'm going to add some bad news to AlexC's depressing post yesterday about unceasing Muslim-Western violence in France.

Perry de Havilland first reports that "A Muslim police officer has been allowed to refuse to guard the Israeli embassy in London."

Disturbing, but then Havilland doubles down with Violence is just a symptom... it is all about Islam.

In strong but well reasoned words, Perry says that Islam, by demanding a "whole life" view is no different from Communism.

If Muslims want their religion to be treated with tolerance, they need to de-secularise it in the same way Christianity has (largely) done. But for as long as Islam advocates an imposed political order based on religious principles, it must not be treated either legally or socially as being above critique on any level whatsoever.

Islam is the problem and, just like Communism and Fascism, it is simply incompatible with western post-Enlightenment civilisation. And also just like Communism and Fascism, it must be contained or defeated militarily when it threatens us but it must also be defeated as an ideology as well.

I have a few good Muslim friends, one of whom is very devout, the others are the equivalent of "Jack Mormons" (Abdul Muslims?) There are a billion and I'm a religiously tolerant guy. I'm not ready to start another Crusade.

Lawrence Wright in "The Looming Tower" bifurcates between traditionalist Muslims who subscribe to the imposed political order Havilland discusses and those who have been able to live in a secular world.

I can't join the Coulter/Malkin brigades who think Islam must be subjugated. But I am finding it harder to believe that we are fighting a small, isolated minority.

Big questions, but who cares. Did you guys know Rep. Mark Foley was gay?

Posted by John Kranz at 1:19 PM

September 24, 2006

Mr. Orwell, call your office

If you like running out of hot sauna into the icy pool, I can recommend a couple of interesting articles.

First, seriously, read Stephen Hayes's How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report? This was the cover of last week's issue (Felix Allen Macaca, Jr. has the current week) and is available free on the website.

The Weekly Standard, and Hayes especially, have been slow to lie down and accept the CW that Iraq would never work with al-Qaeda, 'cause Saddam was secular. You can get immediate troglodyte status with any thoughtful NPR listener by expressing the slightest doubt of that.

Hayes demolishes it

As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."

For several pages, Hayes enumerates inconsistencies, errors, and willful misdirection in the Senate Intelligence report which "proves" it.

Grab a large coffee and read that one coast-to-coast. It's cover story length, a little dry, and incredibly repetitive because Hayes finds so many errors to contradict. That's your sauna visit. After reading that article, you will be particularly informed on a topic about which most of the country is purposefully ignorant.

Then read as much as you can stand of the Page A01 bylined story in the WaPo Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

Saddam Hussein's Iraq, long before President Bush blundered into the Pottery Barn, operated state sponsored paramilitary training camps for terrorists.

Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria.

Seems like recruitment was doing all right when President Clinton and Speaker Wright were running things.

Now the same "intelligence community" that participated in the Senate Intelligence Report, willfully obstructed the President, missed 9/11, sent the extraordinary Joseph Wilson IV to Niger, and said WMDs were a slam dunk should be believed in toto with a subjective assertion.

Because they're professionals, I suppose. It would be humorous to see the fourth estate so supportive of the veracity of every word from US government spooks. It would be humorous had it not been so successful in hurting the war effort and inculcating opposition in the electorate.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:54 PM

September 22, 2006

I'll preorder a copy

The more I hear about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the more I like her.

She has located in the United States because the Dutch would not protect her from Islamic militants after Theo Van Gogh was murdered. I think she belongs here. George Will pulls himself out of an intellectual batting slump with this incredible column

Slender, elegant, stylish and articulate (in English, Dutch and Swahili), she has found an intellectual home here at the American Enterprise Institute, where she is writing a book that imagines Muhammad meeting, in the New York Public Library, three thinkers -- John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper, each a hero of the unending struggle between (to take the title of Popper's 1945 masterpiece) "The Open Society and Its Enemies.'' Islamic extremists -- the sort who were unhinged by some Danish cartoons -- will be enraged. She is unperturbed.

Hat-tip: Instapundit, whom I'll quote "Read the whole thing!"

Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM

September 4, 2006

Another One Bites the Dust!

"And another one's gone, and another one's gone. Doop doop doop da doop!"

From Australia's Herald Sun:

US and Iraqi forces have arrested the second most senior figure of al-Qaida in Iraq and killed 20 fellow militants.

{...}

"Hamid al-Suaidi led a group that kidnapped people. He ordered bombings and mortar attacks that killed a number of our armed forces and our citizens. Al-Qaida in Iraq is severely wounded," Rubaie [Iraq's national security advisor] said.

"After his arrest he gave critical and important information and we ended up killing 11 militants of the second tier of leaders and nine of the lower tier," Rubaie said of Suaidi.

I had to scroll through the "all 825 news articles" Google link to find one from Australia in order to avoid liberal media bias in the report. For example, the ITV [Britain] version that I took the photo from waited until the fifth of seven paragraphs before mentioning the captured man's name, and even then did it thusly:

Hours after an "embarrassed" US military again postponed a ceremony to hand command of Iraqi troops to the government, the national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie summoned reporters to a news conference to announce that Hamid Juma Faris al-Suaidi had been seized some days ago.

So after starting the story with, "Security officials [no mention of whose] claim [as it's apparently in dispute] to have arrested the second-in-command of the terror [what, no scare quotes?] group al-Qaeda in Iraq," they morphed this news item into a slanted report on the so-called occupation of Iraq by the US military. In the process they inplicity question Washington's sincerity to "let Americans go home."

If you still wonder why the majority public opinion is that things are going "badly" in Iraq, here's your answer.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:15 AM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Al-Qaida in Iraq?

Posted by: jk at September 4, 2006 10:48 AM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Is it me,..or does that green thingy under his chin look like the bottom of a gallows??

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 5, 2006 12:59 PM

But jk thinks:

What is that? I've seen that picture a hundred times and never quite got it.

The New Republic today says that this guy wasn't important and that the London explosive guys weren't really dangerous. Even our wins are losses.

Posted by: jk at September 5, 2006 1:14 PM

August 26, 2006

Good WaPo Research

Samuel H. Preston and Emily Buzzell at the Washington Post answer a question that has been in the back of my mind but that I have been too lazy to research.

In short, there are a lot of young men and women serving our nation in Iraq. Every death is regrettable, but how many would die if they stayed home or went on spring break in Aruba?

Kudos to Preston and Buzzell for a nifty piece.

Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.

To give away the ending, that’s half the US average. But wait, that includes 95 year olds and people not in the good health of our men and women in uniform.

U.S. men 18-39 only face 39% of the risk, which seems closer to an intuitive estimate. But -- insert your own W.C. Fields joke here -- on the whole, it's better to be in Iraq than be an African-American in Philadelphia; the latter is 11% more risky.

"The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq. " (I blogged that we lost well over twice as many in a short while in WWII fighting for eight square miles of Iwo Jima).

In short, to post the number dead is specious. Kudos to Professor Preston and Ms. Buzzell for the perspective, and to the WaPo for printing it.

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 6:29 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

I'll wager that civilian deaths in Iraq are a similar fraction of those in Vietnam and WWII. Despite the aggressive efforts of subversive elements to create humanitarian crisis there, far more "innocent" women and children died as a result of thousand-plane raids and B-52 carpet bombing missions. War is still hell, and should be waged as a last resort, but western ingenuity, skill and respect for life has dramatically reduced the scope of collateral damage. (To the point that Hezbollah had to STAGE atrocity scenes in their recent "stab the sleeping tiger" war with Israel.

Islamic terrorists claim to "love death like we love life." We love life so much we try to spare those of the wives, daughters and children of even these murderous bastards.

Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2006 12:29 PM

August 22, 2006

Sharansky Lives!

I rarely link to Taranto, because I assume that every ThreeSources reader reads Best Of The Web everyday.

But an item today is so perfect, I have to highlight it. He links to a Thomas Friedman column about Iranians who are displeased that their government is giving 500 million to Hezbollah, when their nation is still damaged by war and earthquakes. Taranto adds:

This is one reason why democratizing the Middle East is such an important goal. It's very unlikely that a democratic Iran would be waging war on Lebanon. Democracy is a check on unnecessary war. Indeed, a drawback of democracy is that it's sometimes a check on necessary war; just look at Old Europe and its approach to Iraq, Hezbollah, etc.

My idealism has been bruised and beaten these days. Republicans are distancing themselves from the President on Iraq, the Israel/Hezbollah war in Lebanon did not end as well as it could (that understates but captures ThreeSources opinion).

I turned in my neo-Wilsonian merit badge awhile back, but Mr. Taranto has put a little fight back in my Sharansky side. Why we fight. What's at stake. Thanks to ALL who serve!

Posted by John Kranz at 3:50 PM

The Dark Side of Valuing Life

Okay, I've written my provocative headline for the year.

We do value life. People complain that we live in a "disposable society" because we replace instead of repair things."We value human labor and thought more than a television set!" retorts I, "This is a good thing."

Kids wearing bicycle helmets strikes old- schoolers as "wussification." I'm concerned that we pamper youth, but much of it is valuing life highly. The same can be said for lawsuits. Life is not cheap anymore.

The dark side is that the investment in war and freedom is now much more costly. Edward Luttwak of the Jerusalem Post (hat-tip Mickey, via Insty) compares eight IDF forces lost to WWII:

When an IDF company attacked the mountain town of Bint Jbail, losing eight men in one night, that number was perceived in Israel - and broadcast around the world - as a disastrous loss.

Many a surviving veteran of the 1943-1945 Italian campaign must have been amazed by this reaction. There too it was one stone-built village and hilltop town after another, and though the Germans were outnumbered, outgunned and poorly supplied, a company that went against them would consider the loss of only eight men as very fortunate, because attacking forces could suffer a 150% or even 300% casualty rates - that mathematical impossibility being explained by the need for a second, third or fourth assault wave to take a small village.

Even that was not much as compared to the 6,821 Americans who died to conquer the eight square miles of Iwo Jima.

As Patton said "thank God that such men lived." They still live. Is not Iraq worth as much as eight square miles?

Posted by John Kranz at 11:30 AM | Comments (2)

But silence dogood thinks:

Can we leave Iraq as we did Iwo Jima, desolate and unihabited?

Posted by: silence dogood at August 25, 2006 3:43 AM

But silence dogood thinks:

I wonder if more lives have not been lost in the 8 square miles around Jerusalem than anywhere else on the planet.

Posted by: silence dogood at August 25, 2006 4:14 AM

August 21, 2006

Freedom On Retreat

I will agree with The Wall Street Journal (free link) that the United States, Israel, and the cause of freedom have suffered a serious setback in Lebanon. The French have sandbagged us, the U.N. itself has shown its indifference to freedom, and the Bush/Rice promise that the region will not return to "the status quo ante" has been broken.

On Thursday, Jacques Chirac confirmed a Le Monde report that his government was prepared to offer only some 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already in Lebanon) to what is supposed to be the resolution's centerpiece: A 15,000-man U.N. force that will help the Lebanese army patrol their southern border and ensure that Hezbollah will no longer use the area as a staging ground for future attacks against Israel.

Given that the French contingent was supposed to be at the vanguard of this enhanced force, it's unclear whether other nations will be willing to chip in with troops of their own. All of this after the French used the promise of a robust, French-led international force to get the U.S. and Israel to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal. Even less reassuring is the insistence by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie that her troops will remain in the lead only until February, after which, apparently, it's salaam and adieu.

I will not join them in ascribing blame to the Secretary of State.

The person who should really be furious here is Secretary of State Rice. She midwifed this cease-fire in the name of Lebanese democracy and as a way to use diplomacy, and the U.N., to tame Hezbollah and frustrate its patrons. She also believed French promises, so it'd be good to know if she now feels she was lied to. If this U.N. exercise turns out to be as feckless as it increasingly appears, U.S. credibility will also be a loser.

As I commented before, I think the Secretary has been charged by the President to pursue the diplomatic tack. I don't think French perfidy is a surprise to her nor is the lesson is hers. The lesson here should be for the "multilateralists who believe that Kofi Annan's crew can solve problems in a difficult and dangerous world. Ned Lamont says we should negotiate with Iran and Syria. Sadly, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) agrees.

Yet another failure of diplomacy, as Iran tests ten missiles and continues development of nuclear weapons. And the lesson remains unlearned.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:12 AM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Like Brit Hume, I don't think it's as bad as it looks. This is not so much a serious setback as a gigantic missed opportunity. That opportunity belonged not to the U.S., or even Israel, but to France and the U.N. Bush/Rice said, "OK Jacques, we'll be your huckleberry," and gave them the helm of the international diplomacy garbage scow. In apparent admission that diplomacy can't dissuade RFMO (religious fanatics with military ordnance) they surrendered even before their mission began. (Surrender being the ONE thing you can count on from the French.)

But there is a setback. Despite this massive failure on the part of the UN, greater even than the "oil for food" debacle, supposed serious American statesmen like Lamont and Hagel (and many more in the US Senate) still believe we should "talk" to Iran and Syria. And say what? "That's it, young men. You're in time out!"

Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2006 3:06 PM

July 17, 2006

Stand with Israel Rally - NYC

Pamela from Atlas Shrugs attended the Stand With Israel Rally in NYC today and gives a weblog report. She has great coverage on her site 'Atlas Shrugs' including some great photos of Hillary swallowing her bile when Elie Wiesel said, "Thank God Bush is in the White House."

Great stuff Pamela! Check it out.

UPDATE: Here's the Rush Limbaugh program transcript of Pamela's "breathless" call to the show on Monday. Man, she was on fire! (And if you look close on Pamela's post, you'll see that the very first trackback ping is: Three Sources!)

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:37 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Not many times I wish I lived in New York, but I would have liked to have been there.

Posted by: jk at July 17, 2006 11:04 PM

July 16, 2006

Iranian Nukes? We'll Soon Know

We knew this was coming sooner rather than later when we witnessed the "elections" of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. When the "imperialist" American administration and the "Hitler" and "Ghengis Khan" like Israelis did nothing to provoke open warfare with Iran, those swell Iranian mullahs grew tired of waiting. As Robert Tracinski writes, "If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you." Two years after the 'forward strategy of freedom' swept the Syrian army out of Lebanon, Hezbollah was under growing pressure to leave as well. No reasonable person should have expected them to leave peacefully. (What do you think they are, pluralistic democrats? No, they're Islamofascists you fools!)

A timely example of such a fool is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who said on Fox News Sunday this morning that, essentially, it's Bush's fault! Dodd attributes the military action in south Lebanon to diplomatic failure:

"It seems to be that you have to go beyond just understanding the friendship, which is important, but for Israel's benefit and our own, we have missed, I think over the last number of years, the ability to really engage in the kind of diplomatic efforts in the middle east. From 1967 up until the end of the Clinton administration, every administration has remained very, very engaged in the middle east. This administration unfortunately has seen the word diplomacy and negotiation as somehow a favor to your enemies. I think unfortunately we've allowed this time to elapse over the last several years, the resolution 1559 was adopted two years ago, and the administration's done nothing in my view to really insist that the Lebanese rid southern Lebanon of Hezbollah and so this time has gone through without really engaging in the process thus we find ourselves today, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. What it's doing is absolutely necessary. If Lebanon and Syria will recognize that those soldiers need to be returned and also Hezbollah has to get out of southern Lebanon then I think you could bring a cease-fire about."

To be fair, it has been nearly five years since Islamofascists unilaterally slaughtered 3000 American civilians with airliners. But despite this, why is Dodd still endorsing the realpolitik appeasement cum stability strategy of the past thirty years? Does he genuinely believe that it will lead to regional and worldwide peace if we just give it another decade or three to work itself out?

I can't say whether it is a symptom or a cause of America's confusion in general, or Dodd's in particular, but there is clearly a filter in place between the events of the mideast and the front pages of America's news media. Compare some recent news excerpts in America to those in, notably, Australia:

WSJ- 'World Leadership Reacts To Escalating Mideast Violence'
"Haifa was hit with at least 20 rockets fired by Lebanese guerillas, in retaliation for a wave of bombings by Israeli airplanes early Sunday morning when about 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut."

AP (via Houston Chronicle)- 'Hezbollah rocket barrage kills 8 in Haifa'
"Hezbollah's firing of at least 20 rockets at Haifa and 30 elsewhere came after Israel unleashed its fiercest bombardment yet of the Lebanese capital, starting after midnight Saturday."

And, in the most offensive of my three examples,

Chigago Tribune- '2 dead on Israeli warship; jets attack Lebanon anew'
"A draft resolution under consideration, from Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, demanded the release of Lebanese captives and detainees in Israeli prisons, and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."

Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes renewed attacks on Lebanon early Saturday, targeting bridges, fuel depots and gas stations in the east and south, security officials said."

[...]

""You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a taped statement broadcast Friday. He vowed to strike even deeper into Israel with rockets."

The clear message to American voters: The "cycle of violence" continues and Hezbollah/Lebanon are defending their sovereignty from Israeli aggression.

In contrast, Australians read the following headlines:

The Australian- 'Militants' missile hits ship with Iranian troops' help'
"Israel says the troops involved in firing the missile were from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps of more than 200,000 fighters that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

[...]

"A military official said the group was also believed to have longer-range projectiles that could hit the Israeli commercial hub of Tel Aviv."

The Australian- 'Strikes to intensify in four-stage strategy'
"In the first stage, which began shortly after the Hezbollah incursion across the border last Wednesday, Israeli warplanes attacked missile caches in south Lebanon and elsewhere, particularly those housing long-range missiles.

Fifty caches, some hidden underground and in private homes, were reportedly destroyed. It is unclear what percentage of the 13,000 missiles known to be in Hezbollah hands that accounts for."

[...]

"In the second stage, which began early on Friday, warplanes attacked the heart of Hezbollah power, shattering high-rise buildings in south Beirut housing the militia's command structure as well as the home of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was reportedly trapped for a while in the underground command centre when the building above it collapsed."

"The third and fourth stages are still secret. However, the sources said the operation calls for each of the four stages to be more powerful than the previous one."

[...]

"Israeli officials say the international community will not force Israel to stop before its goals are achieved."

Sydney Morning Herald- 'With US backing, Israel determined to go for the kill'
"Israel's goal is to either eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat, or altogether. The broader goal of the US is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush Administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.

Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants - with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike."

[...]

"Israel and the US would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah's neutralisation."

