Thursday, August 31, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
What the Press Does not Want You to Know
I am submitting this as a Letter to the Editor based on the terrible, and largely inaccurate, article I read by Andy Mosher. He knows there is a good side to the story of Reconstruction in Iraq; he saw it! yet he chose to write a negative story based on old SIGIR findings. Why? Don't you want the American people to know the truth? Why Won't They Tell You the Truth?
After spending almost three days traveling with and being interviewed by one of the co-writers of a very poorly written article (Much Undone in Rebuilding Iraq, Audit says, Washington Post, August 2, 2006), I am astounded at how distorted a good story can become and what agenda drives a paper to see only the bad side to the reconstruction effort here in Iraq. Instead of distorting the facts, let's get to the truth.
There is no flailing reconstruction effort in Iraq. The United States has rightfully invested $20 billion in Iraqis reconstruction - in the opinion of many here, we should do more. This massive undertaking is part of a wider strategy for success in Iraq that involves the establishment of a democratic government, the development of professional Iraqi Security Forces, and the restoration of basic essential services and facilities to promote the sustained economic development of this new country.
Yes, this reconstruction effort has been challenged occasionally by security, poor materials, poor construction program management practices, and in some cases poor performance by contractors for a variety of reasons. The Department of State and Defense professionals over here, many of them civilian volunteers, and the Iraqi associates who risk their lives every day to have a future that approximates what America has today, continuously see the challenges and develop and implement solutions. This is a core part of managing construction anywhere in the world and, while somewhat more complex here, it is successfully being accomplished.
Have we been guilty of poor planning and mismanagement? The answer to that is, at times, yes. But professionals constantly strive to overcome challenges that arise and we are succeeding and making Iraq better every day! The heart of the article rests on several old statements by the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) which infer these are recent or recurring problems. The SIGIR knows that, in fact, program management, construction quality, progress, and accountability have all improved significantly since the early days of the effort some three years ago. Yet, the reporters project problems comments infer that these are recent issues. Such actions inflame public opinion in the United States and create resentment by the very people so many conscientious Americans over here are trying to help here in Iraq and worse, embolden our very enemies.
When I arrived here a year ago we planned to complete 3,200 reconstruction projects. Today we are focusing on the completion of 3,700 projects. We've started 3,500 of those projects and completed almost 2,800 and work is continuing! This is not a failure to meet our commitment to the Iraqi people as the article states. In some cases we are not executing the same projects we have changed to meet new priorities of three government changes in Iraq since our arrival but in all cases, rest assured, these projects will be completed. We discussed this at length with the reporter and he was taking notes and recording our conversations. We told the reporter that, while 141 health clinic construction projects were taken away from a U.S. contractor who failed to perform, they were re-awarded to Iraqi contractors who are already demonstrating progress, have improved quality and shown their great desire to work with the United States to help Iraq improve and they are doing so phenomenally!
We did talk to the reporter about electricity. Three-quarters of Iraq gets twice as much electricity today as they did before the war. Furthermore, we are working with the Minister of Electricity to improve the situation in Baghdad daily and have doubled the hours of power from four to eight in the capitol in the last six months in spite of the fact that demand is markedly increased with Iraqis new ability to buy personal electrical products. What is truly amazing to me is that we took the reporter to the Nasiriyah prison project and, while it is true that we terminated the prime U.S. contractor for failure to perform, the Iraqi sub-contractor continues to work there (now directly for us) and his progress and quality have improved significantly...and he saw that!
We are not turning unfinished work over to the Iraqis as he stated in his article; we are fulfilling the U.S. commitment to the people of Iraq and using Iraqis to do it! The reporter didn't tell you about the hundreds of dedicated military and civilian professionals he saw over here working to make Iraq better, or the Iraqis who come to work every day at their own peril because they believe in what we, and they, are accomplishing together. He failed to tell you about Aseel or Salah who worked for the Corps of Engineers since we arrived in 2003, because they wanted to make their country like ours, but who were recently brutally murdered in the streets because they worked for the Americans.
He never wrote about the Water Treatment Plant he visited that will provide fresh potable water to over half a million people in southern Iraq in just two more months, or the one in northern Iraq that is providing water for the 330,000 citizens of Irbil. He never told folks back home about the thousands of children that are now in 800 new or rebuilt schools, or about oil production now being back to pre-war levels and getting better everyday, or raw sewage being taken out of the streets and put back in the pipes where it belongs, or about the thousands of miles of new roads, or post offices, police stations or courthouses or well, he just left a great deal out now, didn't he?
Why? Perhaps it's because some in the press don't want the American people to know the truth and prefer instead to only report the negative aspects of the news because it sells papers. We deserve better from those who claim the protection of the Constitution we are fighting to support and defend.
America, don't give up. You are doing much better over here than all too many of your press will tell you. If you are tired of fighting for freedom and democracy for those who so strongly long for the country we have, then think of the alternatives for a moment. Iraq will be better for our efforts and so will the world. And you are making it happen. Be proud and keep supporting this vital effort. It is the most important thing America can do.
Thank you.
I invite you and your staff to come over at any time to get the facts. I took a risk with Mr Mosher and obviously got what I consider to be a very unbalanced representation of what he saw, personally. But I still believe in general in the press and will always be open to helping you tell a balanced story.
Essayons! Deliverance!
MG Bill McCoy CG, Gulf Region Division/Dir, Project and Contracting Office Multi-National Force-Iraq
After spending almost three days traveling with and being interviewed by one of the co-writers of a very poorly written article (Much Undone in Rebuilding Iraq, Audit says, Washington Post, August 2, 2006), I am astounded at how distorted a good story can become and what agenda drives a paper to see only the bad side to the reconstruction effort here in Iraq. Instead of distorting the facts, let's get to the truth.
There is no flailing reconstruction effort in Iraq. The United States has rightfully invested $20 billion in Iraqis reconstruction - in the opinion of many here, we should do more. This massive undertaking is part of a wider strategy for success in Iraq that involves the establishment of a democratic government, the development of professional Iraqi Security Forces, and the restoration of basic essential services and facilities to promote the sustained economic development of this new country.
Yes, this reconstruction effort has been challenged occasionally by security, poor materials, poor construction program management practices, and in some cases poor performance by contractors for a variety of reasons. The Department of State and Defense professionals over here, many of them civilian volunteers, and the Iraqi associates who risk their lives every day to have a future that approximates what America has today, continuously see the challenges and develop and implement solutions. This is a core part of managing construction anywhere in the world and, while somewhat more complex here, it is successfully being accomplished.
