Does Jesse Jackson finally get it?
The (non-suicide) bombing of Hebrew University today came as Jesse Jackson, visiting the West bank, was preparing to visit the spiritual founder of Hamas, which carried out the bombing murders.
Jackson cancelled the visit with the man. During an news interview I saw on TV, Jackson said that Hamas "is not pursuing a two-state solution. They appear to be pursuing an elimination solution."
You knew that. I knew that. Now maybe Jesse Jackson knows it. Finally. Let us hope.
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Was Nazi Germany "Totalitarian?"
Steven Mitterer responds to my posting about why there are no elite Iraqi forces and takes contention with me on one thing:
Steven, thank you for reading and for writing!
I certainly see your point, and when I wrote that posting I pondered whether to mention an exception for Hitler's Germany. But I didn't. I stand by what I wrote. Here's why.
First, I think that a strong case may be made that Nazi Germany was more authoritarian than totalitarian. In totalitarian states, the government (usually a dictator - Iraq - or a small ruling group - the USSR's defense council) has all the power. Hitler made substantial concessions and bargains with the Army to gain its support. In the early days of the war, when Rommel and Guderian made their reputations, the military had substantial, formal autonomy for the conduct of campaigns and operations. Goering, for example, guarded his Luftwaffe authority zealously, and he was also the Reich's number two man, whom even Hitler had a hard time resisting. Additionally, Himmler never subordinated his private army, the SS, to Hitler and cooperated with Hitler mainly when it was convenient for him to do so (tragically being very energetic in the Final Solution).
In fact, one of Hitler's greatest failures as an empire builder was that he designed a Reich in which many government departments were set up more like semi-independent baronies than subordinate ministries. This organizational failure is documented in detail in Ronald Lewin's excellent book, Hitler's Mistakes.
However, after things went sour in the war against Russia, Hitler snapped up direct command of the Army rapidly. In fact, he named himself as simultaneous commander of several different levels of command. Cornelius Ryan documented in his book, The Last Battle, how Hitler’s control of tactical matters became so “iron rigid” at one point that for a field commander to send out a platoon-size patrol had to have Hitler’s approval.
The flexibility, autonomy and creativity you cite disappeared by 1943. Not even Guderian and Rommel could get it back. Rommel could not get panzer divisions released to him to fight the Normandy landings and Guderian wound up sidelined by Hitler’s orders.
So I still say that iron rigidity always characterizes totalitarian states, which Nazi Germany did not start as but did become.
Steven Mitterer responds to my posting about why there are no elite Iraqi forces and takes contention with me on one thing:
I have one quibble with an otherwise excellent essay. You state, "I guarantee that iron rigidity, not flexibility, marks Iraqi military operations." I completely agree with this. Saddam trusts very few people, so the control of the military is very tight and at a very high level. In addition, the Iraqi Army is built on the Soviet model, which is well known for it's highly centralized command and control structure. It's the next sentence that I have trouble with, "In totalitarian states it always does."
This is, quite simply, wrong. Rommel and Guderian are generally considered two of the best military commanders of the modern era. Their commands were noted for their flexibility in the face of the enemy. Even the Waffen SS, some of the most indoctrinated soldiers in history, were well noted for their ability to fight and adapt to the enemy. The rescue of Mussolini is generally considered to be one of the best special forces operations in WWII. Going farther back in history, one of the reasons Napoleon was so successful was his ability to adapt faster than his enemy. Perhaps these are the exceptions that prove the rule, but I think saying it is always true is going a bit far.
Steven, thank you for reading and for writing!
I certainly see your point, and when I wrote that posting I pondered whether to mention an exception for Hitler's Germany. But I didn't. I stand by what I wrote. Here's why.
First, I think that a strong case may be made that Nazi Germany was more authoritarian than totalitarian. In totalitarian states, the government (usually a dictator - Iraq - or a small ruling group - the USSR's defense council) has all the power. Hitler made substantial concessions and bargains with the Army to gain its support. In the early days of the war, when Rommel and Guderian made their reputations, the military had substantial, formal autonomy for the conduct of campaigns and operations. Goering, for example, guarded his Luftwaffe authority zealously, and he was also the Reich's number two man, whom even Hitler had a hard time resisting. Additionally, Himmler never subordinated his private army, the SS, to Hitler and cooperated with Hitler mainly when it was convenient for him to do so (tragically being very energetic in the Final Solution).
In fact, one of Hitler's greatest failures as an empire builder was that he designed a Reich in which many government departments were set up more like semi-independent baronies than subordinate ministries. This organizational failure is documented in detail in Ronald Lewin's excellent book, Hitler's Mistakes.
However, after things went sour in the war against Russia, Hitler snapped up direct command of the Army rapidly. In fact, he named himself as simultaneous commander of several different levels of command. Cornelius Ryan documented in his book, The Last Battle, how Hitler’s control of tactical matters became so “iron rigid” at one point that for a field commander to send out a platoon-size patrol had to have Hitler’s approval.
The flexibility, autonomy and creativity you cite disappeared by 1943. Not even Guderian and Rommel could get it back. Rommel could not get panzer divisions released to him to fight the Normandy landings and Guderian wound up sidelined by Hitler’s orders.
So I still say that iron rigidity always characterizes totalitarian states, which Nazi Germany did not start as but did become.
Is Bush hedging his bets vis-a-vis Iraq?
Doug Dryden responds to my series of postings about the necessity of a declaration of war against Iraq, if we do indeed make war upon it:
As I said, “The fact that the administration is not making a case now buttresses my belief that military action won't take place until next year. “
I think that there is existing authorization by the Congress to resume hostilities against Iraq, which have not technically ceased since 1991. News reports say that most Members assent that such is the case. But I also believe that before Bush sends the planes and troops into battle, he needs to explain why in more detail. As I have said before, the administration has never linked Iraq to 9-11.
Thanks for reading and for writing, Doug!
Doug Dryden responds to my series of postings about the necessity of a declaration of war against Iraq, if we do indeed make war upon it:
First, parenthetically, thank you for your comments on my previous note concerning your series on pacifism, specifically the "buy a sword" passage from Luke.
You have periodically mentioned the opinion that Bush must "make the case" for the approaching regime change in Iraq (lately in your last posting of 29 July), & a partial quote of yours is from a "senior administration official" who says "[t]he time will come to do all of that."
Precisely. One of the many lessons learned from the Viet Nam war was that we had to return to basics, which were realised by dusting off our copies of Clausewitz’ Vom Kriege while consigning our Ford Motor Company Management Manuals to our dust bins of history. There are three vital elements listed by Clausewitz for a successful undertaking of strategic combat operations: (1) support of the people, (2) support of the political structure (or Congress), & (3) support of the military. In this case of the upcoming Gulf War II, Bush shows as good an understanding of these principles as did his father.
The reason that the case has not yet been adequately made is that the timing is not right. It would be ill-advised to start pounding the drums if we risk peaking too early with the typical gnat’s-breadth attention span of the American public, or providing too much time for the "Arab street" (Champs-Elysees?) to respond & argue. Once our plans are in place & we expect to have a preponderance of materiel to successfully bludgeon the enemy in the historic American style, then the administration will launch, at the correct pace, that political phase which will place our case before the American public. The timing will be planned so that once the administration has made the case to their satisfaction, simultaneous with our correlation of forces in the military sphere, we’ll roll in hot on Baghdad. Not before; not now.
As I said, “The fact that the administration is not making a case now buttresses my belief that military action won't take place until next year. “
I think that there is existing authorization by the Congress to resume hostilities against Iraq, which have not technically ceased since 1991. News reports say that most Members assent that such is the case. But I also believe that before Bush sends the planes and troops into battle, he needs to explain why in more detail. As I have said before, the administration has never linked Iraq to 9-11.
Thanks for reading and for writing, Doug!
Are we ready to take down Saddam?
Geitner Simmons sent me the link to this Wall Street Journal editorial that analyzes the USA's present capability to fight Iraq. It's my fault the link is a month old now, but it's still a good summary.
(While you are at it, see Geitner's post Freedom, responsibility and Maury Povich.)
Meanwhile, Richard Heddleson today sent me the link to the blog of an active-duty, Germany based field artillery officer (I like him already) who posted:
Richard posted in the comments section,
Geitner Simmons sent me the link to this Wall Street Journal editorial that analyzes the USA's present capability to fight Iraq. It's my fault the link is a month old now, but it's still a good summary.
(While you are at it, see Geitner's post Freedom, responsibility and Maury Povich.)
Meanwhile, Richard Heddleson today sent me the link to the blog of an active-duty, Germany based field artillery officer (I like him already) who posted:
For the past 3 weeks, the members of my military community have been treated to a sky full of F-16s. I live on an Army base with two Air Force bases akimbo (i've always wanted to use that word). There have been tons of low level flights and practice bomb runs around my base which I'm sure our german neighbors aren't too keen about. I haven't seen this type of activity in the sky since I was here during the cold war. In fact, I haven't seen this type of activity in the last 3 years. When the flight training starts, we just all look at each other knowingly and say one thing...IRAQ.
Richard posted in the comments section,
As a taxpayer I feel I am not getting my money's worth from an active duty officer who idly spouts off in the clear about military ops he sees on active duty that may or may not have an impact on an upcoming war in which lives, perhaps his own, will be lost. If the civilian Germans want to do it, fine. I expect more than the civilian German level of morality that elected Hitler and tolerated death camps from an American officer.
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
What makes troops elite? Why "Elite Iraqi forces" is an oxymoron
Also (see below) from the New York Times article, this nugget:
When will commentators get it through their heads that a "elite forces" means a heck of a lot more than a willingness or even eagerness to die for a cause? Fanaticism does not equal "elite." And I am doubtful about Iraqi fanaticism, anyway!
What is "elite" about any Iraqi unit? Nothing!
"Elite" is actually a word with no meaning in American forces and I never heard it used by any officer or NCO I served with. One senior Special Forces officer at US Army Special Operations Command's headquarters even told me years ago that he thought his branch ("Special Forces" is the official name) should be renamed: "Somewhere there is a Spec 4 lying under an M1 tank in the mud and snow in Germany fixing a broken track and that soldier is a special soldier. We all need to remember that."
I long ago concluded that "elite" really meant, "special headgear." The elite paratroopers get a maroon beret. The elite rangers get a tan beret. The elite SF troops get a green beret. But what else makes them "elite?"
If you expect me to say nothing, you are wrong. Those units are indeed distinguished by certain things. The troops who successfully earn, say, a Special Forces tab are a different kind of man than those who try but fail, who are in turn different from those who do not try. They are supremely self confident, self motivated, mentally tough and physically fit -- all to a higher level than the rest of the Army.
But those kinds of men are found in every Army in the world. The Iraqi army has them, but there is not one -- not one -- elite Iraqi soldier. Why? Because elite status requires much more than individual characteristics. Elite soldiers do not exist in a vacuum. They are elite only within units made up of other troops just like themselves. Thus, it does not make sense, really, to refer to "an elite Green Beret," but only to "the elite Green Berets." One Green Beret, by himself, is a better soldier than almost any other American foot infantryman, but not hugely so. But the 12 Green Berets of a Special Forces A Team are magnitudes better than any other 12 ordinary infantrymen. (Within certain limits, though, about which keep reading.) Moreover,
Elite units, to become and remain elite, must be resourced at very high levels. The 82d Airborne Division, for example, does not take personnel cuts like the rest of the Army does. Ranger units enjoy high levels of funding for training and equipment all the time, not just in cycles, compared to the rest of the Army. That means that elite units have great communications gear and do a lot of live-fire training compared to other units.
The ongoing training of elite units is much more uniform than the rest of the force. Because of their high resource level, their training programs also remain at a high level. Elite units don't have to endure "slack time" as other units do when money runs out for high training intensities.
