<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, October 28, 2005

The Math Behind the Movies 

The weak summer movie season of 2005 came as a shock to Hollywood, but not to the average American. For years, the moviegoing public has lamented the high ticket prices and even higher prices at the concession stands. While a lot of weak movies are to blame for a slumping box office, even eagerly-awaited blockbuster franchises like Star Wars and Batman underperformed.

Things have gotten so bad that Disney and other studios are seriously mulling the simultaneous release of films on DVD and in the theatres. While I feel that delaying the DVD release builds suspense and demand for the DVD, the concept is not without merit. This new sales model has found unlikely support from one of Hollywood's most esteemed directors, Steven Soderbergh.

On the flip side of the argument is suspense-master M. Night Shyamalan. He passionately argues that the theatre is a wholly different experience from watching a movie at home. The perspective of the audience is unified, and you feel like you are a part of the film. While his argument has merit, the poor ticket sales show that people aren't willing to pay for the added experience that the big screen brings.

Let's face it: when you have to pay $9.50 a head to see a movie in a theatre, it makes more sense to pay $18 or less when the DVD comes out. Put a bag of popcorn in the microwave ($5.00 a bag in the theatre, 25 cents a bag at the grocery store) and the math shows how the theatres aren't worth it. People are less and less inclined to pay extra for the theatrical atmosphere and experience.

Undoubtedly, Hollywood needs to reexamine its business model. Alas, the movie industry is too left-wing to apply a little Reagan-era supply-side economics to its problem. If the cost of the movies was cut in half, the humber of theatre-goers would grow. The studios would have to cut their distribution fees, but the reward would be bigger audiences. There is a certain point on the Laffer curve where the optimal movie ticket price will result in the highest maximum take at the box office. Unfortunately, the studios have fallen off the Laffer curve, bringing the cost of movies so high that the take is dropping rapidly. A little more Reaganomics is in order if the movie industry is to survive.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Hopefully they'll both lose 

Sunni Arab militants in Iraq are now picking a fight with Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Much like Hitler's invasion of Stalinist Russia in 1941 and Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980, mutual destruction is the ideal outcome.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

White Sox: Shoeless No More 

The game of baseball is filled with curses. The Red Sox didn't break the curse of the Bambino until 2004. For the Chicago Cubs, the infamous billy goat curse still hangs over the team. Tonight, one of baseball's less-famous curses came to an end: the Black Sox curse.

The Chicago White Sox last won the World Series in 1917. The team would make it to the series again two years later, but threw the series in the infamous "Black Sox Scandal." Although the scandal isn't seen by many fans as a curse, it would seem that this scandal was a curse equal to the Bambino and the billy goat in terms of its perniciousness. After all, the Sox would only see the series again in 1959 (40 years after the scandal) and would lose it decisively.

Among the eight players expelled from the major leagues due to the scandal was Sox all-star Shoeless Joe Jackson. Although Jackson hit .317 during the series and, in the eyes of most, played at the top of his form, he was accused of taking bribes to throw the World Series. At the urging of the lawyer to team owner Charles Comiskey, Jackson admitted guilt while under oath. A great (and likely innocent) player spent of his days living in obscurity and shame.

By 2005, the White Sox had an equally detestable owner in Jerry Reinsdorf, who threatened to move the team to St. Petersburg in the early 90's unless the state of Illinois bought him a new stadium. Although today's Sox lack a player like Joe Jackson, they had what it took to make it to postseason greatness.

Under the able leadership of manager Ozzie Guillen (who played on the fantastic '93 and '94 Sox teams,) the Chicago White Sox made it to the series and won it all in dominating fashion, despite facing excellent teams in the Angels and Astros. The Sox did it through outstanding teamwork and discipline. No single player truly stood out as a franchise player; it was always a solid team effort that took the Sox to victory.

If Ozzie could get this kind of greatness to come out of his team in just his second season as coach, what else can he accomplish? Maybe he can become the US ambassador to his native Venezuela. Perhaps he can talk some sense into Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and get him to play nice with others.

I don't want to speculate on the future right now. I want to savor this moment. An incredible burden has been lifted. Joy has been brought to the working-class neighborhoods of Chicago's south side (and many tears have filled the eyes of Cubs partisans, I'm sure.) Perhaps Shoeless Joe Jackson can finally rest in peace, knowing that his team has finally cast off the shackles of scandal and obscurity.