Have we been guilty of poor planning and mismanagement? The answer to that is, at times, yes. But professionals constantly strive to overcome challenges that arise and we are succeeding and making Iraq better every day! The heart of the article rests on several old statements by the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) which infer these are recent or recurring problems. The SIGIR knows that, in fact, program management, construction quality, progress, and accountability have all improved significantly since the early days of the effort some three years ago. Yet, the reporters project problems comments infer that these are recent issues. Such actions inflame public opinion in the United States and create resentment by the very people so many conscientious Americans over here are trying to help here in Iraq and worse, embolden our very enemies.
When I arrived here a year ago we planned to complete 3,200 reconstruction projects. Today we are focusing on the completion of 3,700 projects. We've started 3,500 of those projects and completed almost 2,800 and work is continuing! This is not a failure to meet our commitment to the Iraqi people as the article states. In some cases we are not executing the same projects we have changed to meet new priorities of three government changes in Iraq since our arrival but in all cases, rest assured, these projects will be completed. We discussed this at length with the reporter and he was taking notes and recording our conversations. We told the reporter that, while 141 health clinic construction projects were taken away from a U.S. contractor who failed to perform, they were re-awarded to Iraqi contractors who are already demonstrating progress, have improved quality and shown their great desire to work with the United States to help Iraq improve and they are doing so phenomenally!
We did talk to the reporter about electricity. Three-quarters of Iraq gets twice as much electricity today as they did before the war. Furthermore, we are working with the Minister of Electricity to improve the situation in Baghdad daily and have doubled the hours of power from four to eight in the capitol in the last six months in spite of the fact that demand is markedly increased with Iraqis new ability to buy personal electrical products. What is truly amazing to me is that we took the reporter to the Nasiriyah prison project and, while it is true that we terminated the prime U.S. contractor for failure to perform, the Iraqi sub-contractor continues to work there (now directly for us) and his progress and quality have improved significantly...and he saw that!
We are not turning unfinished work over to the Iraqis as he stated in his article; we are fulfilling the U.S. commitment to the people of Iraq and using Iraqis to do it! The reporter didn't tell you about the hundreds of dedicated military and civilian professionals he saw over here working to make Iraq better, or the Iraqis who come to work every day at their own peril because they believe in what we, and they, are accomplishing together. He failed to tell you about Aseel or Salah who worked for the Corps of Engineers since we arrived in 2003, because they wanted to make their country like ours, but who were recently brutally murdered in the streets because they worked for the Americans.
He never wrote about the Water Treatment Plant he visited that will provide fresh potable water to over half a million people in southern Iraq in just two more months, or the one in northern Iraq that is providing water for the 330,000 citizens of Irbil. He never told folks back home about the thousands of children that are now in 800 new or rebuilt schools, or about oil production now being back to pre-war levels and getting better everyday, or raw sewage being taken out of the streets and put back in the pipes where it belongs, or about the thousands of miles of new roads, or post offices, police stations or courthouses or well, he just left a great deal out now, didn't he?
Why? Perhaps it's because some in the press don't want the American people to know the truth and prefer instead to only report the negative aspects of the news because it sells papers. We deserve better from those who claim the protection of the Constitution we are fighting to support and defend.
America, don't give up. You are doing much better over here than all too many of your press will tell you. If you are tired of fighting for freedom and democracy for those who so strongly long for the country we have, then think of the alternatives for a moment. Iraq will be better for our efforts and so will the world. And you are making it happen. Be proud and keep supporting this vital effort. It is the most important thing America can do.
Thank you.
I invite you and your staff to come over at any time to get the facts. I took a risk with Mr Mosher and obviously got what I consider to be a very unbalanced representation of what he saw, personally. But I still believe in general in the press and will always be open to helping you tell a balanced story.
Essayons! Deliverance!
MG Bill McCoy CG, Gulf Region Division/Dir, Project and Contracting Office Multi-National Force-Iraq
Saturday, August 26, 2006
No One Says it Better than Ben Stein
Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield
By BEN STEIN Published: August 20, 2006
IT'S been a bitter month or so.
Mighty Israel, the redeemer of faith in what free men and women can do with arid desert if they are motivated, redeemer of faith that maybe there is a place for the Jews as a sovereign people and technological superpower, has been fought to a standstill by Hezbollah.
Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? Can it be that Israel, which used to beat whole armies of countries like Egypt and Syria, has been humbled by a few thousand very well-motivated and well-armed men firing from between apartment buildings?
Or could it be that what's different this time is the trumpet and, specifically, its uncertain sound? Israel geared up for a huge offensive, then called it off, then huffed and puffed, then called it off again, then said, "Watch out, this time we're really going to blow your house down," and then called it off again.
Now, Israel's very survival is on the line, and it is a tiny state, about the size of New Jersey. If Israel cannot get it together to fight a serious war against a group, Hezbollah, that the State Department identifies as a terrorist organization, who will?
So, Israel, which was supposed to be the shining light of how peace is won, is not shining as bright - despite President Bush's extreme support for a good long time.
Terrorists are still hatching plots against the air traffic system of the West, and this time bigger and worse than before. Obviously, Al Qaeda is far from dead. We have much to fear from it still. The fact that the suspects were almost all home-grown Britons makes the situation that much more frightening and unpredictable. How long will it be until American-born terrorists strike against American targets? We are a big country and we have a lot of unhappy people. How long until they organize themselves to kill? Not long, I am afraid.
While we're at it, yes, it's miraculous and wonderful that the plot was foiled, if it was. But now the whole Western world will be seriously inconvenienced in its travel for years, maybe decades. Isn't this already a victory for our enemies? Isn't this already a blow against world business? Might it be enough to push our already slowed growth into a recession?
But the worst is what is to come: I got a jolting hint of this when I read the obituary for John L. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 1990. Mr. Weinberg was 81 when he died this month in Greenwich, Conn., after a lifetime of major achievement. I had the pleasure of dealing with him when he and I were a lot younger and I was in law school, also studying finance, at Yale.
My dear old father was a friend of his father, the venerable Sidney J. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1930 to 1969. My dad wangled a job interview for me with John Weinberg, an unprepossessing figure but obviously a smart guy. After some talk, he offered me a job. I would start by spending two years sitting at a desk until late at night going over spreadsheets. "Really?" I asked. That did not seem to be so glamorous. "Yes, really," he said. "That's how we all start."
I turned it down and became a poverty lawyer instead. But what I did not know about John Weinberg was that even though he was rich and well connected, as a young man he joined the Marines to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, then fought again in Korea. That was America's ruling class then. The scions of the rich went off to fight.