These stories give a far different perspective on the current munitions exchanges: Israel is under attack by Iran-sponsored terrorists embedded in a third nation, Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets target Israeli civilians while Israeli laser-guided bombs target, Hezbollah rockets. Contrary to the protestations and accusations of one Christopher Dodd, the Bush adminstration has clearly been working in concert with regional and world governments to lay the groundwork for Israel to help Lebanon exorcise Hezbollah from its cities and countryside without manic diplomatic attempts to protect the terrorists.

Dodd warns that, "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we have a major, major war in the middle east." The reality is that the cold phase of that war has been raging since at least 1979, with Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has decided it is time to turn up the heat on this war and it certainly appears that Israel, the Bush adminstration and key western governments anticipated it, were prepared for it, and are in the process of winning it.

There is little reason for concern that Israel's defense forces will fail in this effort. The two areas of concern are that diplomatic failures will allow allies like France and Russia to reverse course and, more ominously, that Iran's threat that attacking Syria " ... will definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable damages" portends their possession and imminent detonation of a nuclear bomb. Let us hope that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter as well in hand as they appear to have Hezbollah's rockets.

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:59 PM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

I hate to respond to a thoughtful post with an anecdote, but I have been thinking about Senator Dodd all week. I did not know he was on FNS, I have that TiVoed and will watch it soon.

I have been considering the Senator from Connecticut who is still respected by his party because I purchased some Contra Cafe coffee on July 4, and it recently showed up. The coffee is great and is grown by former freedom fighters in Nicaragua.

I think of Senator Dodd because I remember his fighting President Reagan tooth and nail. I think of he and Kris Kristofferson as leading the pro-Sandinista movement in the US. Rather than admit he was wrong, Dodd -- 20 years later -- opposed the nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State. His crime? Supporting democracy against communism in the Western Hemisphere.

Posted by: jk at July 16, 2006 2:27 PM

But jk thinks:

And one quibble. I would disagree with conflating the Iranian and Palestinian elections. The election in Iran was a farce and remains worthy of scare quotes. The election in palestinian-controlled-Isreal, however, was legitimate.

I'm not happy that they chose Hamas, though people should remember the other choice was Fatah. They were, however, real and legitimate elections and their constituencies are getting the government they deserve.

I include their number in my accounting of folks living under self elected government.

Posted by: jk at July 16, 2006 5:09 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Yes, I hesitated to group them together for the reasons you mentioned, but I was trying to economize on words in this post, believe it or not. In defense I'll point out that when your democratic choices are limited by force or by "belief in unproven things" it is not a free election in either case.

I can live with this quibble though. My charming bride said she wasn't sure she shares my sanquinity that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter "well in hand."

That comment forced me to consider the source of my optimism. I re-read my own post to find the answer: The unprecented combination of Israeli resolve to "to to the end now," and not go "part way and be held hostage again," coupled with supportive words from key Arab leaders. The Israelis are implementing the Bush Doctrine and no one of consequence - not the multiculturalists of Old Europe nor the Islamic apologists of Egypt or Saudi Arabia - dares, strike that, chooses, to stand in their way. Selfishly, they all want Hezbollah "crippled" or, better yet, "neutralized."

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2006 7:33 PM

July 11, 2006

$66 Billion in Unearned Guilt

I've been thinking about how to blog this story since it broke: Megabillionaire Warren Buffet recently donated (evading the estate tax in the process) $37 billion of his $44 billion in personal wealth to a charitable foundation established by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda. Combined with the $29 billion already under foundation control the resulting $66 billion is five times the wealth of the next largest, the Ford foundation.

I won't belabor the contradictions of Buffet praising the estate tax as an "equitable tax...in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged." Or of his criticism of "dynastic wealth" coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children.

I'm most interested in the issue raised by John J. Miller on the Opinion Journal page of July 7th. "The Microsoft mogul and his wife should not leave their foundation to posterity," he writes.

I fully agree with many points made in this editorial. For example:

"Surely there are better reasons to embark upon the world's biggest grant-making program than to salve the conscience of a guy who has no business feeling guilty in the first place."

And, "If Mr. Gates views his foundation as a vehicle for guilt riddance, chances are his grants will fail often and spectacularly. Yet if he views it as a way of furthering his already enormous contribution to society through nonprofit rather than for-profit means, then perhaps he will make a positive difference in the areas where he is focusing his efforts: global health and American education."

But Mr. Miller's principal point is not just that a charitable foundation should be used to further the values of its benefactor(s), but that it must necessarily be constrained to shut itself down after some arbitrary number of years for fear of the "harmful trend" of "an organization that exists in perpetuity, clinging tightly to its assets and ever further removed from its benefactors and their intentions."

It seems to me that if you want your wealth to live on and contribute in your image after your passing, you'd want it to do so for as long as possible. The trick here is to build something that can't be highjacked by others for their own purposes after your passing. This is exactly the problem that faced the founders of the United States government. So here we have another instance of resignation that nothing can retain its original nature and purpose against the pressure of revisionism.

The irony here is that the Gates Foundation, which has chosen to make a positive difference in the areas of global health and American education, has an opportunity to counteract such pressures. The reason the American Constitution, the American government and the American way of life are under threat today is precisely because of revisionist pressures endemic to modern American education. If the Gates Foundation threw even a fraction of its weight behind a return to accurate and objective teaching of American history and civics it could single handedly save the nation from apathetic disintegration.

Alas, such an effort is unlikely from a man who says, "We really owe it to society to give the wealth back."

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:13 PM | Comments (4)

But jk thinks:

Well said.

It strikes me that this giveaway is the world’s largest Rorschach test. Folk Marxists can either coo in delight that the Gateses have discovered "what's really important" or more likely think "damn well time those robber barons gave some back!"

I'm guessing a rare moment of unity for ThreeSourcers believing this will end very badly. I suggested when it happened that they clearly would do less good for society giving it away than they did when they earned it. Now I fear O'Sullivan's law will kick in [Every non-Conservative organization becomes more liberal over time] and that this money could become a colossus of unintended consequences, doing far more harm.

Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 9:04 AM

But howard thinks:

"Or of his criticism of 'dynastic wealth' coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children."

-as far as I've heard in previous interviews with, and statements from, Buffet, he has no intention of leaving millions to his own heirs. And his beliefs against dynastic wealth are purportedly based on the idea that inheriting abstract sums of material wealth begets more laziness than not. I don't believe his support for the estate tax is any more elaborate than that.

Agree or disagree, there's very little hypocrisy in his position on this - unless you know something about his motives that I don't know. But then it seems like a lot of people are in the business of questioning what others do with their money, and here I thought that was a liberal tendency.

Posted by: howard at July 12, 2006 11:32 PM

But jk thinks:

Howard, I said in my post on this topic that "Mr. Buffett can do what he chooses, indeed that's the best benefit of having billions, is it not?"
http://www.threesources.com/archives/003037.html

Two concerns you'll hear around here are, one, that the foundation will devolve into something that doesn't match its founders' wishes, and that its gifts will do more harm than good. And, two, there is a distinct disconnect between his objection to dynastic wealth and his use of tax shelters for his own estate. The WSJ says:

"In explaining his charitable motivations this week, Mr. Buffett also went out of his way to say that he is "not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth." This is fair enough, and is also one of Mr. Buffett's arguments for so vocally defending federal death tax rates of 50% or more. But we can't help but point out that Mr. Buffett's gift will itself be shielded from Uncle Sam because it is going to a foundation. So in practice he is in favor of death taxes only for those whose estates are too small to hide in foundation tax shelters.

In addition to his Gates Foundation gift, Mr. Buffett also said he will give major donations well north of $1 billion each to separate foundations run by his three children and another in the name of his late wife. These gifts, too, will be shielded from taxation and will allow his heirs to wield power and influence long after the 75-year-old has gone to his just reward."

Gates and Buffet did a lot of good for people as they assembled their fortunes. I doubt they'll do half as much good giving them away, but that it sheer speculation.

Posted by: jk at July 13, 2006 9:43 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Thank you Howard for the eloquent comment. I did try to learn what Buffet has or will leave to his children but was unable to find even the $1B donations to his children's foundations that JK informs us of by way of the WSJ.

So even if they don't receive direct cash inheritance, each will certainly award himself a salary as full-time director of the foundation. (Hey, a guy's gotta eat, right?)

I also wanted to clarify: The liberal tendency is not to question what others do with their money, but to control it. (Or prevent it altogether.)

Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2006 3:56 PM

June 30, 2006

Freedom Babes

Ohhhhhhh yeahhhhh.

Posted by AlexC at 12:03 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Compelling arguments and trenchant invective...

Rather than Santa Cruz's seceding, wouldn't it be better to keep Bolivia intact and use the pro-freedom (and attractive) protestors to force the national government away from collectivism.

(Side note: my in-laws hosted an exchange student from Santa Cruz. She would fit right in with this group.)

Posted by: jk at June 30, 2006 3:35 PM

June 23, 2006

Australia, The Brave

Krauthammer.

with action comes bravery, from the transcendent courage of the doomed at Gallipoli to the playful insanity of Australian-rules football. How can you not like a country whose trademark sport has Attila-the-Hun rules, short pants and no padding -- a national passion that makes American football look positively pastoral?

That bravery breeds affection in America for another reason as well. Australia is the only country that has fought with the United States in every one of its major conflicts since 1914, the good and the bad, the winning and the losing.

Why? Because Australia's geographic and historical isolation has bred a wisdom about the structure of peace -- a wisdom that eludes most other countries. Australia has no illusions about the "international community'' and its feckless institutions. An island of tranquility in a roiling region, Australia understands that peace and prosperity do not come with the air we breathe, but are maintained by power -- once the power of the British Empire, now the power of the United States.

Australia joined the faraway wars of early-20th-century Europe not out of imperial nostalgia, but out of a deep understanding that its fate and the fate of liberty were intimately bound with that of the British Empire as principal underwriter of the international system. Today the underwriter is America, and Australia understands that an American retreat or defeat -- a chastening consummation devoutly, if secretly, wished by many a Western ally -- would be catastrophic for Australia and for the world.

1914? I did not know that.

Posted by AlexC at 8:29 PM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

What a great and well deserved column. (An Aussie friend says he actually knows of a married couple named Bruce & Sheila, but I digress.)

I agree that Australia has been a staunch ally and dig further that they eschew what Krauthammer calls the "Yes, but" support of other allies. But in which conflict did Australia join us and Britain not?

Posted by: jk at June 24, 2006 10:31 AM

But AlexC thinks:

I think it's Vietnam.

Posted by: AlexC at June 24, 2006 11:54 AM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

An outstanding column. No wonder Oz's national anthem is "Advance Australia Fair!"

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 24, 2006 12:16 PM

June 16, 2006

Sharansky Blog Conference

Our blog's namesake held a telephone conference with bloggers. Pamela of Atlas Shrugs reports on the call.

Bush did a great thing bringing democracy to the Middle East . But the US has begun to backpedal. You speak of giving nukes to Iran. This is the policy of Clinton/Carter. And it failed horribly. It didn't work for North Korea it won't work now. We must actively support Iranian opposition

[...]
Sharansky really believes that people want to live free. He cited Muslims that he knows that pray five times a day and live in free societies and are happy. He said we should not "create demons, we have enough demons." He has complete faith in the individual's desire to be free.

She has an MP3 download available as well. I have not heard it yet.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:28 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

Speaking of which... I'm going to see Senator Rick Santorum, Daniel Pipes and Natan Sharansky on Monday night. They will be discussing Middle East peace.

If I get to ask a question of anyone, do you have any suggestions?
(other than plugging threesources.com!)

Posted by: AlexC at June 16, 2006 9:48 PM

But jk thinks:

When "A Case For Democracy" came out and President Bush delivered an inaugural address that Mike Gerson essentially stole from the book, the hope for freedom in the Middle East looked very bright.

I wonder if Sharansky is still hopeful after the setbacks and difficulties of the past year.

Posted by: jk at June 17, 2006 11:37 AM

But johngalt thinks:

This business about giving Iran "nuclear technology" in return for "suspension" of nuclear enrichment activities defies reason. But, since Condi is at the helm of this freak show I'm inclined to give it some benefit of my doubt. Even if she's not the architect, I don't believe she'd sign on if she didn't see some point to what she's proposing.

And what is that point? My best idea to date is that they're going way, way, way out on a limb with regard to what they'll offer Iran's irrational government with the intent of either a) producing a crack in Iran's, thus far, impressive resolve not to negotiate that can then be parlayed into more realistic terms through further negotiation or b) demonstrating to the influential Iran friendly nations of the world, i.e. Russia and China, that even when we offer to basically give them what they're trying to produce they remain a non-diplomatic rogue state intent on mischief.

However this diplomatic dance plays out, let it suffice for me to say I have little concern that these offers will ever be delivered.

Posted by: johngalt at June 17, 2006 9:48 PM

June 6, 2006

Beinart's Subhead is Wrong

I'll likely buy Peter Beinart's new book, The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.

Yet his thesis has been undercut by his own magazine. They have a disturbing report that while we are all looking at Iran, the nuke-capable leg of the axis-of-evil may be prepared to test a missile.

The Japanese and South Korean press reported in late May that U.S. spy satellites had picked up indications that North Korea was preparing to test launch a Taepo Dong II ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. TNR has confirmed that the United States has detected significant activity at a North Korean missile test site and that the administration is very concerned that Pyongyang is preparing a launch. What's more, some U.S. intelligence analysts warn that the North Koreans may test a three-stage rocket capable of striking the western United States. "Suffice it to say, it's got people's attention," says one State Department official.

Why? Well applying too much rational thought to Dear Leader is a losing game. But the TNR piece points out an interesting dynamic:

At first glance it might seem like the North would have a lot to lose from such saber-rattling: It could drive the six-party nations closer together and, rather than succeeding in their attempts to lift sanctions, could result in further financial restrictions from Japan, South Korea, and China, countries with which the North does a substantial amount of business. But Michael Green, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Bush National Security Council senior director with responsibility for North Korea, says the North Koreans have shown in the past that, by creating a crisis, they are able to alter the diplomatic calculus. "The North Koreans have found that these crises are a good way for them to turn the chess board over and restart the talks," Green says. "In the past, by creating a crisis, they have gotten high level bilateral talks and even economic and aid assistance out of it."

Hell, a former US Secretary of State even brought wine!

Sorry Peter, you're my favorite lefty but the culture of military-loathing and abashed use of American power are rooted too deeply. President Clinton was a moderate and he taught North Korea how to kick the can down the road. Give me some neocons.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:48 PM

June 3, 2006

Ethics Training for Terrorists

The Denver Dailies led with this story:

US orders ethics training for all its troops in Iraq

BAGHDAD -- Seeking to quell outrage over allegations that Marines went on a killing spree against unarmed civilians in Haditha, the top US general in Iraq ordered all American troops in the country to undergo additional ethics training, the military said yesterday.

Which made me wonder if our enemies would be reciprocating, and forcing terrorists to complete ethics training in Saudi Arabia.

When bombing civilians, take care not to injure women and children, unless of course they are Jews or infidels or they are just hanging around the target site...

Posted by John Kranz at 4:57 PM | Comments (4)

But Jacob thinks:

Your comment is nonsensical. First of all, what does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? The war is taking place in Iraq, against Iraqi's, not in Saudia Arabia against the Saudi's. Second, Saudi Arabia is a US ally in the War on Terror. Are suggesting that it is, in fact, a terrorist haven? Third, you're suggesting that because terrorists kill women and children without justification, then we should be able kill to women and children without justification. Logically doesn't that mean that we would be no different from the terrorists?

Posted by: Jacob at June 3, 2006 7:15 PM

But jk thinks:

No, our ethics training sets us apart.

Point taken that I should be more careful not to disparage our ally. Make it a Pakastani madr -- no, wait...

Posted by: jk at June 3, 2006 7:20 PM

But Silence Dogood thinks:

That's the trouble with allies these days, you just can't tell which side they are on.

Ethics training, sheesh.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at June 3, 2006 11:16 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Yes, Jacob, if "we" kill women and children without justification then "we" too are terrorists. However, the fact that terrorists kill our women and children (and fathers and brothers) without justification is, in fact, justification for killing anyone with any relationship to terrorists.

Posted by: johngalt at June 5, 2006 3:21 PM

May 18, 2006

We Stand On Guard For Thee

Ala at Blonde Sgacity has the story of a brave, fallen Canadian soldier and the note she left.

A female Canadian soldier who was killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday had written a letter to her sister saying how proud she was of her mission...

"In an e-mail dated early March to her younger sister Kate, Capt. Nichola Goddard recounted carrying a 45-kilogram pack uphill on a two-kilometre march, as well as other daily challenges of her role in the Afghan mission.

"I feel like a poster child for why people should join the military," Goddard wrote. "It was an amazing 15 days."

In her e-mail, Goddard described moving into isolated areas, either by foot or with vehicles, to conduct shirras -- the Pashtu word for meeting -- with local elders.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:11 PM

May 7, 2006

Pieces of Paper

The news seems dire:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran renewed its threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Sunday, with its president saying sanctions would be "meaningless" and its parliament seeking to put a final end to unannounced inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Does anybody care one whit? (There are three-and-a-half furlongs in a whit.) Would anybody expect Ahmadinejad to keep the terms of a treaty?

You can say what you want about President Bush, but one thing I respect is that he does not put too much stock in a treaty or agreement with those who might be arguing in bad faith.

I remember Secretary of State Albright drinking champagne with Kim Jong Il after they had signed a piece of paper. Like most of these worthless treaties, it hampered, effectively, what the US could do -- while the other party ignored it entirely. Likewise Vice President Gore helped negotiate the Kyoto treaty, while the Senate he presided over voted 0-95 on ratification.

One joy of gritty Bush realism is that we put less stock in pieces of paper that propose to protect us.

Posted by John Kranz at 8:32 PM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

I say let diplomacy work... like it worked for the Darfurians.

Oh, and it wasn't 0-95, it was actually 98-0 for the "Byrd Hagel" amendment which said, "No agreement, unless it affects ALL countries equally"

The Kyoto agreement was famous for ignoring China & India (both with currently exploding economies now), and much of the rest of the third world.

It wasn't so much a treaty to curb emissions, as it was a treaty to curb the United States & the first world.

Posted by: AlexC at May 7, 2006 10:50 PM

April 26, 2006

Freedom, Pragmatism, Optimism

Okay, so it's not up there with "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy." But I have been questioned for putting all three together. Allow me to defend.

I created this blog category early in the life of ThreeSources. "Freedom on the March" was a centering concept around here and it united me, AlexC and JohnGalt. We watched Afghanistan hold elections, saw positive signals from Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Ukraine, and eventually, Iraq. Close to 100 million additional people are living under a government they voted for when compared to President Bush's inauguration day.

