Blogs Worth a Click

 
Just to give a sense of proportion -- today was a recycling day. Every other week, we put out bottles, cans, and newspapers alongside the trash for separate pickup. Among the newspapers, there was one with a headline about Bush giving Saddam 48 hours to leave or face war. Could we please back off from how long this war is taking?

 
I just finished translating an article from le Figaro, a fairly conservative French newspaper. The original article can be found here. The thing that seemed odd to me is that it appears to be repeating Pat Buchanan's nonsense about a neocon-Zionist axis without once bringing him into it. Could there be an international anti-Zionist conspiracy? Here, judge for yourself.

George W. Bush and the American Jihad

James Woolsey has no doubts about it. After Afghanistan, the intervention against Iraq represents a new battle in World War IV. One which, like the third global conflict – that is to say, the Cold War – will see the triumph of "liberty over tyranny." The Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, Democrat, but a fellow traveler with the neoconservatives who inspire George W. Bush, Republican, Woolsey recently repeated the great themes of the American Jihad before the American Enterprise Institute, one of the best-known centers of strategic research in Washington.

Contrary to what "Old Europe" says, the Marines and paratroopers fighting in Iraq do not have, as their first priority, the seizure of the oilfields. They have a political mission: they are trying to share the "American dream" with the whole Middle East, in a sort of inversion of the Communist domino theory of the Vietnam era.

Once Saddam Hussein has been eliminated, the US would be able to install a democratic regime ion Baghdad which could, as a kind of virtuous infection, serve as a model for the whole neighborhood. Little by little, each state in the region would have to accept those reforms which, having brought happiness and prosperity to the Iraqis, would also be demanded by the other oppressed peoples. The pressure of public opinion would leave the enemies of the US, notably Iran and Syria, no other choice. The friends of the US would also be kept in line, so that the alliance with Washington would not be contradicted by the maintenance of an archaic polity that gives rise to terrorism. Saudi Arabia could no longer play its double game, financing Osama bin Laden in the hope of preserving the fossilized monarchy.

As far as Egypt is concerned, it would be obliged at last to seriously attack the social injustices that serve as an excuse for corruption. Michael Ledeen, a security expert who shared the dais with Woolsey, insists: "Hosni Mubarek had better account for the $2 billion per year we send him, if he thinks Congress will be sending it to him forever."

As far back as 1998, some forty "hawks" sent an open letter to Bill Clinton stressing that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction constitute a "present danger" to the United States. No more than a military parade against him would be needed, since that tyrant had a major weakness: he could not count on any popular support. "This tyrant's documented cruelty has been sufficient to discourage coup plotters, but has aroused the hatred of the people. Iraq is ripe for a general insurrection."

Among the signers of that letter were Donald Rumsfeld, now Bush's Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, now the number two man for the Pentagon. Defeating Saddam and replacing him with a western-style regime would have the effect of stabilizing the Middle East because, Wolfowitz explained, "Democracies don't go to war against other democracies."

At first prudent, George W. Bush hesitated no longer after the attacks of September 11. As the magazine Newsday put it, the president decided to "drain the swamps where terrorists breed." Afghanistan first, then Iraq. It matters little that the American expeditionary force seem suddenly less capable in the deserts of Iraq than in the mountains of Afghanistan. The noble objective makes triumph inevitable.

Woolsey states that since WWI, when Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the fourteen points of his crusade for democracy, America has never wavered: "In 1942, at the worst moment of the Second World War, Roosevelt and took the opportunity to draw up the Atlantic Charter, which proclaimed the universal rule of liberty. In the face of Soviet expansionism, we held to the same belief and won, just as we did in 1945. It will be the same with Iraq. History is on our side: in 1945, there were no more than 12 democracies in the world. Now, there are 120. And we respond to our French friends who accuse us of colonialist aims in Iraq that the Americans who landed on June 4, 1944 kept no more of the soil of Normandy than was needed to furnish a final resting place for their comrades who fell in the liberation of France."

But as far as the general interest is concerned, it is also the interest of Israel that the neoconservatives consider. In 1996, Richard Perle, who became a defense advisor after Bush's election in 2000, proposed to Benyamin Netanyahu, the new prime minister in Jerusalem, a plan to "secure the streets and borders of Israel." The essential element was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the last Arab leader who, having defied the US, represented a mortal threat to Israel with his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The result is that George W. Bush is the first American president since Richard Nixon for whom an Israeli-Palestinian settlement has ceased to be the central subject of Middle East policy. According to Newsweek, his own analysis is the same as Ariel Sharon's: Moral reasons: Yassir Arafat is a diabolical terrorist who has never wanted to make peace. Ideological reasons: as Likud says, the Arabs only understand force. Political reasons: the Jewish vote could be the key to Bush's reelection in 2004."