Elite units are highly autonomous and their soldiers at every level focus on accomplishing the mission (achieving a desired end state), not on following the letter of operations orders. The rigidity that civilians usually think characterize the American military is absent from the US Army generally, but is really AWOL from the Special Forces and like units. As we used to say (somewhat sardonically) back when I was a lieutenant, "Flexibility is the key to success in today's modern, volunteer, all-action Army!"
Being able to exploit unforeseen enemy vulnerabilities or hinder unforseen enemy tactics and movements requires smart troops with high education (because high education directly correlates to trainability).
None of these things are true for any Iraqi unit. Compared to the US Army, Iraqi units are uniformly poorly resourced, equipped and trained, from the individual soldier right on up to division level and above.
Every American unit is elite compared to any Iraqi unit.
Iraqi soldiers may be individually brave or devoted to their cause (I doubt the latter), but large-unit operations are difficult and take practice, practice, practice, which the Iraqi army has not done since the Gulf War and I guarantee has never done in a force-on-force training exercise remotely resembling what the US Army does all the time at the National Training Center in California. This lack of training and capability was fatal in the Gulf War, fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy/Marines, which are superbly equipped and have been practicing fully integrated, combined-arms, joint-service operations for decades.
I guarantee that iron rigidity, not flexibility, marks Iraqi military operations. In totalitarian states it always does. The senior commanders of the Iraqi military did not rise to high rank because of their military acumen or autonomous creativity. They are there because they are safe for Saddam to have them there. As I said four days ago,
A final note: elite units are elite only for particular kinds of missions or operations. During Operation Just Cause in December 1989, a Navy SEAL Team was assigned the mission of taking out Noriega's private aircraft to prevent his escape. They succeeded, but at high cost of killed and wounded because a Seal team was the wrong unit for the job.
Conventional infantry could not have done what the SOF troops did in Afghanistan. But to expect that SOF troops are interchangeable with conventional units is also a mistake. To place a Ranger company instead of a mechanized infantry company in an armored task would be to condemn the Rangers to death and the task force to failure.
All of which is to say what every ROTC cadet learns: units must be employed in accordance with their training and capabilities. Elitism has a context that cannot be ignored.
Also (see below) from the New York Times article, this nugget:
Baghdad is ringed by Mr. Hussein's most elite forces. . . .
When will commentators get it through their heads that a "elite forces" means a heck of a lot more than a willingness or even eagerness to die for a cause? Fanaticism does not equal "elite." And I am doubtful about Iraqi fanaticism, anyway!
What is "elite" about any Iraqi unit? Nothing!
"Elite" is actually a word with no meaning in American forces and I never heard it used by any officer or NCO I served with. One senior Special Forces officer at US Army Special Operations Command's headquarters even told me years ago that he thought his branch ("Special Forces" is the official name) should be renamed: "Somewhere there is a Spec 4 lying under an M1 tank in the mud and snow in Germany fixing a broken track and that soldier is a special soldier. We all need to remember that."
I long ago concluded that "elite" really meant, "special headgear." The elite paratroopers get a maroon beret. The elite rangers get a tan beret. The elite SF troops get a green beret. But what else makes them "elite?"
If you expect me to say nothing, you are wrong. Those units are indeed distinguished by certain things. The troops who successfully earn, say, a Special Forces tab are a different kind of man than those who try but fail, who are in turn different from those who do not try. They are supremely self confident, self motivated, mentally tough and physically fit -- all to a higher level than the rest of the Army.
But those kinds of men are found in every Army in the world. The Iraqi army has them, but there is not one -- not one -- elite Iraqi soldier. Why? Because elite status requires much more than individual characteristics. Elite soldiers do not exist in a vacuum. They are elite only within units made up of other troops just like themselves. Thus, it does not make sense, really, to refer to "an elite Green Beret," but only to "the elite Green Berets." One Green Beret, by himself, is a better soldier than almost any other American foot infantryman, but not hugely so. But the 12 Green Berets of a Special Forces A Team are magnitudes better than any other 12 ordinary infantrymen. (Within certain limits, though, about which keep reading.) Moreover,
Being able to exploit unforeseen enemy vulnerabilities or hinder unforseen enemy tactics and movements requires smart troops with high education (because high education directly correlates to trainability).
None of these things are true for any Iraqi unit. Compared to the US Army, Iraqi units are uniformly poorly resourced, equipped and trained, from the individual soldier right on up to division level and above.
Every American unit is elite compared to any Iraqi unit.
Iraqi soldiers may be individually brave or devoted to their cause (I doubt the latter), but large-unit operations are difficult and take practice, practice, practice, which the Iraqi army has not done since the Gulf War and I guarantee has never done in a force-on-force training exercise remotely resembling what the US Army does all the time at the National Training Center in California. This lack of training and capability was fatal in the Gulf War, fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy/Marines, which are superbly equipped and have been practicing fully integrated, combined-arms, joint-service operations for decades.
I guarantee that iron rigidity, not flexibility, marks Iraqi military operations. In totalitarian states it always does. The senior commanders of the Iraqi military did not rise to high rank because of their military acumen or autonomous creativity. They are there because they are safe for Saddam to have them there. As I said four days ago,
Revolution within is extremely unlikely. Saddam has a true iron grip on the security apparatus, and the key positions are held either by blood relatives or tribal members. Furthermore, he killed the likely revolutionists long ago. The men in potential revolutionary-leadership positions are time servers and bootlickers who got there not from talent, but from a reputation for political reliability. They're sheep, not wolves.
A final note: elite units are elite only for particular kinds of missions or operations. During Operation Just Cause in December 1989, a Navy SEAL Team was assigned the mission of taking out Noriega's private aircraft to prevent his escape. They succeeded, but at high cost of killed and wounded because a Seal team was the wrong unit for the job.
Conventional infantry could not have done what the SOF troops did in Afghanistan. But to expect that SOF troops are interchangeable with conventional units is also a mistake. To place a Ranger company instead of a mechanized infantry company in an armored task would be to condemn the Rangers to death and the task force to failure.
All of which is to say what every ROTC cadet learns: units must be employed in accordance with their training and capabilities. Elitism has a context that cannot be ignored.
Monday, July 29, 2002
Bush will make the case against Iraq when the time comes, say officials
The New York Times reports,
This is good news. As you may recall, I have said all along that before the US makes war on Iraq, the American public must have the cause presented to its scrutiny.
The New York Times reports,
No timetable has been set for military action [against Iraq], and if President Bush decides to go ahead, his aides say, he will have to make a public, convincing case about why Mr. Hussein poses an intolerable threat to the United States and its allies. Some members of Congress, including conservative Republicans, are beginning to urge Mr. Bush to explain his reasoning and goals before committing American forces to topple a foreign government that has not attacked the United States.
"The time will come to do all of that," a senior administration official said in an interview on Friday. "And no one is opposed to doing it."
This is good news. As you may recall, I have said all along that before the US makes war on Iraq, the American public must have the cause presented to its scrutiny.
TIPS or FINK -- George Washington couldn't be trusted with this kind of power
Read Kim Dutoit's rant against the TIPS plan, which he says "should really have been named the "Federal Information Network of Knowledge", or FINK program. (Guess that tells you where he stands.)
Read Kim Dutoit's rant against the TIPS plan, which he says "should really have been named the "Federal Information Network of Knowledge", or FINK program. (Guess that tells you where he stands.)
All have agreed with my position, but there are apparently some people out there (according to several opinion polls) who are willing to give these powers over to the government so that the government can do a better job of protecting us from militant Islamic terrorists.
You know what? I wouldn't feel comfortable giving this amount of power to a government run by George Washington, let alone to the scum and maggots who infest our modern-day body politic. Worse still, once power is given to government, it's never returned. So future generations would be subjected to their rights being trampled by an even more venal bunch than this lot.
Some feedback on God and creation
Jason Rubenstein writes--
Thanks!
This argument by analogy says that if you find a watch, you have to assume there is or was a watchmaker. It is basically the very old "argument from design" that denies the universe is self-created.
Hmm . . . not, I think not. Jewish and Christian understanding of God has always been that God produces, not reproduces. That is, all things created by God are definitionally not God. Thus, creation may be "good" as Genesis says, but IMO cannot be "perfect."
Science can be the observation and understanding of creation whether creation is perfect or not.
I do not disagree at all but I also insist that religious truths do not necessarily depend upon scientific validation. For example, I believe that Genesis 1-2 are true, just not scientifically true.
Not everyone says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, but many do. Adherents on both sides are found in both camps.
Uh, you lost me there. If evolution takes place, it necessarily takes place within the created order.
Not me!
Good point!
God causing a volcano to explode is no less miraculous than God making the Red Sea part as described in Exodus. I think all you have done is displace the miracle in time and space, but not in fact.
As I said, I do not think the universe is perfect. But neither do I think that creation is finished.
Yes, as the saying goes, "what you see depends on where you stand."
Jason, thank you for reading and for writing!
Jason Rubenstein writes--
I just caught up on your blog, and found your thoughts on science, scientism, etc very interesting.
Thanks!
Every so often I get into this discussion, and have some to some thoughts that, in retrospect, are based on the old "watch and the watchmaker" argument.
This argument by analogy says that if you find a watch, you have to assume there is or was a watchmaker. It is basically the very old "argument from design" that denies the universe is self-created.
1. Assuming (by faith) that God is perfect, the creations of God are perfect.
Hmm . . . not, I think not. Jewish and Christian understanding of God has always been that God produces, not reproduces. That is, all things created by God are definitionally not God. Thus, creation may be "good" as Genesis says, but IMO cannot be "perfect."
2. If this is true, then the world as we know it is perfect. Science is an observation and an understanding of the mechanisms of this perfection in all of its aspects.
Science can be the observation and understanding of creation whether creation is perfect or not.
3. Science is the study of our world ... the "looking inside the watch" we use to gain an understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.
4. Therefore, Science is the study of "What God did." Ideally, we should gain a better appreciation for God by studying Science.
I do not disagree at all but I also insist that religious truths do not necessarily depend upon scientific validation. For example, I believe that Genesis 1-2 are true, just not scientifically true.
5. The more we study Science, the more evident God's work should become. This does of course require the pre-req of faith in God. What I fail to see is how God & Science are mutually exclusive... the latter seems to be proof of the former.
Not everyone says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, but many do. Adherents on both sides are found in both camps.
6. This does not preclude Evolution as outside of Creation.
Uh, you lost me there. If evolution takes place, it necessarily takes place within the created order.
Who is to say that God did not build in mechanisms for species to survive?
Not me!
This does assume a certain amount of metaphor built into Genesis, but to me the beauty of a system that allows species to adapt and survive far outweighs a static event impervious to change. That perhaps is my aesthetic interpretation, but the power in it seems more worth of a God than not.
Good point!
7. (Conversely) If God is perfect and created a perfect world (building in evolution for His creatures), what about miracles? Why does God need to create super-natural events? I think the events are not super-natural, but natural.
The timing of the events are the miracle. Take Moses & the Red Sea: What if God caused a Volcano in the Med. sea to erupt, causing a huge displacement of water and allowing the slaves of Egypt to run like heck through the muck away from the chariots? Why not?
God causing a volcano to explode is no less miraculous than God making the Red Sea part as described in Exodus. I think all you have done is displace the miracle in time and space, but not in fact.
God created a perfect system, why wouldn't he use that system to his desire? No need to break the system: if it is perfect, it need not be broken to achieve His will. Therefore again I see no split between God & Science. I believe that here wasn't an "exception to natural events" in this miracle, but a natural event within the laws of Science.
As I said, I do not think the universe is perfect. But neither do I think that creation is finished.
For someone who believes in the watchmaker, the exploration of the watch only reinforces the belief. At least it should.
Yes, as the saying goes, "what you see depends on where you stand."
Jason, thank you for reading and for writing!
"Gratuitous gun picture"
Blogger Kim Dutoit, who originally hails from South Africa, has a blog site that, in his words, -
So now you know what to expect when you read his site.
