The neo-Marxist politicization of Western Christian theology
. . . and al Qaeda as "architectural critics"

An article in the NY Observer by Ron Rosenbaum entitled, Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee has been linked to by many sites; I finally went to read it from Bill Quick's Daily Pundit. Rosenbaum comments how the Left's self-willed, self-deceptive idiocy drove Chris Hitches to leave the staff of The Nation, and tells his own story of abandoning the Left.

It was a mixed gathering with a heavy representation of Left academics, and people were going around the room and speaking about the attacks and the response. Over and over, one heard variations on the theme of, "Gee, it?s terrible about all those people who died in the towers and all" - that had already become the pro forma disclaimer/preface for America-bashing - "but maybe it?s a wake-up call for us to recognize how bad we are, Why They Hate Us." The implication was evident: We deserved it. It would be a salutary lesson. It was the Pat Robertson wing of the Left in full flower: Sinful America deserved this Judgment from the sky. Crocodile tears could be shed for those people who died in the towers, but those buildings were so ugly, they were such eyesores, they were a symbol of globalist hubris - it was as if the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers were really architectural critics, flying Herbert Muschamps, not mass murderers.

I attended a session exactly like that in November 2001, made up of other clergy. Every "justification" of the mass murders that Rosenbaum bemoans and decries are ones I heard 11 months ago.

The neo-Marxist politicization of Western Christian theology is not total, but it's very deep. These are men and women who have allowed themselves to be propagandized by postmodern dialectics and, like the leftists Rosenbaum describes, see no redeeming virtues in Western civilization, especially America. They have no theology, not really, they have only left-wing political philosophy (and not even a well-done philosophy) that they have dressed up in God talk and called theology.

Not all or even most theologians or clergy are that far gone, but I could name you names of some I personally know who are. (Hint to any of my colleagues who may be reading this: if that statement gets your bile up, then yes, you are probably are one of them.)

But, as Rosenbaum points out, the Left's politics are politics of denial or deception and of historical blindness. And he strongly implies they are also the politics of failure. Nowhere is this failure illustrated more dramatically than in the fate of Left-dominated American churches. As the recently-released religious census of the United States shows, theologically conservative churches are growing, not liberal ones. (There is not necessarily a direct correlation between liberal theology and liberal politics, or conservative theology and conservative politics - most people would probably consider my theology liberal in significant respects, but I am not politically liberal.)

The census quotes Ken Sanchagrin, director of the Glenmary Research Center and a professor and chairman of the department of sociology at Mars Hill College in Mars Hill, N.C.: ". . . the more liberal the denomination, by most people's definition, the more they were losing."

Political liberalism is not the only reason for their decline, but it's a big part of it. A lot of people are tired of having left-wing politics gussied up with Bible talk and presented to them literally as the Gospel truth.

Update: See my related posts:

A Brief Survey of What the Bible Says About War (off blogspot)

Is America Justified to Use Force? (off blogspot)

The problem with pacifism is pacifists

An idea is not a plan! Wishful thinking passes for theological reflection nowadays

Ending Saddam's regime without war - there are no perfect solutions, selection of risks must be made

Austin Bay wonders, "Is a Coup Possible in Iraq?"
All warfare is really psychological, fundamentally

The is Austin Bay's essay I referred to in my own post about the potential of a coup. It's now online on The Strategy Page and I recommend it to you.

To students of strategy, all warfare is psychological operations. Whether the means are bullets or bluster, war is an attack on an opponent's will to resist. The targets of this psy-ops campaign are Saddam's henchmen and fellow gangsters, the regime's human support structure that has the means and opportunity to remove Saddam.

Psy ops gives this inner circle the third element necessary for a coup, an immediate motive. Think of it as their personal "exit strategy." Imminent U.S. action translates into loss of Swiss bank accounts as well as loss of life. . . .

U.S. intent is clear. That's vital. Coup plotters must be certain Western leaders are resolved to decisive military action. Few doubt President Bush has the gumption -- and that perception is critical. Leftist appeaseniks are doing their bit. Convinced Bush is a gung-ho warmongering Texas Republican cowboy, their peace march megaphones reinforce the notion "he's gonna pull the trigger." God bless occasionally useful idiots.

Yes, as General George S. Patton, Jr., said, "Battles are won by frightening the enemy." Patton observed that the real purpose of bringing lethal weapons to bear against the enemy was to induce him to withdraw, desert or surrender.

Saddam is a gangster who has surrounded himself with gangsters. He has shown no compunction about executing even members of his own family, and his syncophants' loyalty back to him will be the same when push comes to shove. The day will come when his inner circle understands that their future will be worse with Saddam than without him. As I wrote on Oct. 2, the ruling class is our "psyops target of choice. The task is to separate them psychologically from Saddam. If a coup can be done, it must be done by Saddam's inner circle. They must be brought to unlink Saddam's future from their own. Put another way, they will have to feel more threatened by Saddam's survival than by his departure."

Today's posts (so far)

What the president said
The punch line is a kicker . . .

First Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' First Amendment!
Maryland town crushes political speech

More on the "Beretta ballot"
Saddam as coup victim - what it would take, who might do it - a fairly detailed look

What the president said
The punch line is a kicker . . .

These are bona fide quotes from remarks of the president or other high US government officials to various audiences. Specific sources are listed at the end:

First quote:

We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again.

Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will -- be permitted -- excuse me -- to defy the will of the international community. . . . So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. . . .

Second quote:

The Cabinet Room, The White House

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for this opportunity to address America's friends throughout the Arab and the entire Islamic world. . . .

Saddam has ruled through a reign of terror against his own people and disregard for the peace of the region. His war against Iran cost at least half a million lives over 10 years. He gassed Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. In 1990, his troops invaded Kuwait, executing those who resisted, looting the country, spilling tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, firing missiles at Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel and Qatar. He massacred thousands of his own people in an uprising in 1991.

As a condition for the Gulf War cease-fire, Iraq agreed to disclose and to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and to demonstrate its willingness to live at peace with its neighbors. Iraq could have ended economic sanctions and isolation long ago by meeting these simple obligations. . . .

Saddam simply must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Third quote:

Never again can we allow Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons, poison gas, biological weapons, or missiles to deliver them. He has used such terrible weapons before against soldiers, against his neighbors, against civilians. And if left unchecked, he'll use them again.

Fourth Quote: The secretary of state responds to the question, "Has the president made a decision yet to attack Iraq and when?"

The Secretary: Well, the president has all the options, and we are watching very carefully, and we have basically said that this cannot go on indefinitely, and as the president said yesterday, the Iraqis do not need any further warnings. . . . You know, it's quite typical of the way they've been operating. They will not accept responsibility themselves for what is going on. They are the ones that have had the opportunity since the end of the Gulf War to comply. You know, this has been one of the clearest sanctions regimes with the clearest road maps that have ever existed in terms of how to get from Point A to Point B, . . . And it is not the US' fault; it's not the UN's fault; it's Saddam Hussein's fault. . . . .

We are very concerned about what is happening in terms of his weapons of mass destruction. He is a threat to the neighborhood. He has actually, as we know, invaded a country. He is also a threat because he wants to have and has had these weapons of mass destruction.

Fifth Quote:

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again, as he has in the past. . . . .

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

Sixth Quote:

We believe the President, with his duties as Commander in Chief, has the authority to do this, and particularly given the resolution in the wake of the Gulf War. But we will continue to work closely and consult with Congress.

Sources:

1. TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON REMARKS ON IRAQ DECEMBER 19, 1998

2. VIDEOTAPED REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON TO THE ARAB WORLD December 19, 1998

3. RADIO ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON TO THE NATION, 19 December 1998

4. SECRETARY OF STATE MADELINE ALIBRIGHT, PBS interview, Nov. 12, 1998.

5. STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON, 16 December 1998, on Iraqi Air Strikes,

6. White House Briefing, November 12, 1998, spokesman Joe Lockhart in response to a question whether President Clinton needed congressional approval to conduct military action against Iraq.

Pilot tried to aerial bomb Saddam, says report
. . . but sadly failed and was shot down
Glenn Reynolds links to this post about a failed assassination attempt by an Iraqi air force pilot who tried but failed to kill Saddam Hussein by bombing him. Security forces shot him down. He survived and Saddam is reported to have "personally supervised" the pilot's interrogation. You can just imagine what that means. Reports say he was burned alive infront of his unit. Other officers of his unit have been interrogated. The plane is reported to have been shot down with a shoulder-fired Strela missile, which I wrote about here.