The annual reports from the Heritage/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom show improvement (although the United States has fallen back, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulations). Yes, I am pretty happy with the advance of freedom in the world, although it is frequently messy.

The underreported story of the year is the business growth in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cars, mobile phones, and satellite TV are hot consumer items, and the rebuilding efforts are attracting those who can think big. The Wall Street Journal features a a guest editorial today (paid link) that highlights Afghanistan's attraction as "A Virgin Market."

KABUL -- The recent Yale graduate I was chatting with at a party here spoke Chinese and had lived in China, the seeming epicenter of all things capitalist. "Why did you decide to come to Afghanistan?" I asked. He stared at me. "This is the largest rebuilding and development effort in the history of the world. Who wouldn't want to be here?"

After decades of conflict and the crippling legacies of communism and fundamentalism, Afghanistan is finally open for business. The signs are everywhere, from Kabul's traffic jams to Mazar-i-Sharif's building boom; from the opening of a Coca-Cola bottling plant to the country's first private university, the American University of Afghanistan, offering programs in business administration and information technology.

According to the World Bank, Afghanistan is ranked 16th among 145 countries for ease of opening an enterprise. The Afghan Investment Support Agency, the one-stop shop for investing in Afghanistan with streamlined business registration, reports that 754 foreign companies have registered investments of $1.3 billion in Afghanistan; some well-known names include Siemens (rehabilitating dams) and Serena Hotels (Kabul's first five-star). There are 13 private banks, including Standard Chartered Bank, Commerzbank-affiliated Kabul Bank, and ING-managed Afghanistan International BInternational Bank. A third mobile phone company, Lebanon's Investcom, will launch service in Kabul in June, having paid $40 million for its 15-year operating license. At least $100 million will be invested in cement manufacturing in 2006.

I believe the move towards freedom is inexorable. It may go in fits and starts, but it cannot be stopped. Hear me out:

1) Free economies always outperform non-free economies. That's a core belief to me and I could provide examples well into the night.

2) The more powerful economy -- over time -- will win an armed conflict. Like the Union in the US Civil War, they can persevere through mistakes and setbacks. Their opposition may have much going for it but they can rarely outlast a wealthier adversary.

3) Another core belief is that free societies innovate, learn, and adapt better than centralized, command-and-control. Professor Reynolds links to Strategypage for his underreported story of the war: the adaptation on troops using the Internet. Flight 93 is a testimony to free people adapting and using technology in war.

I'm talking glacial, continental drift time frames and rates here. Buffy would remind us that pain and hard times lie ahead. But I am still confident.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:45 AM

April 13, 2006

Is this not a better Iraq?

I confessed that while recent events had damaged the depth of my neo-Wilsonianism, I am still a Sharanskyite. I have not joined the Fukuyama-Will-Buckley club either. If I were Jewish, I'd be a neocon.

I will confess that living in Iraq in 2006 would suck somewhat. It is dangerous, unpredictable, and services are tenuous. Yet I am struck that LatteSipper (mmm, I'm a cappuccino guy but a latte sounds pretty good now) seems so convinced that the coalition actions have somehow "ruined" Iraq. Like Iraq was the idyllic Mesopotamian Eden depicted in the opening minutes of Fahrenheit 9/11.

I would choose dangerous freedom over stable tyranny any day of the week. My April 9 posting reminded us of the children's prisons and mass graves, the torture chambers, government rape.

As difficult as life can be, these people now have the opportunity to practice politics. Hundreds of newspapers are now published, Internet use is widespread. The political vessels have been revitalized pari passu, as the old Buckley might have said, with the rehydration of the southern marshes.

Austin Bay writes about unseen political infighting between clerics Sadr and Sistani in Sistani's Squeeze

Outsiders -- including U.S. government officials -- can bewail the Iraqi parliament's lack of progress in forming a government, but since the middle of March I strongly suspect the hidden story has been the Interior Ministry and the Iraqi nationalists' war on Sadr. It's a quiet police and political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani. Creating a strong and stable Iraqi government (the so-called "national rescue front") is the goal. Sistani has advised Shia leaders to make concessions to Sunnis in order to establish a "unity government." That's an action anathema to Sadr.

It's a fascinating article as it stands. But it reminded me that I consider this an improvement over Saddam's dictatorship, not some broken mess that we have created.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:29 PM

March 31, 2006

Borders

We disagreed on Google around here. How about Borders Books? Dale at samizdata is Throwing down the gauntlet

The 'blogosphere' is alive with the recent announcement you will not stock the Free Inquiry issue with the Danish cartoons.
We abhor your cowardice in the face of the enemy and your lack of moral fibre to stand up for the First Amendment in the face of those enemies.

Our publication, Samizdata, has joined the Borders boycott call which is spreading amongst other high profile network publications.

I resisted an MI:3 boycott last week and was shown to be wrong. I came out for Google when the blogosphere wouldn't and still stubbornly believe I am right.

But Borders I am ready to whack. Yeah, they own the store and can stock or not stock what they choose. While I concede that, I am deeply troubled by the chain’s capitulation to groups who would stifle speech. Borders makes a very public show of opposition to censorship with its celebration of "Banned Books Month."

Rabble-based violent censorship is better than gub'mint censorship, but it still keeps free people from selling and buying what free people want. I’m an Amazon guy myself (someday I'll do a post on Internet shopping for the handicapped) so I don't think I'll feel the pinch, but I am disappointed that an American bookstore chain is kowtowing to thuggish pressure..

Posted by John Kranz at 9:48 AM | Comments (4)

But AlexC thinks:

I shop mostly at Amazon (mainly for selection), but there is alot to be said for going into a bookstore and browsing. Amazon doesn't give me the same experience. Although it's mostly B&N or the mall bookstores.

Borders? Kiss my @$$.

Posted by: AlexC at March 31, 2006 12:26 PM

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Books ... what is that? Oh, the paper things I use to keep my monitor at eye level, right?

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 31, 2006 12:52 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

I, too, mostly shop via Amazon. However, go to Border's webpage and,...voila!,...its run by Amazon, as well.

I have to agree w/ Alex,...I like to browse every once in a while and, since I'm a Border's club member, I get some things cheaper than at Amazon.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 31, 2006 8:48 PM

But jk thinks:

It is always a shock to find yourself on the other side. I normally defend Borders and Barnes & Nobel from my anti-corporate, anti-chain, anti-globalization friends.

One of my best leftist friends is a book editor who is convinced that the chains will push out the smaller publishers and reduce choice. I constantly argue that the bigs bring more choice to more places. The profit motive at work.

No denying the joy of a real bookstore visit, especially since the chains put coffee shops and comfy chairs in them. But, if I may cry medic, Medic, I have MS and find traditional shopping very fatiguing. About everything I buy now comes to my door. I miss the experience but online commerce is a real boon to me.

Posted by: jk at April 1, 2006 9:15 AM

March 6, 2006

Sharansky on Democracy

Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, was a major influence on this blog. Indeed, the name of our blog is taken directly from the pages of it. It appears at left.

Mr Sharansky writes in Sunday's LA Times on the Palestinian democracy and the Bush administration's insistance on fast elections in the Middle East.

I believed, however, that the crisis presented an opportunity to begin a different kind of political process, one that would link the peace process to the development of a free society for Palestinians. I had argued for many years that peace and security could be achieved only by linking international legitimacy, territorial concessions and financial assistance for a new Palestinian regime to its commitment to building a free society.

Despite my faith in "democracy," I was under no illusion that elections should be held immediately. Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. The only "right" that seemed to be upheld within Palestinian areas was the right of everyone to bear arms.

In such conditions of fear, intimidation and indoctrination, holding snap elections would have been an act of the utmost irresponsibility. That is why I proposed a plan calling for elections to be held no earlier than three years after the implementation of a series of democratic reforms. Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. Unfortunately, the plan was never implemented.

The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (elections) rather than its substance (building and protecting a free society). Rather than push for quick elections, the democratic world must use its considerable moral, political and economic leverage to help build free societies in the Middle East. We should tie trade privileges to economic freedoms, encourage foreign diplomats to meet openly with dissidents and link aid to the protection of dissents (as Bush did when he helped force the release of Egyptian democracy advocate Saad Eddin Ibrahim).

He concludes..

Helping democracy take root in the Arab world will take time and persistence. Most Arab governments will try to stamp out any spark of liberty. But the democrats within these societies are our partners. We can help them by refusing to support those who repress them, and by making clear through both our statements and our policies that the efforts to expand freedom within their societies will benefit their countries as much as ours. The alternative is to return to the pre-9/11 delusion that a tyrant's repression of his own subjects has no consequences for us.

Posted by AlexC at 12:44 AM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Great piece. I still consider myself a Sharansky-ite.

The Hamas election is a setback for peace but I am not certain it is a step back for freedom. Recall that the other choice was Yasser Arafat's Fatah party who had ruled with corruption and zero elections for decades.

There will be a demand from the world to continue with elections in "Palestine" and they might grow to make better choices.

Posted by: jk at March 6, 2006 10:11 AM

But AlexC thinks:

I'm not sure so JK.

Was the election of Hamas a reaction to the generally craptacular performance of Fatah, (sort of a throw the bums out vote), or an endorsement of terror as statecraft?

If that question has been answered as the former, then maybe next time around, they'll find the right combination.

Posted by: AlexC at March 6, 2006 12:27 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I am quite convinced AlexC that it is the later - Hamas' efficacy in improving the lives of "Palestinians" has been no less craptacular (what an awesome word!) than has Fatah's. But at least Hamas tells the poor scarecrows over there that there IS a cause for their misery and there IS a solution for ending it. The fact that they've misidentified both is irrelevant; they offer hope.

What Sharansky advocates is called "nation building." It can't be done. People aspire to their own dreams, not the ones you come in and teach them are best. Like children, people given freedom for the first time learn through their experiences. The steps Sharansky lists in his conclusion are the proper ones. (The problem is that the diplomatic corps and every other branch of government in every western nation including our own is, at best, schizophrenic on the principle of freedom.)

Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2006 3:31 PM

February 27, 2006

WSJ Answers Fukuyama

My wobbly moment is solidifying without any help from PM Thatcher. Rather, it comes from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal,(free link) which matches my objection to Fukuyama's "end of neocon history," namely, what else do you do?

Then there is the supposedly failed policy of the Bush Administration. In five years, it has brought four democratic governments to power in the Middle East: by force of arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through highly assertive diplomacy in Lebanon and Palestine. Mr. Fukuyama tells us that "by definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it."

Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.

This is not to say democracy is a cure-all. It is also not to say that the peril these democracies face, from terrorist insurrection or ethnic or religious feuding, isn't grave. Nor, finally, is it to say that the "Hitler scenario" can be excluded in a democratizing Middle East; that possibility is always present, especially among nascent democracies.

But democracy also offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies--even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations--than acceding to dictatorships, which already have.

Or does someone have a better idea?

Posted by John Kranz at 11:38 AM

February 23, 2006

The Wake of War

Vietnam: beacon of freedom?

In another sign that Vietnam is beginning to attract a critical mass of foreign investment, Vietnamese regulators approved Intel Corp.'s plans to proceed with the country's single biggest technology project to date, a chip-assembly plant in Ho Chi Minh City.

Intel's arrival is expected to be announced Tuesday at a ceremony with political leaders and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett. The size of the company's investment, likely to be several hundred million dollars, and its prominence in the technology sector signal a turning point in Vietnam's economic emergence.

The country is already an important exporter of food and textiles, and its success in attracting capital is growing. Merrill Lynch estimates that foreign direct investment in Vietnam reached $5 billion in 2005, an eight-year high. The influx helped lift annual economic growth to rates approaching those of Asia's biggest booming economies, China and India. During the past six years, Vietnam's gross domestic product has grown at an annual average of 7.4%, adjusted for inflation.

Like my Fukuyama post (for which I expected severe opprobrium), it makes me question my neoWilsonian beliefs. We failed to install capitalism and democracy in Vietnam, but they found it. Estonia found it, Socialist India and Communist China are finding it.

I definitely veered toward some basic precepts of isolationism in 2005. Not just the tough times -- a better feeling for the difficulty of affecting change from outside.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:24 AM | Comments (4)

But AlexC thinks:

I wonder if the Soviet Union communist/socialist system not collapsed, if "creeping capitalism" would have had a chance to settle in?
They were the hardest of the hard core, keeping their satellites in line.

Posted by: AlexC at February 23, 2006 12:02 PM

But jk thinks:

Man, I just think you have to look at what works. I love the Cuban exiles in Miami for their anti-Communism, but you have to call the embargo a 40 year failure.

This grabs me because Vietnam would seem to have everything against it, but it finds success and freedom -- how do you spread THAT!

Posted by: jk at February 23, 2006 2:25 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Yeah, but what if you can't see how good it is on the outside?

F*ck. Even the CIA didn't think the Soviets would call it quits in the 80s.

If you don't know any better, and only know what your told, I can see how you wouldn't understand that there is another way.

Posted by: AlexC at February 23, 2006 4:09 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I recently watched a History Channel program on the Vietnam war. The lede promised to relate that war to the one in Iraq. There weren't any direct mentions of Iraq during the program itself but the parallels were there to see.

An invading army attempts to (reject or unseat) a tyrant's hold on the throats of an unwilling populace. Defeating the tyrant is also in the interests of the invading army, for reasons of capitalism and freedom. But there was a difference in Vietnam: a huge proportion of the populace was not only willing, but fiercely dedicated to the communist cause. Ho Chi Minh was a shrewd and effective politician with the persuasive power of Billy Graham. He had plenty of material to work with in his propaganda effort, given that France had been occupying the place as a colony since the end of WWII. And for what reason? Rubber plantations. Michelin tires.

The distinction in Iraq has been and must hasten to materialize, "we are here to liberate and stabilize, then we're going home." I say split the place up into three soverign states and move our forces to the borders between them. Help each state eradicate hostile elements within their state and then let the UN replace our border forces with UN forces.

Whatever the specific route we take to get there, we must let these people run their own affairs entirely as soon as we can. We are not their keepers.

Posted by: johngalt at February 25, 2006 10:39 AM

February 20, 2006

Re-accessing Iraq

The best anti-war piece you're ever going to see is in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine. After Neoconservatism is an adaptation of Francis Fukuyama's upcoming book, "America at the Crossroads."

I confess that I was thinking of Fukuyama's "End of History" over this weekend as I tired of the Cheney hunting accident. These are hard times for neocons; hard times for Sharansky-ites; and pretty tough times for Republicans (though it appears they're going to let us play the Democrats again this year...)

I was re-accessing the Iraqi liberation just before this came out. And it is a thoughtful exegesis. Fukuyama is no moonbat. I find much to agree with. Especially his retrospective questioning of the neo-Wilsonianism I felt so strongly.

The way the cold war ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq war, including younger neoconservatives like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, in two ways. First, it seems to have created an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumble with a small push from outside. The model for this was Romania under the Ceausescus: once the wicked witch was dead, the munchkins would rise up and start singing joyously about their liberation. As Kristol and Kagan put it in their 2000 book "Present Dangers": "To many the idea of America using its power to promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators rings of utopianism. But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in declaring the impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light of the record of the past three decades."

The Romanian model was expected to repeat in Iraq, and the insurgency was underestimated. I yield to no-one in my support for this administration and the war on terror. But I am frequently asked to look people in the eye and say we did the right thing. To fail to reevaluate is stubborn. Am I still a Sharansky-ite? Yes. Am I still a neoWilsonian? I don't know.

What is certain, and only partially conceded by Fukuyama, is that it is hard to conceive a pleasant counterfactual. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, Iran would be making nuclear noises, payments to suicide bombers' families would still be occurring, training camps would still be open. Fukuyama has no great illusions about the UN's being able to sort this out.

The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while useful for certain peacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United Nations lacks both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen a single global body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a "multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally competing international institutions that are organized on regional or functional lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model: when the Russian veto prevented the Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATO allies simply shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action.

Yet, in the next breath (or page) he is ready to hand it off to USAID, and the State Department, which I consider our own, local, UN.

If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our focus to the reform, reorganization and proper financing of those institutions of the United States government that actually promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world, organizations like the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.

In fact, I will bend quite a ways to agree with Fukuyama on problems, philosophy, and past history. It is his present and future to which I cannot subscribe. In fact this startling assertion undermines his entire argument:

The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But the intelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the terrorist/W.M.D. threat as the war's supporters did. Overestimation of this threat was then used to justify the elevation of preventive war to the centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series of measures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping.

Watching the Cartoon Wars for a couple of weeks, I cannot believe that we overestimate Islamicist Terror. And I accuse Fukuyama of underplaying the domestic safety that our foreign actions have produced. Robert Kaplan, quoted in the story, has stated that the original war was not worthy but that the larger conflict in which we are now embroiled is worthy of the blood and treasure.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:08 PM

Darkness

There has been good discussion on these pages about "The Bush Doctrine" and the application of absolutes toward questionable regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Good stuff, but let me pull up one I bet we can agree on: North Korea. I like the ThreeSources logo because it associates prosperity to politics and freedom. No segment of the map is clearer than the Korean peninsula. Dynamic, free, South Korea is vibrant and prosperous; their cousins in the north are dark as the sea. Here's a full-size look at the area:





Claudia Rosett today wonders why the US, through the UN is subsidizing this despotic regime.

It's bad enough that North Korea's Kim Jong Il is starving his people while building nuclear bombs. But why are we helping him?

In theory, we're not. But the U.S. has been by far the largest donor to the aid appeal under which the U.N. World Food Program has shipped $1.7 billion worth of rice, corn, wheat and sugar into North Korea over a decade. Last summer the regime declared itself self-sufficient in food, ordering the WFP to wind down operations by the end of the year. But North Korea also let the WFP know that it would be happy to start receiving aid for state-run development projects. Obediently, the WFP has come up with a plan, awaiting approval from its executive board this coming week, to "work with the Government to support its strategy of moving towards development and away from humanitarian assistance." The "Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation" has a $102 million budget to deliver food and "transitional assistance" for Pyongyang's "strategy for recovery."

Just like Saddam, the UN will provide not only cover, but political favors Kim can dispose at his discretion.

If the WFP's new plan goes forward, Kim will be in the pleasant position of receiving free goods, enjoying plenty of control over who gets what, and taking credit for the handouts. Part of the WFP plan, for example, is to provide supplies for food-processing factories where the government will hire the workers, operate the plants, and in some cases -- how many is not clear -- "transport the product to the beneficiary institutions."