The End for RNEP 

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program is finally coming to an end. The controversial effort aimed to use a small nuclear weapon in a hardened casing to penetrate heavily-buried and fortified targets. Apparently RNEP would have been far more capable than the B61-11, the current nuclear penetrator in the US arsenal.

The folly of a nuclear penetrator comes not from the potential for an arms race, but from its illusory military utility. As a history professor of mine once put it, when you use a tactical nuke, your own troops have to march through the fallout. Tactical nukes only make sense in scorched-earth warfare, where the goal is to deny the enemy territory that we know we can never hold. An earth-penetrator doesn't fit into this scenario.

If we want to penetrate deeply-buried targets, space weapons (including converted ICBM's, equipped with conventional warheads and reinforced noses) and really big conventional bombs are the way to do it. The Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) is already in the works, and it will exceed the awesomely-powerful Mother of All Bombs (21,000 pounds) in size. MOP is so big that heavy bombers like the B-52 and B-2 will only be able to carry one at a time.

Perhaps one of these days I will get to live out my Dr. Strangelove fantasy, riding a MOAB or MOP to the ground while wearing a cowboy hat. Until then we can dream about it, in knowledge that MOP is the best solution.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The Plame Game 

Liberal Democrats are salivating at the prospects that members of the Bush White House will be indicted as a result of the Wilson affair. Things have gotten so bad that Al Franken thinks that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby will be "executed for treason."

The most galling aspect of the Democrat reaction is this manufactured outrage over the incident. One of the recent talking points has been "Joe Wilson was targeted for a smear campaign because he dared to speak out against the war." Damn straight. Except that if the roles were reversed and a Democrat was in the White House, the Democrats would not be acting with the same anger. Did the Democrats speak out when Bill Clinton villified his foes? The smearing of critics has always been a part of presidential politics.

In the case of Joe Wilson, the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity was less of a smear and more of a tool to undermine Wilson's diplomatic credentials. Valerie Plame hadn't gone undercover in more than five years, so her identity was not protected by law; her prospects for returning to the field were moribund as well. The point made by Wilson's critics is that he was an opportunist who used his wife's position so he could gain prestige for his consulting firm. On the flip side, Wilson had diplomatic credentials in dealing with both Niger and Iraq, which undermines the charges of nepotism in the CIA.

The cardinal sin of the Bush administration is one of sloth. The outing of Valerie Plame (which may have been solely the work of Robert Novak's sleuthing, for all we know) was totally unnecessary to discredit Joe Wilson. If the administration were able to enunciate the truth about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, it would become clear to Americans that Wilson never had any credibility to begin with.

As best I can tell, Joe Wilson's trip consisted of meetings with members of Niger's government; the kindest word for the investigation would be "cursory." We know that Baghdad Bob (Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf, best known to Americans as Saddam's information minister) made a trip to Niger in 1999 when he was Iraq's trade minister. We also know that British intelligence intercepted communications on several different occasions which indicated an illicit Uranium trade between Niger and Iraq.

Joe Wilson never provided satisfactory answers for any of these questions. He did tell us of forged documents, which he had never seen in Niger and the CIA never evaluated until March 2003. Furthermore, if Joe Wilson didn't believe that Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger, why didn't he say speak out before the war started, when the president cited the British intelligence in his January 2003 State of the Union address?

The media and Joe Wilson are in this fight together. Nobody noticed him when he first conducted his investigation. The media never cared about Joe Wilson until he started to undermine the president and the case for war. Faced with a maelstrom of media criticism, the White House likely panicked and overreacted to a perceived threat that was only a paper tiger. While no crime was committed against Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame, the constant media attention ensured that an investigation would be launched anyways. The sacrificial lambs will be revealed soon, and the Democrats may receive their greatest wish: Karl Rove on a silver platter.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Mrs. 2000 

The anti-war movement is looking forward to the 2,000th troop death in Iraq with sickening glee. For them, it's another arbitrary milestone giving them ammunition for their self-aggrandizing protests.

For media-darling Cindy Sheehan, the milestone will be marked by tying herself to a fence outside the White House until the US leaves Iraq. Akin to the bound Prometheus, vultures will likely swoop down to pluck out the remnants of her brain.