Here is the summary of the Kuwaiti original news story that is the source of the information, outside Iraq, of course.

This was an assassination attempt, not a coup, apparently. As I explained, an assassination does not a coup make.

Joke break
A guy came home to his wife and said to her: "Guess what? I've found a great job. Clock in at 10 a.m., clock out at 2 p.m. No over-time, no weekend work and it pays $600 a week!"

"That's great," his wife said.

"Yeah, I thought so too," her husband agreed. "You start Monday."

First Amendment? We ain't got no First Amendment. We don't need no stinkin' First Amendment!
Maryland town crushes political speech

This happened in the Peoples Republic of Maryland:

The mayor of Frederick, Md., ordered police to stop a group of activists carrying a "Save the Ten Commandments" banner from marching in a weekend parade.
The group's leader, who had a permit to march in the parade with a banner, was handcuffed and detained until the parade had passed.

"I was shocked, shocked that we were not allowed to march in the parade," said Neil Parrott, 32, president of the Friends of Frederick. "I did not expect this kind of reaction from the city at all."

His group carried the banner to demonstrate support of the city's fight against a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to force the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from a public park.

Frederick City Hall spokeswoman Nancy Gregg Poss said Mayor Jennifer Dougherty ordered police to stop the group because it had violated its permit by having too many marchers and by displaying a different banner slogan than that approved by the permit.

The slogan also broke the customary ban on the display of political speech in the parade, part of an annual street festival.

"It is a city-run event, and that [banner] could imply and people could assume that it is the city's stance on the issue," Miss Poss said. "Political displays have historically not been allowed. That's why the permit asks specifically what will be on the banner."

Miss Poss said the permit allowed for three to five marchers and for a banner reading "Friends of Frederick."

About 15 marchers were participating in the parade on Saturday when they were stopped by police. When Mr. Parrott tried to re-enter the parade, police handcuffed him and placed him in a police car until the parade ended. He was released without being charged.

Lt. Tom Chase of the Frederick Police Department said Mr. Parrott was detained because he bumped into a police officer when trying to re-enter the parade, an action that is grounds for a charge of second-degree assault.

The reason for Parrott's detention is frightening. He "bumped" a cop (yeah, I'll bet) and was threatened with a charge of assault - not because he actually committed assault, mind you, but purely to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment rights of political speech. Otherwise, he would have been booked.

Threatening bogus charges against a citizen in order to suppress political speech is the very definition of tyranny. Truly, the people of Frederick, Md., live in a police-state community.

Where will the ACLU stand on this incident? Duck and cover is my guess.

Who carried Bush's speech?
The Fox News commentators this morning are excoriating the lettered networks for not carrying President Bush's speech on Iraq last night, saying that none of them carried it. But when I surfed to my local NBC affiliate last night, there was Bush. Was this a local decision by Nashville WSMV affiliate to carry trhe feed, or did NBC as a whole broadcast the speech? Anybody know? Leave a comment, please!

More on the "Beretta ballot"
Saddam as coup victim - what it would take, who might do it

Syndicated columnist Austin Bay's work is carried by Creators Syndicate. He and I have both written about the possibility of a coup in Iraq and corresponded with each other about it. He has a column coming out later today on the subject, which I will link to when it appears. Austin graciously asked me to look his essay over and it is good, as is all his work. In return he sanity-checked my own latest essay, below, which I present for your mental cud-chewing.

News reports say that members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle have contacted Iraqi resistance groups, asking what kind of deal they would get if they reached for the "Beretta ballot" to vote Saddam out of office and out of life. Other reports say that Iraqi military commanders have offered to turn their weapons on Saddam and one assumes Saddam's security forces if there the US and UK make war on Iraq.

A coup will not solve all problems

A coup to overthrow Saddam would favor US interests only if it does not replace Saddam with another despot inimical toward the United States. The next government of Iraq, however instituted, must yield to requirements laid out by the United Nations since 1991 to re-enter the community of nations. The need for unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq will continue, regardless of who is in power there.

(Simply assassinating Saddam does not make a coup. If there is no cabal of men prepared to take power immediately upon Saddam's death, civil war is a real possibility.)

Who might be able to mount a coup, and why?

Who would be most likely to mount a coup against Saddam? For a coup to succeed, its plotters must have a motive, the means and the opportunity - as Austin commented, just like an Agatha Christie villain. As of now, all three of the MMO are not aligned with any of Iraq's politically important groups - the people, the army, the Republican Guard, and Saddam's own inner circle.

The Iraqi People:

Westerners in Iraq report that the people will gladly welcome Saddam's departure from the scene, whether he walks out or is carried out. While the people have the motive, they lack either the means or the opportunity. They are unarmed. Ordinary Iraqis rarely see Saddam and lack information about his security and are riven by informants. The people cannot mount a coup.

The Iraqi army:

The army has both motive and some means. The rank and file and most officers dislike Saddam as much as the people do. But they also share the people's ignorance about Saddam's movements, strengths and vulnerabilities. The army is poorly armed and equipped compared to the Republican Guard, Saddam's personal security force. In open battle between the two the army they would certainly lose. Saddam's security apparatus is very active in the army, which diminishes the chance of a conspiracy being undetected. The army lacks opportunity. Iraqi army officers reportedly volunteering to turn on Saddam are almost certainly hedging their bets, posturing for their personal futures, rather than making offers they can actually accomplish.

The Republican Guard:

The Republican Guard has the means and its officers could identify opportunities to mount a coup. But they presently lack a motive. Unlike the army and the people, the Guard is not tribally diverse. They receive special favors and are heavily propagandized to be personally, fiercely loyal to Saddam. Even so, their loyalty may be fragile. During the 1991 Gulf War the Guard suffered badly. If the US invades Iraq, US forces will speedily attack and destroy Guard units without warning. This prospect may motivate the Guard to overthrow Saddam, but by then the opportunity may vanish as Saddam goes into very secret hiding places unknown to all but very few.

Nonetheless, some Guard officers and units would have to figure prominently in a successful coup. They are the only real force for stability in the country. When Saddam's regime collapses, the Republican Guard will be key power players and power brokers. In the short term after Saddam dies or flees, no one can claim to rule Iraq who does not command the Guard.

But before a shooting war erupts, the Guard does not matter. Absent US action that seriously threatens Saddam's rule, the Guard will maintain its status quo. Once war starts the Guard might resist only long enough to preserve its honor before surrendering, especially if they know that the US seeks nothing but total victory. Unlike Desert Storm, this time the Republican Guard will have nowhere to flee to. I think that the Republican Guard will have more US psyops attention devoted to it than any other group.

The Ruling Class and Inner Circle:

That leaves the ruling class, Saddam's inner circle, as the most likely group that could carry out a coup. Their position in Iraq, indeed their very lives, is protected only as long as Saddam rules. They have never served the nation as a whole, only Saddam. They must know that even if Saddam survives until allied forces triumph, their lives depend on getting into allied hands before the people or the army can find them.

Personal survival shapes a motive for the inner circle to carry out a coup. If they can displace Saddam from power, they would be in a better position to negotiate with the US and UK over their own fates. But do they have the means or opportunity to depose Saddam?

At present, they probably do not have both. Coups must be finely timed. Saddam is certainly no stationary target; he cloaks his movements in secrecy and certainly uses doubles to mislead potential enemies. The problem of coordinating a coup's plotters to converge forcefully at the key time and place is daunting. In order for such a plot to succeed, it must involve key persons who can track and report Saddam's movements, arrange for secret transportation of arms and coup personnel and communicate covertly. All of these things are tall orders in Iraq, one of the most comprehensive police states ever.

But of necessity, Saddam is forced to trust a select few men (never women, for him) with his life. If those men abandon him, his fate is sealed. They are not the members of the ruling council; Saddam does not trust them. He has always seen his ministers of government as competitors, not trustees, and has shown no compunction about killing them when he saw them as threats.

The men who must turn or be turned are his personal bodyguards and personal staffs. These are the men who drive or fly him around, who coordinate his movements, meals and on-site security. Many of them are blood-related to Saddam, but that will not matter. Saddam has killed some family members and should expect no self sacrifice from the rest. Few would stand by him in a Baghdad version of the fuhrerbunker.