My longtime pal and idol, Peter M. Flanigan - a former high honcho of Dillon, Read; a high aide to my ex-boss, Richard M. Nixon; and heir to a large brewing fortune - was once a naval aviator. My father left a comfortable job in Washington to join the Navy. The father of my pal Phil DeMuth left a successful career to be an Army Air Corps pilot, flying death-defying missions over Burma. Congressmen resigned to serve. Senators resigned to serve. Professional athletes resigned to serve in the uniform.
Now, who's fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.
And that's the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it's: "Let the other poor sap do it. I've got to make money." How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?
I keep thinking, again, that if Israel, with its back to the sea, cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway U.S.A. will never be able to do it. I keep saying this and it terrifies me.
We're in a war with people who want to kill us all and wreck our civilization. They're taking it very seriously. We, on the other hand, are worrying about leveraged buyouts and special dividends and how much junk debt the newly formed private entity can support before we sell it to the ultimate sucker, the public shareholder.
We're worrying whether Hollywood will forgive Mel Gibson and what the next move is for big homes in East Hampton. We're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The terrorists are the iceberg.
WHAT stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They're heroes and saints as far as I'm concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we're all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?
If we don't win this war against the terrorists, there's not going to be business as usual ever again. If the terrorists get to their goal, there's not going to be a stock exchange or hedge funds or Bain Capital or the Carlyle Group or even Goldman Sachs. If the terrorists get their way - and so far, they're getting their way - there's not going to be business, period.
Everyone with the really big money at stake is - again - bidding for the best deck chairs as the iceberg looms, not so far, any longer, under the surface, and very large and very cold and very solid.
Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.
By BEN STEIN Published: August 20, 2006
IT'S been a bitter month or so.
Mighty Israel, the redeemer of faith in what free men and women can do with arid desert if they are motivated, redeemer of faith that maybe there is a place for the Jews as a sovereign people and technological superpower, has been fought to a standstill by Hezbollah.
Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? Can it be that Israel, which used to beat whole armies of countries like Egypt and Syria, has been humbled by a few thousand very well-motivated and well-armed men firing from between apartment buildings?
Or could it be that what's different this time is the trumpet and, specifically, its uncertain sound? Israel geared up for a huge offensive, then called it off, then huffed and puffed, then called it off again, then said, "Watch out, this time we're really going to blow your house down," and then called it off again.
Now, Israel's very survival is on the line, and it is a tiny state, about the size of New Jersey. If Israel cannot get it together to fight a serious war against a group, Hezbollah, that the State Department identifies as a terrorist organization, who will?
So, Israel, which was supposed to be the shining light of how peace is won, is not shining as bright - despite President Bush's extreme support for a good long time.
Terrorists are still hatching plots against the air traffic system of the West, and this time bigger and worse than before. Obviously, Al Qaeda is far from dead. We have much to fear from it still. The fact that the suspects were almost all home-grown Britons makes the situation that much more frightening and unpredictable. How long will it be until American-born terrorists strike against American targets? We are a big country and we have a lot of unhappy people. How long until they organize themselves to kill? Not long, I am afraid.
While we're at it, yes, it's miraculous and wonderful that the plot was foiled, if it was. But now the whole Western world will be seriously inconvenienced in its travel for years, maybe decades. Isn't this already a victory for our enemies? Isn't this already a blow against world business? Might it be enough to push our already slowed growth into a recession?
But the worst is what is to come: I got a jolting hint of this when I read the obituary for John L. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 1990. Mr. Weinberg was 81 when he died this month in Greenwich, Conn., after a lifetime of major achievement. I had the pleasure of dealing with him when he and I were a lot younger and I was in law school, also studying finance, at Yale.
My dear old father was a friend of his father, the venerable Sidney J. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1930 to 1969. My dad wangled a job interview for me with John Weinberg, an unprepossessing figure but obviously a smart guy. After some talk, he offered me a job. I would start by spending two years sitting at a desk until late at night going over spreadsheets. "Really?" I asked. That did not seem to be so glamorous. "Yes, really," he said. "That's how we all start."
I turned it down and became a poverty lawyer instead. But what I did not know about John Weinberg was that even though he was rich and well connected, as a young man he joined the Marines to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, then fought again in Korea. That was America's ruling class then. The scions of the rich went off to fight.
My longtime pal and idol, Peter M. Flanigan - a former high honcho of Dillon, Read; a high aide to my ex-boss, Richard M. Nixon; and heir to a large brewing fortune - was once a naval aviator. My father left a comfortable job in Washington to join the Navy. The father of my pal Phil DeMuth left a successful career to be an Army Air Corps pilot, flying death-defying missions over Burma. Congressmen resigned to serve. Senators resigned to serve. Professional athletes resigned to serve in the uniform.
Now, who's fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.
And that's the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it's: "Let the other poor sap do it. I've got to make money." How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?
I keep thinking, again, that if Israel, with its back to the sea, cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway U.S.A. will never be able to do it. I keep saying this and it terrifies me.
We're in a war with people who want to kill us all and wreck our civilization. They're taking it very seriously. We, on the other hand, are worrying about leveraged buyouts and special dividends and how much junk debt the newly formed private entity can support before we sell it to the ultimate sucker, the public shareholder.
We're worrying whether Hollywood will forgive Mel Gibson and what the next move is for big homes in East Hampton. We're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The terrorists are the iceberg.
WHAT stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They're heroes and saints as far as I'm concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we're all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?
If we don't win this war against the terrorists, there's not going to be business as usual ever again. If the terrorists get to their goal, there's not going to be a stock exchange or hedge funds or Bain Capital or the Carlyle Group or even Goldman Sachs. If the terrorists get their way - and so far, they're getting their way - there's not going to be business, period.
Everyone with the really big money at stake is - again - bidding for the best deck chairs as the iceberg looms, not so far, any longer, under the surface, and very large and very cold and very solid.
Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
A second 9-11 tragedy in the making. We need to wake up.
Connecticut? This is London Calling.
Al Qaeda reminds us to hang on to our patriots.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
We are reading only about 24 arrests today. If we were already in the heralded antiwar world of Ned Lamont and the war-against-the-war crowd, it could be much different. We could just as easily be reading about ten jumbo jets exploded out of the sky. Or 3,000 murdered innocents — mostly American and British citizens.
Reality has once again inconveniently burst the antiwar, anti-security, anti-American balloon, just as the November victory ballrooms were being booked.Just as central casting was whipping the articles of impeachment into shape. The high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush include: hunting down terrorists, detaining them, interrogating them, penetrating their communications, and following their money.
These damn jihadists just won’t cooperate. Can’t they read the polls?