Anyway, he has a link to a photo of a gun called, Gratuitous gun picture. What firearm is pictured changes from time to time. I emailed him with my own gun picture and my own defense of the Second Amendment.
Blogger Kim Dutoit, who originally hails from South Africa, has a blog site that, in his words, -
tends to be more of the explosive rant type, largely because I begin each day in a mood of barely-concealed irritation with the State and its minions, and with liberals and their camp followers. And it doesn't take me long to start breaking stuff: a cursory examination of the news headlines usually suffices to set me off.
So now you know what to expect when you read his site.
Anyway, he has a link to a photo of a gun called, Gratuitous gun picture. What firearm is pictured changes from time to time. I emailed him with my own gun picture and my own defense of the Second Amendment.
Getting to Saddam
Richard A. Heddleson writes:
A psychological de-linking of the Iraqi military from Saddam is essential and should be a key component of psyops against Iraq.
Richard A. Heddleson writes:
I just read your earlier posting re the Richard Cohen fisking by Charles Austin. I do want to be clear that I agree with every thing you say, especially your forward looking comments regarding how Bush will lead up to war with one exception. You state that Bush will call for inspections and take military action after Saddam refuses "if and only if the other nations agree that if Iraq fails to comply, a casus belli for decisive American military actions exists with no further debate".
I expect that instead of making his case to the other nations at this point, having made it previously and privately in your first point, he will (should) then make his case to the American People, get a firm clear declaration of war from Congress. I say this because you and I are not the only people calling for a declaration. A declaration will also put a lot of pressure on Congress (i. e. Daschle) to put up or shut up, given that a lot of the domestic pressure from 9/11 has withered as the veto threat on Homeland Security Department indicates.
It would obviously put pressure on Saddam, but more importantly, the Iraqi military command. We would tell them in any way we can we want Saddam out. We do not want to destroy your Military or nation but we will if we have to. It would also show the rest of the world that we don't need their permission to take Saddam out or do anything else we want to do. Saddam is a much greater threat to us than to the rest of the world so they will be less enthusiastic about our taking him out, until we've done it. Then he will let Saddam and his commanders stew a while longer while we establish bases in Jordan or Turkey, do recon and probe his defences, then after a late night suppression of air defences launch a massive Special Forces assault on the SCUD sites and a PGM bombardment of WMD and internal security sites. (I suspect a lot of the delay we are seeing is because the work to determine we have ALL the SCUD locations is of necessity going slowly.) At this point, the military may well overthrow Saddam. If not, on to Baghdad with the M-1A2's.
A psychological de-linking of the Iraqi military from Saddam is essential and should be a key component of psyops against Iraq.
Navy chefs are world class, too
So says Dan Hartung of Lake Effect, in response to my posting about Army cookery.
So says Dan Hartung of Lake Effect, in response to my posting about Army cookery.
The Navy has begun sending some chefs to the CIA ... er, the Culinary Institute of America. It's part of their outside continuing education program, Task Force Excel. [See this link.]
They had some of these guys on Today a couple of weeks back.
Of course, when they get out, they'll be even more qualified than regular Navy chefs for restaurant jobs. In the meantime ... lucky sailors. How's that song go? ;-)
Sunday, July 28, 2002
Defending Western Civilization
Mark Helperin is a contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is also a Harvard grad and served in the British Merchant Navy, the Israeli infantry, and the Israeli Air Force. He spoke to the graduating class of Hillsdale Academy, a private Michigan high school, in May. Excerpts:
Mark Helperin is a contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is also a Harvard grad and served in the British Merchant Navy, the Israeli infantry, and the Israeli Air Force. He spoke to the graduating class of Hillsdale Academy, a private Michigan high school, in May. Excerpts:
There is a time to lay down arms, and there is a time to take them up, and that we are now in a time to take them up is self-evident. Those for whom it is not self-evident, who would challenge the right to defend against and preempt barbarous attacks upon our persons and our country, and who would instead substitute a distorted inquiry that would end in the condemnation not of the terrorists but of the terrorized, do not find the need to defend their civilization -- Western Civilization -- self-evident. Nor do they find the action of doing so congenial, in that it is something from which they habitually abstain. . . .
Because of the temper of the times (and, some would say, the temper of all times), what may be exacted from you is sacrifice -- of income, position, title, acceptance, respect, perhaps even of life. But what may be provided, or, rather, earned, is a kind of battlefield commission that will give you neither rank nor insignia nor anything but honor. And therein lies the justifying balance, for honor is usually worth at least what you must give up to obtain it. We have heard of late how we are at a disadvantage in the war that has just begun, because in the West we cling to life and comfort at the expense of honor. Our enemies tell us that, and in the telling they barely conceal their enjoyment. Do they really believe this? Because if they do, I have a message for them: The sense of honor in the West may be slow to awaken, but it exists in measures and quantities, when it does awaken, enough to fill the world, as it shall, as it must. How do they think we have come to where we are? How do they think we survived the battles that led to the great revisions in this civilization, its unprecedented turnings, redirections, and rededications -- of which, being entirely unself-critical and subjective, they have not yet had the courage to make even one? They say we have no history. Did we spring from a leaf? How do they think we have come through our five thousand years? Honor. From long familiarity, we know what honor is.
A few headlines from the Associated Press
France may outlaw assassination-attempt group
An attempt was made on French President Jacques Chirac's life that was thwarted by spectators as the president reviewed the troops on Bastille Day, July 14. A right-wing extremist group, Radical Unity, was blamed for sponsoring the attempt, since the would-be assassin is supposedly a member.
Pak police kill six Isamlic terrorists
Inspection of sea vessels in northern Red Sea resumes in earnest
France may outlaw assassination-attempt group
An attempt was made on French President Jacques Chirac's life that was thwarted by spectators as the president reviewed the troops on Bastille Day, July 14. A right-wing extremist group, Radical Unity, was blamed for sponsoring the attempt, since the would-be assassin is supposedly a member.
Radical Unity, an umbrella group of several extremist movements, would likely be banned under laws adopted in the 1930s to help thwart the rise of extremist combat groups and militias in France, Interior Ministry officials said.
Pak police kill six Isamlic terrorists
MULTAN, Pakistan- Six suspected Islamic militants were killed Sunday in a fierce gunbattle with police, and four of the dead were suspects in a fatal attack on a Roman Catholic church last year, officials said.
Inspection of sea vessels in northern Red Sea resumes in earnest
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates- After an eight-year break, a U.S.-led naval coalition is resuming inspection of vessels in the northern Red Sea because U.N. sanctions against Iraq are being broken in the area, a U.S. Navy spokesman said Sunday.
Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian state; no change could be for the worse
The UK Guardian reports that living in Saudi Arabia nowadays is brutal for both westerners and most Saudis.
Speaking of regime changes, let's not forget this one.
(link via LGF)
The UK Guardian reports that living in Saudi Arabia nowadays is brutal for both westerners and most Saudis.
In their desire to deny the existence of domestic Islamic terrorists, the Saudi authorities have arrested Westerners, blaming the explosions on a 'bootlegging war' between rival groups of expats involved in the illicit production of alcohol. Confessions were tortured out of them and then broadcast on state television. Five Britons, one Belgian and a Canadian face the death sentence or lengthy jail terms for the bombings. A taste of Saudi justice can be illustrated by the story of Ron Jones. The Scottish-born accountant was dragged from his hospital bed and flung in jail after he had been injured in a bomb blast outside a bookshop favoured by Westerners. The police needed a scapegoat and they blamed him for planting the bomb.
Jones, 48, was held and tortured for 67 days. He now suffers from post-traumatic stress and is unable to work. Jones has now filed papers in London's High Court to sue the Saudi government for his treatment.
If Saudi Arabia is hit by revolution, then history will say that it started in a girls' school. On 11 March at Girls' Intermediate School No 31 in Mecca at just after 8am an accidental fire took hold. It quickly spread and the teenagers fled outside. But within minutes the religious police, or mutawwa'in, had also arrived. Incredibly, as some girls fled out of one gate the police forced them back in through another. Fourteen girls died in the blaze. Dozens more suffered horrific burns. Their mistake had been to flee the fire without first putting on their black robes and headscarves. Some were still in nightdresses. That was enough for the police effectively to condemn them to death. Some even beat rescue workers trying to save the children. 'Instead of extending a helping hand, they were using their hands to beat us,' one rescue worker said.
The deaths prompted an unprecedented wave of anti-government protest across the country that was hailed by some dissident elements as 'Saudi Arabia's Prague Spring'. Until now details of those protests have been kept secret. But The Observer has interviewed some of the marchers and seen photographs of the demonstrations. Thousands of people, the majority of them women, gathered in streets across the kingdom. Some women even cast off their veils.
The women were joined by a variety of groups, including reformists, pro-Palestinian demonstrators and those belonging to the minority Shia community. Protests swept across the Shia strongholds of the Eastern Province, including the towns of Safwa, Al Qarif, Sayhat and Al Awjam. From the coastal port of Jeddah in the west to the Gulf City of Dhahran in the east, people took to the streets.
The crackdown was brutal. Four days after the demonstrations, police made mass arrests. They picked up the ringleaders and beat female protesters. 'They attacked us with sticks and fired rubber bullets,' said a civil servant. 'They even beat women and the six-year-old child of my neighbour. They concentrated their attack on women.' In Jeddah police locked female students in their compounds and sealed off an area around the US Consulate in Dharan to prevent demonstrators gathering there.
Speaking of regime changes, let's not forget this one.
(link via LGF)
The real civilian-killers in Afghanistan
Photodude explains:
Photodude explains:
Whatever the number killed accidentally by the US, each death is a tragedy. That cannot be denied. But it also can't be denied that the Taliban went on a four year killing spree, with estimates of up to 500,000 killed during that time. Even if we were to accept only one fifth of that number as "legitimate," that would mean the Taliban deliberately killed more civilians each and every month than it is estimated the US killed by accident in the entire war.
Saturday, July 27, 2002
Joe Katzman's thoughts on assimilating immigrants. . .
. . . are found in Joe's post, Europe: Muslims, Immigration & Backlash that includes several good links. Joe says the European elites have not insisted on integrating most Muslim immigrants into Western ways of society. This failure, he says,
Please see also my own post on the topic.
. . . are found in Joe's post, Europe: Muslims, Immigration & Backlash that includes several good links. Joe says the European elites have not insisted on integrating most Muslim immigrants into Western ways of society. This failure, he says,
. . . leads to support for the populist parties. They may be marginalized, and they do have their share of whackos. But they're the only ones talking about these problems... and so they're getting stronger despite the real ideological differences among them. In European political systems based on many parties and coalition governments, that can't be ignored forever. The problem is that the longer the government and other parties fight to prevent a moderate solution to a problem, the more radical and powerful said solution is likely to be. Norwegian Blogger thus sees a "Time of Troubles" ahead. A conclusion shared by articles like "Allah Mode."
Please see also my own post on the topic.
Army chow! Adventures in Army cookery
The Washington Times has a story today about the Army's school for cooks at Fort Lee, Va.
Well, it is the Army, after all.
Actually, the Army has some world-class chefs.
Think of them as Iron Chefs with rifles.
I did a tour at Fort Jackson, S.C. when the cooks school was located there, back in the early 1980s. When I was a company commander, my battalion's mess hall (excuse me, "dining facility") was run by a sergeant first class who was a graduate of the upper-level school and who had been a blue-ribbon member of a the Army's international team. He could make a hot dog taste like you had bought it in the best restuarant on the Champs E'Lysees.
It's an Army tradition that officers don their dress blue uniforms and eat Thanksgiving dinner in the mess hall with the troops. Mess halls get special allowances and menus for Thanksgiving, of course, and the more troops a mess hall serves the more special stuff it can get. For Thanksgiving we could even get wine (that was in Germany back in 1984; I don't know whether it still can be had in the mess supply system what with anti-alcohol programs and all).