The old Middle East hands do not hide their skepticism. In a secret report, which the Los Angeles Times nevertheless received last month, a group of diplomats warned Colin Powell. The economic and social problems of the Middle East are so grave that establishing political reform favorable to the West is impossible. Anti-American sentiment among the Arab masses is so strong that free elections risk the creation of Islamic governments throughout the region. In the newspaper Newsday, Edward Walker, president of a Middle East research institute, formerly one of Bill Clinton's experts at the time of the Camp David negotiations, said with irony: "Democracy is not caught like a cold. It is a fruit that ripens slowly, at a different rate in each society."

 
Quizilla is often silly, but it nailed this one:




what band member are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Did I mention that I still have my Hofner Beatle bass and Traynor tube amp head?

 
History Lesson: How to Negotiate

Letter to General S. B. Buckner, Confederate Army

Headquarters, Army in the Field
Camp near Fort Donelson, February 18th, 1862
Sir: Yours of this date, proposing armistice and appointment of commissioners to settle terms of capitulation, is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.

I am very respectfully, your obedient servant
U. S. Grant
Brigadier General, Commanding

 
I've been trying to come to grips with the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. I'd like to give the president some slack on this matter -- most of whatever information he has should probably remain secret. But let's take the worst case -- that there is not much connection between Saddam and bin Laden. This war may actually be a good thing, serving to counter the asymmetrical warfare strategy of the Islamic terrorist groups.

The pattern of the Islamic and other Arab terrorists has been for a group without distinct ties to an identifiable country to launch an attack, whether against a soft target (airports and the Olympics in the 1970's, hostage-taking and hijackings in the 1980's, and first WTC attack in the 1990's) or a military target. Each of these, if attributed to the forces of a state, would constitute a valid cause for war, either as a war crime against civilians or a direct attack on another state's military. By maintaining the separation between the terrorist group and a state that supports their goals, an unfriendly state is able to stage an attack without incurring a retaliation. The attack, in the past, was often treated as a criminal matter, rather than an act of war. If the first attack on the World Trade Center had been treated as an act of war, the second might not have taken place.

Sadly, there are abundant examples of Arab extremists adhering to this pattern. Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Lybia have supported stateless terror groups who share their goals, but because the actual attacks have been carried out by nationals of other countries (Lebanese, Palestinians, Saudis), they escape reprisal. Iraq's hands are by no means clean in this regard. Abu Nidal, whose suicide (murder?) occurred in Iraq last year, was supported by Iraq for decades. Terrorists of various kinds have received training, equipment, and funding from Iraq for many years. The notorious payments to suicide bombers are only the most public example.

The war on Iraq has served notice that the US is prepared to ignore the formal separation between a terrorist group and its sponsoring states, visiting retaliation on the sponsors. Already Syria is signaling that it will improve its behavior. Pakistan has switched sides abruptly, although we must also get them to stop the Kashmir infiltration and attacks. Iran is noticeably anxious, perhaps with reason. And if the Saudis take a lesson here, they may find the courage to rein in their Wahhabi clerics out of fear of worse things.

 
When I Become Dictator

When you are president for life, term limits can be a bitch. Nevertheless, here is my program in the unlikely event that I become absolute ruler.

Possession of an accordion will be a misdemeanor. Possession of an accordion with intent to commit "Lady of Spain" will be a felony, punishable by bagpiping for a term of not less than one year.

Any female wishing to call herself "Cathy," or some variant thereof, will be required to spell it C-A-T-H-Y. Any deviation from this spelling will be punished by changing the offender's name to "Dumpy." Alisons and Michelles of the world, take note and amend your wicked ways.

Giant puppet heads will be set ablaze whenever encountered. Stiltwalkers are to be chainsawed.

It shall be illegal to commit topiary upon a poodle. Their fur is to be shorn to a uniform length.

 
Won't Carter Please Go to Sweden and Stay There?

Jimmy Carter, or St. James the Least, has written an op-ed for the New York Times against the impending war with Iraq. I simply cannot restrain myself from an ad hominem attack upon the man, who more than anyone else turned me from a Democrat to a Republican. Once I have finished venting, I will attempt to answer his arguments, if I can make them out. The subject is a serious one, even if the arguments are frivolous. It has already received a good fisking.

First, the nasty bits. In his introductory remarks, Carter praises his own term of office. He cites our previous allegiance to “alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint." In other words, if two heads are better than one, a couple of hundred would be even better. Anyone who has ever served on a committee would hesitate over that one. Then he slips in this outrage: “As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises…" Let's look at how he handled the provocations he received in his official capacity. It was during Carter's single term in office that the USSR invaded Afghanistan to restore the quisling government that had been overthrown. Carter arose in his wrath and boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Wow. His most memorable foreign policy victory, of course, was his handling of the Iranian revolution. You may remember the American embassy being taken over by Islamic "militants," American personnel taken and held hostage for 444 days, and the disastrous rescue attempt that killed eight Americans. True to form, this rescue attempt was designed in its most minute details by Carter. The man was so famous for micro-managing that he even took charge of allocating court time for tennis at the White House for his staff. He seems to stick with his foreign policy achievements, so there is no need to go into the simultaneous double-digit prime rate and unemployment rate, or gasoline rationing.