As British authorities continue trying to round up around 50 — fifty! — mostly homegrown Muslim militants who were attempting to execute over the Atlantic the very plan master terrorists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nearly pulled off over the Pacific a dozen years ago, it’s worth reminding the triumphalist antiwar Left of an important point.As much as they sometimes seem to have in common with jihadists when they speak about America, its government, its military, and its president, the two are drastically different in one crucial particular. The antiwar Left wants to wield American power. The jihadists want to destroy it … and us. All of us.
The antiwar Left has a conveniently flexible moral compass. Consequently, the Clinton era Echelon program was fine, but Bush’s NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is an impeachable offense. Mishandling classified information by a Clinton CIA director was worthy of a pardon, and destroying classified information (and lying to investigators about it) by a former Clinton national-security adviser was worthy of a pass, but leaking the unremarkable fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA is the crime of the century.Bombing Kosovo without U.N. approval was a moral imperative; invading Iraq after over a dozen U.N. resolutions is a violation of international law.Renditions (the movement of captured terrorists to prisons outside the US military prison system) conducted between 1994 and 2000 were just good national-security sense; renditions conducted between 2001 and 2006 are war crimes.Indicting Osama bin Laden in 1998 and then doing nothing to capture him while he bombed two American embassies and an American naval destroyer, killing hundreds, was aggressive yet intelligently modulated counterterrorism; allowing Osama bin Laden to evade capture in Tora Bora while killing and capturing hundreds of his operatives and decimating his hierarchy is irresponsibly incompetent.
Wet fingers firmly in the wind, the Left looks you in the eye and tells you that what is depends on what the definition of “is” is, then votes for it before voting against it. The object of the game is power, and they are willing to gamble, even with our lives, to get it or keep it.
Jihadists are very different. When it comes to our national security, they’re not partisan politicizers. They wanted to kill us when Reagan was in charge, when Clinton was in charge, now that Bush is in charge, and tomorrow no matter who is in charge. They want to kill us where Tony Blair is in charge, where Ehud Olmert is in charge, and — no matter how he contorts himself — even where Jacques Chirac is in charge. They are not foul-weather fiends. Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Shebaa Farms, Gitmo, flushed Korans, Salman Rushdie, the Crusades, etc., etc., etc…. These are not causes. They are excuses.
Jihadists believe passionately — many of them passionately enough to die for it — that they are commanded by their religion to kill us. They won’t be reasoned, cajoled, moderated, Westernized, modernized or democratized out of their views. They have to be defeated.
They have to be defeated in Iraq — whether or not one agrees that we should have gone there in the first place, and whatever one thinks of how competently the post-Saddam occupation has been managed. They still have to be defeated in Afghanistan. They have to be defeated in Lebanon — and ultimately Iran. They have to be stopped in Sudan. They can’t be allowed to set up new command-and-control beachheads in Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. They have to be monitored throughout the West — including in our own country — because the operatives here are the ones who pose the greatest threat to our safety.
This is a daunting task. It’s a job for adults and patriots, not opportunists and power-mongers.On Tuesday, Democrats in Connecticut showed the door to Senator Joe Lieberman, a patriotic adult who happens to be a liberal, and ushered in an antiwar Left opportunist who, until about five minutes ago, was a Lieberman supporter. On Wednesday, al Qaeda reminded us that it will gladly kill opportunists of any political stripe.
The Democrats need to hold on to their patriots. The nation needs to hold on to the Democrats’ patriots. This is going to be a very long haul.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Al Qaeda reminds us to hang on to our patriots.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
We are reading only about 24 arrests today. If we were already in the heralded antiwar world of Ned Lamont and the war-against-the-war crowd, it could be much different. We could just as easily be reading about ten jumbo jets exploded out of the sky. Or 3,000 murdered innocents — mostly American and British citizens.
Reality has once again inconveniently burst the antiwar, anti-security, anti-American balloon, just as the November victory ballrooms were being booked.Just as central casting was whipping the articles of impeachment into shape. The high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush include: hunting down terrorists, detaining them, interrogating them, penetrating their communications, and following their money.
These damn jihadists just won’t cooperate. Can’t they read the polls?
As British authorities continue trying to round up around 50 — fifty! — mostly homegrown Muslim militants who were attempting to execute over the Atlantic the very plan master terrorists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nearly pulled off over the Pacific a dozen years ago, it’s worth reminding the triumphalist antiwar Left of an important point.As much as they sometimes seem to have in common with jihadists when they speak about America, its government, its military, and its president, the two are drastically different in one crucial particular. The antiwar Left wants to wield American power. The jihadists want to destroy it … and us. All of us.
The antiwar Left has a conveniently flexible moral compass. Consequently, the Clinton era Echelon program was fine, but Bush’s NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is an impeachable offense. Mishandling classified information by a Clinton CIA director was worthy of a pardon, and destroying classified information (and lying to investigators about it) by a former Clinton national-security adviser was worthy of a pass, but leaking the unremarkable fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA is the crime of the century.Bombing Kosovo without U.N. approval was a moral imperative; invading Iraq after over a dozen U.N. resolutions is a violation of international law.Renditions (the movement of captured terrorists to prisons outside the US military prison system) conducted between 1994 and 2000 were just good national-security sense; renditions conducted between 2001 and 2006 are war crimes.Indicting Osama bin Laden in 1998 and then doing nothing to capture him while he bombed two American embassies and an American naval destroyer, killing hundreds, was aggressive yet intelligently modulated counterterrorism; allowing Osama bin Laden to evade capture in Tora Bora while killing and capturing hundreds of his operatives and decimating his hierarchy is irresponsibly incompetent.
Wet fingers firmly in the wind, the Left looks you in the eye and tells you that what is depends on what the definition of “is” is, then votes for it before voting against it. The object of the game is power, and they are willing to gamble, even with our lives, to get it or keep it.
Jihadists are very different. When it comes to our national security, they’re not partisan politicizers. They wanted to kill us when Reagan was in charge, when Clinton was in charge, now that Bush is in charge, and tomorrow no matter who is in charge. They want to kill us where Tony Blair is in charge, where Ehud Olmert is in charge, and — no matter how he contorts himself — even where Jacques Chirac is in charge. They are not foul-weather fiends. Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Shebaa Farms, Gitmo, flushed Korans, Salman Rushdie, the Crusades, etc., etc., etc…. These are not causes. They are excuses.
Jihadists believe passionately — many of them passionately enough to die for it — that they are commanded by their religion to kill us. They won’t be reasoned, cajoled, moderated, Westernized, modernized or democratized out of their views. They have to be defeated.