At the mess hall at Ft. Jackson, the blue-ribbon mess sergeant knew every source and every trick to get anything that was in the supply catalog. For Thanksgiving one year he served turkey and dressing, of course (about four kinds each), but also Welsh rarebit, Cornish hen, prime rib, beef wellington and more kinds of salads and vegetables than I can name. The desserts made you run 12 miles the next day to work them off. My parents were visiting that year and went with us, and we all agreed it was the best Thanksgiving meal we had ever had, including, my mother was forced to admit, those prepared by her own mother, who was a true country cook whose holiday meals were always quite extraordinary. But the Army's was better.
Cooks were overworked and underpaid when I was a battery commander. Due to personnel shortages, I went through several months with no battery mess sergeant; I just had two Spec 4s. In garrison everyone ate at the battalion mess hall, for which I was the officer in charge for a few months, but in the field each battery had to prepare its own food. My two specialists worked real magic with the Class B rations that we were given for Reforger. They worked like dogs and never complained. Quality of chow is a very important component of unit morale, and I never heard of any line soldier griping about a medal given to a cook for outstanding performance of duty.
My training as a dining facility officer (an extra duty while I was a battery commander) did not include cooking lessons, it was all restaurant management stuff - how to inspect food storage and preparation, how to keep the books on food allownaces, forecast orders for the next month, plan and conduct special meals such as holidays and family nights, and so forth.
Food inspection was my favorite thing. As the officer in charge, I could taste inspect every menu item for every meal without paying. The regulation specified that an inspection portion was any amount less than a full serving. (Serving amounts were also specified by regulation.) Since, say, hot dogs were served in pairs, an inspection meant I ate one. But hamburgers were served "each," so I could taste inspect all of one since half a hamburger does not exist in the Army's mind. Vegetables and many other items were served by the serving spoon and these could be halved (actually, three-quartered!). Same with soft ice cream - it was self serve, so what constituted a serving was highly subjective.
So I ate pretty good as a dining facility officer, and worked hard to get the mess hall to attract the troops, who didn't have to eat in it. They could always eat at the PX snack bar or in a local German gasthaus, not for free as they could in the mess hall, of course, but if they didn't like the Army chow they wouldn't eat it, even if it was free.
Our head count did go up. My wife worked as a teller for American Excuse (uh, I mean, "Express") bank and staffed the small office on my unit's kaserne. One day a soldier saw her name plate and asked whether she was my wife. Yes, she said. He answered, "He's done a good job with the mess hall. Now it's only disappointing half the time."
Which was progress, I guess.
The Washington Times has a story today about the Army's school for cooks at Fort Lee, Va.
One of the instructors is wearing combat boots, a camouflage uniform, a white apron and a chef hat. The other instructor - a tall, burly man - barks out orders on texture and taste.
Well, it is the Army, after all.
Actually, the Army has some world-class chefs.
In the upper-level cooking class, chefs learn how to properly present food for formal functions and more complicated dishes like chocolate souffles and crusted salmon mascarpone. Out of the 84 chefs that come through the training facility, six of them make it to the U.S. Army Culinary Arts Team, an elite, competitive group of Army chefs.
The chefs compete in international cooking competitions. The U.S. team won the world championship among military competitors in the International Culinary Olympics in 2000.
Think of them as Iron Chefs with rifles.
I did a tour at Fort Jackson, S.C. when the cooks school was located there, back in the early 1980s. When I was a company commander, my battalion's mess hall (excuse me, "dining facility") was run by a sergeant first class who was a graduate of the upper-level school and who had been a blue-ribbon member of a the Army's international team. He could make a hot dog taste like you had bought it in the best restuarant on the Champs E'Lysees.
It's an Army tradition that officers don their dress blue uniforms and eat Thanksgiving dinner in the mess hall with the troops. Mess halls get special allowances and menus for Thanksgiving, of course, and the more troops a mess hall serves the more special stuff it can get. For Thanksgiving we could even get wine (that was in Germany back in 1984; I don't know whether it still can be had in the mess supply system what with anti-alcohol programs and all).
At the mess hall at Ft. Jackson, the blue-ribbon mess sergeant knew every source and every trick to get anything that was in the supply catalog. For Thanksgiving one year he served turkey and dressing, of course (about four kinds each), but also Welsh rarebit, Cornish hen, prime rib, beef wellington and more kinds of salads and vegetables than I can name. The desserts made you run 12 miles the next day to work them off. My parents were visiting that year and went with us, and we all agreed it was the best Thanksgiving meal we had ever had, including, my mother was forced to admit, those prepared by her own mother, who was a true country cook whose holiday meals were always quite extraordinary. But the Army's was better.
Cooks were overworked and underpaid when I was a battery commander. Due to personnel shortages, I went through several months with no battery mess sergeant; I just had two Spec 4s. In garrison everyone ate at the battalion mess hall, for which I was the officer in charge for a few months, but in the field each battery had to prepare its own food. My two specialists worked real magic with the Class B rations that we were given for Reforger. They worked like dogs and never complained. Quality of chow is a very important component of unit morale, and I never heard of any line soldier griping about a medal given to a cook for outstanding performance of duty.
My training as a dining facility officer (an extra duty while I was a battery commander) did not include cooking lessons, it was all restaurant management stuff - how to inspect food storage and preparation, how to keep the books on food allownaces, forecast orders for the next month, plan and conduct special meals such as holidays and family nights, and so forth.
Food inspection was my favorite thing. As the officer in charge, I could taste inspect every menu item for every meal without paying. The regulation specified that an inspection portion was any amount less than a full serving. (Serving amounts were also specified by regulation.) Since, say, hot dogs were served in pairs, an inspection meant I ate one. But hamburgers were served "each," so I could taste inspect all of one since half a hamburger does not exist in the Army's mind. Vegetables and many other items were served by the serving spoon and these could be halved (actually, three-quartered!). Same with soft ice cream - it was self serve, so what constituted a serving was highly subjective.
So I ate pretty good as a dining facility officer, and worked hard to get the mess hall to attract the troops, who didn't have to eat in it. They could always eat at the PX snack bar or in a local German gasthaus, not for free as they could in the mess hall, of course, but if they didn't like the Army chow they wouldn't eat it, even if it was free.
Our head count did go up. My wife worked as a teller for American Excuse (uh, I mean, "Express") bank and staffed the small office on my unit's kaserne. One day a soldier saw her name plate and asked whether she was my wife. Yes, she said. He answered, "He's done a good job with the mess hall. Now it's only disappointing half the time."
Which was progress, I guess.
Islamists have prophecies, but we have the Prophet
I spent a very pleasant evening Tuesday night in the company of Army Lt. Col. Bill Stevenson, an old friend who is the product manager of the U.S. Army's new Prophet electronic intelligence system.
The Prophet web site says,
Which is Army-speak for finding where enemy communications nodes are and telling what kind of units are sending the signals. Then it can jam or disrupt them. But that's not all. Lt. Col. Stevenson told me,
This kind of equipment isn't sexy and doesn't get the glamor coverage on CNN. But Prophet and other support systems are crucial as the battle areas expand in size dramatically from previous years.
I spent a very pleasant evening Tuesday night in the company of Army Lt. Col. Bill Stevenson, an old friend who is the product manager of the U.S. Army's new Prophet electronic intelligence system.
The Prophet web site says,
Prophet identifies general lines of bearing, and provides exploitation of enemy signals as well as electronic attack capabilities. Primarily a Force Protection Asset.
Division TUAV SIGINT Payload (DTSP). Provides the Division Commander with a Deep Looking Platform Capable of Detecting, Identifying and Locating Radio Frequency (RF) Emitters Throughout the Area of Operations. Prophet Air Will Also Have Electronic Attack Capabilities.
Which is Army-speak for finding where enemy communications nodes are and telling what kind of units are sending the signals. Then it can jam or disrupt them. But that's not all. Lt. Col. Stevenson told me,
Prophet represents a quantum leap over currently fielded systems in detection range and capabilities. This system brings a new aspect where we can now can conduct Direction Finding (DF) efforts while moving. The set up/tear down time is around 2 minutes instead of 1 - 2 hours currently required. Thus we can set up, DF and move multiple times compared to the systems currently in use.
This kind of equipment isn't sexy and doesn't get the glamor coverage on CNN. But Prophet and other support systems are crucial as the battle areas expand in size dramatically from previous years.
What's at stake in the fight - another angle
Ranting Screeds posts another angle on what I talked about in my essay, Western Law, Islamic Law and the Ordering of Society: What's at stake in the struggle with Arab-Muslim terrorists.
Ranting Screeds cites a Bruce Bawer article in Partisan Review:
I'll probably post more about this another time. It is a crucial issue for our future.
Ranting Screeds posts another angle on what I talked about in my essay, Western Law, Islamic Law and the Ordering of Society: What's at stake in the struggle with Arab-Muslim terrorists.
Ranting Screeds cites a Bruce Bawer article in Partisan Review:
Citing universal Muslim belief in "the shariah, the body of laws defining our faith" - which he described, a bit unsettlingly, as "a sharp sword capable of cutting through the generational and cultural divide" - [British Muslim Faisal] Bodi argued that British authorities must recognize the Muslim community "as an organic whole" and thus accord it a larger role in resolving conflicts over forced marriage. Bodi’s plaint was phrased with extreme delicacy, but the point was clear: when Muslim girls or women flee the tyranny of father or husband, the government should essentially hand them over to a group of Muslim men. In short, British law should effectively be subordinate to Muslim law. Group identity trumps individual rights.
I'll probably post more about this another time. It is a crucial issue for our future.
"The northeast is getting ready to retreat."
So wrote my regular correspondent Richard Huddleson in reference to this article, "Is Fighting Iraq Worth the Risks?" in the New York Times.
For a good dissection of the piece, see what the Compleat Iconoclast has to say about it.
So wrote my regular correspondent Richard Huddleson in reference to this article, "Is Fighting Iraq Worth the Risks?" in the New York Times.
For a good dissection of the piece, see what the Compleat Iconoclast has to say about it.
Friday, July 26, 2002
Israel is building a 72-mile "Berlin Wall" along the West Bank
This is a story I have not see reported in other blogs. Did I miss it somewhere? Note: updates added since first posting
According to this Business Week Online article, Israel's Wall: A Step Toward Peace? by Stan Crock, Israel is building a 72-mile-long wall between itself and the Palestinians.
The wall's construction will mostly follow the "green line," the border before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. That means that the wall will not encompass most Jewish settlements on the West Bank. To build the wall even a mere kilometer or two east to include the settlements, Crock says, would have meant including 380,000 Palestinians, not an acceptable option for Israel. Crocks says that the wall's path is really an admission of "what some military analysts have been saying for some time: Most of the settlements are not militarily defensible."
Excerpts from the article:
Update
The Jerusalem Post reports,
This is a story I have not see reported in other blogs. Did I miss it somewhere? Note: updates added since first posting
According to this Business Week Online article, Israel's Wall: A Step Toward Peace? by Stan Crock, Israel is building a 72-mile-long wall between itself and the Palestinians.
The wall's construction will mostly follow the "green line," the border before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. That means that the wall will not encompass most Jewish settlements on the West Bank. To build the wall even a mere kilometer or two east to include the settlements, Crock says, would have meant including 380,000 Palestinians, not an acceptable option for Israel. Crocks says that the wall's path is really an admission of "what some military analysts have been saying for some time: Most of the settlements are not militarily defensible."
Excerpts from the article:
Walls have a history in the Middle East. They tend to offend everyone. They tend to be overcome. And they tend to have unpredictable political consequences. These are lessons the Israelis should consider as they build a barrier intended to cordon off the West Bank and protect the Israeli public from terrorism. Because when you examine this latest plan closely, it gets curiouser and curiouser.