There is no question that many people are hungry, and, as the head of the WFP office in Pyongyang, Richard Ragan, described it in a recent interview, "living on the edge." In the field of good works, one of the worst dilemmas is what to do when a tyrant holds hostage his own population -- trading on their deprivation to lever out of well-meaning donors whatever it is he really wants. But in North Korea, the WFP -- America's main conduit for aid into the country -- is losing whatever leverage it ever had. Big brother China and eager-to-appease South Korea are shipping substantial aid with few strings attached. Meanwhile, the U.S. is trying to corral Kim over matters as mortally important as nuclear bombs. This new program whipped up by the WFP to suit Kim's palate sends just one message: Yes indeed, we are chumps.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:07 PM

February 14, 2006

Half Million Rally in Beirut

... no Danish flags burned.

Half a million flag-waving Lebanese packed central Beirut on Tuesday, a year to the day after the assassination of former premier Rafik al-Hariri, giving new impetus to Lebanon's anti-Syrian coalition.

The turnout was reminiscent of huge protests after last year's February 14 killing of Hariri and 22 others.

Those demonstrations, coupled with international pressure, forced Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon, although Damascus denies any role in the assassination.

Syria's Lebanese foes said Tuesday's rally would revive a campaign to force pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to quit and to punish those behind the truck bombing that killed Hariri.

"By being present here today, you foil the conspiracy ... against Lebanon, against Rafik al-Hariri, against Lebanon's freedom, independence and dignity," the former prime minister's son and political heir Saad al-Hariri told the crowd from behind bullet-proof glass.

Believing he too could be killed, Hariri has spent more than six months abroad, but returned to Beirut for the anniversary.

Bring on the protest babes!

Posted by AlexC at 12:26 PM

February 9, 2006

TNR Misses the Point

The subhead of the Peter Beinart editorial captured my imagination:
What Bush understands and the Danes do not

I have a ton of respect for Beinart, but I think he swings and misses in this week's editorial. I am still glad he is not swiping at the President, that's always a bonus in a "Democrat mag." And his point about more devout Americans empathizing better with devout Muslims than secular Europeans is interesting and well taken. I'll even accede to a certain hunger on the right for a "Clash of Civilizations."

But he then misses the mark on what I find to be the base of the contretemps. It is not that the cartoons were inflammatory or insensitive. The problem is the Islamicists' insistence that no likenesses are allowed and that a private newspaper -- and the government that chooses not to censor it -- is responsible to uphold Islamic law on non-Muslims.

In short, it is unusual to find Beinart defending the Administration and my saying, "No, Peter they are wrong!" But they are. Perhaps a bold defense of the free press is not appropriate, but the State Department went too far in condemning the cartoons.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:07 PM

February 8, 2006

The Jewish "Street" Explodes

Jonah Goldberg in The Corner

April 1, 2006. New York -- In response to a series of offensive cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper and subsequently printed in every newspaper around the globe, including many which had refused to publish the now-forgotten "anti-Muslim" cartoons last winter, the "Jewish street" erupted. At Brandeis University, a course on Lesbian motifs in Yiddish literature was briefly interrupted as students asked their professor what he thought about the controversy. In Washington D.C. a flurry of letters to the editor and press releases poured out of Jewish organizations. In New York, Commentary magazine -- a leading organ of the "neoconservative" Jewish Right -- announced it would run three articles on Iran in its next issue as well as an extensive letters section.

"This is outrageous but expected," thundered a furious Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a longer-than-normal appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Elsewhere Jewish tempers weren't running so hot. At Artie's Delicatessen on the Upper West Side of New York, Josh Greenberg ate a pastrami sandwich with a friend, Abe Kolman, hoping to avoid all the furor in the Jewish street. "Zabar's is a mad house today," Greenberg observed. When asked about the Iranian newspaper controversy, Greenberg said "What are you going to do?"

Kolman, an orthodontist, added "I'd stop eating Iranian pistachios, I guess."

The White House continued to plead with Jews across America to stay calm.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:41 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

Not Jewish, but to show my solidarity, we burned our carpets to stick it to the Iranians.

I always dug hardwood floors anyway.

Posted by: AlexC at February 8, 2006 1:27 PM

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I'm starting to think that the primary employment in the ME for Muslims is 'Riot Mob Participant'. I've seen nearly 0 impact on their economy.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 8, 2006 3:20 PM

But jk thinks:

Hey, a gig's a gig!

Posted by: jk at February 8, 2006 4:45 PM

February 7, 2006

They Have Eyes But Cannot See

Tucker Carlson had two very instructive interviews last night, both concerning the Danish Cartoon War (great as the words contretemps, kerfuffle, imbroglio, and l'affaire Cartoon are, I like the term "Cartoon War.")

First he spoke with Chicago Tribune Managing Editor James O'Shea about his paper's refusal to publish the cartoons. Carlson was upset that MSNBC would not allow him to show the cartoons, and O'Shea defended his paper's "unwillingness to offend sensibilities" [I am paraphrasing, but pretty accurately for a change]. Carlson repeatedly pointed out that you cannot really understand the story if you cannot see them, and pointed out that nobody hesitated to copy the Rolling Stone cover with Kanye West as Jesus. O'Shea held his ground, talked about how brave his reporters in the field are, and did not concede that cowardice played a part in this editorial decision.

After the interview, Carlson said "in twenty years, when nobody reads newspapers anymore, you can show that interview to anybody who wants to know why."

Next up was Rachel Maddow, from Air America. She is on almost every show. She is reflexively left-wing and anti-Republican. But she thankfully does not have the bilious, vicious nature of so many on her far left side of the world. She straight facedly drew equivalence between "Our fundamentalists" and "Their fundamentalists." Carlson rarely speaks for me, but he was perfect last night, saying that Jesse Helms and Bill Bennett try to cut federal funding for the NEA whereas they burn buildings and that many European journalists are hiding for their life. Maddow wasn't buying for a minute. All fundamentalists are bad, how can you think ours are benign?

So the Cartoon War clarifies many things. But only to those who will see.

BTW, if you still ain't seen them, Tim Blair has the infamous illos here. Burn my house down, I linked!

Posted by John Kranz at 12:58 PM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

The lesson the be learned here..

If you're offended by something, light fires and destroy things. Some of the offenders (or their friends) will give you a pass and profusely apologize.

Posted by: AlexC at February 7, 2006 1:32 PM

February 6, 2006

The Cartoon War

That's what Austin Bay calls it.

At first take the name The Cartoon War may suggest something comic, exaggerated, or surreal. Those elements are in play– definitely in play. Cartoon and War are a collision, words that should not appear in the same serious sentence. They are a collision of values. But that’s the core of this, isn’t it? Likewise, the very real violence and anger add a heavy, instructive irony. The war between open and closed societies is not superficial, exaggerated, or surreal. The imagination is a battlefield. On a “technologically-compressed planet� the small and mundane –the cartoon– can quickly inflame; in a world of unfiltered, borderless information “the imagined� can have extraordinary consequences.

I laughed when I saw the headline "Cartoon Protests Turn Deadly." It seemed absurd. Of course, it is but absurd in a way that life and the enemies of freedom -- our enemies in the terror war -- are absurd.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:44 PM

February 5, 2006

Condi, whack somebody!

All about the cartoon imbroglio has been said by better writers, but there is one item that is getting an ill-deserved pass: the US State Department’s siding with suppressors of speech rather than freedom. I am conditioned to expect no better from the striped-pantsers, but Perry de Havilland at Samizdata takers 'em on

Land of the free, home of the brave, eh? Not in Washington DC it seems. Rather than face down the intolerant face of radical Islam, the US State Department is pandering to it. This is a national disgrace and I hope some US newspapers will show how they feel by supporting their colleagues in Denmark and publishing the damn cartoons themselves and telling Kurtis Cooper where he can stick his political master's craven opinions.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:00 PM

February 2, 2006

Threat to Freedom

Always on the ThreeSources blogroll: Day by Day

Posted by John Kranz at 2:46 PM

January 25, 2006

Google Capitulates

Ian at Banana Oil is closer to Chinese Google than I am, but he wonders whether anybody at the hypervalued company has read Sun Tzu:

Abject surrender is not the way to foster cultural change for the better.

And don't think for a moment that this will be regarded as a move of strength or integrity. The Chinese will not respect you for this. Read The Art of War. They won, and got you to give them the victory on a silver platter. You are now the Communist government's bitch, whether you know it or not.

Way to go, guys.

I join the blogosphere in disappointment, but I cannot work up the high dudgeon. I wish Google had given the ChiComs a lecture; I wish Microsoft had told the EU to fuggedabout it instead of phony gestures such as hobbled versions and limited source distribution.

But both Google and Microsoft have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that must supersede a company's desire to change the world. I'd say the same to Ben & Jerry.

In the case of China, I have to think the more information the merrier. The more people on even a bowdlerized Internet, the better chance that the benefits of freedom -- if not Falun Gong movements -- will be understood.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:25 PM | Comments (2)

But AlexC thinks:

What works people up about Google is that their corporate motto was "Don't be evil."

Selling out to the red Chinese is a pretty big step in that direction, I'd say.

While I understand the fiduciary responsibility, can't a corporation have ethics? (damn, i sound like a dirty hippie)

Like not selling out to frigging communists?

Posted by: AlexC at January 26, 2006 2:59 PM

But jk thinks:

My opinion is certainly in the minority. While like most West-coasties their bumper-sticker credos do match reality, I guess if you consider filtering results on a search engine to be "evil," then I am wrong.

The ChiComs do a lot of real evil -- keeping one of its unfortunate subjects away from the edifying prose of ThreeeSources.com is a pity but not a piori evil.

My hope continues to be that as the Internet becomes more prevalent, more Chinese citizens find ways around the filters and that the volume of information becomes more than the officials can monitor.

The fiduciary responsibility does not supersede everything but I believe strongly that you are obligated to devote your efforts to increasing shareholder value.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 4:18 PM

January 16, 2006

Cookies for Troops!

Silence's daughter is selling girl scout cookies -- and you can have them shipped to the troops in Iraq.

Cool idea -- enabling the young ladies to pry money out of the patriotic Atkins crowd. If you don't have a closer relative, email jk [at] threesources [dot] com and I will help you hook the troops up with some Samoas and Trefoils...

Posted by John Kranz at 4:36 PM

January 4, 2006

V for Vendetta

Whilst waiting in the lobby of a theater after viewing 'The Chronicles of Narnia' (don't wait for a review from yours truly) I perused the posters for coming attractions. One caught my eye. It read - "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE." Hey, this could be my kind of movie, I thought to myself! The title was 'V for Vendetta' and it was billed as, "An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of the Matrix trilogy." Yeah, the Wachowski brothers... red pill, blue pill. Very interesting, I thought.

Here's what they offer by way of synopsis on the official site:

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Other than the fact that totalitarian Britain isn't very futuristic, this idea has promise. We'll see. It's at least worth keeping an eye on leading up to the March 17 premiere.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:12 AM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

It sounds interesting, and a couple hours looking at Ms. Portman cannot be called a waste.

I am skeptical of all things Hollywood and the choice of "totalitarian Britain" concerns me. I am guessing they don't mean what you and I think about the UK.

Yes, it is the land of Orwell and they have taken all the guns. But these guys would never find a bad word to say about Cuba or Syria or the Soviet Union yet they will go after our #1 ally in the War on Terror. Am I scratching too deeply?

Posted by: jk at January 4, 2006 10:38 AM

January 3, 2006

New Year at the VFW

From the red part of the purple Midwest, I found this email very moving.

Sugarchuck was playing a gig at a VFW and they were doing karaoke while the band set up and:

They had some sort of Karaoke thing going while we were bringing stuff in and they sang that Lee Greenwood song, "Bless the USA." Anyway, everyone on the dance floor formed a circle and held hands, raised their hands in the air and swayed back and forth singing at the top of their lungs. everyone else in the bar stood as well and raised their hands and sang.

No irony, no cynicism, no post-modernism, and everyone of those guys fought overseas, mostly in Korea and WWII, but there were a lot of Viet Nam guys and A few Desert Storm guys too. They've put their money up and when they sing that stuff it is moving beyond description. Most of us walk around every day never knowing how incredibly blessed we've been to have these people willing to protect us and fight for us.

Happy New Year to all who serve or have served.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:06 PM

December 21, 2005

Berkeley Square -- Banned In Iran!

The madness continues in Iran. The government will now choose music for its lucky subjects, increasing their decency substantially. The WSJ Ed Page says in "The Non-Music Man:

Now the Islamic Republic has taken another bold step on the road to Year Zero, this time by banning Western music. Tehran commuters, who in recent years have grown accustomed to listening to Eric Clapton or Kenny G., will now have to put up with whatever Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council deem "decent." Don't expect "Crosstown Traffic" or "Baby You Can Ride My Car" to make the list.

Iranians have been here before, as have other victims of dictatorship. Ayatollah Khomeini banned all forms of music after the 1979 revolution, but the rules were gradually relaxed after his death. In the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, music was banned along with all other expressions of art and culture, and hundreds of musicians were murdered. The Nazis extolled the music of Wagner, yet they famously tore down the statue of the Jewish-born Felix Mendelssohn in front of the Leipzig Gewandhaus.

Iran has one of the youngest populations in the world, and the youth are acclimated to American music and culture. I agree with the WWSJ Ed Page that the ultimate hope for Iran is likely an internal revolution.

I confess I had hoped for a fast domino-effect revolution after Iraq was liberated. I take full responsibility for that mistake but still hold that we will have to support an internal revolution if tacitly and covertly.

Sadly, the opposition party deals with this by contriving arguments about Valerie Plame, faux-outrage over NSA eavesdropping, and filibustering renewal of the Patriot Act.

UPDATE: TCS has a good column with more specifics.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:20 AM | Comments (3)

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I wonder if they are going to ban Butthole Surfers too!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 21, 2005 12:08 PM

But jk thinks:

Naaah! I'm sure Butthole Surfers will pass Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council muster...

Posted by: jk at December 21, 2005 12:44 PM

But johngalt thinks:

It takes one to know one.

Posted by: johngalt at December 24, 2005 3:25 PM

December 20, 2005

Economic Development

Via Jay Nordlinger, here is an incredible story in the Memphis Business Journal. A Tennessee National Guardsman bringing entrepreneurship to Iraq.

His business dream represents a big dose of Tennessee entrepreneur spirit transplanted to the Middle East by Wayne Culbreath.

Culbreath was working in the realm of economic development when, two years ago, his National Guard combat unit was activated and sent to Iraq. For five months he was stationed at Forward Operating Base Cobra, east of Baghdad and 20 miles from the border with Iran.

An Army captain, Culbreath commanded a unit that spent most of its time finding and disposing of improvised explosive devices, typically a couple of artillery shells wired to detonate with a trigger.

"We found that a lot of the guys who planted the bombs weren't foreign fighters," he says. "Most of them were getting $60 to shoot at Americans, and they were only doing it to feed their families."

That led to a new initiative: American style, grass roots economic development.

I suggested pre-war, that the Iraqis would have a predilection toward entrepreneurism. To an extent, the satellite dish vendors and automotive sales have shown that to be true.

But the article discusses a long-term reliance on centralized command and control. People wait for Baghdad to fix the electrical grid rather than envisioning a private solution.

Lastly, it shows yet again that our troops are not slack-jawed yokels from the ghettos and rural outposts. They are bright and talented professionals -- I thank my lucky stars for each of them.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:15 PM

December 16, 2005

Four-year old ambush

A friend of ThreeSources emails a link:

A hero's welcome at preschool

Just one day after an emotional reunion with her husband and two young daughters after a year in Iraq and Kuwait, Army Reserve Maj. Denise Wurzbach was doing what she'd done every weekday before being sent overseas: taking her oldest daughter to preschool.

But unbeknownst to the major, her arrival at 10 a.m. yesterday would be marked by a chilled, squirmy but determined band of children outside the Goddard School in Blue Bell.

Each was armed - with a piece of cardboard painted with a letter that together spelled "Welcome Home Major Wurzbach."

When the major's vehicle pulled up, the 38-year-old Whitpain Township servicewoman leaped out with her 4-year-old daughter, Maggie.
Maggie's classmates broke into a cheer, and her mother broke into a huge smile, waved and said: "Thank you. Wow!... It's good to be here. It's good to be home."

Thanks to all who serve!

Posted by John Kranz at 1:13 PM | Comments (2)

But AlexC thinks:

Blue Bell?! That's not far from me! JK is scooping me in my backyard! ;)

Thanks to all of the troops, as well.

Posted by: AlexC at December 16, 2005 3:15 PM

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Sorry Alex ... I leaked this one. Just call me Scooter.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 19, 2005 2:48 PM

Critics Come Around?

It is gong to be more difficult for war critics after the elections yesterday. Tucker Carlson last night defended the achievements against Air America's Rachel Maddow. (I plan to write a letter today pointing out that the Carlson-attacks-the-war-from-the-right vs. Maddow-attacks-the-war-from-the-left is getting tiresome). Carlson had to admit that this was a big deal, though he quoted a private email from The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash that any good outcome will be an accident, in spite of not because of the administration's efforts (friends like these, huh?). But a defense from critics all the same.

Today, The New Republic has a web article from Lawrence Kaplan teased as "Again and again, we have been wrongly assured that Iraq was turning a corner. But yesterday, it may have actually happened."

Contrary to prevailing wisdom, Washington's political strategy in Iraq has always made more sense than its military strategy. In its essentials, the logic of the former was straightforward: Induce the Sunnis to surrender violence in favor of political participation and create a broad-based, cross-sectarian coalition that can govern Iraq effectively. Although yesterday's elections hardly guarantee that outcome, they do amount to its necessary precondition. Whether the aim can actually be achieved is up to the Iraqis.

In this regard, yesterday offered reason to hope. Having now moved beyond the mechanics of democracy--that is, the process of choosing leaders--Iraqis may also begin to move beyond a zero-sum brand of politics and toward the sort of compromises essential to a broader conception of democracy.
[...]
If a stable democracy emerges, it will not be a perfect one. But, then again, Washington isn't chasing an idealism so pure it defeats its own ends in Iraq. Quite the contrary: Today, at least, it seems like the United States knew what it was doing all along. Savor the moment.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:25 AM

December 15, 2005

Bullish on Iraq

Larry Kudlow posts an optimistic look at Iraq today. It's wild eyed, it's rosy -- and I can't find one place where I think that it's wrong.