They have to be defeated in Iraq — whether or not one agrees that we should have gone there in the first place, and whatever one thinks of how competently the post-Saddam occupation has been managed. They still have to be defeated in Afghanistan. They have to be defeated in Lebanon — and ultimately Iran. They have to be stopped in Sudan. They can’t be allowed to set up new command-and-control beachheads in Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. They have to be monitored throughout the West — including in our own country — because the operatives here are the ones who pose the greatest threat to our safety.
This is a daunting task. It’s a job for adults and patriots, not opportunists and power-mongers.On Tuesday, Democrats in Connecticut showed the door to Senator Joe Lieberman, a patriotic adult who happens to be a liberal, and ushered in an antiwar Left opportunist who, until about five minutes ago, was a Lieberman supporter. On Wednesday, al Qaeda reminded us that it will gladly kill opportunists of any political stripe.
The Democrats need to hold on to their patriots. The nation needs to hold on to the Democrats’ patriots. This is going to be a very long haul.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Are we losing the War?
Linda Chavez thinks we are and I agree but as you can see, it is by our choice. Read on.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Open letter to John Murtha
Let's Talk, Sir
-An Open Letter To Congressman Murtha
Dear Mr. Murtha,I've had it. I've had enough sanctimonious hyperbole from you. This has been boiling inside of me for weeks and weeks now. As a retired Marine, I have to speak-up... or my conscience will not let me rest.
I've been hoping against hope that you would wake-up and stop the dangerous nonsense... but I know now how foolish that was.You are badly damaging our military's effectiveness with your irresponsible and completely false rantings. You have become one of the key "useful idiots" that our enemy relies upon for assistance. You are now standing on the same moral and intellectual ground as Cindy Sheehan and that mountainous pile of anti-Americanism, Michael Moore.
People see you now as "Osama's Congressman," and as someone putting forth "insane strategy".Does this bother you? Does it worry you that most sane people think you are completely unhinged? That you have sold out your country's security for cheap political points? That you, as someone who used to wear a Marine Corps uniform, have made a complete mockery of "Semper Fidelis?"I guess the Marine Corps part is the primary reason for me writing this.
There are plenty of far-left people out there undermining our national security- and I could have chosen any of them for a letter like this... but the fact that you were once a Marine is the one thing I just cannot get over. I can't believe that you have said the things you have said about Marines. I am stunned that you could not give Marines the benefit of waiting until charges were investigated before you accused them of abhorrent atrocities.Immediately and without hesitation, you took the side of our enemy and condemned those Marines... and by doing so, you have emboldened and strengthened the terrorists' cause.
To me, that is worse than treason... it is betrayal of a very personal kind. How many Marines and soldiers will now be killed because of the new power you gave the terrorists? How many of America's enemies are celebrating with orgiastic glee the Congressman calling American Marines murderers?Don't get me wrong, Sir- your behavior is not unprecedented. In my career, I saw several examples of what we call "Semper I." Do you remember "Semper I?" It is the exact opposite of "Semper Fi." It is the rare case where a Marine puts himself first- and the hell with his fellow warriors. "Semper I" is the sad reality of human nature... where even the deeper-than-blood-level connection that Marines share cannot overcome a basic flaw in some people. I've seen it before, and I'm seeing it now in you. Your political ambitions- and years of extreme liberal brainwashing- have brought you to moral ruin.
The worst part of it all in your case, though, is that the rest of the deranged far left have grasped onto your betrayal and found new strength in it- as have our enemies. They cite your "war hero" background as proof that your opinions are infallible. Around the world, America's detractors and enemies are seeing our very own media celebrate your "maverick" behavior. Honestly, Sir... how does that make you feel?I'm sure you remember one of our Corps' most famous moments- when Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly inspired his men into a no-win firefight with the words, "Come on, you SOB's! You want to live forever?" They answered with a resounding "No" through their actions... they went with him and, in spite of suffering horrendous casualties, they defeated the enemy.
No one second-guessed his decision... no one criticized the Marines' actions.That was World War I - the battle of Belleau Wood. We won that war.Forget for a moment the fact that your far-left friends of today would crucify this legendary leader for such comments and behavior. Forget that many mistakes were made at all levels of the chain-of-command in that war- and every other war.Let's just remember that Marines stick together... even when charging into the depths of hell. We do not sell out our fellow Marines. Ever.
You, Sir, have done just that. You have sold out not only the Marines involved in this particular incident- but all the rest of us, as well. You have told the world that Marines are deserving of no due-process because they are just blood-thirsty killers. You have made people believe all the false crap that the anti-American crowd has been trying to pin on us since Vietnam.
Your mistake cannot be excused as just the ramblings of an aging liberal politician. There is too much riding on the title you used to hold... that of Marine. The anti-everything crowd uses your past like a shield of invulnerability- as if you speak the total and complete truth since you used to be one us. You make it appear that this is how any Marine would feel. Your betrayal is far, far more dangerous than that of other anti-American liberals.
All you had to do, Sir, was say "Let's wait until a full investigation is conducted." That's it. All you had to do was hold your tongue until we all know exactly what happened and who, if anyone, is to blame. The political gain, though, was too tempting... and so you stuck a giant knife in the back of our Corps... and then continued twisting it.
You then compound the betrayal of those Marines by saying things like "There is no way we can win (this war) militarily..." What kind of thing is that to say? Seriously... how completely far-gone do you have to be to say that? Have you asked yourself what Dan Daly would think of that statement? How about Presley O'Bannon... and Sergeant Jarred L. Adams... and Chesty Puller? Do you think they would approve of the things you are saying?Most of us Marines try to hold ourselves up to the icons of our history... we use them as a measuring stick for our own performance. More than anything, Marines fear not living up to our predecessors.
One thing that has always separated us from everyone else is that we do not forget our history... the honor and bravery of those Marines who came before us is the fuel that feeds our Corps.With all due respect, Sir, you have become a dangerous fool. You have shamed the United States Marine Corps, and endangered countless lives- not to mention the damage done to our mission.Play politics all you want... attack your political opponents as you see fit... but, for God's sake, leave the Marine Corps out of your politics.
On behalf of the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen serving our country now... please stop attacking our military and shut the hell up.
Most sincerely and respectfully,
Kurt G.Gunnery Sergeant, USMC, Retired
P.S. Okinawa??
-An Open Letter To Congressman Murtha
Dear Mr. Murtha,I've had it. I've had enough sanctimonious hyperbole from you. This has been boiling inside of me for weeks and weeks now. As a retired Marine, I have to speak-up... or my conscience will not let me rest.