If a coup occurs before events devolve to a fuhrerbunker, it will likely result from a few key men coming to a meeting of minds. Any likely coup plotter certainly understands the chaos that would grip a post-Saddam Iraq if the reins of power are not firmly seized. Only one or two men of the ruling council, one or two senior officers of the Republican Guard, a family member and a key figure from Saddam's personal staff would probably be enough to succeed.

They would probably also target a few other enemies whom they see as potential rivals, but also to use them as fall guys.

A Possible Sequence of a Coup

So a coup's sequence may look like this:

1. Convinced by the unwavering resolution of the US and UK that Saddam's days are numbered, a small number of men close to Saddam independently conclude that their own future depends on abandoning him. At great risk each discovers that others believe that also. These are men from his innermost circle, the minsters and the Republican Guard.

2. Alliances are formed and personal deals are struck. The plotters agree that they will seize power from Saddam and govern afterward as co-rulers.

3. But they also realize that to prevent civil disorder, if not civil war, after the coup, they require some embedded legitimacy. They decide to rid themselves of potential rivals whom they consider either too dangerous to ask to join, or whom they know would betray them - Uday Hussein, for example.

4. They agree on a basic plan of action, including who will be Brutus to Saddam's Caesar. The plotters on Saddam's personal staff intensify efforts to identify Saddam's movements and times. They finally identify a time and place that provides an opportunity. The Republican Guard plotter takes steps to position units at key points around the capital. Those units are unaware of any plot, they are simply following orders. At the key moment, the plotters act. Saddam is either captured or killed, along with his entourage.

5. As simultaneously as possible, Uday and perhaps a few key other men are assassinated - no captivity for them because their permanent silence is too valuable.

6. (a.) If the coup cabal killed Saddam, they announce that Saddam was assassinated by Uday and others, who were in turn killed by Saddam's loyalists. They, the cabal, present themselves as protectors of Saddam's legacy and vow to continue his policies. Then they covertly contact the US to work out a deal

(b) If the cabal captured Saddam, they announce that Uday, et. al. Saddam attempted to assassinate Saddam, but Saddam was saved by the coup plotters. Uday and allies died in their traitorous attempt. For his own protection, Saddam is being kept from public view while security forces finish punishing the traitors. In the meantime, the cabal has authority from Saddam to rule in his name while Saddam recovers from the injuries he received in the assassination attempt. Then the cabal covertly contact the US to work out a deal

7. Saddam's doubles are killed and their bodies are destroyed.

8. The other members of the inner circle, the ruling council and the other high officers of the Republican Guard are given a choice, backed up by Republican Guard guns controlled by the cabal: vow allegiance to the cabal or die. Once this is done and the cabal feels relatively safe, it announces publicly that it is in charge of Iraq.

What happens then is anybody's guess.

Speaking of guesses, I am guessing that potential coup-plotters have already identified one another, and some rough outlines of Saddam's demise at their hands has already been discussed. President Bush's warning last night to the military to abandon Saddam cannot make Saddam's head rest easy on his pillow at night.

Hey Saddam! Coming soon to your neighborhood!
Carraig Daire provides a unique point of view of the future of Saddam's regime.

The Shuttle Cam was a blast!
Some of the best PR NASA has done in years

The space shuttle Atlantis lifted off this afternoon with a new twist: a center-tank-mounted video camera, pointed toward the earth. Its view was truly unique and I found it exhilirating. The MSNBC site, see link, has a video sequence. If you're a space buff it's a don't miss. It was even better on big-screen TV a few hours ago.

News media time travel
They published articles about Bush's speech before it had been delivered

Glenn Reynolds linked to a blogger who had discovered that the UK Independent had already published its article about President Bush's Monday evening speech. Time travel? he wondered.

The Independent ain't the only one with FTL news coverage (that's "Faster Than Light" for the uninitiated). Here is what America's own Associated Press, via The Washington Times has to say about it:

"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place,'' Bush said. "By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.''

Now, to be fair, the White House releases "as prepared" copies of the president's speeches under embargo to the news media so they can get some coverage prepared in time to file and publish the next morning, or for broadcast media, the late newscasts.

"Embargo" means that the media agree not to release the coverage until after the speech, but the AP is a wire service, not a publisher, so its manager decided to transmit the story early, probably in time for newspaper editors to lay it out and localize it and still meet deadline.

Don't choke!
Or at least, don't choke wrong

I spent all day Saturday leading a planning retreat. By the end of retreat at 3 p.m., the day had blossomed into one of those splendid late-summer days where everything is perfect, weather-wise. The temp was exactly right, there was a gentle breeze occasionally, the sun shone brilliantly, the clouds floated lazily and the humidity was low enough that your brow never moistened even when you stood in the sunlight.

And as I left the retreat, the thought occurred to me that I had not turned orange clay pigeons into puffs of dust in a long time.

So I drove the 30 miles home, recruited my 16-year-old son to go with me, threw our Beretta AL 391 12-gauge semiauto into the trunk, loaded a case of #8 shot, and off we went to Big Springs range.

Big Springs is a commercial range; a range staffer pulls the targets. I decided to shoot the 391 rather than rent the Beretta S686E Sporting shotgun I wrote about here and had been shooting. We shot a course of trap, consisting of four repetitions 25 rounds each. Of the first 25 my score was miserable, only 16 hits. That was way below what I have been shooting. I wasn't happy.

In trap, the shooter moves through five shooting stations arranged in an arc behind the trap house. (The event gets its name from the name of the target launching machine, called a trap.) On the shooter's command, the puller launches a target. In trap shooting, the target always flies away from the shooter, rising as it goes. The flight path varies randomly left and right, with some variations in altitude.

The trap puller suggested I choke down from improved-cylinder to improved-modified. For those who don't know, chokes are screw-in tubes for shotgun muzzles that slightly narrow the bore. The narrower the choke, the more together the shot pellets stay at longer ranges. The most open choke is called, "skeet," and does not narrow the bore at all. (Modern shotgun barrels are designed so that a choke must always be installed, even if it does not narrow the bore.) The most narrowing choke is "full," although some companies make "extra full." There are also some specialized chokes for specific target events. A shotgun designed especially for trap shooting may have only three chokes - close, mid and distant ranges.

So I choked down to the middle standard choke, improved modified. What a difference! My second round I destroyed 23 out of 25 targets. I hit the last 15 in a row. The third round I did the same thing. The final round, with light fading, I hit 22 of 25. The total score was only 84 of 100, but once I changed the choke I was hitting at a rate of 92. That is almost competitive for state and regional tournaments, and it's only the fourth time I have shot this year. (I'd shoot more, but the range is an hour drive, one way, and it's tough to find the time.)

I hope that next spring, when the tournament season starts again, I'll be able to participate. Unfortunately, the tournaments tend to run both Saturdays and Sundays because a tournament consists of more than one course of 100 targets, shot over two days. Sundays are tough for me to compete on; usually the tournament is finished by the time I could arrive. That's why I haven't competed yet.

BTW, the 391's performance cemented why I think Beretta makes the best shotguns in the world. My son and I blasted 200 rounds from it in only about 45 minutes. The barrel got so hot we could see the heat ripples coming off the barrel. But the Beretta never hiccupped. It's just a superb shotgun.

BTW, an excellent guide to trap shooting is on Remington's web site.

Bric-a-brac

I have spent most of the day consulting with an orthodontist about treatment for a family member or writing an analysis of what and whom are necessary for a successful coup in Iraq. That's why I haven't posted until just a few minutes ago.

I wrote the coup analysis at the request of a full-time military analyst who read my earlier post about the subject and then asked me whether I would supply him with some additional thoughts for his use. I accepted and will not post the work until he releases it.
*************
I have no more thoughts about the indescribably despicable killer who shot a 13-year-old boy in Maryland this morning. I think a stronger argument in favor of capital punishment could not be made, and I have been working against the death penalty in Tennessee for a few years.
*************
I don't think there will be anything new in President Bush' address to the nation tonight. But it is certainly time for the president to make the case, as I have been saying since May. I readily concur that the documentary evidence relased by the US and UK governments have been convincing, but if my president is going to send our armed forces into war, I don't want to get a memo. I want to see his face and hear his words tell me why, even if I do already agree it must be done.