In spite of all the comparisons to Vietnam, one thing is certainly different: the media and the military have swapped positions on the value of body counts. In Vietnam, the military fed the media bogus body counts. Military leaders had fooled themselves into thinking that body counts were a measure of success in what was predominantly a political struggle. In the present, the media is using American body counts as a measure of American failure. The military, for its part, has become much more reluctant in providing body counts.

In Iraq, we have lost nearly 2,000 of our bravest and best Americans. Thousands more face serious lifetime disabilities. Countless others will bear the emotional scars of war for eternity. That fact should always be on our minds, and the soldiers and Marines should always be in our prayers, regardless of the body count.

To put it all in perspective, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam between 1946 and 1975. 54,000 died in the three years of Korea. Over time, the American tolerance for military casualties has dropped lower and lower. This speaks volumes about America's broken resolve but also its value for life. Yet when Americans are motivated to fight, they will. There are times when peace is no longer an option, and Americans face death and destruction at home. Real Americans will never forget the 3,000 who died on September 11, 2001, just as Americans remembered the 2,700 who died on December 7, 1941.

The media has tossed us numerous polls indicating that most Americans want a partial or full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Yet when the choice is whittled down to one of "stay now or leave immediately," the majority of Americans want to stay. The media has an agenda; that's why it never gives Americans the ability to say "send more troops" when they conduct the polls.

Americans see that simply "staying the course" is not producing success on a timetable consistent with America's short attention span. They have lost faith in this president and his reasons for initially invading Iraq. Yet Americans aren't idiots. Americans don't believe whacked-out extremists like Cindy Sheehan. Americans don't believe that you can make peace by simply quitting the fight. Saddam was brutal, but he was a force for internal stability. We've broken Iraq's internal order, and we'll have to fix it before Iraq's internal instability spills over into regional instability.

While America is challenged by extreme pacifists at home, we face extreme militants abroad.The consequence of withdrawal is a jihadist-Baathist Iraq that spreads its sadistic way of life to its neighbors, destroys Israel, and poses a global threat to America and Christendom. The consequences of defeat are too painful for us to endure, in spite of our present bleeding. With heavy hearts, the fight continues until one side is deprived of all hope or chance of success. Let's hope that it's the enemy's side and not ours who plunges into the depths of despair.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight 

The most welcome news to come out of Iraq in quite some time is the arrest of a top terror financier--a nephew of Saddam Hussein. The arrest wouldn't have been possible without help from an unlikely source--Syria.

In spite of the terrorists coming across the Syrian border into Iraq, the greatest threat posed by Syria is the harboring of the insurgency's leadership. While jihadists like Zarqawi are the public face of the insurgency, the money and overall strategy is coming from Saddam's friends and family, most of whom are hiding in Syria. Izzat Ibrahim and Tahir Jalil Habbush are likely living in Iraq's northwest neighbor.

If Syria wanted to help us, they could easily roll up the insurgency's funding and direction. They could freeze the assets of the former regime, and they could expel Iraqi fugitives (as they did with another of Saddam's relatives this spring.) For now, though, the Iraqi insurgency is Syria's ace-in-the-hole.

If America is to put Iraq on the path to stability, it has to dance with the devil, and deal with Syria's Bashar Assad. Wesley Clark made this suggestion on a recent episode of "The O'Reilly Factor," and even O'Reilly was convinced.

To understand the heart of Bashar Assad, we first have to understand the heart of every Arab dictator. The supreme goal in life for these despots is to hang on to power and wealth for as long as possible, regardless of the consequences. Assad is not a popular figure in Syria, and he faces opposition from the majority Druze as well as the Wahhabis. He has already lost the power he used to wield over Lebanon. With the Americans at his doorstep, he perceives a direct American threat to his regime.

Bashar Assad needs both a carrot and a stick to encourage him to help us fight the insurgency. The carrot would be diplomatic recognition, a nonagression pact, and lucrative arms sales. The stick would be a realistic threat to end his regime. We could do this by helping the Druze to commit terrorist acts against his regime. If Syria wants to sponsor terrorism against Americans in Iraq, we can take that advantage away by giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Diplomatic recognition of Syria would certainly have its drawbacks; it would hinder the Free Lebanon movement, and it would give Syria a free hand to sponsor terrorism against Israel. America's leaders will have to ask themselves whether they are willing to trade Israel for Iraq. On one hand, Israel is a much better example of democracy than Iraq will ever be. On the other, a failed state in Iraq is a direct threat to the security of the United States and all of Christendom. A dance with the devil indeed...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Delicious Irony 

A friend gave me this suggestion regarding the trial of Saddam Hussein:

We need to let him go, so he steals a white Ford Bronco and starts driving around Baghdad until he hits an IED.