I've been hoping against hope that you would wake-up and stop the dangerous nonsense... but I know now how foolish that was.You are badly damaging our military's effectiveness with your irresponsible and completely false rantings. You have become one of the key "useful idiots" that our enemy relies upon for assistance. You are now standing on the same moral and intellectual ground as Cindy Sheehan and that mountainous pile of anti-Americanism, Michael Moore.
People see you now as "Osama's Congressman," and as someone putting forth "insane strategy".Does this bother you? Does it worry you that most sane people think you are completely unhinged? That you have sold out your country's security for cheap political points? That you, as someone who used to wear a Marine Corps uniform, have made a complete mockery of "Semper Fidelis?"I guess the Marine Corps part is the primary reason for me writing this.
There are plenty of far-left people out there undermining our national security- and I could have chosen any of them for a letter like this... but the fact that you were once a Marine is the one thing I just cannot get over. I can't believe that you have said the things you have said about Marines. I am stunned that you could not give Marines the benefit of waiting until charges were investigated before you accused them of abhorrent atrocities.Immediately and without hesitation, you took the side of our enemy and condemned those Marines... and by doing so, you have emboldened and strengthened the terrorists' cause.
To me, that is worse than treason... it is betrayal of a very personal kind. How many Marines and soldiers will now be killed because of the new power you gave the terrorists? How many of America's enemies are celebrating with orgiastic glee the Congressman calling American Marines murderers?Don't get me wrong, Sir- your behavior is not unprecedented. In my career, I saw several examples of what we call "Semper I." Do you remember "Semper I?" It is the exact opposite of "Semper Fi." It is the rare case where a Marine puts himself first- and the hell with his fellow warriors. "Semper I" is the sad reality of human nature... where even the deeper-than-blood-level connection that Marines share cannot overcome a basic flaw in some people. I've seen it before, and I'm seeing it now in you. Your political ambitions- and years of extreme liberal brainwashing- have brought you to moral ruin.
The worst part of it all in your case, though, is that the rest of the deranged far left have grasped onto your betrayal and found new strength in it- as have our enemies. They cite your "war hero" background as proof that your opinions are infallible. Around the world, America's detractors and enemies are seeing our very own media celebrate your "maverick" behavior. Honestly, Sir... how does that make you feel?I'm sure you remember one of our Corps' most famous moments- when Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly inspired his men into a no-win firefight with the words, "Come on, you SOB's! You want to live forever?" They answered with a resounding "No" through their actions... they went with him and, in spite of suffering horrendous casualties, they defeated the enemy.
No one second-guessed his decision... no one criticized the Marines' actions.That was World War I - the battle of Belleau Wood. We won that war.Forget for a moment the fact that your far-left friends of today would crucify this legendary leader for such comments and behavior. Forget that many mistakes were made at all levels of the chain-of-command in that war- and every other war.Let's just remember that Marines stick together... even when charging into the depths of hell. We do not sell out our fellow Marines. Ever.
You, Sir, have done just that. You have sold out not only the Marines involved in this particular incident- but all the rest of us, as well. You have told the world that Marines are deserving of no due-process because they are just blood-thirsty killers. You have made people believe all the false crap that the anti-American crowd has been trying to pin on us since Vietnam.
Your mistake cannot be excused as just the ramblings of an aging liberal politician. There is too much riding on the title you used to hold... that of Marine. The anti-everything crowd uses your past like a shield of invulnerability- as if you speak the total and complete truth since you used to be one us. You make it appear that this is how any Marine would feel. Your betrayal is far, far more dangerous than that of other anti-American liberals.
All you had to do, Sir, was say "Let's wait until a full investigation is conducted." That's it. All you had to do was hold your tongue until we all know exactly what happened and who, if anyone, is to blame. The political gain, though, was too tempting... and so you stuck a giant knife in the back of our Corps... and then continued twisting it.
You then compound the betrayal of those Marines by saying things like "There is no way we can win (this war) militarily..." What kind of thing is that to say? Seriously... how completely far-gone do you have to be to say that? Have you asked yourself what Dan Daly would think of that statement? How about Presley O'Bannon... and Sergeant Jarred L. Adams... and Chesty Puller? Do you think they would approve of the things you are saying?Most of us Marines try to hold ourselves up to the icons of our history... we use them as a measuring stick for our own performance. More than anything, Marines fear not living up to our predecessors.
One thing that has always separated us from everyone else is that we do not forget our history... the honor and bravery of those Marines who came before us is the fuel that feeds our Corps.With all due respect, Sir, you have become a dangerous fool. You have shamed the United States Marine Corps, and endangered countless lives- not to mention the damage done to our mission.Play politics all you want... attack your political opponents as you see fit... but, for God's sake, leave the Marine Corps out of your politics.
On behalf of the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen serving our country now... please stop attacking our military and shut the hell up.
Most sincerely and respectfully,
Kurt G.Gunnery Sergeant, USMC, Retired
P.S. Okinawa??
Friday, August 04, 2006
One of the Best Articles on the War Effort to date.
Professionalization of war is ghettoization of war
July 30, 2006
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
The other day National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez went to see Oliver Stone's new movie ''World Trade Center'' and remarked:
"It's about our love of family, and the work we'll do for them, and the joy they bring us. It's about the irreplaceable, incomparable bond between a man and wife. It's about the united outrage we feel when Americans are murdered. It's about why we fight."
This prompted the following letter: "For the record, and unless I am somehow uninformed, I think it fair to state that you do not fight -- you never have and, hopefully, never will have to. You are not a member of any of the branches of the armed forces, nor a reservist. You are not, and I am fairly sure, have never been engaged in a combat situation. Your contribution to this war is limited solely to your ability to exercise the skillset provided by your liberal arts education in the pages of the National Review.
"It does a tremendous disservice to your readers and is extraordinarily disrespectful to the millions of men and women around the world who are in uniform and fighting and dying for their countries."
What a bizarrely wrong-headed attitude. Aside from anything else, I wonder if the gentleman (if that's the word) understands how freakish it would strike every previous generation of Americans (and, indeed, almost every other society in human history) to berate a blameless young lady for not grabbing a rifle and heading for the front. And, if the issue is "extraordinary disrespect" to the troops, it's utterly self-defeating to argue that only active-duty servicemen get proprietorial rights in a war.
In fact, the notion that "fighting" a war is the monopoly of those "in uniform" gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle. Nations go to war, not armies. Or, to be more precise, nations, not armies, win wars. America has a military that cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but so what? The first President Bush assembled the biggest coalition in history for Gulf War I, and the bigger and more notionally powerful it got, the better Saddam Hussein's chances of surviving it became. Because the bigger it got, the less likely it was to be driven by a coherent set of war aims.