I heard on cable news that the broadcast networks are not carrying the speech; it will be only on cable. Yet more evidence that the traditional nets are more irrelevant to the American mainstream - I wonder whether Peter Jennings really wonders why his new book can't be given away.
************
I am plenty ticked at The Washington post for making me log in to read certain pages. Using Internet Explorer 6.0.26, the site never accepts my login. After several days of being denied access to stories I wanted to read, I downloaded Netscape 7, which works fine at the WaPo site. Does anyone else have this problem?
***********
Another browser problem I am having is with the Beretta USA products page. The Beretta home page loads fine, but their products page never does. It just gets stuck and never comes up. It does this with both Internet Explorer and Netscape.

Joe Lieberman states the case
Here is why the Congress should support President Bush's request for war powers against Iraq.

They're at it again!
Dems goes to court to invalidate McKinney's primary defeat

I guess it helps to have the American Trial Lawyers Association in your pocket - just ask the Democrat party. Not content with trying to detroy New Jersey's election process, the Dems are trying to do the same in Georgia. Five Democrat DeKalb County, Ga., voters have filed suit in federal court seeking Rep. Cythia McKinney's (D - Saudia Arabia) defeat in the primary be thrown out.

The basis for their suit: The wrong people voted.

The suit claims that black Democratic voters in the 4th District had their voting rights violated and interfered with by the crossover votes. It asks that those crossover votes be declared unconstitutional and invalid and that McKinney be declared the winner of the Democratic primary.

Georgia does not require voters to register by party. They can vote in whatever primary they choose. McKinney has blamed, well, let's see, the Jews, the Indians and now the Republicans for her defeat. She claims that people who should have voted in the Republican primary instead "crossed over" and voted for her opponent in the Democrat primary, causing her defeat.

The lawsuit calls it, "malicious crossover voting." Everywhere else, it's called "democracy."

First there was Florida. Then there is New Jersey. Now there is Georgia. Wasn't it Shakespeare who said that events repeat themselves, the first time as tragedy, the second as comedy, the third as farce? Yeah, I think it was Shakespeare. I'll ask Barbra Streisand. She'll know, fer sure.

"Farce," Cynthia, farce. Yep, that's you all right.

Without America as the world's Leviathan, global chaos would ensue

Historian Paul Johnson says that if the terrorists succeed in inflicting massive damage and loss of life on America, global depression and chaos would ensue. "There would be no power-of-last-resort to uphold international order. Wolf and jackal states would quickly emerge to prey on their neighbors. . . . America is the only constitutional Leviathan we have, which is precisely why the terrorists are striving to do him mortal injury."

As with all Prof. Johnson' work, this is well worth emailing to yourself to reread later. Thanks to Jason Rubenstein for the link.

Intel reports says al Qaeda may shoot our kids at their schools

According to The Washington Times:

U.S. intelligence agencies received reports this week indicating Islamic terrorists have targeted American schools for attack, intelligence officials said.

The reports indicate that the targeting includes plans to attack all levels of educational institutions in the United States, ranging from elementary schools to colleges and universities, said officials familiar with the reports.

The information on schools as terrorist targets is among the scores of threat reports received by U.S. intelligence agencies every day. Some officials questioned the veracity of the report but said U.S. intelligence agencies have to weigh all the reports carefully.

Makes me wonder whether the Maryland shootings are just some nutcase or a dry run for deadlier attacks, to determine the level and type of law enforcement response.

I have three school-age children, and the thought of an automatic weapon being turned on their outdoors activities (recess, boarding school buses, going to football games, etc.) makes my skin crawl.

Remember, al Qaeda has said it has the right - the right, mind you - to kill two million American children.

Truer words were never spoken
"The job of a bureaucrat is to regulate, and left to himself he'll eventually try to regulate everything." Thus sprach Steven den Beste.

More thoughts about the Maryland shootings
"Skilled" marksman not really needed for these shootings

I posted an update to my original post about the Maryland shootings, explaining why I don't think that the shootings show evidence of unusual marksmanship. The update is at the end of the original post.

Update: Chase Foster, supervisory special agent for the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), an arm of the FBI that investigates unusual or repetitive crimes, was quoted Saturday morning: "It doesn't take a great deal of practice to be effective with those weapons."

The definition of "preemptive"
James Lileks has it:

You can't shoot the burglar when he's at the bottom of the stairs; you have to wait until he's in your bedroom. Anything less would be "preemptive."

As always, the whole screed is worth the time.

The Islamic Constitution of Great Britain
Want to know what "pure" Islam looks like? Here ya go.

Islamic Truth, an Islamic group based in the UK, has drafted an Islamic constitution it proposes for Great Britain. As I said, what is at stake in our present struggle are the very ideas of freedom and popular sovereignty themselves. Here is what the ideal state looks like, say the Muslims. Note: not the "ideal Muslim state," but the ideal state, period, because in their warped minds, there is no way any non-Muslim state can be ideal.

Article 1 The Islamic creed ('aqeedah) constitutes the foundation of the State. Nothing is permitted to exist in the government?s structure, regime, accountability, or any other aspect connected with the government, that does not take the creed as its source. The creed is also the source for the State's constitution and canons. Nothing connected to the constitution or canons, is permitted to exist unless it emanates from the Islamic creed.

Article 8 The Arabic language is the language of Islam and the sole language of the State.

Article 11 The primary function of the State is the propagation of the invitation (da'wah) to Islam.

Article 12 The only evidences to be considered for the divine rules (Ahkam Shari'ah) are: the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Companions (ijma'a as-sahabah) and analogy (qiyas). Legislation cannot be taken from any source other than these evidences.

There are other stomach-turning articles, but you get the drift.

Thanks to Rantburg for the link. As he says, "Over my dead body."

I thought it happened all the time, what with the Maryland gun culture and all

Brian Wilson on Fox cable news, reporting on the Maryland murders: "Something like this is not very common in Montgomery County, Maryland."

It's common, mind you. Just not very common.

Iraqis hate Saddam, says NYT writer
but the problem is, they hate America, too

Nicholas D. Kristoff warns that as much as the Iraqi people want the Saddamite thugocracy to vanish, they don't want to see an American regency replace it.

After scores of interviews with ordinary people from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south, I've reached two conclusions:

1. Iraqis dislike and distrust Saddam Hussein, particularly outside the Sunni heartland, and many Iraqis will be delighted to see him gone.

2. Iraqis hate the United States government even more than they hate Saddam, and they are even more distrustful of America's intentions than Saddam's.

"America is a new colonial power that wants to dominate," warns Rahim Majid, a farmer from Karbala. . . .

Public opinion is very difficult to gauge in a dictatorship as brutal as Iraq's, where reporters are mostly accompanied by government minders and where anyone who criticizes Saddam risks having his tongue amputated. . . [but] Iraqis listen openly and constantly to the BBC, Iranian radio, Israeli radio and especially to an excellent new American broadcast called Radio Sawa, which mixes popular music with news - and is a triumph of the Bush administration's focus on public diplomacy abroad. Furtive conversations with Iraqis leave a strong impression that most people know what's going on, worry about a war and hate what Saddam has done to their country.

Corruption is so widespread and morale is so poor that it sometimes seems the whole Iraqi system is close to disintegrating. A company of marines could perhaps slip through an Iraqi Army checkpoint on payment of a modest bribe. . . .

Still, while I found few people willing to fight for Saddam, I encountered plenty of nationalists willing to defend Iraq against Yankee invaders. And while ordinary Iraqis were very friendly toward me, they were enraged at the U.S. after 11 years of economic sanctions.

So if Saddam thinks the average Iraqi is going to miss him, he's deluding himself. But if President Bush thinks our invasion and occupation will go smoothly because Iraqis will welcome us, then he too is deluding himself.

Update: Andrew Sullivan responds to Kristoff thus:

Nick Kristof goes to Baghdad and finds people ready to attack the U.S. Quelle surprise! In a police state where the tiniest dissent on the tiniest matter can have you disappeared and tortured, Kristof deduces no support for a U.S. invasion. Let's check in and see what happens if we do invade, shall we? We have long memories in the blogosphere, Nick. And little pity.

Discount cell phone hands-free kits available here!
Cheap! Only $1!

Don't have a wreck while driving! Get this cutting-edge hands-free cell phone kit direct from me for only ONE DOLLAR! Email me your order today!

Here is information about the Colt AR-15 rifle, used in the Maryland murders
Rifle used was civilian version of military combat rifle

The Colt website has the data sheet. The AR-15 is basically a civilian version of the military M16 series.

The question was repeatedly asked at this morning's news conference about the range of the rifle.