Over time, however, the $115 million, 72-mile wall being built from Salem in the north to Kafr Qasem in the south is likely to be bypassed by tunnels underneath or rockets above. And terrorists disguised as Israeli soldiers could pass through it on the ground, even at heavily guarded checkpoints.
[Former Israeli General] Matan Vilnai told a luncheon at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on July 17 that the new barrier could avert perhaps 80% of terrorist incidents. "There is no quick fix," he says.
Indeed, the prospect of the wall already has created a bizarre political situation. The barrier has united, of all people, the Palestinians and their arch-enemies, the Jewish settlers. The settlers oppose the wall because they are left outside its protection. The Palestinians oppose it because it looks like a unilateral drawing of borders by Israel. On the other side are Israelis who don't live on settlements. One recent poll shows 68% approval of the wall, which would protect major cities that have been subjected to bombings.
The final irony: Ariel Sharon, the hard-line Likud Prime Minister, is effectively returning Israel to its 1967 borders. Palestinian opposition could either mean its leadership is incredibly stupid -- or the border they really want is the sea.
SEEDS OF A DEAL. If the Palestinians come to their senses, they'll realize that the current terrorism policy, which is producing the wall and economic isolation, will leave them worse off in every way. Yet the wall also holds the seeds of a peace deal. It would in effect be a secure border for Israel precisely where the Palestinians want it.
Update
The Jerusalem Post reports,
According to the Defense Ministry source, the fence will combine sensitive electronic fences, barbed wire, certain obstacles, and a patrol road. The fence, which will hug the Green Line, will resemble both in structure and technology the 70-kilometer fence along Israel's border with Lebanon. According to [Binyamin Ben-Eliezer], it will cost about $1 million per kilometer to build.
Another brick in the wall of the Anthropic Principle
World-renowned Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking says in his book, The Theory of Everything,
Note: that is not a verbatim quote. It is from my notes, but it is what Hawking said. It is found on p. 77 (or near there).
This post is a follow up to my earlier post, God - the evidence.
World-renowned Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking says in his book, The Theory of Everything,
One second after the big bang, if the rate of the universe's expansion had been less by only one part in one hundred thousand million, the universe would have collapsed. If the expansion rate had been faster by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that it would be effectively empty.
Note: that is not a verbatim quote. It is from my notes, but it is what Hawking said. It is found on p. 77 (or near there).
This post is a follow up to my earlier post, God - the evidence.
Clarity after Pearl Harbor; not so much now
So says Richard Heddleson, whose email to me was so long and comprehensive that I emailed him back to consider starting his own blog. In fact, I am not going to be able to address all his points at one time.
Richard invites us to consider the difference between the Declaration of War against Japan, passed the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and the the text of the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force against the perpetrators of 9-11. First, the Dec. 8, 1941 declaration:
Compare this model of clarity and directness to that of the present Congress, authorizing military action against our present enemies:
So says Richard Heddleson, whose email to me was so long and comprehensive that I emailed him back to consider starting his own blog. In fact, I am not going to be able to address all his points at one time.
Richard invites us to consider the difference between the Declaration of War against Japan, passed the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and the the text of the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force against the perpetrators of 9-11. First, the Dec. 8, 1941 declaration:
The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 116) declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows:Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United states of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the
Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states.
Compare this model of clarity and directness to that of the present Congress, authorizing military action against our present enemies:
S.J.Res.23
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for
Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION-
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS-
Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
The habitable zone and warring against the Taliban
Dan Hurtung of Lake Effect writes:
Dan, thank your reading and for writing!
Dan Hurtung of Lake Effect writes:
I think Paul was talking not about the habitable zone surrounding each star, but the macro zone around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
The quote about the exoplanets applies only to our own solar system's zone. A minor distinction in light of your argument's religious focus, but worth noting.
Also, thanks for that excellent summation of why we shouldn't have declared war on the Taliban. There were some important points there! I believe the Bush folks flubbed this one; if they'd used your arguments it would have silenced even what opposition there was. (Or maybe they did, and nobody in the media noticed the distinction. Hmmm. Well, I'm not going back to check.)
Dan, thank your reading and for writing!
This guy says Richard Cohen is a nitwit. But I say Cohen had a good point that the administration has not made a case for war against Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds links to Charles Austin of Sine Qua Non Pundit who goes on a tirade against Richard Cohen's piece (which I favorably cited) on going to war against Iraq.
Charles rips Cohen for drawing "more comparisons of various aspects of the War on Terrorism to Vietnam." I just ignored that part of Cohen's piece. In fact, I ignored most of Cohen's piece, except to agree with him that the administration is less than crystal about how and why it intends to handle Saddam.
I certainly don't expect Bush and Rummy and Powell to lay out a political or military campaign plans against Iraq just for Cohen's benefit or mine. But I think Sine Qua Non Pundit protests too much.
If the US is going to fight Iraq, President Bush needs to answer this question first: What is the present justification for a military campaign against Iraq?
Of course, that Saddam is a bloodthirsty, unstable tyrant whose crimes can hardly be enumerated. But this was true before 9/11. But complicity by Saddam in the attacks of 9/11 remains only speculative and that is very thin.
So what changed between 9/11 and Jan. 29, when President Bush named Iraq as a nation of the Axis of Evil?
During his State of the Union speech, Bush did not tie Saddam to 9/11. Bush summarized his case against Saddam in only one paragraph, with four main issues:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.
This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world.
All these things are true, but they have been true for many years. It seems the administration is just taking for granted that the American people somehow intuitively know that Saddam is bad enough to plunge America into a conventional war - a Gulf War replay, although (let us hope) one with a truly decisive American victory. It is true that polls since 9/11 have shown a very large majority of Americans say they support such action.
But I say that President Bush has not made the case for war against Iraq. Before the US takes any action, Bush should --
explain fully to the American people what the reasons for war are, and
seek an actual declaration of war against Iraq by the Congress, not just an "authorization."
The campaign in Afghanistan does not offer a model for a campaign against Iraq. The Northern Alliance was an intact political and military opposition to the Taliban regime. But no such thing exists in Iraq to oppose Saddam. The Iraqi National Conference has no military capability to speak of. The northern Kurds just want to separate from Iraq, not take it over. If Saddam is to relinquish power from non-natural causes, it will have to be by revolution within or invasion from without.
Revolution within is extremely unlikely. Saddam has a true iron grip on the security apparatus, and the key positions are held either by blood relatives or tribal members. Furthermore, he killed the likely revolutionists long ago. The men in potential revolutionary-leadership positions are time servers and bootlickers who got there not from talent, but from a reputation for political reliability. They're sheep, not wolves.
That leaves invasion from without as the only other recourse. Despite the fact of Saddam's evil, President Bush must make a case for war. He hasn't done so.
Footnote:
The fact that the administration is not making a case now buttresses my belief that military action won't take place until next year. There is considerable preparation of both military personnel and materiel needed before the US can mount a campaign of 100,000 - 250,000 troops in Iraq.
Also, there are existing UN conditions for unfettered inspections of Iraqi military and military-related facilities. These UN demands go back to the end of the Gulf War. Needless to say, they are not being done. I think the Bush administration will follow a strategy basically like this:
Tell NATO and the the other Arab countries that Iraq's non-compliance with the existing UN inspection requirements forms a casus belli on its own, and that this non-compliance is justification for decisive war against Iraq at any time.
Advice them that the US is capable of conducting the war entirely on its own if need be, and is ready to start any time.
But will hold off military action and join in demanding Iraq submit to the full inspection regime without delay if and only if the other nations agree that if Iraq fails to comply, a casus belli for decisive American military actions exists with no further debate.
When Saddam does not comply, we will use his non-compliance as the reason for war.
Another note: I personally think that there is a casus belli for resumption of hostilties against Iraq. But I do not think that the Bush administration has done an adequate job of explaining it to the people. I am confident, though, that the administration will do so at the appropriate time. At least, I hope.
Glenn Reynolds links to Charles Austin of Sine Qua Non Pundit who goes on a tirade against Richard Cohen's piece (which I favorably cited) on going to war against Iraq.
Charles rips Cohen for drawing "more comparisons of various aspects of the War on Terrorism to Vietnam." I just ignored that part of Cohen's piece. In fact, I ignored most of Cohen's piece, except to agree with him that the administration is less than crystal about how and why it intends to handle Saddam.
I certainly don't expect Bush and Rummy and Powell to lay out a political or military campaign plans against Iraq just for Cohen's benefit or mine. But I think Sine Qua Non Pundit protests too much.
If the US is going to fight Iraq, President Bush needs to answer this question first: What is the present justification for a military campaign against Iraq?
Of course, that Saddam is a bloodthirsty, unstable tyrant whose crimes can hardly be enumerated. But this was true before 9/11. But complicity by Saddam in the attacks of 9/11 remains only speculative and that is very thin.
So what changed between 9/11 and Jan. 29, when President Bush named Iraq as a nation of the Axis of Evil?
During his State of the Union speech, Bush did not tie Saddam to 9/11. Bush summarized his case against Saddam in only one paragraph, with four main issues:
All these things are true, but they have been true for many years. It seems the administration is just taking for granted that the American people somehow intuitively know that Saddam is bad enough to plunge America into a conventional war - a Gulf War replay, although (let us hope) one with a truly decisive American victory. It is true that polls since 9/11 have shown a very large majority of Americans say they support such action.
But I say that President Bush has not made the case for war against Iraq. Before the US takes any action, Bush should --
The campaign in Afghanistan does not offer a model for a campaign against Iraq. The Northern Alliance was an intact political and military opposition to the Taliban regime. But no such thing exists in Iraq to oppose Saddam. The Iraqi National Conference has no military capability to speak of. The northern Kurds just want to separate from Iraq, not take it over. If Saddam is to relinquish power from non-natural causes, it will have to be by revolution within or invasion from without.
Revolution within is extremely unlikely. Saddam has a true iron grip on the security apparatus, and the key positions are held either by blood relatives or tribal members. Furthermore, he killed the likely revolutionists long ago. The men in potential revolutionary-leadership positions are time servers and bootlickers who got there not from talent, but from a reputation for political reliability. They're sheep, not wolves.
That leaves invasion from without as the only other recourse. Despite the fact of Saddam's evil, President Bush must make a case for war. He hasn't done so.
Footnote:
The fact that the administration is not making a case now buttresses my belief that military action won't take place until next year. There is considerable preparation of both military personnel and materiel needed before the US can mount a campaign of 100,000 - 250,000 troops in Iraq.
Also, there are existing UN conditions for unfettered inspections of Iraqi military and military-related facilities. These UN demands go back to the end of the Gulf War. Needless to say, they are not being done. I think the Bush administration will follow a strategy basically like this:
When Saddam does not comply, we will use his non-compliance as the reason for war.
Another note: I personally think that there is a casus belli for resumption of hostilties against Iraq. But I do not think that the Bush administration has done an adequate job of explaining it to the people. I am confident, though, that the administration will do so at the appropriate time. At least, I hope.
Thursday, July 25, 2002
Scientism is not science, it is faith in science
The discipline of science leads to questions that science itself cannot answer.
Following up on my prior post about God - the evidence, I invite readers to peruse my earlier post about the difference between science and scientism.
The discipline of science leads to questions that science itself cannot answer.
Following up on my prior post about God - the evidence, I invite readers to peruse my earlier post about the difference between science and scientism.
A purely religious apprehension of the universe, based solely on religious texts, is indefensible in our day (thinks, "madrassas"). Such a view is dangerous to science, education and indeed, other religions. But a purely scientific understanding of nature is dubious and possibly dangerous. It objectifies nature and voids it of inward value.
Both science and religion are essential to our common life. To say that an ancient text, such as the Bible, is "scientific" is badly to misuse and misunderstand what the Bible is all about. But to say that no religious conclusions may be validly drawn from science is scientistic fundamentalism.
God - the evidence
Paul Palubicki, formerly known as Sgt. Stryker, writes that he believes in God even though there is no evidence for God.