Let’s be perfectly clear. This wasn’t any ordinary step, not by a long shot. What the world witnessed today was a historic moment. A moment where fifteen million Iraqis—the very same people who suffered for years under the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein since Jimmy Carter was in office—boldly walked to the polls with their children and cast their ballots for a first full-term parliament.
[...]
Sooner rather than later, our brave troops will be returning home to America’s shores. They will have participated in one of the grandest campaigns in all of history. Much like the courageous, battle hardened GIs returning from World War II, these young men and women will one day be able to tell their grandchildren that they helped change history for the better. Duty called and they not only answered, they delivered.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:40 PM

On Patience

Two great thoughts on how fast the Iraqis are establishing a representative government.

1. Bobby Eberle from GOPusa.com wonders what today's naysayers would think of a ten-year interim Constitution like our Articles of Confederation:

It took America ten years to get things right, and we still have to fight to stay true to the Constitution’s meanings. Iraq has been at it less than three years. The progress can only be described as remarkable.

2. A better voicing of the same sentiment comes from my buddy Sugarchuck: "MSM have gotten every single prediction and assessment they've made wrong. I am convinced they should turn Iraq coverage over to sports writers who understand the difficulty of turning a losing program into a winning one and have at least a minimal amount of patience with the process. Hell, Nebraska has given Calahan two years to implement a west coast offense."

You'd think we might be as generous with Middle Eastern Democracy as Cornhusker fans are with Big Red.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:04 PM

Purple Fingers

Bill Roggio writes that he's watching Iraqis vote in droves:

I’m in the town of Barwana, one of the three Triad cities which include Haqlaniyah and Haditha. The poll site sits right where Zarqawi’s terrorists executed residents for not conforming to al-Qaeda’s perverse brand of Islamic law. It’s currently 8:20 am Iraqi time, and turnout is heavy so far, with several hundred voters showing up. The polls opened at 7:00 am and the first handful arrived minutes afterward. There is a steady line of voters waiting to vote.

Thanks to all the brave men and women who wear our nation's uniform who have made this possible. And I salute the Iraqis for their personal courage in voting.

Another great day, whether the MSM think so or not.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal (news pages, not my right-wing crazies) reports that polls were kept open an extra hour to accomodate high tirnout. Better than St. Louis.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:53 PM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

Bill Roggio has been doing incredible work in Iraq lately. He's an self-embedded blogger!

Posted by: AlexC at December 15, 2005 6:46 PM

December 14, 2005

More Please

On the eve of Iraq's election, Iraqi citizen Betty Dawisha:

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell.”

Don't forget, December 12th through 15th are Purple Finger for Freedom Days, but tomorrow the polling places are open.

Officially, you're supposed to ink the index finger, but I suspect that Ms Dawisha would have inked her middle finger if that were an option.

Posted by AlexC at 11:32 AM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

I saw that on TV (FOXNews, mirabile non dictu!) I thought it would make a great RNC ad...

Posted by: jk at December 14, 2005 12:08 PM

But AlexC thinks:

No way. Too aggressive. The DNC would complain like they have sand in their shorts.

They'd say it was a plant. The Pentagon was propagandizing over there you know. ;)

Better to let the Dems hang themselves with their own words. The GOP doesn't control Dean, Pelosi or Kerry. It's a more "pure" attack.

Posted by: AlexC at December 14, 2005 3:03 PM

December 6, 2005

That Sucking Sound

That sucking sound you hear is ten thousand Democrats canceling their subscriptions to The New Republic. And 20,000 Harvard alumnae writing nasty letters.

For Harvard Professor William J. Stuntz has a piece on TNR's website today that will not go over with the MoveOn Crowd or Leader Pelosi. In Lincoln and Iraq, Stuntz compares the Iraq war to The Civil War.

n 1861 Abraham Lincoln led what was left of his country to war to restore "the Union as it was," to use the popular phrase of the time. Free navigation of the Mississippi River, the right to collect customs duties in Southern ports, the status of a pair of coastal forts in South Carolina and Florida--these were the issues over which young American men got down to the business of killing one another that sad summer.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.
[...]
Freedom and democracy, justice and the equality of all men before God and before the law--those causes were very different. Shedding an ocean of blood for them was terribly sad but not tragic: The essence of tragedy is waste, and the blood shed on the Civil War's battlefields was not wasted. Horrible as its killing fields were, those young men accomplished something profoundly good: Their deaths ensured that (to use Lincoln's words again) "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That is why the Civil War has gone down in history not as America's own World War I, but as the war of America's true "greatest generation," the generation that preserved freedom and democracy for us and for the rest of humankind.

Stuntz continues [I don't know whether the link requires subscription, holler if you want it emailed or longer excerpts -- this is a stunning piece!] to compare the Iraq War as being longer, bloodier and more noble in cause that its original intentions.

He accepts that mistakes have been made, but again compares to Lincoln's

None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East.

Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohamed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.

Amen. If somebody still thinks like that at Harvard, and the Democrats at TNR will still print it, there's some hope, Professor. Some hope.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:17 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Great excerpts JK. Bravo to the Harvard professor. He evokes comparisons to Victor Davis Hanson.

I too am heartened by the venue of this essay. Perhaps the cancerous sore of the anti-war, anti-prosperity, anti-human faction of the Democrat party has sufficiently swelled and discolored that it may be crusted over by the rational, self-interested majority and allowed to shrivel and die the death it so profoundly deserves. A key factor to observe will be how long it takes for Howard Dean to be fired as chairman of the DNC.

Posted by: johngalt at December 6, 2005 3:16 PM

But jk thinks:

It amuses me that many Democrats write off Gov. Dean as a clown. Last night Rachel Maddow was asked about the latest Dean-burst and replied that "Rep Tom Tancredo wanted to nuke Mecca!"

Tucker rejoined that Dean was head of the party and that Tancredo was "a congressman from Colorado." That is what I have tried to get my Democrat friends -- and Andrew Sullivan -- to admit. (Note to his fans, Carlson said “he wished” that Rep. Tancredo had a leadership position.)

The minority leader of the House has now seconded Rep. Murtha's plans for "immediate redeployment" and Dean has one-upped them.

Were I a candidate for the House (stop laughing!) I would ask my opponent "Would you vote for Ms. Pelosi for leader?" I am not sure that even the Third Colorado District can muster a plurality for cut-and-run.

Posted by: jk at December 6, 2005 4:14 PM

December 5, 2005

Apology: Condi Style

While the EU leaders squawk about whether their airspace was used to transport prisoners and call for apologies, Secretary Rice replies "buddies, we saved your ass yet again [okay, I'm paraphrasing...]"

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned the tables on European critics of tough U.S. tactics in the war on terror Monday, maintaining that intelligence gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency has saved European lives.

Responding for the first time in detail to the outcry over reports of secret CIA-run prisons in European democracies, Ms. Rice said the U.S. "will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists." But in remarks delivered as she got ready to leave on a trip to Europe, she steadfastly refused to answer the underlying question of whether the U.S. had CIA-operated secret prisons there.

"We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect other nations share this view," Ms. Rice said in a statement at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

The secretary said that information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies from a "very small number of extremely dangerous detainees," has helped prevent terrorist attacks and saved lives "in Europe as well as in the U.S. and other countries." Reports of the existence of the secret prisons has caused a trans-Atlantic uproar. The European Union has asked the Bush administration about these reports.

I'm glad somebody in this administration does not believe that a demand for an apology always requires one. Bill Kristol was pretty eloquent about this this weekend on FOXNews Sunday. Discussing the 'alleged-paid-editorial" SCANDAL, Kristol issued a loud "so what [paraphrasing again...]"

What he did say was "we're fighti9ng a war." And I have to agree. If the worst thing we do in a global war against fascists who think nothing of bombing a wedding reception is to engage in some borderline PR tactics, I can still call us the good guys.

Bully for Kristol. Bully for Sec. Rice. We should respect our allies' sovereignty (more than Iraqi press scruples) but we deserve more doubt-benefit from EU nations.

The only real crime here is the CIA leak to the WaPo. Only about 10,000 times more significant to national security than Valerie Plame's identity.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:25 AM

December 1, 2005

Bulgaria & Ukraine Pull Out

The war is looking pretty grim to the folks at the Associated Press:

Two U.S. Allies Leaving Iraq, More May Go
Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December.

How will we continue?

Don’t get me wrong, I thank them for their brave service and am disappointed to see them go. But the portentous tone of this "news" piece is humorous. I think we'll get by somehow without Bulgaria...

The url for the story ends in "iraq_crumbling_coalition." Even the webmasters are biased...

Posted by John Kranz at 6:12 PM | Comments (4)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Yeah, even the / slants down to the left...

Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 2, 2005 12:31 PM

But jk thinks:

Start some UNIX wars around here, willya? Like we don't have enough to fight about.

Posted by: jk at December 2, 2005 12:49 PM

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Damn Mac Insurgents, laying JPEGs (as opposed to IEDs) all over the internet ...

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 2, 2005 3:29 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Whoa whoa whoa...I thought it was a unilateral invasion.

Posted by: AlexC at December 2, 2005 3:42 PM

November 23, 2005

Kaplan in TNR

Lawrence Kaplan gives the Democrats a little harsh medicine -- in their own book! Here's the start of his TNR article:

The war in Iraq has generated, among other things, a new tradition in the media. Every time former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft criticizes the war--and he has done so on nearly a dozen occasions--the press advertises his latest gripe as evidence of a split in conservative ranks. Not surprisingly, then, his latest fusillade, delivered a few weeks ago in a New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg, was once more touted as breaking news. It wasn't. Far more telling was the chorus of leading Democrats, liberal columnists, and left-leaning bloggers--that is, voices that once could be counted on to condemn Scowcroft as the second-rate Kissinger he is--who emerged to applaud the octogenarian devotee of realpolitik for his candor. Which brings us to a second tradition produced by the war: liberals against liberalism.

Lest there be any confusion about the inclinations of the former general with whom so many "progressive" voices have found common cause, his approach to foreign policy resembles that of a man who, on seeing an elderly woman being bludgeoned on the sidewalk, crosses to the other side of the street. This is the man, after all, who toasted the architects of the Tiananmen Square massacre not six months after they perpetrated it. Who found it "painful to watch Yeltsin rip the Soviet Union brick by brick away from Gorbachev." Who counseled sitting on the sidelines as Saddam Hussein massacred the very Shia his administration had encouraged to rise up. Who says that "some people really don't want to be free." And who rightly calls himself "a cynic about human nature.'

Cynicism, alas, is enjoying a vogue in the party of Woodrow Wilson. "Just as Scowcroft is doing," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen points out, "it is the Democrats who often speak the language of realism that seems downright uncaring."

It doesn't let up (holler if you want me to email the whole piece). Here's the end:

What we have in their place is a crude and cheap version of realism, which, although ostensibly a method of analysis that eschews ideology, is rapidly becoming an ideology of its own. Unfortunately, its key tenets as laid out by the Gary Harts and Paul Krugmans of this world--non-interference, narrowly defined vital interests, a foreign policy scrubbed of idealism--provide no adequate response to the war of ideas in which we're presently engaged and will be long after the war in Iraq draws to a close. Nor do its proponents factor in the steep moral price bound to be exacted by trading in Woodrow Wilson for Brent Scowcroft. Is it really necessary to point out how deeply amoral U.S. foreign policy was during the Kissinger and Scowcroft years? If idealism has failed in Iraq, the solution lies in the realm of means, not in abandoning idealism--and certainly not in the cynicism of Brent Scowcroft.

Not in '06 and likely not even in '08, but someday, the soi-disant liberals are going to have to reconcile this cynicism and isolationism with their other principles. Those, like Kaplan, that is that have principles.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:02 AM

November 17, 2005

Victory II

Perhaps we just needed honest debate. The calls for cut-and-run are solidifying and stirring the resolve of those who understand. A new site, NoEndButVictory.com, recalls previous American ignominy:

Within living memory, we have seen what happens when America abandons its national commitments, and deserts the brave people who stood tall and believed its promises. The faint-hearted and the wavering painted our commitment to the people of Indochina as a cause in itself of the bloodshed and grief there — and then stood mute when they achieved their objective, forced America’s retreat, and years of genocide followed in its wake.

A generation later, they’re trying to do the same in Iraq. For the sake of an Iraqi people only now grasping the responsibilities, perils, and blessings of liberty, we cannot let them force America to shrink from the awesome responsibility it has shouldered. For the sake of American honor — and those who have died in this cause — we cannot repeat the mistakes of 1991, when the cost of our reluctance was counted in Kurdish and Shi’a dead.

This is not a partisan issue. This is not a left- or right-wing issue. This is an American and Iraqi issue, and all men of good faith must now come together to remind our leadership that whatever our politics, and whatever we thought of the decision to go to war, there can be only one end:

Victory.

The anti-war, cut-and-run crowd, which fears not defeat, nor dishonor, nor an Iraq under the terrorist heel, is well-organized. Its online haunts are well-known enough: Daily Kos, Atrios, and the rest have a massive readership, and they present the appearance of representing a substantial segement of public opinion in the United States.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:03 PM | Comments (2)

But AlexC thinks:

Indeed. Back to bumper-sticker debates.
"War is not the answer"
Yeah. Victory is.

Posted by: AlexC at November 17, 2005 3:21 PM

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Homework assignment for all top administration officials: "What victory means to me" a 500 word essay.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 17, 2005 4:51 PM

Victory

I have rarely considered Senator McCain to be an ally.

But he has come through in a strident defense of the President against the "Bush Lied" crowd, and he blasts his compatriots in today in a guest piece for The New York Post.

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

The piece makes the point far better than I did in comments below.

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 2:51 PM

October 27, 2005

Was the War Really About Oil?

Brian Micklethwait, whom I respect greatly, has a speculative post about declining support for the war. In a casual conversation with siblings, they came up with this hypothesis:

But what if the dime has now finally dropped that actually this war is NOT all about oil?

Could that be what Middle America is getting nervous about? For as long as they were convinced that it was all about oil, they were content. That is our kind of war. Simple, limited, clear, selfish. All the things you want, and not like Vietnam at all. But now that it is dawning on them that this really is about "democracy" and such like, for that exact reason they are getting fidgety. Will it be worth it? When will it end? Where will it end? etc.

I wholly reject this premise and commented so. Reading the comments reminded me one of my favorite things about Samizdata: the quality of the comments. Many different viewpoints from both sides of the Atlantic, expressed generally with seriousness and respect.

Flip through the comments, they're great.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:13 PM | Comments (3)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

It is a great post even though like you I disagree, but as a hypotheses it is an interesting idea. My take is that people are realizing some pertinent things:

1) It is a long haul to build a democracy and a positive outcome is far from a sure thing.
2) The hurricanes have brought painfully to point that everything costs time, energy, and money and the supplies of all of those are limited. Money spent to rebuild Baghdad is not available to rebuild New Orleans.
3) Actions in Iran and North Korea and our government's discussion of same note that there is still no shortage of brutal tyrants who may possess WMD's and being willing to use them or provide them to those that would.

None of these is an indictment against the war but can lead to misgivings in the ranks. People certainly could have gotten the wrong idea about 1) from statements by our VP or Sec. of Defense and possibly even been convinced that the "domino theory" would take care of 3).

I also agree that the No Blood for Oil slogan has only its catchy chant and ready adaptability to a placard going for it. I would however point out that our foreign policy is tainted by our need for oil, it is not THE issue but factors in to many of the things we do or don't do.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 27, 2005 6:26 PM

But jk thinks:

I think you could've stopped after '1' Silence. The war has lost appeal because it has been longer and more difficult than we imagined.

The terrorism that remains in Iraq (it is NOT an insurgency) has certainly surprised me. You can call me naive but I expected flowers in the street, wasn't surprised by continued acts against the Coalition troops, but am gobsmacked that they are killing so many Muslims.

They see how bad democracy would be for their cause, that makes me want to stick it out.

Posted by: jk at October 28, 2005 11:27 AM

But johngalt thinks:

1) The only "sure things" are death and taxes.
2) Was indemnity insurance available to the citizens of Baghdad to rebuild their city in the event it was damaged during a war to overthrow their tyrannical government? No. But even so, they couldn't be as certain that would happen as could New Orlineans that a hurricane would, one day, hit their city.
3)And letting Iraq continue to at least claim doing the same dissuades these other Axis of Evil members, how?

The "domino theory" is having its effect. Notice that the enemies of freedom and capitalism are becoming more and more direct in their rhetoric. They had been pursuing their "diplomatic option" too, and it was a miserable failure. Democracy in "the land of three rivers" was the last straw for them. Their cause is entering its death throes.

Posted by: johngalt at October 28, 2005 3:15 PM

October 15, 2005

Freedom on the March!

Looks like high turnout and lower-than-expected violence in Iraq in this WONDERFUL day. October 15, 2005.

Sooni has pictures:

Posted by John Kranz at 5:18 PM

September 27, 2005

Anti-War

When the heroes of the War are enumerated, Christopher Hitchens should be right there in that number. His constant, principled, and eloquent support of the quest for true liberalism against liberals has been stellar.

Andrew Sullivan started out in his league (and his camp) but got too distracted by domestic issues and then lost his gumption when things went poorly.

Hitchens's support has been resolute and indefatigable. I TiVoed his debate with George Galloway on C-SPAN. While I have lost my taste for that fiery, confrontational debate , I have to admit that those two were pretty good.

I was reading "Blood, Class and Empire" in the UK, and one of my associates' wives, a London attorney solicitor, said over the dinner table, in perfect British-chattering-classes pitch: "What's Happened To Christopher Hitchens?" I almost said "9-11" but thought better of it. I replied "Mr. Hitchens has seemed to find that some people on this planet are more evil that the US and UK government." Pretty lame, but I kept my job...

In Slate today, Hitch gives us Anti-War, My Foot - The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington. He knows who's who and where the bodies are buried:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

The media treatment of the antiwar rallies make their Katrina coverage look good.

Hat-tip: Protien Wisdom, who links this to other media failures in covering these rallies. This is becoming one of my favorite blogs, and will be on the blogroll later today.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:32 PM

August 29, 2005

Mrs. Sheehan

Judging from some recent comments, I am suddenly not very popular around here. I was going to reply in the comments but I wanted to link to a couple of other pieces.

Sugarchuck has consistently called for a hands-off, tolerant approach, based on who she is and what she has already given. I appreciate that. He and Silence would like to see commentators (especially me) lay off.