The maximum range is how far the bullet will travel before falling to the ground. For this rifle it is more than 3,500 meters, about 2.2 miles. But --

The maximum effective range is 460 meters, more than one-quarter mile. The maximum effective range is the distance at which an average marksman will hit a man-sized target half the time (using the rifle's standard iron sights, not a scope).

Here is the Army's study guide for the M16A1/A2.

Update: The news reports also said that the shooter was a "skilled marksman." I'll agree that he is a trained marksman, but I don't think the shootings indicate unusual skill in marksmanship.

In the urban areas the shootings occurred, I would be surprised if any of the shootings took place at ranges of more than 100 yards. (With a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second, the bullet travels 100 yards in less than one-tenth second. That's basically instantaneous.) I once helped train raw Army recruits. They could hit at 100 yards almost all the time. And basic trainees are far from "skilled" shooters. It does not take a lot of practice shooting to consistently hit a person-size target (tragically, real persons in this case) from 100-150 yards.

Using a scope requires steadying the rifle so the sight picture doesn't jiggle. A simple, short snap-on bipod is made that takes maybe a second to clip onto or off of the barrel, and is designed to be used from a prone position. But from a distance of only 100 yards or so, an average marksman does not need a scope. Scopes are also easy to knock out of zero (or boresight) which would cause a miss. Accuracy with a scope requires re-boresighting every time it is mounted. So I would guess no scope was used because it would slow down the shooter.

Also, the use of the truck or van achieves excellent concealment and sound deadening. Anyone with urban combat training knows to fire from inside a building well back from a window or other opening in order to hide what little muzzle flash modern military ammo makes. So a shooter several feet back from a window or rear opening of a large van or small truck, as the suspected vehicle is said to be, would be difficult to see.

Although the AR-15 is a loud rifle, if the vehicle had some foam lining its walls, it might muffle the sound enough so that the sound would not have been obvious as a gunshot. And most civilians these days don't really know what a gunshot sounds like, anyway.

More and more, this sounds like a well-prepared attack, not some "wilding" or casual undertaking.

In search of the Lost Cause of the Old South
If you are not reading Geitner Simmons blog, you should be.

"Punch (R) all the way down . . . "
Jason Rubenstein explains why he's just had it.

I wish I had said that
"Tut-tut" pacifism's moral vacancy

I once wrote about the certain breed of cowards I call "tut-tut pacifists." Now, courtesy Andrew Sullivan via Tonecluster, comes Theodore Roosevelt's first-rate summary of their moral emptiness. It's too good merely to link to, so here is the whole quote:

"[M]y disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra-pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals." - Theodore Roosevelt, anticipating Jim McDermott, from TR's "America and the World War."

Bush vs Saddam!
The headliner match: Rocky vs Apollo Creed it ain't

So says Photodude. A short, sweet post!

Saddam's "palaces" include 1,000 buildings
They are installations, not residences

One of the major points of dispute concerning the possible renewed work of UN weapons inspectors is their access to Saddam's palaces. Iraq flatly says that the inspectors may not have access. The US and the UK insist that inspectors have the same access to the palaces as any other installation, claiming that Iraq uses the palaces' grounds as depositories of critical material and as research and development facilities.

According to a Fox News report, there are 1,000 buildings on all the places that Saddam claims are his presidential palaces. According to Adel Darwish of Foreign Wire,

The UN Sanction Committee engaged in a game of teasing Saddam, as part of psychological warfare, by blocking the imports of material needed for his luxurious palaces. Saddam even encouraged the interpretation of western experts that it was a grandiose design on the part of an Arab dictator to emulate rulers from the old Islamic empire who built a palace in every major provincial town.

Darwish tells of Hussein Wael, "a mason who bribed his way out of Iraq at the cost of $5000." Wael says that Saddam's construction projects "included 30 new palaces besides the 19 that existed before the Gulf war." In 1995 Mr Wael said that he, like other workers,

. . . moved between 15 palaces and was not permitted near tunnelling areas. The wisdom in the West then was that Saddam was building air raid bunkers. But the tunnels, according to other reports were only made available in early 1997 and were used to hide vital material and information, especially computer disks and research equipment used in the biological weapons programme.

And let us not forget collusion of the French:

The most impressive presidential residence, according to Wael, is Qasr-Shatt al-Arab, a complex of buildings and four artificial lakes built along the waterway that separates Iraq and Iran. "One of the French engineers working there told us it was bigger than the palace at Versailles," he said, confirming the involvement of French experts in constructing Saddam's palaces.

According to Globalsecurity.com, the largest palace grounds are at Lake Tharthar, 150 miles north of Baghdad, covering 2.5 square miles.

In 1998, Bill Richardson, the US representative to the UN, said,

"At just one of these eight sites -- the sprawling Republican Palace compound in Baghdad -- there are more than 700 buildings. Many of these buildings belong to and are a part of the presidential security network, which is also responsible for concealing documents, chemicals and weapons of mass destruction from the United Nations."

Furthermore, it is not known just what sites Saddam claims as palaces. "But officials with admittedly limited knowledge of Iraq's forbidden sites describe them as extensive complexes packed with mysterious buildings."

Leaflets rain down over southern Iraq
Warn Iraqi troops to stop shooting at allied warplanes

The US is dropping leaflets on Iraqi air defense soldiers warning them to stop shooting at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

Iraqi forces responded by firing on aircraft delivering the leaflets. That led allied forces to bomb an air defense operations center, U.S. Central Command officials said.

If Iraqi firing continues (it will), the next step will be to mount an air campaign to destroy systematically Iraq's air defense system. Iraqi air defense troops will also be targeted.

During the Gulf War, leaflets warned soldiers of Iraqi armor units to stay away from their tanks. Then Air Force aircraft and Army Apache attack helicopters followed up by destroying the Iraqi tanks using thermal sights and precision munitions. Captured Iraqi officers reported that after a few days of this sort of air campaign, they could not get their troops to go near their tanks.

We would also drop leaflets on an Iraqi brigade deployed on line. The leaflets to the first battalion said, "We will bomb you tomorrow." The leaflets to the other two battalions said, "We will bomb the first battalion tomorrow. You can watch them die." The the next day we'd just bomb the first battalion into oblivion. That afternoon we'd drop leaflets on the second and third battalion: "We will bomb you tomorrow. This leaflet is a safe-conduct pass to guarantee good treatment by coalition forces. Discard arms and ammunition. Walk toward coalition units with hands high. We promise treatment in accordance with the Geneva Conventions."

Iraqis deserted or surrendered by the carload lot because of psyops, backed up with firepower.

Thanks to Richard Heddleson for the link!

Update: The text of the message is: "The destruction experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces. No tracking or firing on these aircraft will be tolerated. You could be next."

Were Marines' parachutes sabotaged by terrorists?
No. Here's why.

Glenn Reynolds reports that a reader of his wonders why no one has mentioned terrorism in regard to the recent sabotage of US Marines' parachutes at Camp Lejeune, NC.

Having served in Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, NC, I think I can shed some light on this subject.

Commentators seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that "the suspension lines had been severed on the 13 affected main parachutes in such a manner that pre-jump inspections would not detect any signs of tampering."

This is not a big deal at all. The suspension lines are the lines that attach the parachute harness (worn by the jumper) to the parachute. When the parachute is packed no suspension lines ever show - see the picture The lines are inside the deployment bag along with the rest of the parachute. The deployment bag holds everything together until after the jumper has exited the aircraft. It is pulled away from the parachute by a static line which is hooked to a cable inside the airplane. This separation of the deployment bag from the parachute frees the chute and enables it to inflate in the slipstream of the aircraft.


Packed military T-10C parachute
wrapped by the deployment bag.
The yellow line is the static line.

Jumpmasters conduct a very detailed, 15-point inspection of each jumper before they board the aircraft, but the jumpmaster does not unpack the chutes. The jumpers are already wearing them.

The responsibility to inspect the chutes before they are issued to the paratroopers belongs to the riggers. Military parachute-packing facilities, called rigging sheds, are always under the two-man rule. No one rigger can pack and certify any chute. A noncommissioned officer has to inspect and sign off on each chute before it is stored in a two-lock storage locker. No sole officer or NCO has access to both keys to the storage locker. (This is at Fort Bragg, I would certainly assume that the Marines have the same procedure.)