Hmmm. Then a post or two down the page, he writes, in a reference to the new Foxs series "Firefly,"
I recommend this article, "Home Alone in the Universe?" by science journalist Fred Heeren, who says Edwin Hubble’s protégé, astronomer Alan Sandage, told him: "We can’t understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."
So what about the universe itself? Might that qualify as empirical evidence for God's existence? If so, why? If not, why not?
BTW, the galactic ring Palubicki refers to is called the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold, but just right) because it is the zone in which H2O can exist in liquid form. As Heeren explains,
That the earth's solar system, and hence humanity, is unexceptional is not a scientific conclusion, because it is not backed up by evidence. In fact, the evidence points the other way, as I'll try to explain in this post. (Or, just read Heeren's article.) In fact, the unexceptionalism of our planet and our life is really a article of faith by some scientists and non-scientists. Heeren writes that he asked Stephen Hawking what disturbed him most about the Anthropic Principle.
Hawking is brilliant, but that answer is not a scientific one. And that's okay, but we need to remember that not every utterance by a World Famous Scientist is a scientific utterance, or even a scientifically-grounded utterance.
Remember one of the key lines in the movie Contact? It was that if there is no other intelligent life in the universe, "it seems an awful waste of space." It seems that the probability of other life above the algae or bacteria level is the subject of real debate in physics and astronomy these days. And the answers scientists are coming up with might surprise you.
Not only do stable panets in the Goldilocks zone seem to be quite rare, the earth's orbit seems unusual itself. As Heeren puts it:
Here is a long excerpt from "Home Alone":
Now, these factors do not ipso facto lead one to conclude with ironclad certainty, voila! God exists. But one cannot with intellectual credibility deny that such a conclusion is irrational or unsupported by evidence.
Paul Palubicki, formerly known as Sgt. Stryker, writes that he believes in God even though there is no evidence for God.
I actually believe in God. I'm usually pissed off at him for one reason or another, but we arrived at an uneasy truce years ago. Logically, I know that no evidence of a supernatural deity exists. God can't be observed or measured, so he tends to remain outside the windowframe Science provides us. We rely on empirical evidence, and none exists for the big guy. . . . Yet, I hold an irrational belief in God.
Hmmm. Then a post or two down the page, he writes, in a reference to the new Foxs series "Firefly,"
I remember reading somewhere (don't know where) that a few scientists think there may be a "habitable ring" about the galaxy, much like the Greenbelt of our Solar System. Too close to the center, and the intense cosmic radiation from supernovae and other phenomenon prevent the successful formation of life. Too far out, and the lack of hydrogen for star formation prevents a solar system similar to ours from forming.
I recommend this article, "Home Alone in the Universe?" by science journalist Fred Heeren, who says Edwin Hubble’s protégé, astronomer Alan Sandage, told him: "We can’t understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."
So what about the universe itself? Might that qualify as empirical evidence for God's existence? If so, why? If not, why not?
BTW, the galactic ring Palubicki refers to is called the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold, but just right) because it is the zone in which H2O can exist in liquid form. As Heeren explains,
Those exoplanets that have been observed spending any time in the Goldilocks zone merely pass through it. Their orbits are extremely elliptical, meaning surface temperatures fluctuate from hotter than Venus to colder than Mars. The very fact that these massive planets cut through the habitable zone in their elongated orbits ensures there can be no smaller, more hospitable planets in this system, since the giants would destabilize their orbits.
That the earth's solar system, and hence humanity, is unexceptional is not a scientific conclusion, because it is not backed up by evidence. In fact, the evidence points the other way, as I'll try to explain in this post. (Or, just read Heeren's article.) In fact, the unexceptionalism of our planet and our life is really a article of faith by some scientists and non-scientists. Heeren writes that he asked Stephen Hawking what disturbed him most about the Anthropic Principle.
"The human race is so insignificant," he told me, "I find it difficult to believe the whole universe is a necessary precondition for our existence."
Hawking is brilliant, but that answer is not a scientific one. And that's okay, but we need to remember that not every utterance by a World Famous Scientist is a scientific utterance, or even a scientifically-grounded utterance.
Remember one of the key lines in the movie Contact? It was that if there is no other intelligent life in the universe, "it seems an awful waste of space." It seems that the probability of other life above the algae or bacteria level is the subject of real debate in physics and astronomy these days. And the answers scientists are coming up with might surprise you.
Not only do stable panets in the Goldilocks zone seem to be quite rare, the earth's orbit seems unusual itself. As Heeren puts it:
. . . Stars located much farther from the galaxy’s center than our Sun contain lower concentrations of heavy elements, necessary to form rocky planets like Earth. Stars much nearer the center of a galaxy reside in a denser neighborhood, exposing any orbiting planets to lethal radiation. Stars within a spiral galaxy’s arms have the same problem. Most stars traveling between the spiral arms won’t stay there, but our Sun is unusual for its circular orbit around the galaxy.
Here is a long excerpt from "Home Alone":
In their 2000 book, Rare Earth - Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, [geologist Peter] Ward and [astronomer Donald] Brownlee remind their readers: "It appears that Earth indeed may be extraordinarily rare." Here’s why:
Special Gas Giant. Jupiter-like planets that orbit close to their host stars, or that orbit eccentrically, refuse to politely share their space with smaller, life-harboring planets. Habitable planets need to make circular orbits within the "Goldilocks zone." Gas giants making eccentric orbits will eject smaller neighbors out of the system or send them crashing into their sun. . . . George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution of Washington calculated that without Jupiter, comets would strike Earth between 100 and 10,000 times more frequently than they do, meaning that "we wouldn’t be here."
Large Moon. Habitable planets, it turns out, need to be members of a double-planet system, as some astronomers call our Earth-Moon system. . . . The Moon’s mass creates a stabilizing anchor for the Earth, preventing the Earth from undue attraction to the Sun or to Jupiter, which would cause the Earth to tilt too far on its spin axis.
. . . most astronomers now think that the presence of the Earth’s Moon is the result of a freak accident, perhaps a one-in-a-million shot, when a smaller planet hit the forming Earth with a glancing blow that allowed the mantles of each planet to combine and end up in orbit around Earth. "To produce such a massive moon," write Ward and Brownlee, "the impacting body had to be the right size, it had to impact the right point on Earth, and the impact had to have occurred at just the right time in the Earth’s growth process."
Plate Tectonics. A hospitable planet needs a critical amount of radioactive elements, such as uranium, to produce the heat that generates a magnetic field. Without our magnetic field, the atmosphere would soon drift out into space. The radioactive core also fuels plate tectonics, the movement of the planetary crust across its surface. Of all our solar system’s planets, such movement is found only on Earth.
Plate tectonics is crucial for life, and a string of other improbable factors, in turn, prove critical to the generation of plate tectonics. These include not only a radio active core, but a crust of the right thickness and a mantle of the right viscosity, or flexibility.
Just-Right Crust. A fortuitous assemblage of two kinds of crust are necessary, with different densities, in order to allow one to slide over the other, and to allow the lighter one to maintain itself above the water to produce stable continents.
Rare Earth’s Ward and Brownlee conclude that, though microbial life may be common in the universe, complex life (even as complex as a flatworm) is not. The Cambrian explosion of forty new, widely separated complex animal groups, they believe, didn’t have to happen. Darwinism doesn’t predict such an event. And the fact that no new major animal groups (called phyla) have evolved in the 530 million years since should give us pause. . . .
"If intelligence has such high value," says Gould’s Harvard colleague Ernst Mayr, "why don’t we see more species develop it?" The list of leading biologists and paleontologists on record for defending this position is impressive, including George Gaylord Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francois Jacob, and Francisco Ayala. British astronomer John Barrow notes that "there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information-processing ability to that of Homo sapiens, is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe."
Younger professionals in astronomy-related fields have also joined the trend. After writing an overview of what he calls the "bottlenecks on the road to intelligence," Astronomy magazine editor Robert Naeye concludes: "On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special."
Now, these factors do not ipso facto lead one to conclude with ironclad certainty, voila! God exists. But one cannot with intellectual credibility deny that such a conclusion is irrational or unsupported by evidence.
So what's the downside to this?
Fred Pruitt at Rantburg reports that Iran's defense minister says that an American strike against Iraq would "destabilize all the Middle East."
Sounds good to me.
Fred Pruitt at Rantburg reports that Iran's defense minister says that an American strike against Iraq would "destabilize all the Middle East."
Sounds good to me.
Why the American Left is on the ropes
If you have not taken the time to peruse the postings of a really good blog, the Compleat Iconoclast (linked at left), then I recommend it. And BTW, I had already recommended this blog and linked to it before its pseudonymous author, mlb, made my site the topic of a posting all its own (which I do appreciate). My recommendation is not a case of mutual back-scratching; his stuff really is good.
Take for example, his essay, "What's A Liberal To Do?":
Really, read his stuff.
If you have not taken the time to peruse the postings of a really good blog, the Compleat Iconoclast (linked at left), then I recommend it. And BTW, I had already recommended this blog and linked to it before its pseudonymous author, mlb, made my site the topic of a posting all its own (which I do appreciate). My recommendation is not a case of mutual back-scratching; his stuff really is good.
Take for example, his essay, "What's A Liberal To Do?":
Devoid of both creative thinking and charismatic leaders, (Gore? Gephardt? Lieberman? gimme a break) Liberalism, at least as manifested by the Democratic party, is on the ropes.
The DoJ has come out as officially supporting the 2nd Amendment. They're losing the Jewish vote, one of their traditional constituencies, as Bush hangs tough with Israel. Al Freakin' Sharpton is wanting to run for president. I dearly pray that he does, as the totality of his vote will come from the group of people known as Too Stoopid To Have The Franchise, immediately improving the average IQ of the voters for the other candidates. A better outcome would be inevitable. . . .
Bush is about to liberate more people from the yoke of oppression than any president since, hmmm... Reagan, finally doing the job that WJC and, to be fair, his daddy, should have done.
The Dems are running on prescription drug benefits for seniors. Could the contrast be any greater?
Really, read his stuff.
The new archbishop of Canterbury no friend of the West
As expected, the new archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England is Rowan Williams,
(An earlier news report about Archbishop Williams' uninformed non-expertise in foreign affairs led me to post this open letter to him.)
Williams will likely shakes things up within the C of E as well. Among the potential controversies:
As expected, the new archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England is Rowan Williams,
. . . an outspoken liberal who has been a sharp critic of U.S. foreign policy and American corporations . . . .
Williams will succeed George Carey, and his ascension will add prestige to a voice in the swelling chorus of America's critics in Europe. He has called the U.S.-led war on terrorism "morally tainted," charging that U.S. forces used "random killing" of Afghan civilians "as a matter of military policy."
An attack on Iraq, Williams has said, would be "immoral and illegal" unless authorized in advance by the United Nations.
(An earlier news report about Archbishop Williams' uninformed non-expertise in foreign affairs led me to post this open letter to him.)
Williams will likely shakes things up within the C of E as well. Among the potential controversies:
The new archbishop has also argued for "disestablishment," that is, ending the church's status as the official national church, headed by the British monarch. For this, he has drawn the wrath of antidisestablishmentarians, those who advocate maintaining the official status. . . .
Williams has also been a harsh critic of "consumerism" driven by advertising, particularly ads aimed at children. In a forthcoming book serialized in the Times of London starting today, Williams charges that corporations, including the Walt Disney Co., are exploiting children. . . .
Williams's views on doctrinal issues -- he supports ordination of gays and has pushed for promotion of female priests -- also might cause tension within the Anglican church, particularly in the fast-growing but conservative African branch.
I still say President Bush has not made the case for war with Iraq
I think that the case against Saddam is airtight. The problem is, Bush isn't making it. I have said this several times before; comes now Richard Cohen of the Washington Post who agrees that, "A world without Saddam Hussein is going to be a better place." But,
Me, too.