War is not like firefighting: It's not about going to the burning house, identifying what needs to be done, and doing it; it's not a technical solution to an obvious problem. And, if you think it is, you find yourself like George Bush Sr. in 1991, standing in front of the gates of Baghdad and going, "Er, OK. Now what?" Some people look at the burning house and see Hezbollah terrorism; others see Israeli obduracy, or a lack of American diplomacy, or Iranian machinations, or a need to get the permanent Security Council members to send peacekeepers, or "poverty" or "despair" or an almighty pile-up of abstract nouns. You can have the best fastest state-of-the-art car on the road, but, if you don't know where you're going, the fellow in the rusting '73 Oldsmobile will get there and you won't. It's the ideas that drive a war and the support they command in the broader society that determine whether you'll see it through to real victory. After Korea and Vietnam and Gulf War I, it shouldn't be necessary to have to state that.
No one can argue with U.S. military superiority. America has the most powerful armed forces on the planet. The Pentagon is responsible for 40 percent of the world's military spending, and outspends the next 20 biggest militaries combined. It's responsible for almost 80 percent of military research-and-development spending, which means the capability gap between it and everyone else widens every day.
So why doesn't it feel like that?
In Iraq, the leviathan has somehow managed to give the impression that what previous mid-rank powers would have regarded as a little light colonial policing has left it stretched dangerously thin and bogged down in an almighty quagmire. Even if it were only lamebrain leftist media spin, the fact that it's accepted by large numbers of Americans and huge majorities of Europeans is a reminder that in free societies a military of unprecedented dominance is not the only source of power. More importantly, significant proportions of this nation's enemies also believe the spin. In April 2003 was Baby Assad nervous that he'd be next? You bet. Is he nervous now?
We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another.
So even the most powerful military in the world is subject to broader cultural constraints. When Kathryn Lopez's e-mailer sneers that "your contribution to this war is limited solely to your ability to exercise the skillset provided by your liberal arts education," he's accidentally put his finger on the great imponderable: whether the skill set provided by the typical American, British and European education these last 30 years is now one of the biggest obstacles to civilizational self-preservation. A nation that psychologically outsources war to a small career soldiery risks losing its ability even to grasp concepts like "the enemy": The professionalization of war is also the ghettoization of war. As John Podhoretz wondered in the New York Post the other day: "What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"
That's a good question. If you watch the grisly U.S. network coverage of any global sporting event, you've no doubt who your team's meant to be: If there are plucky Belgian hurdlers or Fijian shotputters in the Olympics, you never hear a word of them on ABC and NBC; it's all heartwarming soft-focus profiles of athletes from Indiana and Nebraska. The American media have no problem being ferociously jingoistic when it comes to the two-man luge. Yet, when it's a war, there is no "our" team, not on American TV. Like snotty French ice-dancing judges, the media watch the U.S. skate across the rink and then hand out a succession of snippy 4.3s -- for lack of Miranda rights in Fallujah, insufficient menu options at Gitmo.
Our enemies understand "why we fight" and where the fight is. They know that in the greater scheme of things the mosques of Jakarta and Amsterdam and Toronto and Dearborn are more important territory than the Sunni Triangle.
The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been and it never will be.
July 30, 2006
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
The other day National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez went to see Oliver Stone's new movie ''World Trade Center'' and remarked:
"It's about our love of family, and the work we'll do for them, and the joy they bring us. It's about the irreplaceable, incomparable bond between a man and wife. It's about the united outrage we feel when Americans are murdered. It's about why we fight."
This prompted the following letter: "For the record, and unless I am somehow uninformed, I think it fair to state that you do not fight -- you never have and, hopefully, never will have to. You are not a member of any of the branches of the armed forces, nor a reservist. You are not, and I am fairly sure, have never been engaged in a combat situation. Your contribution to this war is limited solely to your ability to exercise the skillset provided by your liberal arts education in the pages of the National Review.
"It does a tremendous disservice to your readers and is extraordinarily disrespectful to the millions of men and women around the world who are in uniform and fighting and dying for their countries."
What a bizarrely wrong-headed attitude. Aside from anything else, I wonder if the gentleman (if that's the word) understands how freakish it would strike every previous generation of Americans (and, indeed, almost every other society in human history) to berate a blameless young lady for not grabbing a rifle and heading for the front. And, if the issue is "extraordinary disrespect" to the troops, it's utterly self-defeating to argue that only active-duty servicemen get proprietorial rights in a war.
In fact, the notion that "fighting" a war is the monopoly of those "in uniform" gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle. Nations go to war, not armies. Or, to be more precise, nations, not armies, win wars. America has a military that cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but so what? The first President Bush assembled the biggest coalition in history for Gulf War I, and the bigger and more notionally powerful it got, the better Saddam Hussein's chances of surviving it became. Because the bigger it got, the less likely it was to be driven by a coherent set of war aims.
War is not like firefighting: It's not about going to the burning house, identifying what needs to be done, and doing it; it's not a technical solution to an obvious problem. And, if you think it is, you find yourself like George Bush Sr. in 1991, standing in front of the gates of Baghdad and going, "Er, OK. Now what?" Some people look at the burning house and see Hezbollah terrorism; others see Israeli obduracy, or a lack of American diplomacy, or Iranian machinations, or a need to get the permanent Security Council members to send peacekeepers, or "poverty" or "despair" or an almighty pile-up of abstract nouns. You can have the best fastest state-of-the-art car on the road, but, if you don't know where you're going, the fellow in the rusting '73 Oldsmobile will get there and you won't. It's the ideas that drive a war and the support they command in the broader society that determine whether you'll see it through to real victory. After Korea and Vietnam and Gulf War I, it shouldn't be necessary to have to state that.
No one can argue with U.S. military superiority. America has the most powerful armed forces on the planet. The Pentagon is responsible for 40 percent of the world's military spending, and outspends the next 20 biggest militaries combined. It's responsible for almost 80 percent of military research-and-development spending, which means the capability gap between it and everyone else widens every day.
So why doesn't it feel like that?
In Iraq, the leviathan has somehow managed to give the impression that what previous mid-rank powers would have regarded as a little light colonial policing has left it stretched dangerously thin and bogged down in an almighty quagmire. Even if it were only lamebrain leftist media spin, the fact that it's accepted by large numbers of Americans and huge majorities of Europeans is a reminder that in free societies a military of unprecedented dominance is not the only source of power. More importantly, significant proportions of this nation's enemies also believe the spin. In April 2003 was Baby Assad nervous that he'd be next? You bet. Is he nervous now?