For a terrorist to cut the suspension lines would mean that he would have to do it before or while the chute is packed. But rigging chutes is a crowded business, with dozens of troops around all the time. You don't just casually stroll into a rigging shed and start clipping lines. The same riggers pack chutes day after day, and they absolutely would detain anyone at a packing lane who was not known, even if the intruder was dressed and groomed as a Marine. Security of the rigging shed is drilled into riggers from day one.

A terrorist could not have come in at night to cut the lines after the chutes were packed and stored. The attempt would have to be night because the rigging shed is so crowded during the day. Nor would a terrorist be able to break into the storage locker in a way that would not be obvious the next morning. Nor would he be able to unpack a chute, cut lines, repack it and restore it without using a lot of light for a long time. And the security patrols would see the light and apprehend him (or them).

That does not even address how terrorists could get onto the base to begin with. Access to military bases since 9/11 has been quite controlled. If terrorists could get on the base in the first place, surely they'd attempt more terrible things than cutting a few suspension lines! If that's the worst they can do, we've won.

My hunch is that a rigger cut the lines and managed to conceal the cuts from the NCO supervisor (who should have caught them, that's his job), or a supervisor cut them after dismissing the packer (who would be a junior rank) from the packing lane. It's happened before. Possibly there could have been a conspiracy between two riggers.

BTW, riggers have to jump using chutes that they packed. This tends to keep them honest.

I think the Naval Criminal Investigative Service will have this case wrapped up pretty quick.

Update: A former US Marine jumpmaster adds insights in the comments, so take a look!

Remember this? "Al Qaeda Training for Small-Arms Massacre"
Maryland murders done at random, killers escape

Back on June 26 I linked a Village Voice article that reported of warnings to law-enforcement agencies warning that al Qaeda terrorists in the US could resort to drive-by murders and random shootings.

As I write, a news conference in Maryland is being held. The authorities' spokeswoman says that no link has been established among the victims. There are very few leads as to suspects.

I never would have guessed that
NYT gives us a blinding glimpse of the obvious

Headline and teaser in email news update from the New York Times:

Iraqis Stall for Time, Playing Weak Hand Well
Iraq's objective appears to be to ensure that weapons inspection arrangements are as weak as possible before admitting international monitors.

Who'd a-thunk it?

Torricelli was bought cheap
and he ruined the curve for the others

So says Richard Cohen:

Torricelli's "mistake" -- his characterization -- was not about sex but about corruption. It is a nasty word and maybe too expansive for what Torricelli did. But he did take gifts from a campaign contributor, for which he was "severely admonished" by his Senate colleagues. What's more, he came cheap -- a Rolex watch, some suits, a TV set. This was almost an insult to New Jersey's heritage of industrial-strength corruption. Tony Soprano would be appalled.

I wonder whether what upsets the other pols as much as his corruption is his cheap corruption. Do they resent him spoiling the curve for them? You remember - when a professor grades on the curve, the whole class hates the student who scores a 100 percent because he ruins the curve.

When US Senator is bought as cheap as New Jersey Bob, that kind of ruins the curve for the rest, doesn't it?

Bold predictions from now til November
But none of them matter compared to the real action

Joe Katzman says the world can go to perdition, baseball playoffs are here. It's good to see a man with his priorities straight.

Half million flee Lili
Worst hurricane to hit La. ever

According to The Washington Times:

"We have a real disaster in the making," said Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. "This is going to be the worst hurricane to hit the Louisiana coast since reconnaissance data has been available."

The good news, though, is that overnight Lili weakened more than expected. As of this morning, its status has dropped to Category 2. The latest advisory says its maximum sustained winds are now about 100 mph, well below last night's 145 mph.

Lili could be a bad killer
Category 4 hurricane, moving toward Gulf coast

Eleven days ago I posted about an Army Corps of Engineers study of the devastation that a Category 5 hurricane would visit upon New Orleans. Their conclusion: 40,000 dead, the city wiped from the earth.


Click here for larger map.

As of 10 p.m. CDT the National Hurricane Center posted an advisory that said:

...LILI REMAINS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE...
...DEADLY 10 TO 20 FOOT STORM SURGE APPROACHING THE COAST...
...FINAL PREPARATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE RUSHED
TO COMPLETION NOW...

...
Fortunately for New Orleans, it is not in the direct path of the hurricane and the rest of the advisory lists New Orleans as being under tropical storm warning, not hurricane warning. The storm is 195 miles south of the city, moving north-northwest, but is expected to veer north overnight. Its sustained winds top out at 145 mph, with gusting to higher speeds, but the Center says the storm's strength has peaked. The Center says there is a less than 50 percent chance that the hurricane's center will pass 65 miles or less from New Orleans.

Let us be thankful that it appears New Orleans has dodged the bullet this time, and pray that other sections of the coast will not suffer badly.

Today's posts

Maybe I was on to something
Just coincidence?

More on non-deterrability of Saddam Hussein
Dan Rather hits the nail on the head

New Jersey politics and national unity
Something fundamental needs to be recovered

Frank and Ernest explain my site
Somebody finally caught on

"The 9mm ballot" - how to engineer a coup
Multiple fronts ongoing to end Saddam's rule; the "single bullet" solution is acceptable to the administration

Maybe I was on to something
Just coincidence?

Anne Applebaum wrote in Slate Oct. 1,

Although I dislike the modern tendency to compare every mad dictator to Hitler, in this narrow sense, the comparison to Saddam might be apt. Are you sure Saddam would not risk the destruction of his country, if he thought, for some reason, that he or his regime was in danger? Do you want to wait and find out? In my view, Saddam's personality - which I would really like to see more carefully and more frequently dissected by people who know him and his regime - ought to be as much a part of the debate about whether to intervene as his putative nuclear arsenal. We really don't know whether deterrence will work in the case of Iraq. Megalomaniacal tyrants do not always behave in the way rational people do, and to assume otherwise is folly.

Compare to what I wrote back on Sept. 22:

Hitler ultimately did not care whether Germany survived him. In fact, he thought that the German people deserved to perish for failing him. . . .

[Saddam] envisions no future beyond the end of his own life, and therefore will not be dissuaded from striking the US by threats of retaliation against Iraq. The fate of the Iraqi people means nothing to him except as they are able to serve him personally. Does anyone seriously doubt that Saddam would be willing to sacrifice countless more Iraqi lives to strike America, especially if he knew that his own end was near whether he did so or not?

Advantage: One Hand Clapping!

More on non-deterrability of Saddam Hussein
Dan Rather hits the nail on the head

This post of Eugene Volokh helps illustrate what I said about why relying on deterrance to keep Saddam is his box poses unacceptable risks. Eugene cites three sources who say that Saddam's driving ambition is to be as great as the legendary Muslim ruler Saladin. First up - Dan Rather on the Larry King Show, June 4, 2002:

Beyond that, if [President Bush] asked me about Saddam Hussein, I would say I think the most misunderstood thing about Saddam Hussein may be this: When his feet hit the floor every morning, he is dreaming of being the modern Saladin. He dreams of leading a victorious Arab army through the streets of Jerusalem. Whether you like it, don't like it; whether you're terrified by it or don't think about it, it's absolutely crucial to -- critical to understand that that's what's in his head and heart, and that's what he dreams.

Professor Volokh concludes that this observation, made by others as well as Dan Rather, may not be true. But -

Should we ourselves gamble on this? Because letting Hussein get nuclear weapons, and then playing the deterrence game with him, means that very sort of gamble.

That's the nub of the problem.

New Jersey politics and national unity
Something fundamental needs to be recovered

Others have covered the astonishing political depravity the Democrat party in New Jersey has fallen to, notably James Lileks, so I won't try to speak specifically to that issue. I think instead it is time for a little lesson in civis and national unity.

Unity takes work. The natural state of human community is not utopia. Anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote that western, industrialized people romanticize primitive cultures. We ascribe to them an almost Eden-like life, but such is not really the case. People of the Amazon and equatorial New Guinea and elsewhere are just as riven by dissensions, gossip, backbiting and political maneuvering as anyone else. Harris even theorized that one reason war is so hard to stamp out is that both primitive and advanced societies value the unity engendered by outside threats. So, for example, Nashville uses Titans football as substitute warfare. Nashvillians are united this week to defeat the threat of the invading Redskins.