I think that the case against Saddam is airtight. The problem is, Bush isn't making it. I have said this several times before; comes now Richard Cohen of the Washington Post who agrees that, "A world without Saddam Hussein is going to be a better place." But,
Now we are in the planning stages for another war -- the one to topple Saddam Hussein. I happen to support that goal, for reasons that seem obvious. Hussein may be developing nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. He has already used chemical weapons against both Iran and Iraq's Kurdish population. It would be folly to sit around and wait to see what he will do with nuclear weapons.
But my position, arrived at in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, is a lot less firm that it once was. Partially that's because the threat of terrorism has receded some. But mostly it's because the Bush administration has yet to make a clear case for war with Iraq. In fact, the more it talks about Hussein and Iraq, the more confused I get.
Me, too.
Phil Donohue's ratings falling faster than the Dow did
Donohue's show, cleverly named "Donohue," is about to take up residence in Cancel City. After only a week on the air half its viewers have tuned out. Bill O'Reilly's show is thrashing Donohue with a 1.6 rating compared to Phil's 0.4, which is only half of Connie Chung's rating.
Key indicator that Phil's show is headed for the bit bucket - this quote:
He's dead.
Donohue's show, cleverly named "Donohue," is about to take up residence in Cancel City. After only a week on the air half its viewers have tuned out. Bill O'Reilly's show is thrashing Donohue with a 1.6 rating compared to Phil's 0.4, which is only half of Connie Chung's rating.
Key indicator that Phil's show is headed for the bit bucket - this quote:
"We are not looking at this day to day, we are behind this show for the long term," an insider said. "We have to let Phil be Phil."
He's dead.
The real story on static electricity and auto fires
There is an email circulating warning of the danger of fires from static electricity discharges causing vehicle fires while they are being refueled. It purports to have the imprimatur of the Petroleum Education Institute.
But the PEI did not originate the email, which has some bogus info (such as, women cause these fires). However, the PEI has issued a report on the subject which is worth looking at. Chief thing to remember: don't get back in your vehicle after you begin refueling. (In many states or localities it is legal for gas pumps to have a clip that holds the pump open without the operator touching it.)
There is an email circulating warning of the danger of fires from static electricity discharges causing vehicle fires while they are being refueled. It purports to have the imprimatur of the Petroleum Education Institute.
But the PEI did not originate the email, which has some bogus info (such as, women cause these fires). However, the PEI has issued a report on the subject which is worth looking at. Chief thing to remember: don't get back in your vehicle after you begin refueling. (In many states or localities it is legal for gas pumps to have a clip that holds the pump open without the operator touching it.)
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
I told you four days ago this would happen
But anyone with a half-clear crystal ball would have seen that the Bush administration would wobble on the issue of arming airline pilots.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the House Transportation aviation subcommittee Tuesday.
I stand by my prediction of how this will work out.
But anyone with a half-clear crystal ball would have seen that the Bush administration would wobble on the issue of arming airline pilots.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the House Transportation aviation subcommittee Tuesday.
Afterward, spokesman Chet Lunner said Mineta was not responding to congressional pressure to arm pilots, but simply asking the new head of TSA to review an old policy.
``The secretary expects Admiral Loy, with a new set of eyes, to take a look at everything we're doing,'' Lunner said. . . .
Pilots unions, backed by the National Rifle Association, have campaigned to get Congress to overrule the TSA. The House earlier this month voted 310-113 to allow commercial pilots to carry guns.
``We're very happy to hear that Secretary Mineta and Admiral Loy will be taking a fresh view with an open mind on this subject," said John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.
I stand by my prediction of how this will work out.
An industry in denial
From the latest newsletter of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling:
International Gaming and Wagering Business magazine, the main gambling trade journal, included the following, surprising admission in this year's June issue, written by contributing editor Dave Palermo:
Legalized, state-sponsored gambling is a huge blight on America.
From the latest newsletter of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling:
International Gaming and Wagering Business magazine, the main gambling trade journal, included the following, surprising admission in this year's June issue, written by contributing editor Dave Palermo:
But the industry remains in denial. It defies any study linking gambling with bankruptcy, suicide and other social problems. And it steadfastly refutes any claim by critics that the spread of casino gambling in this country increases the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling. That position defies logic, In fact, it's insulting. The caseload for specialists in addiction treatment has skyrocketed."
Legalized, state-sponsored gambling is a huge blight on America.
Why a formal declaration of war is necessary before we take down Iraq
Orson Scott Card discusses this question in detail.
I agree with Orson and many other writers who say that a declaration is certainly necessary. In fact, I have written at some length that a proper casus belli for war against Iraq has not been presented to the American people.
But the situation is not as legally clear as Orson makes it out to be. Constitutional scholars are not nearly as enamored, legally speaking, with formal "declarations" of war as we might imagine. Constitutional law Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA, for example, argues that
Prof. Volokh quotes this transcript of Senator Joe Biden saying,
I explored the issue of separation of powers vis-a-vis war making here.
Continuing with Orson Scott Card:
Actually, there was a very good reason not to ask for a formal declaration in order to attack the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It was the same reason President Lincoln refused to ask for a declaration of war against the Confederate States of America. Lincoln and others in the federal government knew that in international usage, declarations are made only against actual and legitimate foreign powers. A declaration against the CSA would have been legally indistinguishable from actual recognition of the CSA as a real foreign nation. There was a genuine danger before 1863 that if such recognition had been made, even unintentionally or accidentally, Great Britain might have formally recognized the CSA and exchanged ambassadors, and sold the CSA arms, thus potentially leading the USA to face going to war with Britain.
Similarly, there was no legitimate government in Afghanistan against whom the US Congress could declare war. The Taliban and al Qaeda were foreign invaders for the most part, even though some were native Afghans. No country had recognized the Taliban as legitimate except Saudi Arabia (what a surprise), Pakistan (which withdrew recognition soon after 9-11) and the UAE (which frankly doesn't count). The Taliban had no seat in the UN General Assembly. Afghanistan's seat in the UN was still occupied by the Kabul government the Taliban had ousted by force, now known as the Northern Alliance. This was Afghnanistan's government still recognized by the US and other Western and non-Western powers. To declare war against the Taliban would have de-recognized the Northern Alliance and been a huge political blunder.
Consider: we did not declare war on France to mount the D-Day invasion at Normandy on June 6, 1944. France was a country occupied by the foreign invader. The Free French Government was our ally in the same way that the Northern Alliance was. And while the Congress did declare war against Germany in December 1941, the Roosevelt administration maintained that the Nazi government was illegitimate (criminal, in fact), a charge that formed the basis of the Nuremberg trials.
And that's a good historical analogy and precedent for declaring war against Iraq.
My bottom line: We should not have made a formal declaration to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan (but the congressional authorization was necessary and proper) and we do need one for fighting Iraq, for pretty much the reasons Orson lays out.
Orson Scott Card discusses this question in detail.
I dislike Constitutional rewrites without formal amendment. I dislike it when judges do it, and I dislike it just as much when Congress or the President does it.
It is too much power in the hands of one person, for the President to be able not only to decide how to wage war, but also when and against whom.
This is a matter of life and death for American soldiers, and the American people have a right to insist that legal forms be strictly followed.
I agree with Orson and many other writers who say that a declaration is certainly necessary. In fact, I have written at some length that a proper casus belli for war against Iraq has not been presented to the American people.
But the situation is not as legally clear as Orson makes it out to be. Constitutional scholars are not nearly as enamored, legally speaking, with formal "declarations" of war as we might imagine. Constitutional law Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA, for example, argues that
. . .both U.S. and international law recognizes that we can be in a war, with all that that entails, without a declaration of war. I've also suggested that even if a declaration of war were somehow required for certain actions -- which I don't believe is the case -- it's hard to see why the Congressional authorization of the use of military force shouldn't qualify, at least unless the magic words "We declare war" are required.
Prof. Volokh quotes this transcript of Senator Joe Biden saying,
Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.
I explored the issue of separation of powers vis-a-vis war making here.
Continuing with Orson Scott Card:
If George W. Bush had asked for a declaration of war in order to attack Afghanistan, he would have gotten it. There was no reason not to ask for it.
Actually, there was a very good reason not to ask for a formal declaration in order to attack the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It was the same reason President Lincoln refused to ask for a declaration of war against the Confederate States of America. Lincoln and others in the federal government knew that in international usage, declarations are made only against actual and legitimate foreign powers. A declaration against the CSA would have been legally indistinguishable from actual recognition of the CSA as a real foreign nation. There was a genuine danger before 1863 that if such recognition had been made, even unintentionally or accidentally, Great Britain might have formally recognized the CSA and exchanged ambassadors, and sold the CSA arms, thus potentially leading the USA to face going to war with Britain.
Similarly, there was no legitimate government in Afghanistan against whom the US Congress could declare war. The Taliban and al Qaeda were foreign invaders for the most part, even though some were native Afghans. No country had recognized the Taliban as legitimate except Saudi Arabia (what a surprise), Pakistan (which withdrew recognition soon after 9-11) and the UAE (which frankly doesn't count). The Taliban had no seat in the UN General Assembly. Afghanistan's seat in the UN was still occupied by the Kabul government the Taliban had ousted by force, now known as the Northern Alliance. This was Afghnanistan's government still recognized by the US and other Western and non-Western powers. To declare war against the Taliban would have de-recognized the Northern Alliance and been a huge political blunder.
Consider: we did not declare war on France to mount the D-Day invasion at Normandy on June 6, 1944. France was a country occupied by the foreign invader. The Free French Government was our ally in the same way that the Northern Alliance was. And while the Congress did declare war against Germany in December 1941, the Roosevelt administration maintained that the Nazi government was illegitimate (criminal, in fact), a charge that formed the basis of the Nuremberg trials.
And that's a good historical analogy and precedent for declaring war against Iraq.
My bottom line: We should not have made a formal declaration to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan (but the congressional authorization was necessary and proper) and we do need one for fighting Iraq, for pretty much the reasons Orson lays out.
An excellent essay on the roots and course of Islamic extremism
Read, The trail of political Islam by Prof. Gilles Kepel. The slug says that he is
Gilles says,
It's long, but worth the read. You can d/l a PDF version and print it on eight pages if you wish.
Link via Nick Denton at Instapundit.
Read, The trail of political Islam by Prof. Gilles Kepel. The slug says that he is
. . . one of the world’s foremost experts on the modern Middle East, has written Jihad: the Trail of Political Islam, the first comprehensive attempt to follow the history and spread of Islamist political movements. In a talk given at the Institut Français in London as part of a collaboration between European cultural institutes on the relationship between Europe and Islam, he gave a deeply insightful analysis of the past, present and possible future of a new and frightening politico-religious phenomenon.
Gilles says,
Islamist movements are in fact clusters of different social groups with different social agendas. They are strong when they manage to mobilise or coalesce these different components, until they actually seize power. What has interested me is their capacity to mobilise different social groups with different social agendas, to keep them united, to reconcile them. There might be violence or even the ‘semi-Islamicisation’ of a society, but the Islamist groups will never seize power if they cannot unite these social groups.
It's long, but worth the read. You can d/l a PDF version and print it on eight pages if you wish.
Link via Nick Denton at Instapundit.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
What crooked accountants and managers of the big board are learning now
My friend Dan Miller advises me,
My friend Dan Miller advises me,
"A little, gained honestly, is better than great wealth gotten by
dishonest means." Proverbs 16:8
Road to Perdition has many virtues but ultimately disappoints - a review
Tom Hanks is one America's favorite actors. Put him and Paul Newman in the same movie, and it would seem a sure-fire prescription for a winner, right?
Yes and no. In this new Sam Mendes-directed movie, Newman and Hanks both shine. Newman's part is that of an Irish mobster boss, John Rooney. He plays it better than Hanks plays his part as Mike Sullivan, Rooney's chief enforcer and hit man. This movie showcases why Newman is one of the great American actors of the silver screen.