While I am also tired of vituperative attacks on Mrs. Sheehan by the right, I am NOT going to concede ground to her because I am not comfortable asserting my beliefs against one who has "laid such a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."

Byron York details that she is the public face of one Lisa Fithian.

To anyone familiar with the world of professional protesting — protests against globalism, capitalism, war, police tactics, and dozens of other causes — the presence of Fithian is a sign of how far Cindy Sheehan has strayed from the roots of her "one mom" crusade against George W. Bush. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is a sign that the "one mom" crusade was never just one mom. Fithian is a legendary organizer who operates in the world of anti-globalism anarchists, antiwar protesters, and union activists; an advocate of aggressive "direct action" demonstrations, she protested the first Gulf war, played an important role in the violent shutdown of Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting, was a key planner in protests at the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 2000 and 2004, and organized demonstrations at trade meetings in Washington, D.C., Prague, and Genoa.

I can sit still when she lines up with Michael Moore, or Al Sharpton, but this alliance has me concerned. Dang them for putting a sympathetic face on lunacy. But I am not going to let them offer lies and denigrate the mission, because of her.

Silence doesn't seem very chipper either. As to his first point, that's the idea: comedy writers are penning better White House communications than does "White House Communications."

As for the "No WMD's" comment, I offer two rebuttals. The first comes from that crazy, right-wing, in the pocket of the Bush Administration magazine, The New Yorker. Nicholas Lemann wrote in February 2003:

Has a war ever been as elaborately justified in advance as the coming war with Iraq? Because this war is not being undertaken in direct response to a single shattering event (it's been nearly a year and a half since the September 11th attacks), and because the possibility of military action against Saddam Hussein has been Washington's main preoccupation for the better part of a year, the case for war has grown so large and variegated that its very multiplicity has become a part of the case against it. In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular.

My second defense is a plea to recall discussions we had over lunch. You thought that the Neo-Wilsonianism was a ruse and said that if you believed that they were serious about propagating democracy then you'd be on board. (This is all from memory, if I have it wrong tell me and I will retract everything I said.)

As for the Vietnam comparison, I don't see where that happened in this post but I am very interested in that. The assertion that "they didn't want is there" was constantly cited by the antiwar crowd, but my experience with South Viet Namese as completely orthogonal to that.

I have met a few families that came over after, and they really resent the inference that "the simple little rice farmer doesn't care if he lives under democracy or Communism." That is patronizing to the highest degree.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:51 PM | Comments (2)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

I'm still pretty chipper, really! I was not actually lumping you in with the "conservative commentators" but referring more to the endless stream on TV and in print. (Nicely balanced in idiocy by liberal commentators in the same media I freely admit.) I think you gave Mrs. Sheenan a very fair shake. I also completely agree on the circus of leaders, activists, and protestors who are just there for the publicity. As for the media circus itself, putting aside the cynical slow news cycle theory, (not discounting it, just putting it aside for a moment) I wonder if Joe Klein isn't on to something with his theory that what is captured here is sort of a national mooring for all who have fallen. As many soldiers have stated, there is a disconnect between those fighting this war and the general public here at home that seems to be living through a time of peace. For political reasons we have not been shown returning caskets or military funerals in the idea that this will help us persevere. Perhaps we are seeing a bit of the opposite, a public that not being able to comprehend the sacrifice is not fully engaged in the cause.

You are also correct in your memory of my comments regarding propagation of democracy. I am on board for that, but if we are serious I would think we could come up with a better overall plan. We are really just hoping that this experiment in Iraq goes well enough that it crosses borders in the region. We cannot topple every brutal regime and toppling one and expecting the rest to fall like dominoes is hopelessly optimistic.

The Vietnam comparison was in another post and has been tossed about pretty loosely by the liberal side. I too know people who came over after. The rice farmer very much did care about which form of government he lived under, that was precisely the lure of communism, the power to the people toppling the corruption of above. That is also why I called it the "promise of communism" and not communism itself, as the reality was much different than the promise.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 29, 2005 6:01 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Exactly right, Silence. It's not just a coincidence that communism and corruption start with the same letter - they are blood-brothers.

And just exactly why does Cindy Sheehan deserve any more than a week of patient understanding from those whose values and motives and life-threatening efforts she denigrates? Because her son was one of those who made that effort? When he insisted upon re-enlisting, knowing full well that he'd be bound for Iraq, he told us what he thought of what his mother and her handlers are doing now, in his name. If he were able now to "punch someone out" you can bet it wouldn't be the guy who called him a "merchant of mercy who export[s] freedom and import[s] honor." But it might well be the person who said this when asked how Casey's three siblings were coping with his death and the role his mother has assumed as a critic:

"Carly the oldest has coped by throwing herself into school. Andy is coping by becoming Casey. Janey is coping by drinking and partying.

Unfortunately, I am not able to help them that much because of my pain, and because I feel so compelled to fight the injustice and bring the troops home.

I know they believe that what I am doing is right, but they wish we weren't in the situation, as do I."

That person is Casey's mom, Cindy Sheehan. http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/117
Cindy is "not able to help them" [her other three children] because of her "pain" and, oh by the way, that she "feels so compelled to fight the injustice and bring the troops home." Well, by God, it might just be too bad if Casey's little sister becomes an alcoholic, or worse, but at least mommy "fought injustice!"

Is this the first time in recorded history that a son has disagreed with his mother? If not, then why would anyone assume that Cindy speaks for Casey?

Posted by: johngalt at August 30, 2005 2:59 PM

August 28, 2005

Among Heroes

Caelestis at The Makaha Surf Report (Forward Deployed) pens a stirring piece called In the company of heroes. It is hard to pick an excerpt -- I'll go with the close:

I have spent nearly a year in Iraq in my three tours here, and my spirits are always buoyed by watching my countrymen and potential countrymen at work and at play. They go out everyday and face mortal peril, they go out and have to confront the evil of our time, they go out and see friends killed or maimed for life. They do that and still they smile much more than they scowl, they show love and compassion to the Iraqi people instead of fear and hatred. They still believe in the mission even after nearly 1900 of them have been cut down in the sands of Mesopotamia. Being here with them reinforces my beliefs in humanity and my idealism, with brave and selfless men and women such as these, anything is possible. The fires of human passions are often at their hottest in war, the fires of evil seek to scorch and destroy all that is good, in our men and women I see the fires of righteousness in action. Good done for the sake of good, selflessness for the sake of your brothers and sisters in arms, sacrifice in the name of love, and honor in a battle against those without honor. I truly have been blessed these last 2 and 1/2 years, I have lived in the company of heroes. Heroes of America, heroes to the downtrodden and dispossessed, heroes to the persecuted and brutalized, heroes descended from the peoples of every nation under heaven.

Thanks to all who serve. And Hat-tip to Mudville Gazette.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:56 AM

August 26, 2005

On Constitutions

Hand-wringing over perceived inadequacies in the draft Iraqi constitution do not concern me as much as your average NYTimes columnist.

First, we should smack our heads with wonder every time we read a headline about factional conflict in the Iraqi Parliament. These folks are discussing, arguing, and when they get really grouchy, threatening to boycott or walk out. Not shooting, not bombing. Elected leaders behaving no more childishly than US Congresspeople.

Secondly, this is a draft. There will be many opportunities to amend and repair flaws. The US Constitution did not outlaw chattel slavery and we did okay.

Thirdly, as the WSJ notes, Britain has done pretty well with no written Constitution, the USSR had a great one that was never enforceable, let's keep an eye on reality, not clauses.

Lastly, Michael Barone observes another thing about representative democracy:

They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going to make the same constitutional and policy choices that Americans would. This is of course true of other democracies. Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don't do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn't want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights? They just have different histories and different traditions, and have made different choices.

Some have argued that Iraq is a poor testing ground for democracy in the Middle East because it has multiple sects and ethnic groups—the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But I think the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn't necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent.

Long as they're arguin'...

Posted by John Kranz at 12:57 PM

August 25, 2005

That's Not Funny!

Scrappleface's Leak: Draft of Bush Answer to Cindy Sheehan is not funny. Here's a long excerpt, but you're gonnaa wanna read eevry word of this:

You ask for what noble cause your son died?

In a sense he died so that people like you, who passionately oppose government policies, can freely express that opposition. As you camp in Crawford, you should take off your shoes, for you stand on holy ground. This land was bought with the blood of men like your son.

Now, 25 million Iraqis cry out to enjoy the life you take for granted. Most of them will never use their freedom to denigrate the sacrifice of those who paid for it. But once liberty is enshrined in law, they will be free to do so. And when the Iraqis finally escape their incarceration, hope will spread throughout that enslaved region of the world, eventually making us all safer and more free.

The key is in the lock of the prison door. Bold men risk everything to turn it.

Mrs. Sheehan, everyone dies. But few experience the bittersweet glory of death with a purpose -- death that sets people free and produces ripples of liberty hundreds of years into the future.

Casey Sheehan died that freedom might triumph over bondage, hope over despair, prosperity over misery. He died restoring justice and mercy. He lived and died to help to destroy the last stubborn vestiges of the Dark Ages.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 4:00 PM | Comments (3)

But sugarchuck thinks:

I think Casey Sheehan loved his mother and would have punched this guy out and every other knucklhead critical of her; though I doubt he would have agreed with her politics.

Posted by: sugarchuck at August 25, 2005 6:40 PM

But jk thinks:

I did not find the Scrappleface letter to be harshly critical of Mrs. Sheehan. Not really worth punching anybody for.

I think it states -- brilliantly -- why good folks enlist, reenlist, and tolerate all the harshness of military life. I won't presume to put words in anybody's mouth but I would like to send Ott's letter to every living member of our forces with my signature stating that it represents my beliefs.

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2005 7:24 PM

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Pretty high and mighty rhetoric for a President who didn't feel that freedom and liberty for Iraq was anywhere near strong enough of an argument to go to war against Saddam. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his true purpose all along he was compelled to ride on the coat tails of the battle against terrorism and tout the possibility of WMD's in the hands of a brutal tyrant.

Forget the Vietnam comparisons, there we were fighting against the will of the people, who much as we might not have wanted to admit did actually prefer the promise of communism over corrupt dictatorship. Here we do have the will of the people on our side and will likely have a democracy as an outcome. The comparison that I never see is the comparison of free trade and free information versus sanctions and isolation. Compare Cuba and China, even look at the gains in Ireland as its economy flourishes versus the many British attempts at military style crackdowns. Forget Rep. Tancredo's plan to use nuclear weapons, the real WMD's to defeat brutal dictators and terrorism are free information and free trade. Let the people have a taste of freedom and economic prosperity and they will change their system of government to bring more, often peacefully over time as the old systems rot from within or become marginalized by the power of personal freedom and wealth. The generals and pentagon planners may be convinced that military overthrow is faster and more efficient but they tend to have a rather short view of active combat or tenure of election. We compare Iraq today to Iraq a few years ago, but we never compare Iraqis to Chinese. China's leaders may have lacked Saddam's maniacal tinge, but they were every bit as powerful and could be every bit as brutal in wielding that power. As the argument for the strategy of bringing freedom in Iraq goes, it is a stepping stone to promote freedom throughout the Middle East. As such it should be looked at closely and with a long view lens. If our goal is a free and prosperous Middle East is military intervention or radical revolution the best strategy to achieve that goal?

Mrs. Sheehan is a grieving mother and her words may be rightfully viewed through that filter. She certainly does not speak for all mothers in her position. What I find maddening is the number of hours, words, and pages devoted to analyzing her political positions through microscopic evaluation of her spoken views. She is not a policy maker, planner or elected official of any kind. Send the conservative commentators off to analyze our actual government's plans, policies, and strategies.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 29, 2005 11:59 AM

August 22, 2005

1,000 Bin-Ladens

My antiwar friends believe, as absolute Gospel, that our efforts in Iraq provide a breeding ground for terrorists, and that President Bush is manufacturing terrorists with his aggressive posture.

Yet Michael Barone looks at 'The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent survey of opinion in six Muslim countries and sees progress being made.

Minds are being changed, and in the right direction.

Most importantly, support for terrorism in defense of Islam has "declined dramatically," in the Pew report's words, in Muslim countries, except in Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority) and Turkey, where support has remained a low 14 percent. It has fallen in Indonesia (from 27 percent to 15 percent since 2002), Pakistan (from 41 percent to 25 percent since 2004) and Morocco (from 40 percent to 13 percent since 2004), and among Muslims in Lebanon (from 73 percent to 26 percent since 2002).

Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined. The percentage reporting some confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey, and has fallen sharply in Indonesia.

I have seen this referenced in a few blogs, but I am not expecting coverage anywhere else.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:21 PM | Comments (6)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Hmm, I think support for terrorism and the number of terrorists are two separate things. I suspect that the Pew researchers may not have been conducting their polls in terrorist enclaves, something about living to tell the story... Maybe breeding ground is the wrong term, maybe it is more of a consolidation of terrorists, drawing fanatics from all over the world who are sold on the idea of holy war against the infidels. Does it sway Muslims with no prior fanatical tendencies? I doubt it. Does it provide encouragement, training, and an outlet for would be terrorists? I think it does. The scariest part is the attraction of Europeans and Asians to the cause, folks who can go back home and travel abroad more easily. Is president Bush manufacturing terrorists with his posture? That seems an overstatement, but we could do our job combating terrorism and bringing freedom to Iraq just as well with less angry rhetoric. No need to poke the rabid dog with a stick.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 24, 2005 7:27 PM

But jk thinks:

Valid points. Likewise, a little multiplication takes the bloom off this rose, 14% of billions of folks supporting terrorism is a lot.

Certainly the poll results are very suspect because they lack infrastructure for polling and tyrannical governments are not conducive to candor.

Yet I find the results STARTLING. And I suspect that most of my anti-war friends (few of whom are as rational as you) would be certain that terrorism against the US would be held in much higher esteem after the Iraq war.

I am going to throw your analogy back at you, though: do you just let a rabid dog be because it is difficult to deal with?

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2005 11:05 AM

But Silence Dogood thinks:

No, you shoot it, but no need to poke it with a stick while you wait for a clean shot. The tough guy bluster may win points in some political circles but it also tends to be good fodder for the extremists recruiting for the other side.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 25, 2005 1:23 PM

But jk thinks:

Let's leave that poor ol' dawg alone for a bit...

I see the Pew numbers as contradicting your concern. I think that the appeasement and soft response to terror by Carter, Reagan and Clinton were much better for recruitment and operations.

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2005 2:04 PM

But dagny thinks:

Sorry, I have to beat the dead horse errr dog a little more.

Shooting a rabid dog is clearly the best way to deal with it.

Unfortunately, the world is currently refusing to shoot the rabid dog of terrorism since a few innocent fleas might get killed in the process.

Posted by: dagny at August 25, 2005 5:01 PM

But jk thinks:

The French Prime Minister wants to give sanctions a few more weeks. If they fail, he has assured our diplomats he will support other measures against the animal...

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2005 5:13 PM

August 20, 2005

Why They Hate Us

I suggested last week that Silence Dogood be ThreeSources's Fashion Editor. Publius brings us the latest swimsuits from Saudi Arabia, plus a link to an amusing mock interview with the Saudi Minister of Tourusm.

I guess it's okay that her knuckles are exposed, because men and women cannot swim together anyway!

Posted by John Kranz at 2:00 PM | Comments (5)

But AlexC thinks:

Great graphic, I'm going to post it on my pstupidonymous as well.

Did you see the one picture of the girl showing her knees and her neck! *very* provocative!

Posted by: AlexC at August 20, 2005 3:23 PM

But johngalt thinks:

And dangerous too, at least to "law and order," Sharia style. What chance does the promise of 72 virgins 'in the bush' stand to one smooth skinned young lass in the hand? Before they know it young muslim males will start questioning the authority of Allah, or at least of the neighborhood mullah.

Great work JK.

Posted by: johngalt at August 20, 2005 7:10 PM

But jk thinks:

I'm thinking this could be the first annual ThreeSources "Swimsuit Issue." We'll do this every August to drive up readership...

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2005 3:25 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Why just August? I vote for babes whenever news warrants!
I think those powerline guys flog the Miss Universe contest quite a bit.

Posted by: AlexC at August 21, 2005 5:48 PM

But jk thinks:

Good point -- why wait for news? Ian at Bannan Oil used to post one every day...

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2005 1:39 PM

August 11, 2005

Mrs. Sheehan

Like the 9/11 families, it is unsurprising that some people would use the death of a loved one to acquire a forum for their political views. The only moderately unusual thing is the antiwar bias of the MSM who glorify this woman.

I think the moms who supported their sons' and daughters' service would love an opportunity to speak out against the people and associations which defame their noble missions. But I doubt if there is much opportunity to be heard.

I did like this commenter to The Anchoress

Slightly OT and probably uncharitable but here it is anyway: a year or so ago I wrote to my Marine son (then in Iraq) and told him not to get killed because there were certain among his relatives whom I would not put it past to use the coffin as a soapbox for an anti-Bush rant. His reply was, “Don’t worry. If anyone tries that, I will sit up in the casket and fargin’ STRANGLE them.'’ I wonder how many servicemen would say the same.

Semper Fi! And thanks to all who serve.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:05 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

JK, you are reading my mind today with your posts. But I had another angle to this "Gold Star" mom who apparently can't get along with her husband any more than she can with the president.

How long do you suppose it will be before Mrs. Sheehan makes a pilgrimage to Sadr City to "grieve at the site of her son's senseless death, precipitated by nothing more than Bush's decision to conduct an illegal war?" Not long after that you can expect to see video of the "reluctant" activist with a terrorist's turban on her head, sitting on top of a suicide bomber or some other such terrorist "weapon system." We'll be calling her 'Sadr Cindy.'

Too bad she's not at least good looking like Jane Fonda used to be.

Posted by: johngalt at August 11, 2005 2:51 PM

But AlexC thinks:

I've got a post on pstupidonymous (http://pstupidonymous.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan.html) about this.
It's flared up between me and some other philly bloggers, otherwise I'd post it here.

Posted by: AlexC at August 11, 2005 10:40 PM

July 21, 2005

Standing With Britain

Posted by John Kranz at 10:17 AM

July 20, 2005

Filthy American Imperialists!

Jim Hake emails "Project Friendship a success!"