There has been a gentlemen's agreement among past presidents to refrain from criticizing the incumbent. Naturally, Bill Clinton, no gentleman, wasted no time in violating this practice. Carter has been less obvious but possibly more dangerous. Read Jonah Goldberg's piece on Carter's independent contracting in foreign policy.

The main part of his article is concerning the christian doctrine of the just war, and how the current situation does not meet the criteria.

First, he states: "The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist." Note the appeal to authority. In fact, the nonviolent options have been tried since the cease-fire was signed in 1991, and Iraq has violated the terms repeatedly. I suppose abject surrender is a nonviolent option, but everything short of that has been tried. Sanctions have not worked, inspections have not worked; only the credible threat of immanent force has seemed to have a partial effect. There is nothing "obvious" about Carter's supposed alternatives.

Second, he says: "The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in 'collateral damage.'" This argument twists the the just war doctrine to mean that no civilian casualties can be acceptable, which is utter nonsense. Our campaign in Afghanistan resulted in lots of dead Taliban and very few dead civilians, even though the enemy hid and intermingled with civilians in contravention of the rules of war. Our armed forces are better able to avoid civilian casualties than any other force in history. That is what is making the campaign so difficult and expensive -- if we resorted to WWII-style saturation bombing, it would be quicker, cheaper and immoral. We are avoiding civilian casualties at the risk of our own troops. If this effort and result is immoral, and all previous wars have done worse, this means that all wars have always been immoral. Carter's argument is a reductio ad absurdam, since it eliminates the possibility of a just war.

Third, he says: "Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing." Carter misstates the test. Quoting from The Catholic Encyclopedia, the point is expressed differently: "... the question of proportion between the damages to be inflicted by war and the value of the national right menaced or violated must enter into consideration for the determination of the full justice of a title. Here we must take into account the consequences of such right being left unvindicated." We need not only measure the damage already inflicted upon us, but the damage we might sustain by allowing Iraq to rearm with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He also seems to imply that we should only be permitted to wage a retaliatory or defensive war. This, too, is a misstatement of the doctrine. The other legitimate reasons for waging war include offensive war for the enforcement of a right or punishment of a violation agianst oneself or against others.

Fourth, he says: "The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority." This is just nonsense. The right to wage war rests with the state, not with any super-national organization. The US and Israel are the primary targets of Saddam and his accomplices. Iraq's target is not likely to be the Security Council, so it is a matter of complete indifference to China or Cameroon whether Saddam abides by the cease-fire agreement. They should not therefore be seen as constituting the proper authority.

Fifth, he says: "The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home." Carter seems to have invented this one, unless he means it as an elaboration of the proportionality test. In that case, the results, including the likely state of affairs after the war, is part of the evaluation of the damages of war in proportion to the seriousness of the cause. It is not a separate matter. We are not required to have perfect foresight of the results before acting. The mere existence of a possibility, without looking at its likelihood, should not serve to freeze us motionless. We already have terrorism going on -- if Carter has information that this is likely to worsen, he should share the evidence.

To paraphrase Chirac, Carter has missed a great opportunity to shut up. This piece is so preachy and poorly reasoned that it could only have appeared in the NY Times, or maybe the Boston Globe. Carter is an embarrassment to his country, but he could be the pride of the NYT's editorial staff. Maureen Dowd -- watch your back.

 
American Arrogance

May I submit that much of what is ascribed to American arrogance is our stubborn refusal to recognize the superiority of our "betters," such as the French. If you treat someone as an equal who considers himself a superior, the alleged superior will have one of two reactions.

Case 1: The alleged superior publicly and overtly asserts his superiority.

Worst outcome: In this case, an assertion of equality will be seen as impertinence or insubordination. The alleged offender will be seen as an uncouth barbarian, unable to appreciate the benefits of civilized society. Maybe even a cowboy.

Best outcome: everyone has a laugh at himself and each other. Examples:

• Oscar Wilde tours America, including the bustling metropolis of Leadville CO, to enthusiastic audiences.


• Jim Thorpe, the astonishing Native American Olympian, receives the congratulations of the king of Sweden: King Gustav V told him, "Sir, you are the greatest athlete in the world!" To which Thorpe reportedly replied, "Thanks, king."

Case 2: The superior does not publicly and overtly assert his superiority, but believes it and wishes it to be tacitly acknowledged. This mismatch of perceptions and expectations of the two parties will result in surprises for both parties, with each reacting to the other in ways that seem inexplicable.

Worst outcome: Giant puppet heads, stilt-walkers, and other confused people clot the streets, and the French threaten a Security Council veto.

Best outcome: There isn't one, really. All we can hope for is that time will pass and memory will go with it.