What unites us Americans, as we face the prospect of bitter lawyering the NJ election and the prospect of open war with Iraq? Americans have always been individualists to some degree. The American revolutionists did not disguise that they were acting out of self interest. Yet we have always found common cause in a central idea. English statesman Edmund Burke observed that America is the only nation ever to be founded upon an idea. The American idea, and ideal, is that there really can be a country where all persons are "created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

History reveals that across time and the globe, disputes over political power have often (usually?) been settled by mobs or armies in the streets, ending with one of the contenders dead or fled. Even in civilized England, deposed King Charles I was beheaded over control of the country. But in America, where there are 250 million guns in private hands, the worst thing the streets saw in the 2000 election dispute was a few hundred people protesting in West Palm Beach. one English commentator noted that if this sort of election problem happened in Nicaragua or Albania, it would bring bombings, but since it happened in Florida, the only thing it brings is . . . lawyers. Through the lens of history, our political disputes are unusually peaceful.

America's founders realized that the people of a democracy would inevitably divide into factions, setting the people in opposition to one another. For that reason, the founders mistrusted direct democracy. "Democracies," wrote James Madison in Federalist 10, "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." The founders feared the tyranny of a democratic majority almost as much the tyranny of a monarchy. The script of 2000's blockbuster movie, The Patriot, reflected this fear when Mel Gibson's character expressed doubts about the revolution by asking a colonial assembly, "Will you tell me why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Hence the founders rejected direct democracy. In fact, wrote historian Fred Barbash, "Democracy, as we think of it, wasn't a serious option. Democracy was an alien notion; the word itself was rarely used in the debates of that time. The real power, they believed, resided in the House of Representatives, elected by popular vote." (As an aside, the founders appear to have assumed that presidential elections would be decided by the House more often than not. "It will rarely happen that the majority of the whole votes will fall on any one candidate," said George Mason of Virginia.)

There is the famous anecdote of Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention and being asked by a woman on the sidewalk what government she would have. "A republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." Of course, a republic has factions, too, but is much less subject to their ill effects. It would be nice to say that the founders thought that high-falutin ideals like truth, justice and the "American way" would protect national unity, but they weren't so naive. They knew high ideals could be easily perverted for tyranny's purposes. The unity of the nation may be rooted in the ideals of the government but can be preserved only in the form of the government. So the founders made the nation a republic, which is the main reason we have the electoral college rather than direct election.

"God save our republic." A republic, as defined by the founders, is a government which -

derives all its powers from the people, and

is administered by persons holding their offices for a limited period.

Essential to a republic is that elected officials may come from all segments of society and not from a small proportion, or a favored class. Furthermore, every tenure of office must be conditional in some way, either by limiting terms by law or by enabling removal by law.

Factionalism cannot be eliminated from society. "The latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man," Madison wrote, because differing interests always have divided humankind "into parties . . . and rendered them much more disposed to . . . oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good," an observation we are seeing played out this very week. Madison observed that the tendency toward disunity was so deeply rooted in human nature that the most violent conflicts have been kindled for the most frivolous reasons.

Madison thought it folly "to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." Furthermore, of necessity politicians deal with matters immediately at hand and rarely take a long view of things.

John Adams wrote, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled with morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In other words, the founders understood that the protections of constitutional liberty depended on the moral duty and religious conviction of the people.

Yet while morality and religion were necessary for liberty, they cannot guarantee liberty, because, wrote Madison, "Neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on " to control factionalism and discord. After all, a sense of morality and religion do not even prevent "the violence of individuals." In civil affairs, the moral and religious senses restrain factions less and less as factions get bigger. Thus, individually moral and religious men and women become a mob when inflamed and united by acrimonious passion.

This is an important point. Elections inflame passions. Candidates usually present themselves as holding religious conviction. No doubt many or most of their campaign workers do too, along with the men and women counting votes and also the party representatives monitoring the process. And while we may hope and pray that their moral and religious convictions will guide them truly, our nation's founders warned us they won't. We must seek another source of unity for our nation, not to supplant morality and religion but to complement them.

Our continuing hope for national unity is that we re-unite around the flagpole of the ideals of the republican form of government the founders bequeathed us. We must re-educate ourselves in republican ideals (not meaning the Republican party) and how it inhibits the dangers of democracy. The Federalist Papers wax long and eloquent on the virtues of a republic, but I'll not list them here.

The New Jersey situation isn't going to be resolved by relying on the good will of the players. It isn't going to be solved by wishing we could all stand in a circle, hold hands, and sing Kum Bah Ya. The issues disputed are very serious but not insurmountable. However, some politicians should consider that there is greater good for the republic than winning the office.

A closing thought: James Madison wrote, "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Frank and Ernest explain my site
Somebody finally caught on

"The 9mm ballot" - how to engineer a coup
Multiple fronts ongoing to end Saddam's rule; the “single bullet” solution is acceptable to the administration

In response to my three-part series on ending Saddam's regime without war, Strategy Page author Austin Bay wrote me,

All of the techniques you describe so well are already being used. (Well, many of them.) As I've written (probably too often) the US is still playing for the 9mm ballot. The "non-war" means are arguably "ancilliary diplomatic/war means" to affect that end (coup d'etat).

Anyway, excellent material.

On his web site, Austin explains,

I still believe the United States hopes to remove Saddam via the 9mm ballot - a coup d'etat triggered by intense diplomatic and military pressure. Sources here in London indicate Mauretania and North Korea might offer Saddam asylum. Exile isn't execution (his deserved fate), but it avoids expanded war. Like other psychological gambits, dangling exile could exert pressure within Saddam's regime. The true soft underbelly of every dictatorship is internal rebellion.

The writings of people who lived in the old Soviet Union make it clear that tyranny is liked only by the few people who benefit from it - the ruling class. Everyone else hates it; let's be real: no one like living in constant fear of arbitrary midnight knocks on the door.

Long before the Soviet apparatus tumbled, the masses had given up ever achieving True Communism, had abandoned the ideals of Marxism-Leninism, and had grown bitter about the privileges of the ruling class.

Thus it is with all dictators, Saddam included. The people of Iraq are harshly oppressed and they know it. There are some who scoff at the idea of liberating them, or of them liberating themselves, but Iraq is the most Western-like of all the Arab nations. Iraqis endure for now because they see no alternative.

The Bush administration is seeking the authorization for military force from Congress and trying to tighten the noose around Saddam in the UNSC. What Austin Bay and I believe is that while these efforts are going on, measures are being taken in other venues to reveal an achievable alternative to the Iraqi people.

The objectives in such backdoor efforts are to achieve a regime change by means short of overt war, but the threat of war is what makes them effective. (And war may yet be necessary.) The people will gladly welcome Saddam’s departure from the scene, whether he walks out or is carried out. So will the rank and file of the army, who know they will simply perish in battle with US forces.

The Republican Guard may stick with Saddam but they suffered badly at allied hands in 1991. They do not matter unless it comes to shooting war, and then may resist only long enough to preserve their honor before surrendering, especially if they know that the US seeks nothing but total victory. Unlike Desert Storm, this time the Republican Guard will have nowhere to flee to.

That leaves the ruling class as the psyops target of choice. The task is to separate them psychologically from Saddam. If a coup can be done, it must be done by Saddam’s inner circle. They must be brought to unlink Saddam’s future from their own. Put another way, they will have to feel more threatened by Saddam’s survival than by his departure.

Interestingly, just yesterday White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that a coup would be just fine:

The White House yesterday backed the assassination of Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi people, saying "the cost of one bullet" to take out the Iraqi dictator would achieve the goal of regime change more quickly and cheaply than a U.S. attack.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the ouster of Saddam "is welcome in whatever form it takes," noting that several other options — including exile — are less expensive than war, which Congress estimates would cost as much as $13 billion just to begin.

"I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that.

"But there are many options that the president hopes the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves," he said. "Never underestimate the yearning of people to stop being tortured, to stop being suppressed. . . . if the Iraqis took matters in their own hands, no one around the world would shed a tear."

Simple persuasion won’t do it, of course. To carry out a coup against Saddam, the coup plotters must come to a point where they feel personally threatened by Saddam’s continuation.

Engendering that state of mind is not a polite business. The CIA will reach into its bag of dirty tricks to create fear and uncertainty among Saddam’s ruling council and Saddam himself. To make the ruling class turn against Saddam, Saddam will have to turn against them.