Dear friends and donors,

What a day was had! Clouds, sun, rain and outrageous humidity, but together with the Public Affairs Marines at Camp LeJeune, Marine families, the local community and the MCCS, Spirit of America completed the packing of thousands of school supplies and hygiene kits heading to Iraq. More than 75 volunteers worked side by side to prepare for the shipment of goods Spirit of America had donated for the II MEF Marines deployed to Iraq. The items will be given to Iraqis as gifts of friendship from the American people. The goal is to help the Iraqi people and to build better relations between Americans and Iraqis.

More photos, info, and a chance to help at the Spirit of America site.

Thanks to all who serve!

Posted by John Kranz at 7:30 PM

July 12, 2005

Cool T-Shirt

Donating to Britain seems odd ("coals to Newcastle?") but many folks would like to help. Here's a couple of ideas:

Some cool T-Shirts with proud London captions. ($2 less PayPal goes to the Red Cross)

Buy a copper a pint!<

A UK blogger will take any PayPal tipjar contributions to his site and buy beer for Police, and emergency personnel.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:27 PM

July 10, 2005

Iraqi Terrorism Links

The President was vilified by the left for daring to mention Iraq and terrorism in his speech last week. As Ron Reagan, Jr., tried to tell Christopher Hitchens, the 9-11 Commission report is felt by many to exculpate Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime.

I recall the Commission's being a very politicized body, and that they eschewed bold pronouncements to assure a unanimous approval of the report.

The transformation from "we couldn't find any links" to "there cannot possibly ever be any links” seems tenuous at best.

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Stephen Hayes has been a lonely voice; while everybody was parroting the NYTimes's interpretation of the 9-11 Commission report, Hayes found and reported a book full of connections. In this week's Weekly Standard, he reprises them in The Mother of All Connections. And adds new data:

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002

There are many examples in this fine piece. Those who deny any possibility are like the people who refused to look into Galileo's telescope -- ignore heterodoxy at all costs!

I'm currently reading Karl Popper, and he is pointing out to imbeciles like me that a theory cannot be proven true, it can only be proven false. I think some on the left could use some Popperian logic (in many respects!)

Posted by John Kranz at 3:24 PM | Comments (2)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

The link between Saddam and al Qaida is that an Iraqi infantryman joined the terrorist group? Does this logic make Bush responsible for John Walker Lindh?

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 13, 2005 6:53 PM

But jk thinks:

Hayes details considerably more than that. Read the whole piece. Also check out Claudia Rosett in today's OpinionJournal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

"Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn raise, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They detail a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers. They recount the intersection of Iraqi and al Qaeda business interests in Sudan, via, among other things, an Oil for Food contract negotiated by Saddam's regime with the al-Shifa facility that President Clinton targeted for a missile attack following the African embassy bombings because of its apparent connection to al Qaeda. And there is plenty more."

Posted by: jk at July 13, 2005 10:13 PM

July 8, 2005

All Britons still, II

A guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal asks:

LONDON -- Will they never learn? Anyone who thinks that the bombing of London might bring about any kind of favorable political result whatever betrays a fantastic historical ignorance of the true nature of Britain's capital city. No one, absolutely no one, whom I have spoken to since yesterday morning's attacks has expressed anything other than what one of them called "disgusted resignation" at the way our city has been violated yet again.

"London Pride" is invoked. The Noel Coward lyric "Every Blitz your resistance toughening/ From the Ritz to the Anchor and Crown/ Nothing ever could override the pride of London town." As is the story of an elderly woman who says "It's ridiculous not being able to take trains home. If we didn't kowtow to Hitler, why should we to this lot?"

Rule Britannia!

UPDATE: Thanks to Publius for the illustration. I post it with pride.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM

All Britons still

The Spectator's editorial today confirms that -- George Galloway aside -- Britain will show the firm resolve of Churchill's heirs and will not choose the false security of Spain.

Which is to say that we in London, Paris, New York and the rest of the civilised West face a terrorist threat which cannot be said wholly to have been provoked by Iraq. These are people whose hatred of what they see as Western values is seemingly ineradicable. It is impossible to negotiate with them. Their grievance is not just with the war in Iraq or with the treatment of Palestinians by Israel but with the whole system of Western values that they find troubling and disturbing, not least the emancipation of women.

That's the enemy we face and the situation we face is victory. The piece contains an interesting fact: "...more British people died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre than in yesterday's brutal outrages..."

Nobody wants to lessen the barbarism or tragedy of the attacks, but it was pointed out on FOXNews yesterday that each attack has lost an order of magnitude in the death toll. These people are still totalitarian assholes -- but they are not winning.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:31 AM

July 7, 2005

We Are All Britons Today....

Captain Ed @ Captain's Quarters speaks for many this morning...

On July 7, 2005, let it be known that the world united behind our British brothers and sisters as fellow members of Western Civilization under attack by the forces of tyranny and oppression. We stand with our friends who have suffered a terrible act of war on their civilian population, a cowardly and shameful act that amply demonstrates the depths of depravity of the enemies of freedom and liberty.

We are all Britons today.

John Hawkins picks up the reaction from the idiot brigade.

Posted by AlexC at 11:00 AM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

Indeed we are!

Posted by: jk at July 7, 2005 11:26 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Indeed. Now it remains to be seen whether Britons are still Britons, or if they decide to become Spaniards instead. Personally, I expect the upper lip to stiffen.

Posted by: johngalt at July 7, 2005 3:27 PM

June 30, 2005

Iraq: Just Like that other War...

No, not Vietnam -- the real parallel seems to me to be the Civil War. I am no history scholar, and the "War Between The States" is not my forte.

All the same, I was watching General Wesley Clark's commentary (rebutting) the President's speech the other night. And I thought "My God! It's the reincarnation of General McClellan!" He'll run in '08 as the anti-war candidate against what will be a pretty complete victory.

My pals at the WSJ Ed Page run with this meme. The real parallel is not strategic or military, but the behavior of the opposition.

Wanted: A Constructive Opposition

Scanning the commentary after President Bush's Fort Bragg speech on Iraq, our eyes were caught by a headline in The New York Times: "Wanted: A Policy." True, the advice was dated 1861, not 2005, and the President at whom it was directed wasn't George W. Bush, but Abraham Lincoln. But you get the idea; plus ça change.

They take a few whacks at Gen. Clark, Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Reid -- but then they really pile on Senator Joe Biden:

Then there is Delaware Senator Joe Biden, whose thoughts on the subject are particularly worth attending to because he is the Democratic Party's lead spokesman on the issue. Consider his track record to date:
• In April 2004, Mr. Biden predicted there would be "absolute chaos" in Iraq following the handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government of Ayad Allawi. "Who's going to be the referee when [U.S. Ambassador Paul] Bremer leaves?" he demanded to know on CBS's Early Show. But Mr. Allawi helped smooth the transition to the current representative government, and he has taken his place as a leader of the opposition.

• In December 2004, Mr. Biden said prospects for a successful election in Iraq were "receding rapidly" because of Administration mismanagement; a month later, he predicted the election was "going to be ugly." But the January 30 elections were peaceful and inspiring.

• Earlier this month, Mr. Biden called the de-Baathification of the Iraqi army one of the "major mistakes" of U.S. policy, and called for Iraqis to rehire some of Saddam Hussein's old colonels. But it was precisely the April 2004 effort to re-enlist Baathist officers in the so-called Fallujah Brigade that was among the Administration's greatest mistakes so far in Iraq.

The Senator's latest ideas are to accept an Egyptian offer to train Iraqi police and to get NATO to deploy some troops to police the border with Syria. On the former, we weren't previously aware that the Cairo constabulary was a paragon of efficiency and probity, which is perhaps why the Iraqi government has discreetly turned away the offer. On the latter, has he talked to the French? They've barely allowed NATO forces to help in Afghanistan, much less be deployed in numbers in Iraq.

We stress Mr. Biden's views because he strikes us as one Democrat who understands the stakes in Iraq and seems genuinely interested in a good outcome. The thinness of even his policy alternatives suggests that Democrats really don't have any better ideas than the two-pronged Bush strategy of 1) supporting a new, inclusive democratic Iraqi government and 2) training and deploying Iraqi security forces as rapidly as possible.

I'm willing to admit that it might be good politics. They cannot compete on a serious policy vis-à-vis the War on Terror, they can capture and inculcate the anti-war crowd, and hope anti-war fever catches on.

Decent politics -- but it didn't work too well for McClellan...

Posted by John Kranz at 12:02 PM

June 22, 2005

Gitmo vs. Hanoi Hilton

A great reader letter in Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus today:

Jay,
My husband was a POW in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. He is beside himself over this Gitmo stuff. “Honey glazed chicken!” he says. “What about moldy bread with rat turds in it?” And “what about nothing but pumpkin for 45 days?” And “what about getting beri-beri from eating nothing but white rice for months?”

“They complain that the air conditioning was turned up?” he says. They made him live in a box outdoors for months, under the summer sun.

“They are put in uncomfortable positions?” he says. He had to sit on a stool for months, in one position.

And so forth.

He is writing a column on this, but he is recovering from surgery so he is slow writing it. The surgery is his second hip replacement; his hip was eaten up by the beri-beri.

Yet nobody’s asked any of the POWs what they think of the Gitmo thing.

Follow the link for more amazing speechifying from our Secretary of Statue.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:03 PM

Rice 2008

"The Egyptian Government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people--and to the entire world--by giving its citizens the freedom to choose. Egypt's elections, including the Parliamentary elections, must meet objective standards that define every free election."--Condoleezza Rice, speaking Monday at the American University, Cairo

Ever since President Bush settled on a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East, he has been repeatedly lambasted for his alleged hypocrisy: Why advocate democracy for Iraq and Lebanon, say the critics, but not for autocratic U.S. allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia? In this telling, "democracy" is said to be just an alibi for the pursuit of narrow U.S. interests, especially a steady supply of oil.

Well, so much for that view. On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Cairo and then Riyadh and, in soft tones, delivered a stark message: America would no longer pursue "stability at the expense of democracy." The U.S. will now notice when peaceful Egyptian protestors are brutalized by government security goons, or when Saudi citizens are imprisoned for "peacefully petitioning the government"; and the future of both countries as American allies rests on the seriousness of their commitment to democratic reform.

I will think about sending this to my friend who sends me all the MoveOn.org conspiracies and anti-Bush editorials. We'll see.

But today's WSJ shakes my endorsement theory quite a bit. First, the first page reminds that Senators McCain and Chafee have opposed eliminating the "death tax" (The deficit, you know) and the Ed Page leads with Secretary Rice's barnstorming the MidEast as the Sharansky disciple she is. And she would never, ever, ever find herself paired with a Lincioln Chafee in a news story.

Rice 2008. If there's no chance of drafting her, McCain.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:02 AM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

Between Campaign Finance "Reform", the Keating affair, and the fact that the media love him, the Senator leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I like Rice, if she doesn't run, Romney looks interesting. K-Lo @ NRO is pushing him of late.

But it's waaaaay too early to hazard a guess anyway.

Posted by: AlexC at June 22, 2005 10:24 PM

June 21, 2005

Adopt a Blog

This is cool and I hope it works.

ThreeSources will happily host a Chinese blog to help a blogger circumvent government blocking.

WikiHome

Posted by John Kranz at 1:10 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Excellent! I can't wait to add the byline to our header, "Officially banned in the People's Republic of China!"

I can't wait to comment on the Chinese posts. Sure hope they're in English!

Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2005 3:05 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Let's aspire to be banned by Cuba, North Korea and Iran as well!

Posted by: AlexC at June 21, 2005 5:28 PM

Still Pro War

I want to reaffirm my support, not only of the troops but of their mission.

Senator Durbin's comments, focus on Gitmo, poll numbers, &c. have obscured the goals and achievements of the War on Terror.

I have mentioned my friend’s emails before. I respond infrequently because I think that she does not enjoy my responses, but I respond occasionally because -- well -- I can't stop.

Today she sends an EJ Dionne column with a preface about how she has always suspected a global conspiracy. She cites the Dionne column and a Bill Moyers interview on CNN as substantiation.

Here is my response. I was happy to affirm my support:

I should be nice and let a few more go by, but I MUST comment on today’s email

I read every word you send, by the way. I worry that you are less exposed to alternate views. Today’s email quotes E.J. Dionne and Bill Moyers, whom I consider to be two of the most far left and anti-administration people in Journalism today. Yes, Thomas Friedman supported the war, but I would not say that he supported the administration. Friedman is a moderate liberal, not a right winger.

I’m sure the war could have been prosecuted better and I wish Iraq were more stable today. But I clearly believe there is far more hope for an Iraqi today than when Saddam Hussein was filling mass graves and throwing people into recycling shredders. The elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine-Authority, and Lebanon – plus the growing movements in Egypt are all direct benefits of the Coalition’s muscular approach to terrorism.

The US will likely never be “safe” as our open society exposes vulnerabilities. But I certainly feel that we are safer with Saddam out of power and many al-Qaeda leaders captured or killed.

We’ve paid a high price, and I flatly reject that those who have died have done so to enrich the wealthy. They did it for their country and to make the world better – and I believe that they did.

I hate to end on a side note but rich folks enjoy stability: make deals with Saddam, make deals with the Saudis, keep the money rolling in. Inviting instability is a bold move that was not done for profit, it was done for freedom. History will judge its efficacy but I am confident judging its intentions today.

With love and respect,

Your friend.
jk

More eloquent and important than me, Col. Repya write the Minneapolis StarTrib today, hat-tip Power Line

I was so upset when I read the Star Tribune's Editorial today that I sent off this letter below to the editor from my duty desk in Baghdad, Iraq. The voices of millions killed by Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot are rising from their mass graves and demanding an apology. Durbin is wrong and the Star Tribune is wrong even more. Clearly they are not on our side! Soldiers over here keep asking me why America has forgotten 9-11. I keep telling them that the liberal media won't let the American people see the images of the murdered and tortured Iraqis we find every day over here. Please keep up the fight back home and I promise the American military will win the war over here!

Thanks you for your service. Colonel!

Posted by John Kranz at 12:45 PM

June 15, 2005

Geneva Convention

As I (and my pals at WSJ Ed Page) see it, if the terrorists staying at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility want to be treated under the Geneva Convention, we can shoot every one of them. Then, the queasy among us can get their wish of "shutting down Gitmo."

WSJ.com - The Red Cross and Congress

The International Committee of the Red Cross gets special access to prisons around the world as the neutral observer body designated by the Geneva Conventions. But for more than three years now the ICRC has abused that position of trust to wage an unprecedented propaganda war against the United States.

Leaked ICRC reports have described conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "tantamount to torture" because indefinite detention is stressful. And just last month the ICRC's Washington office broke its confidentiality agreement with the U.S. government to fan the flames created by Newsweek's false Quran-abuse story.

Fortunately, Capitol Hill is starting to notice. A study released Monday by the Senate Republican Policy Committee says the ICRC has "lost its way," and suggests annual reviews be conducted by the State, Defense, and Justice Departments to certify that the organization truly adheres to its stated principles of "neutrality, impartiality and humanity."

In particular, the study raps the ICRC for its efforts to "afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as [uniformed] military personnel" by misleadingly pretending that a radical document called Protocol 1 is settled international law. This causes the ICRC to "inaccurately and unfairly accuse the U.S. of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions."

U.S. taxpayers are the largest contributors to the ICRC's budget ($233 million, or 26%, in 2003). They have a right to expect an honest interpretation of the Geneva Conventions for that money, not more leaked reports that will be spun to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda.

These people are treated better than they deserve because of US benevolence, I think the administration needs to assert this.

Posted by John Kranz at 9:25 AM

June 6, 2005

D-Day

61 Years Ago.

"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

Thank you for your service, and your sacrifice.

Posted by AlexC at 12:00 AM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Amen!

Posted by: jk at June 6, 2005 10:46 AM

June 5, 2005

The Face of Freedom

Has George Bush become the face of freedom for the oppressed?

Tensions have been steadily building in the oil-rich Caspian Sea nation in the run-up to parliamentary elections set for November, leading some observers to predict that Azerbaijan could see a massive uprising similar to those that toppled unpopular regimes in three other ex-Soviet nations - Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan - over the past 18 months.

Supporters of several opposition parties marched in Baku on Saturday, chanting "Freedom!" and "Free Elections!" They held placards with slogans like "Down with robber government!" and carried pictures of U.S. President George W. Bush with the words: "We want freedom!"

Besides writing "freedom" on a poster, freedom is a difficult concept to illustrate during a march. But the message of his picture is clear. George Bush brings freedom.

And they want it.

One small worry though.
I haven't seen any protest babe pictures yet...
It's not a freedom protest if there aren't good looking women.
Where are they?

Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM

June 4, 2005

Dear Amnesty International

...and everybody else who is so concerned that the US is evil. I'm very sorry that somebody’s Koran may have contacted urine. I'm sorry about Abu Ghraib. But I ask you to read Our only luggage was hope' in the Miami Herald.

It was written by Sergio Perodín Jr., a young man who was graduated from high school in America today, after two attempts to escape Cuba to come here, losing his mother and brother in one of them.

As a child I had an experience that taught me the price that individuals are willing to pay for freedom.

I was only 7 years old and living in communist Cuba. My parents yearned for freedom and dreamt of coming to America. They secretly planned to escape, along with 72 others who shared their dream. We embarked on a wooden tugboat. Our only luggage was hope, but in that attempt, 41 lives were lost. Among them, my mother and brother. My father refused to give up hope, and a short time later, we risked our lives in a second attempt, but on this occasion, aboard a raft.

It began on the fateful day of July 13, 1994, as we embarked on the 13 de Marzo tugboat at about 2 a.m. About 13 miles off the coast of Cuba, we were suddenly attacked by three Cuban tugboats. They rammed us. Pressure hoses, normally used to put out fires at sea, were used against us. Their impact was so powerful that children were swept to sea from their parents' protective embrace.

Those on the tugboats shouted insults over loudspeakers. In a frenzy, they crashed into the ship, damaging the hull, which caused the tugboat to take in water rapidly. Within minutes, the ship sank. People were screaming and begging to be rescued, but those on the tugboats showed no pity. They circled us and made whirlpools in the water, causing men, women and children to be lost forever in a black sea of despair.
[..]
A month later, my dad was released from prison, and we were more determined than ever to attempt our search for liberty once more. It took about two weeks to build a raft. One night we embarked on the raft along with seven others and began navigating the seas with wooden paddles. We paddled for a whole day and suddenly we got caught in a storm. We tied ourselves to the raft with ropes and fell asleep from exhaustion. When we woke up, we noticed that we were being taken back to the coast of Cuba by the rough currents of the storm.