This is not to say that Hanks does not act well. He acts very well indeed. I think the problem with his performance is that of direction, not talent. Neither his character nor that of Tyler Hoechlin, who plays his son, Mike, Jr., seem to present any emotion in their roles. Yet they are the protagonists, the ones who are up against the wall. They suffer a terrible personal loss that starts the movie's dramatic conflict going, but their emotive reaction is about the same as if they had gotten a flat tire on the road. They just don't seem to care. Since Hanks is certainly capable of a wide range of acted emotions, this has to be Mendes' fault. Perhaps he was trying to set up Sullivan as a truly cold-blooded killer whose inner life is a void and whose soul has been sucked dry by his years of killing. Whatever. I don't think it works.
There are some outstandingly well done sequences. Sullivan's final confrontation with John Rooney, for example, is probably the best-filmed scene in the movie. Sullivan's strategy for reaching out and touching the Capone-Nitti mafia is unexpected, clever and introduced quite well.
Jude Law plays his complex character well, too (Harlen Maguire), but in his interactions with Hanks, the movie breaks down. I found that I was unable to sustain my "suspension of disbelief" after a couple of episodes between them. My willingness to enter the movie's world view and construction of reality in lieu of that of the real world did not survive some scenes. The only way that Maguire gets to do what he does is because the entire rest of the world is an idiot. There is massive gunplay in the movie. The only policeman you see is a clueless plug who sees Maguire shooting at someone on the street, so the cop just stands there and says, "Hey, what are you doing?" before Maguire sends him to the big station house in the sky. There is a major gun battle on the streets of a city, lasting for a long time, blood everywhere, and no cops to be found anywhere.
Finally, the ending is so transparently obvious that it sucked the life out of all that went before. Now, I think you can make a good case that the movie has to end the way it does, but still, it's telegraphed too obviously. It does not live up to the originality that runs through much of the rest of the show, and thereby damages the rest.
Then, finally, there is the anti-gun message at almost the very end. I mean, please.
So I give it 2.5 stars.
Tom Hanks is one America's favorite actors. Put him and Paul Newman in the same movie, and it would seem a sure-fire prescription for a winner, right?
Yes and no. In this new Sam Mendes-directed movie, Newman and Hanks both shine. Newman's part is that of an Irish mobster boss, John Rooney. He plays it better than Hanks plays his part as Mike Sullivan, Rooney's chief enforcer and hit man. This movie showcases why Newman is one of the great American actors of the silver screen.
This is not to say that Hanks does not act well. He acts very well indeed. I think the problem with his performance is that of direction, not talent. Neither his character nor that of Tyler Hoechlin, who plays his son, Mike, Jr., seem to present any emotion in their roles. Yet they are the protagonists, the ones who are up against the wall. They suffer a terrible personal loss that starts the movie's dramatic conflict going, but their emotive reaction is about the same as if they had gotten a flat tire on the road. They just don't seem to care. Since Hanks is certainly capable of a wide range of acted emotions, this has to be Mendes' fault. Perhaps he was trying to set up Sullivan as a truly cold-blooded killer whose inner life is a void and whose soul has been sucked dry by his years of killing. Whatever. I don't think it works.
There are some outstandingly well done sequences. Sullivan's final confrontation with John Rooney, for example, is probably the best-filmed scene in the movie. Sullivan's strategy for reaching out and touching the Capone-Nitti mafia is unexpected, clever and introduced quite well.
Jude Law plays his complex character well, too (Harlen Maguire), but in his interactions with Hanks, the movie breaks down. I found that I was unable to sustain my "suspension of disbelief" after a couple of episodes between them. My willingness to enter the movie's world view and construction of reality in lieu of that of the real world did not survive some scenes. The only way that Maguire gets to do what he does is because the entire rest of the world is an idiot. There is massive gunplay in the movie. The only policeman you see is a clueless plug who sees Maguire shooting at someone on the street, so the cop just stands there and says, "Hey, what are you doing?" before Maguire sends him to the big station house in the sky. There is a major gun battle on the streets of a city, lasting for a long time, blood everywhere, and no cops to be found anywhere.
Finally, the ending is so transparently obvious that it sucked the life out of all that went before. Now, I think you can make a good case that the movie has to end the way it does, but still, it's telegraphed too obviously. It does not live up to the originality that runs through much of the rest of the show, and thereby damages the rest.
Then, finally, there is the anti-gun message at almost the very end. I mean, please.
So I give it 2.5 stars.
Hah! I knew it! Wives never forget!
According to this heaqdline in today's Washington Times, "Husbands forget spats, wives never do."
Egad, Holmes, you've done it again!
As Esquire magazine once pointed out:
(Go to Esquire's observations about relationships with the ladies by clicking this link, then hit the Java script button, "Click for more.")
According to this heaqdline in today's Washington Times, "Husbands forget spats, wives never do."
Egad, Holmes, you've done it again!
A new study of that ancient matrimonial given suggests a reason: Women's brains are wired both to feel and to recall emotions more keenly than the brains of men. . . .
[Diane F. Halpern, director of the Berger Institute for Work, Family, and Children and a professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College in California, said that] the study supports the folkloric idea that a wife has a truer memory for marital spats than does her husband. "One reason for that is that it has more meaning for women, and they process it a little more. But you can't say that we've found the brain basis for this, because our brains are constantly changing."
As Esquire magazine once pointed out:
Love does not mean never having to say you're sorry. It means having to say you're sorry over and over again, in new and different ways, every day, every week, every month, even when you don't want to, every year, until God grants you his mercy and you finally, blissfully die.
(Go to Esquire's observations about relationships with the ladies by clicking this link, then hit the Java script button, "Click for more.")
More notes on taking down Saddam
The Compleat Iconoclast has an excellent analysis and predictions of when and how the US will take down Iraq.
I say 1st quarter 2003.
Forget 9-11 as some magic date to start the campaign. Our military leaders don't think that shallow, and neither does Bush.
As a writer for the Lebanon Daily Star, Hamza Olayan, wrote:
The mere existence of a liberated Iraq, with no further military action by the United States, will almost inevitably lead to more open and freer societies in the rest of the region. It will be impossible for their rulers to suppress the news that the Iraqi people are flowering under democratic institutions. The domestic pressures on the other regimes to liberalize will be irresistible. So they will loosen their control just a bit, thinking that such concessions will placate the masses. But they won't.
However, Olayan also cautions:
Well, the essay is excellent. It's long, but well worth the read.
Thanks to Ranting Screeds for the link, who adds some good thoughts of his own.
Once again, I invite all to read my own essay, "Precision Weapons, Abject Defeat, and Reshaping Societies - how precision weapons may make sealing a victory difficult.
The Compleat Iconoclast has an excellent analysis and predictions of when and how the US will take down Iraq.
I believe the war with Iraq will begin in the late fall, or the earliest months of 2003.
I say 1st quarter 2003.
The most likely month is November. I will be amazed if it doesn't go down by the end of Febuary. It could go as early as September, if Dubya wants to make a statement to the world, and start it on 9/11.
Forget 9-11 as some magic date to start the campaign. Our military leaders don't think that shallow, and neither does Bush.
Our former partners in GWI, the Saudis, are going to sit this one out, as it dawns on them what an Iraq free of Saddam is going to do for their clout with the US, and their odds of being able to maintain their oppressive, reactionary regime. No matter. It will let them get used to the idea that we don't need them anymore.
As a writer for the Lebanon Daily Star, Hamza Olayan, wrote:
. . . the consequences of a US-sponsored democratic transformation in Iraq would be:
Iraq would fall within the sphere of American influence, supplanting the role of Saudi Arabia, or at least eroding its regional influence. Baghdad rather than Riyadh would become the political role model Washington seeks to promote throughout the region, by means of a regime tailored to its specifications that also keeps it distance from Syria and Iran.
OPEC would become virtually an "American organization," were Washington to assume effective control over Iraq's oil production, perhaps increasing its output to six million barrels per day. The neighboring states would fear--and this is the key thing--being infected themselves by the bug of change in Iraq.
In other words, the Gulf states would be destabilized by democratic change in Iraq unless they change accordingly.
The mere existence of a liberated Iraq, with no further military action by the United States, will almost inevitably lead to more open and freer societies in the rest of the region. It will be impossible for their rulers to suppress the news that the Iraqi people are flowering under democratic institutions. The domestic pressures on the other regimes to liberalize will be irresistible. So they will loosen their control just a bit, thinking that such concessions will placate the masses. But they won't.
However, Olayan also cautions:
. . . because of the impact of oil revenues on the development of Gulf societies, there is astonishingly little pressure from within them for democratization. More widespread than demands for democracy are calls for the establishment of autocratic regimes that are more dynamic and responsive to public wishes.
Well, the essay is excellent. It's long, but well worth the read.
Thanks to Ranting Screeds for the link, who adds some good thoughts of his own.
Once again, I invite all to read my own essay, "Precision Weapons, Abject Defeat, and Reshaping Societies - how precision weapons may make sealing a victory difficult.
Monday, July 22, 2002
Muslim prayers and mine in the current troubles
Little Green Footballs summarizes some prayers and sermons by Near East Muslim religious leaders. One example:
This posting brought forth some interesting commenting on LGF's site. Bob (no last name) says in part:
This comment led M. Upton to reply:
I think that the readers of my blog know that I am not a pacifist, though I do try to and want to be a man of peace. But here is the prayer I led for my congregation shortly after the 9-11 attacks, and have prayed since then. I made it the closing section of my essay, "Is America Justified to Use Force?"
Little Green Footballs summarizes some prayers and sermons by Near East Muslim religious leaders. One example:
A sermon on official Syrian radio:The imam devotes the second part of the sermon to a prayer for the success of the President in his work for the wellbeing of the country. He also prays: "O God, help our people in Palestine and the Golan. O God, annihilate the Zionists and make them destroy themselves."
This posting brought forth some interesting commenting on LGF's site. Bob (no last name) says in part:
While I agree that these comments are offensive and ludicrous at best, I can't help but wonder if you'll be posting updates to this thread every time an American minister goes on TV to pray for our victory in Iraq, or to ask God's help in defeating our own fascist, Islamist, death-loving enemies.
This comment led M. Upton to reply:
I've heard of prayers (from US religious leaders) to protect our soldiers and bring a swift, bloodless victory, but I have never heard of public prayers that God would destroy the Muslims.
In fact, in most preceeding wars the US was involved in we never wanted to see the enemy totally destroyed, just beaten enough so they would not threaten us. Do you honestly think the Palestinians would send financial aid and rebuild the Israeli economy if they defeated the Jews?
I think that the readers of my blog know that I am not a pacifist, though I do try to and want to be a man of peace. But here is the prayer I led for my congregation shortly after the 9-11 attacks, and have prayed since then. I made it the closing section of my essay, "Is America Justified to Use Force?"
Dear Lord of grace and love,
we ask for you to open our minds to your wisdom
and our hearts to your mercies.
You are a God who judges the nations with justice and righteousness.
You are a God who breaks the weapons of war
and shatters the spirit of hostility.
We pray for your spirit to inform the actions of our leaders.
We pray for your spirit to guide the affairs of nations.
We pray for every our nations leaders. Fill them, O Lord,
with godly purpose and intentions.
Let their decisions be those you inspire
and their words be those of your own mouth.
We pray, O Lord, for those who attacked us.
Turn their hearts from hardness
and their minds from evil.
Fill them, O God, with the Holy Love
of a righteous God.
Bring them to knowledge of Christ
and overcome their hatred with love.
Make them our brother in Christ.
We pray, O Lord, for the Afghan people
and all who suffer under tyranny.
Hear their cries of oppression
and deliver them to freedom.
Give us wisdom O God, to know your will.
Give us courage, O God, to do your bidding.
Let your justice and peace be established among all peoples;
let your kingdom embrace every person.
In the saving name of your Son, Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)