We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another.
So even the most powerful military in the world is subject to broader cultural constraints. When Kathryn Lopez's e-mailer sneers that "your contribution to this war is limited solely to your ability to exercise the skillset provided by your liberal arts education," he's accidentally put his finger on the great imponderable: whether the skill set provided by the typical American, British and European education these last 30 years is now one of the biggest obstacles to civilizational self-preservation. A nation that psychologically outsources war to a small career soldiery risks losing its ability even to grasp concepts like "the enemy": The professionalization of war is also the ghettoization of war. As John Podhoretz wondered in the New York Post the other day: "What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"
That's a good question. If you watch the grisly U.S. network coverage of any global sporting event, you've no doubt who your team's meant to be: If there are plucky Belgian hurdlers or Fijian shotputters in the Olympics, you never hear a word of them on ABC and NBC; it's all heartwarming soft-focus profiles of athletes from Indiana and Nebraska. The American media have no problem being ferociously jingoistic when it comes to the two-man luge. Yet, when it's a war, there is no "our" team, not on American TV. Like snotty French ice-dancing judges, the media watch the U.S. skate across the rink and then hand out a succession of snippy 4.3s -- for lack of Miranda rights in Fallujah, insufficient menu options at Gitmo.
Our enemies understand "why we fight" and where the fight is. They know that in the greater scheme of things the mosques of Jakarta and Amsterdam and Toronto and Dearborn are more important territory than the Sunni Triangle.
The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been and it never will be.
Where will Moral Superiority take us? I don't think we want to know.
The war for moral superiority
by Diana West
I can see it now -- I think.
It's on the right-hand page of a book by or about Winston Churchill, and it is a quotation by Churchill on the subject on war -- specifically, what happens to a civilized society when it goes to war with a barbarous one. I can't find it (yet), but what I remember as being the main point was that if -- if -- the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory. Partly, this is because civilized war tactics are apt to fail against barbarous war tactics, thus requiring civilized society to break the "rules" if it is to survive a true death struggle. It is also because the clash itself -- the act of engaging with the barbarous society -- forces civilization to confront, repel and also internalize previously unimagined depredations. This is degrading, too.
In Churchill's era, the more civilized world of the Allies was necessarily degraded to some intangible extent by what it took to achieve victory over barbarous Nazism. For example, bombing cities, even rail transportation hubs, lay beyond civilized conventions, but this was one tactic the Allies used to defeat Hitler. However justifiably, civilization crossed a previously unimagined and uncivilized line to save, well, civilization. Then there was Hitler's Holocaust -- an act of genocide on a previously unthinkable scale and horror. Who in the civilized world ever imagined systematically killing millions people before Hitler? And who in the civilized world retained the same purity of mind after? Civilization itself was forever dimmed.
The question is, did, for example, bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or, in the Pacific War, dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting, make the Allies into barbarians?
I think most people would still say, "of course not," and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself -- and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied soldier's lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective: namely, as one in which Allied lives -- our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons -- counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.
How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think any more. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy's and the "civilians" he hides among -- and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq -- our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.
In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives -- and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people -- Western elites -- never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadis. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of anyone who does.
This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.
Why not? Because such smugness masks a massive moral paralysis. The morally superior (read: paralyzed) don't really take sides; don't really believe one culture is qualitatively better or worse than the other. They don't even believe one culture is just plain different from the other. Only in this atmosphere of politically correct and perpetually adolescent non-judgmentalism could anyone believe, for example, that compelling, forcing or torturing a jihad terrorist to get information to save a city in any way undermines our "values." It undermines nothing -- except the jihad.
Do such tactics diminish our inviolate sanctimony? You bet. But, so what? The alternative is to follow our precious rules and hope the barbarians will leave us alone -- or, perhaps, not deal with us too harshly. Fond hope. Consider the 21st century return of (I still can't quite believe it) beheadings. The first French Republic aside, who on God's modern green Earth ever imagined a head being hacked off the human body before we were confronted with Islamic jihad? Civilization itself is forever dimmed -- again.
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
by Diana West
I can see it now -- I think.
It's on the right-hand page of a book by or about Winston Churchill, and it is a quotation by Churchill on the subject on war -- specifically, what happens to a civilized society when it goes to war with a barbarous one. I can't find it (yet), but what I remember as being the main point was that if -- if -- the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory. Partly, this is because civilized war tactics are apt to fail against barbarous war tactics, thus requiring civilized society to break the "rules" if it is to survive a true death struggle. It is also because the clash itself -- the act of engaging with the barbarous society -- forces civilization to confront, repel and also internalize previously unimagined depredations. This is degrading, too.
In Churchill's era, the more civilized world of the Allies was necessarily degraded to some intangible extent by what it took to achieve victory over barbarous Nazism. For example, bombing cities, even rail transportation hubs, lay beyond civilized conventions, but this was one tactic the Allies used to defeat Hitler. However justifiably, civilization crossed a previously unimagined and uncivilized line to save, well, civilization. Then there was Hitler's Holocaust -- an act of genocide on a previously unthinkable scale and horror. Who in the civilized world ever imagined systematically killing millions people before Hitler? And who in the civilized world retained the same purity of mind after? Civilization itself was forever dimmed.
The question is, did, for example, bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or, in the Pacific War, dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting, make the Allies into barbarians?
I think most people would still say, "of course not," and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself -- and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied soldier's lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective: namely, as one in which Allied lives -- our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons -- counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.
How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think any more. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy's and the "civilians" he hides among -- and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq -- our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.
In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives -- and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people -- Western elites -- never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadis. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of anyone who does.
This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.
Why not? Because such smugness masks a massive moral paralysis. The morally superior (read: paralyzed) don't really take sides; don't really believe one culture is qualitatively better or worse than the other. They don't even believe one culture is just plain different from the other. Only in this atmosphere of politically correct and perpetually adolescent non-judgmentalism could anyone believe, for example, that compelling, forcing or torturing a jihad terrorist to get information to save a city in any way undermines our "values." It undermines nothing -- except the jihad.
Do such tactics diminish our inviolate sanctimony? You bet. But, so what? The alternative is to follow our precious rules and hope the barbarians will leave us alone -- or, perhaps, not deal with us too harshly. Fond hope. Consider the 21st century return of (I still can't quite believe it) beheadings. The first French Republic aside, who on God's modern green Earth ever imagined a head being hacked off the human body before we were confronted with Islamic jihad? Civilization itself is forever dimmed -- again.
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)