At that instant, it seemed as if all our hopes had been lost, but again with all the strength within us, we continued paddling assured that freedom awaited us. We were rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard and eventually taken to the Guantánamo Naval Base in Cuba.
[..]
I will be graduating from high school today. Another dream has been achieved. To this day, I remember that awful tragedy and I still struggle with the memories. But I know I have another dream to accomplish for myself and the memory of my mother and brother. I will go to college. I will do it in the land where everything is possible -- in the land where I found something so valuable that people are willing to risk their lives to obtain it.

It is called freedom.

I provided the long excerpt because the registration process is onerous (but you can get Dave Barry emailed to you as a reward).

Hat-tip: Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus

Posted by John Kranz at 1:04 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Freedom isn't free, except in America where, as a result, it is regarded as less important than the "right" to food, shelter, and health care.

Posted by: johngalt at June 6, 2005 2:38 PM

Intellectual Shermanism

Johngalt, for the best reasons, doesn't like my respect for Sherman's march to the sea. But I believe that the costs of war demand that you settle for nothing less than total victory.

Sherman effectively squelched a CSA rebel insurgency. VDH pondered whether Shermanesque brutality was needed to stop fighting in Iraq and PLA-controlled Palestine. Like many martial thoughts of Perfesser Hansen, I have held this thought for some time.

Now, Perry de Havilland at Samizdata calls for less magnanimity. In "Shine the spotlight, name the names," Havilland says we let those who were wrong about the cold war off too easily -- and that they came back as to be wrong again in the war on terror.

Now as I have said before on this blog, there are many people who opposed the war in Iraq for reasons that are clearly held in good conscience, fearing the cost to liberty in the West of such entanglements and I think it is important to differentiate between those people and others who oppose military action by the USA and UK for quite different reasons. Folks like Robert Fisk or John Pilger or Noam Chomsky are not neutral or 'pro-peace', they are actually on the other side because to them it is better to stand with people which makes women chattels, slaughters civilians intentionally, stones homosexuals to death and hangs females rape victims as well as the rapist, by simple virtue that anyone who is opposed to the liberal capitalist world is preferable to the United States. If the USA can be wounded, making the world safe for burquas and clitoridectomy is a small price to pay.

Well good bless the internet. By their own words they will be revealed. This is something that need to be an ongoing process, taking articles and 'inviting' the authors to confront their words and ask what they think now. Do not make the mistake of the 1990's and be magnanimous in victory. No, before forgiveness must come repentance. If the other side wants to be treated kindly then let them put their hands up in surrender and admit they were wrong. Until then it is time to follow the example of Hussein Shirazi and put the boot in. Hard.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 12:01 PM | Comments (1)

But AlexC thinks:

One of the best way (so I hear) to housebreak your dog is to rub their face in it.

Maybe the left needs this.

Posted by: AlexC at June 4, 2005 2:03 PM

May 29, 2005

Remembering

Memorial Day weekend isn't about the start of summer and barbeques.
It's remembering those that have sacrificed in war for our country.

The Library of Congress has undertaken a project to get the stories of veterans and record them digitally.

Audio, video and text versions of their memories are being recorded for the future.

Experiencing War

Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

Mourn the dead, honor the heroes (all who served with honor), and praise NED that the "land of the free" has finally evolved beyond conscription. And so long as America's wars are waged exclusively in America's rational interests there will be no shortage of volunteer soldiers.

Posted by: johngalt at May 30, 2005 4:46 PM

May 23, 2005

Auf Wiedersehen

Herr Scroeder is in a little trouble in German Politics.

Larry Kudlow points out an interetsing trend:

It's also interesting to note that Bush, Howard, and Blair -- all pro-war heads of state -- won re-election. With this defeat, Schroeder's hopes are dimming. Chirac is in trouble too. Maybe the war isn't as unpopular internationally as the press would have us believe. Could it be that, even in the heart of Old Europe, pro-war capitalism trumps anti-war socialism?

Posted by John Kranz at 1:33 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Anti-war socialism never reigned over pro-war capitalism, even in "Old Europe." The former is always, simply, LOUDER than the latter.

I found it delicious that this story was also carried in the PRC's "ZINHUA online" news service - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-05/24/content_2993084.htm - including this quote: "The best thing for the economy is a change in government," said Rainer Guntermann, senior economist of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.

Hopefully the Chinese are paying attention.

I also noticed, on XINHUA's "Opinion" page - http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/opinions.htm - these "Voice of Netizens" comments - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-03/24/content_1382422.htm - on the subject, "Is English skill that important?"

long1: Make a comparison of soft environment between China and India, it's not difficult to see that China is at a disadvantage in that less people speak English. This has become a constraint to China's long-term development. Those in favor of abandoning English learning really have no great vision. They don't set sight on China's future, let alone the future of the world.

txh: It's undisputable that China has a lot to learn from industrialized countries, in fields of science, technology, communication and so on and so forth. Can we do it without mastering the English language?

Leweje: The harsh and hard reality is you would be considered a dummy if you can't speak English, and you would be further downgraded if you can't write English. If you know neither English nor computer? Well, you are a flat-out idiot !

Freedom is on the march, and it's mother tongue is English.

Posted by: johngalt at May 23, 2005 2:49 PM

But jk thinks:

Very good. Maybe someday we'll convince teachers in the United States that it is important.

Posted by: jk at May 23, 2005 5:39 PM

May 19, 2005

Pepsi Boycott?

I don't call for boycotts lightly. There is usually a better way -- BUT, I don't think I'll be buying Pepsi products (I don't consume much).

Have you seen the story of PepsiCo president Indra Nooyi at the Columbia Business School MBA recognition ceremony? She likened the five continents to the five fingers and cautioned the students that the U.S. appeared to "give the finger" to the world. (I wonder that she wasn't making hateful remarks about the great nation of Mexico...)

A soldier writes to PowerBlog with a different interpretation:

I found Ms. Nooyi's graduation comments offensive, not to mention off-base, because the central theme of her speech was that America is, in essence, "flipping off the world."

I am in Iraq, and served previously in Afghanistan. Many Americans have given their lives to liberate those nations from tyranny. In that light, I offer a few examples of "fingers" in those places that might present Ms. Nooyi a more substantive representation of American presence abroad than a trivial story of a rude traveler.

For example, she could ride on a combat patrol here and use her fingers to return the waves that I see on every mission from some of the over eight million Iraqis whose fingers were stained with purple ink following voting in the first democratic elections after decades of tyranny. She might notice her fingers moistened by sweat as she unconsciously gripped her armrest, noticing a tinge of fear from attack by a roadside bomb--the same fear felt by myself and every other American on Iraq’s roads.

In Afghanistan, many children and parents stick their thumbs straight up when Americans pass, demonstrating gratefulness for no longer living under the Taliban. I drove by Kabul University a while back and saw two young girls using their fingers to carry the books that represent the freedom to pursue education now enjoyed by Afghan women.

Now, a question that begs an answer: Does Ms. Nooyi consider that freedom an example of America "giving the world the finger," or "giving the world a hand?"

In the meantime, I will stop consuming Pepsico products and encourage others to do the same. Please remember, it is this country, and the brave men and women who defend it, that provided the free enterprise system that allowed your company to become a global corporate power. I would hope that Pepsi senior executives would show more respect for this great country. Perhaps the troops who enjoy your products would hope so as well.

Stunning. This reminds me a bit of "The Dixie Chicks" contretemps. Nothing illegal, but you should know your market a little better -- I don't think Pepsi wants to be labeled anti-American.

UPDATE: Heh.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:08 PM

May 1, 2005

Fast Food Überzeugungkrieg

Wells Fargo (formerly Strong Funds) analyst and daily update author Peter Nulty wrote, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of McDonald's restaurants, that the advent of "copious protien for a pittance" helped end the Cold War. [Full text of emailed essay from 14Apr05 reprinted in "continue reading."]

Nulty's contention was that a capitalist economy could provide better and more plentiful food to consumers than a socialist one, and when the subjects of Soviet socialism experienced this first-hand they demanded change, and economic freedom.

I will dub this the "cheeseburger bomb" and it is the weapon of choice in waging Überzeugungkrieg, or 'persuasion war.' Such a tactic would not have worked in oil-rich totalitarian Iraq, because Saddam was wise enough to keep his citizenry well fed. (Except when it was expedient not to.) DPRK, however, is an excellent target for such a 'weapon.' Unfortunately, the only mechanism for delivery requires voluntary cooperation of the target regime. Don't expect Baby Kim to go along the way the Hungarians did.

*****

Saying good things about McDonald's isn't popular these days, but Friday is the 50th anniversary of the opening of the first McDonald's, and I have some good things to say.

Let's remember (if you are old enough) what the world was like on April 15, 1955. Very few families could afford to eat out more than once or twice a year. My family rarely went to restaurants, and when we did it was considered a major extravagance. When I went to college in the early ‘60s, my parents gave me the equivalent of $2 a week in spending money. But on Sunday evenings, the dining facilities were closed and students had to fend for themselves. So I would go to a local diner with my friends for the cheapest blue-plate special in town: It cost $1.75, and left me with 25 cents to last the rest of the week. Eventually I found a part time job and life got easier, but for a while there I was pretty crimped.

Then, in 1962, a McDonald's opened up on the edge of town, and I could get essentially the same meal – a burger, fries, and a cola – for 35 cents, leaving me enough pocket money to go to a movie and hang out for a few hours at the local student coffee house. For me in those years, McDonald's was a miracle of efficiency and consistency that raised my standard of living.

I wasn't the only one impressed. My wife's cousin, who lived behind the "Iron Curtain" in Hungary, got a three-week visa in 1972 to visit America, and my wife drove him to California and back to see the sights. Even in those early days, my wife was no fan of McDonald's, but her cousin wouldn’t eat anywhere else. Why? He was amazed at American bounty. He had been told that capitalist workers were wallowing in the gutter. Instead he found them chowing down at clean, friendly, brightly-lit McDonald's for a fraction of the price he was used to paying in the Socialist paradise back home. Also, he thought the food tasted good. So the socialist and the capitalist ate at McDonald's all the way to California and back, and even today he says that the most surprising thing about his first view of America was McDonald's.

Soon after the cousin returned to Budapest, his father, who was the vice premier of Hungary at the time, instituted economic reforms that allowed entrepreneurs in Hungary to own their own small businesses. Those reforms energized the Hungarian economy and became the model for Gorbachev's "perestroika" reforms that began to thaw the Soviet Union in the ‘80s. I don't believe it's going overboard to say that the success of companies like McDonald's played a major role in bringing an end to the Cold War.

By providing copious protein for a pittance, McDonald's (and restaurants like it) enriched us all. But it also raised a new problem that we are now struggling with: Many of us consume more food than we need and we have to learn how to rein in our appetites somehow. But I'd rather have today's dilemma than the one we faced in 1955, when only the wealthy had to worry about being overweight. I don't blame McDonald's for making food affordable for me; I blame myself for lack of discipline. But I'm confident we will, um, lick this eventually.

Thank you, Richard and Maurice McDonald. Thank you Ray Kroc. And happy birthday, Mickey Dee's. Oh, yeah: Would you do something about that silly clown, Ronald What's-His-Face? He's really annoying. (Kidding!)

Peter Nulty
Editor

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:39 AM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Great stuff, or as Homer would say "Mmmm, burgers..." Mikhail Gorbachev also was quoted at a Brooklyn McDonalds to say "we could learn something from this."

I will steal this to segue into the jk theory of world politics:

1) Free nations will always be richer (cf. Mises, Hayek)
2) The richer nation will -- long-term -- win a war. We won the cold war economically, and the Union gave every opportunity to the CSA in strategy and tactics, yet the North won the Civil War with industrial output.

By simple syllogism, then, freedom should be continually on the march, taking brief hiatuses only for things like the Carter Presidency.

Schools teach that indigenous Americans lost because they didn't have guns -- like the settlers won the lottery. I contend that they didn't have guns because they didn't create a free enough society to support a Sam Colt.

The start of that free society was certainly when the colonists used specialization and comparative advantage to feed all the people without 97% of them being farmers. The start of the burger revolution!

Posted by: jk at May 2, 2005 12:42 PM

April 28, 2005

EU Constitutional Crisis

As waves of liberty wash over the Middle-East, as they did in "New Europe" after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where else do you suppose their effects are being felt? Why, in "Old Europe" too!

This AP report from two days ago reveals that the socialist citizenry of the socialist state of France, regarded as the principal force behind the EU unification effort, may be getting cold feet.

French polls have shown a steady opposition to the charter. A poll published Friday, indicated 62 percent of voters will reject the constitution in France's May 29 referendum — the highest figure so far.

All 25 European Union members must approve the text for it to take effect. A French rejection could spur "no" votes elsewhere.

Opposition is attributed to the anticipated loss of "French jobs and sovereignty in the EU's giant market." Well, DUH! (On the sovereignty part anyway.)

But what of the poor Germans? They won't even get a vote in the matter: "Germany, the most populous EU member with 82 million people, is submitting the charter to lawmakers for approval and does not plan a referendum." Never fear, after France chooses self-rule, the Germans can always stage a popular "Deutsche Freiheit" revolution.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:14 PM | Comments (4)

But jk thinks:

And Andrew Stuttaford has a piece from the London Times about Holland:

"Europe, for the Dutch, has lost its allure. Few politicians now call for an ever-closer union. Even fewer see in Brussels a model of efficiency, probity or accountability. The Dutch are to vote on the European constitution three days after the French referendum. Disillusioned with EU bureaucracy, resentful that they pay a disproportionately high share of the EU’s rising costs and fearful of losing their national identity, the Dutch may vote decisively against...Above all, the country is reacting to years of stifling liberal consensus. There is a backlash against the assumptions that The Hague should pay generously for other Europeans, take a lead in development aid or make concessions to a club dominated by larger members determined to have their own way. The Dutch want to concentrate on priorities at home. What they dislike is not the idea of a constitution, but the accretion of more power to an unaccountable Brussels. The Netherlands has the chance to speak for Europe. The Dutch should vote “nee” in the referendum."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_04_24_corner-archive.asp#061713

Posted by: jk at April 28, 2005 5:24 PM

But AlexC thinks:

A French "non" vote would have a significant impact on the continent's EU fetish. It might derail the whole experiment.
A question then to ask is, will the Euro currency be affected negatively?
If it is, what's that going to do to the rest of the world? I understand that some markets have moved off of the dollar infavor of the Euro as their currency of choice.

Posted by: AlexC at April 28, 2005 10:23 PM

But jk thinks:

Schadenfreude is a bad thing. I am happy to see the EU constitution fail because I think it is an anti-liberty structure.

Yet to completely unwind the EU Federation, including the common currency, would restrict free movement of goods, labor and capital. I don't want to unwind it, but I don't want to wind it more tightly, unless the constitution were completely restructured.

Posted by: jk at April 29, 2005 1:33 PM

But johngalt thinks:

It is instructive to note that, on the subject of a governing Constitution, the EU is not much more advanced than Iraq, and less so than Afghanistan. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2063.html As the march of freedom leads to more and more new constitutions across the world, they all face the same difficulty. How to empower a government that doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.

The founders of the USA had it right - government power must be EXPRESSLY limited. Meddlesome bureaucrats and politicians must be held in absolute check when it comes to issues of liberty. America's Constitution is the best model for all the rest, but not in its current form. Most of the amendments should be tossed out. And then we have to reform our courts to ignore the relativistic urge to redefine the Constitution by redefining the words with which it is written.

Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2005 3:43 PM

Quagmire Alert

Instapundit linked to this NYTimes Editorial as an example of historical revisionism, which it is.

But I read the same editorial and was glad the good folks at the NYTimes were not around for the creation of our Constitution. Heavens! Months have gone by and they're still not done? The war was obviously a waste!

The Bush administration has, understandably, stopped trying to disguise its frustration and concern. Granted, Iraq's politicians are new to the challenges of parliamentary give-and-take. But if they manage to squander the aura of democratic legitimacy conferred on them by January's election, it will become radically harder to bridge ethnic and religious divides, build a national army and police force, and repair a still shattered infrastructure.

Dear Timesers: Self rule is a messy business. If it is successful in ten years, we should be happy, five ecstatic. Sorry that only Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan have held elections. And that only Lebanon and Egypt are showing direct leaning toward freedom in the mideast. But what can you expect when the President is a moron!

Posted by John Kranz at 10:24 AM

April 12, 2005

Pope John Paul

De Mortuis nil nisi bonum or "do not speak ill of the dead" should probably apply double to a Pope, and to a Pope who helped free much of the world from Communism.

But my thought has been echoed eloquently by Joseph Braude in TNR's Power Failure

It's impossible to know for sure why so many Islamist leaders and Arab heads of state were so generous in their praise of John Paul this week. But here's one theory: They liked him because he didn't hold them to the same standards to which he held Poland's Wojciech Jaruzelski and the USSR's Mikhail Gorbachev. They liked him because whereas he successfully fought for religious freedom, equality, and social justice in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East he did not.

As a political figure, I think it is right to question JPII's stance on the mideast. As Braude ends, it is worth considering the point for a successor:

But in the long run, the Pope's soft stance toward dictators and Islamists hasn't served anyone well--not Christians, not Jews, not Muslims. In Latin America, the Pope spoke clearly for social justice; in Eastern Europe, he spoke clearly for religious freedom; but in the Middle East he allowed himself to be lectured by Bashar Assad about how the Jews killed Christ, and bad-mouthed by some of the very Islamists whom he had welcomed into the Vatican. His successor must be shrewd and demanding in the Middle East--and willing to be loved a little bit less by the region's self-appointed leaders.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:05 AM | Comments (6)

But AlexC thinks:

That's why my money's on Arinze from Nigeria. He's seen Islam at work in his home country.

Posted by: AlexC at April 12, 2005 2:35 AM

But sugarchuck thinks:

I'm not sure this criticism is fair. I didn't see Reagan, Thatcher, Bush I, or Clinton pushing hard for democracy in the Middle East either. The Pope was a product of his times, as Goerge W. is a product of his.
I'm also not sure that the leader of one religion should take on the leaders of another, especially when there is no real seperation of church and State in the Mid East. We might make a political distinciton, as Goerge W. has taken great pains to do, but chances are very good the Muslims wouldn't and the Pope would be seen as starting a religious confrontation. As it stands, his overtures to the Mid East, modest as they may have been, set the stage for a more explicit diaglouge to come, as Nixon's trip to China opened doors that had been closed in his day.

Posted by: sugarchuck at April 12, 2005 10:29 AM