We will have to make Saddam think that a coup is being planned when it is not. Poison letters, forged documents, engineered audio and video, false reports of meetings and activities among those whom Saddam must trust for his safety - all are means that the CIA (and MI6, for that matter) have employed in other circumstances against their enemies. Saddam has shown no compunction about shooting anyone who does not please him; if they appear traitorous to him personally, his strike is sure and swift.

So our covert services, let us hope, are sowing seeds of doubt and confusion among the council’s members about each other’s loyalty and intentions, as well as in Saddam’s mind about the council and others of his inner circle. If the inner circle turns on each other, fine. If Saddam has one or two executed, even better. They are criminals anyway, and it may cause the others to feel fearful enough to reach for the Beretta ballot.

If one did so, the collapse of the rest of the regime would be rapid. I said that energizing the Iraqi people to take control of their destiny would require a “trigger event” that would reveal to them a golden, not-to-be-repeated opportunity. Saddam’s assassination would be exactly such an event. The chain of command of the regime would be so disrupted and confused by such an event that no effective opposition to the people could be formed. The army would join the people anyway, and the Republican Guard would have no reason to defend an assassin against the masses.

Obviously, this is all speculative. But if the US isn’t trying to achieve such an outcome, it should be. Could Fleischer’s comments yesterday have been a signal to certain Iraqi officials that they have our green light to go ahead? We’ll have to wait and see.

Joke break
"You gonna talk or fish?"

A game and wildlife warden was newly assigned to a large lake here in Tennessee. His first day on the job, at mid-morning, he saw a fisherman putt-putt his bass boat into the dock. The fellow got out and pulled out three enormous chests of crushed ice. The game warden went out to introduce himself, and saw that the ice chests were crammed with dozens and dozens of fish.

The warden had a polite, brief conversation with the fisherman while he helped carry the fish to the man's truck.

The next day the same fisherman docked and unloaded three large ice chests full of fish. And the next. And the next.

Every day the same fisherman would pull his bass boat to the dock at mid-morning and unload a huge number of fish. Finally, the warden couldn't stand it any more. he went out and asked, "How are you able to catch all those fish every day? Special bait? Secret fishing hole? Equipment?"

The fellow says, "Be here at six tomorrow morning and I'll show you."

So the next day the warden joins the fisherman on his boat and off they sail. The fellow drives the boat to a deep, back-hollow inlet and cuts the motor. He takes a cigar out and lights up. He offers one to the warden, who declines. Then the fisherman reaches into the tackle box under his seat and takes out a stick of dynamite, which he quickly lights with the cigar and flings into the water.

Kaboom! Water splashes everywhere and, of course, dozens of fish float to the surface.

The warden is apoplectic. "See here!" he yells. "That's illegal and you know it! I am placing you under arrest!"

The fellow takes out another stick of dynamite, lights it and throws it at the warden, who instinctively catches it. The fisherman leans back, puffs his cigar, and says, "Now, you gonna talk or fish?"

Hey, I said it was a joke, not a good joke!

Iraqi women are socially liberated
But politically suppressed

Nicholas D. Kristof points out that Iraqi women are much more legally and socially free than almost all the rest of Arab Muslim women elsewhere.

Iraqi women routinely boss men and serve in non-combat positions in the army. Indeed, if Iraq attacks us with smallpox, we'll have a woman to thank: Dr. Rihab Rashida Taha, the head of Iraq's biological warfare program, who is also known to weapons inspectors as Dr. Germ.

A man can stop a woman on the street in Baghdad and ask for directions without causing a scandal. Men and women can pray at the mosque together, go to restaurants together, swim together, court together or quarrel together. Girls compete in after-school sports almost as often as boys, and Iraqi television broadcasts women's sports as well as men's.

Kristof comes to no breathtaking insights from recounting the relatively liberated state of Iraqi women compared to, say, Saudi Arabia. Nor is the life of Iraqi women blissful by any means,. They are sexually harassed and are subject to Islamic honor killings as in, say, Egypt.

But his points reinforce that a transformation of Iraqi society into a democracy is certainly possible. Douglas MacArthur demilitarized Japan by giving women the vote and guaranteeing them the right to hold public office. But Iraqi women are halfway there already.

Saddam has never seriously promoted himself as a Muslim paradigm. Iraq is not really an Islamic state, certainly not in the way that Saudi Arabia is. In social structure and government history, Iraq is closer to non-Arab Turkey than any other Arab country.

More on toppling Saddam without war

In response to my three-part series on a non-war plan to topple Saddam, I can see from the email I've received and comments that have been posted that I have more work to do. So let me begin by responding to these observations from reader Diana Moon, whose email touched on several points that others made individually:

I only gave the Sojourner article a cursory glance, but it seems to me that the examples the authors gave of non-violent resistance to dictators weren’t' applicable. The Nazis were, for example, obsessed with race, and murdering Aryan women in the middle of Berlin (even if they were "race traitors") would have been unacceptable.

I was surprised the Sojourners writers didn't talk about the end of the Honcecker regime; that is why I did. As for the Rosenstrasse women, the article I linked to points out that the SS did fire toward (not really "at") the women, and that the main reason Goebbels backed down was that there was still significant foreign press in Berlin who would have reported a massacre to the world. The Nazis did not really shrink from killing the women in the middle of Berlin, they shrank from the prospect of the world finding out about it. Hence, my point that live video of Iraqi protests should be broadcast from Predators and other platforms to the world.

I do believe that it would be possible to topple Saddam, but....it would require a radical, wholesale shift in our economy . . .

Like you, I do not think the US has grasped what the future portends for us and Iraq. As I wrote a year ago in my essay, "Is America Justified to Use Force?:

"Almost everywhere in the world where international terrorism grows we find poverty and human oppression, especially toward women. Tribalism and ethnic hatred also remain strong. We Americans are more free of these oppressions than almost any other people. We and our western allies must lead the way out for those people. It will take a new kind of national commitment. It will cost a fortune. It will require new kinds of armies, armies not of soldiers but of engineers, agriculturalists, financiers, administrators and educators.

It will take decades and there are no guarantees. But the alternative is to fight culture and religious wars generation after generation."

Another view of the prospective costs of the war is found in this op-ed piece by Jeffrey Miller (thanks to Richard Heddleson for the link).

Sacrifices are also necessary to ensure that we do not sow the seeds of the next conflict by failing to secure the peace after our victory. In Iraq that means a major investment of money, people and effort over a long period of time to help rebuild the nation, reestablish the economy and foster development of a responsible government based on respect for human rights and the law.

Therefore, Congress should adopt two amendments to the president's resolution on Iraq: one, a tax surcharge to pay for the war and, two, a limited military draft to ensure we have sufficient forces to win the war and carry out his new policy.

I'm not prepared at this time to address Mr. Miller's points, but there seems to be a growing realization that neither the war nor the peace can be won on the cheap.

Diana continues:

So yeah, it [non-war victory] would be possible. But not probable. And, even if we did topple Saddam non-violently, we would be in the same fix as will be if/when he is removed by arms--what to do with post-war Iraq?

Exactly so, and that is a topic that deserves its own post. But I can't get to it now.

I am one of those people who believes that the disparity of force is so overwhelming that when the war comes, it will be over rather quickly. It won't be terribly violent. So what's the problem with using violence?

I agree that a war, properly conducted by our side, will be quick. Civilian casualties will be low, unless Saddam's thugs sacrifice their own people to save their miserable skins (a real possibility; Noriega's thugs committed mass murder in Panama City in 1989 to cover their fast retreat from US troops).

As I have said elsewhere in my blog, I do not have a problem with using military force to topple Saddam. I believe the risk of leaving him in power is unacceptable to American lives. My principal interest in posting my three-part series was:

(1) to urge the anti-war left, especially the religious left, to be more imaginative in its positions and offer true solutions rather than simple anti-American rants,

(2) to conduct, as one reader commented, a "thought experiment" that illustrates that our hands are not necessarily tied if direct military force is not selected for whatever reason.

However, as a retired Army artillery officer, I would much prefer the Iraq problem to be solved by measures short of war. Not only would it preserve American lives and treasure, it would serve notice to the other nations of concern (to resurrect an old phrase) that it is not only America's military power that should make them worry. The full array of American national power can also be brought to bear, which means that our enemies or unfriendly states may be defeated in more than one way. And, as I wrote long ago, the core idea of the American world view must form the central message of our campaign against terrorism. We should take it directly to the populations of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and all the Arab nations. And we have the technology to do so. All we presently lack is the will.