Death by IED for Saddam? Mmm... toasty!
(Apologies to Quizno's.)

The PTC Jerks its Knee (Again) 

The Parents Television Council has issued its ratings for this fall's TV programs in terms of their family friendliness. Not surprisingly, three of FOX's Sunday-night staples made the list.

"Family Guy" and "American Dad" have been singled out by Bozell and company for their animated violence, cursing, and downright vulgarity. Like many young men my age, I think that Family Guy and American Dad are extemely funny (albeit left-wing) shows. The masturbation episode of "American Dad" epitomizes the relationship between adult themes and side-splitting laughs.

That being said, if I had pre-teen children, I would not allow them to watch "Family Guy" or "American Dad." As a society, we have to learn what types of TV are appropriate for which time slots and age groups. Both of those shows are awesomely entertaining for people who are mature enough to contextualize what they are seeing. If Family Guy's Stewie Griffin turns toddlers into homicidal maniacs, we should question why parents allow their kids to watch the show in the first place.

Part of the PTC's complaint stems from the fact that this adult humor is conveyed by an animated show. This logic is the same reason why my father has hated "The Simpsons" since 1989. Too many people are trapped in the outdated paradigm that cartoons are only for children. If that's the case, then why does Bugs Bunny blow off Elmer Fudd's face with a shotgun, or why does Jerry the mouse hit Tom the cat in the head with a hatchet? Cartoons can express feelings (especially humorous ones) and create new fantasy realms in a way that live action can only dream of.

I tend to agree more with the PTC's criticisms of "The War at Home." One critic said, "I laughed, and hated myself for it afterwards," and I felt the same way.

Some have compared it to "Married With Children," along with the monologues from Titus and Bernie Mac. I think they're missing the big point behind both "Married With Children" and "The War at Home." Al Bundy was a lovable everyman; he worked a low-paying and degrading job, he was stuck in an unfulfilling marriage, his daughter was a moronic slut, and his son was a geek. Every time he wanted to have fun with the guys, the party was crashed by his shrill feminist neighbor. What can we say about "The War at Home"? The father is a bigoted pot-head with no redeeming qualities. "Married With Children" was head-and-shoulders above the mean-spirited "The War at Home."

Curiously, the PTC has deemed only nine shows to be family-friendly. Where is "King of the Hill"? Are they so blinded by their rigid views on animation that they would reject Mike Judge's classic? In a Hollywood where it's standard practice to portray fathers as insensitive idiots who are lacking in competence, Hank Hill is a throwback to the days of "Leave it to Beaver." Whenever his wife Peggy or son Bobby gets a crazy idea that spirals out of control, only Hank can make things right. Think of it as an animated version of "Father Knows Best," with the addition of the words "damn," "hell," and "ass."

The PTC would be wise to spend less time harping on American Dad and more time praising shows like "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" and "Three Wishes." Life-affirming and family-friendly shows like these do have a place on television, but they risk being pushed off if people won't support them.

Television is the ultimate free market; shows that people enjoy stay on TV, and shows that people hate get cancelled faster than you can mention "Head Cases" or "Bob Patterson." If parents don't approve of what their kids watch, they should exercise their perogatives as parents and change the channel. If they want wholesome TV shows, they'll turn them on. When parents do their jobs, the kids will turn out fine, and the networks will listen to parents when they see their ratings tumble faster than those for XFL Football.

Monday, October 17, 2005

All Gawkers Must Die 

Today the US military reported that airstrikes had killed seventy militants who gathered at the site of a bomb near Ramadi that killed five American soldiers on Saturday. Iraqi authorities disagree, claiming that half of those killed were civilians who gathered to gawk at the scene. Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Five good men died on Saturday. Yet these Iraqis had the gall to stand around and gawk at the site. Absolutely disgusting. It's occurred to me that these Iraqis were probably sympathetic to the insurgency, which makes me even happier that they were blown to hell.

In the larger sense, my patience with the Iraqi people is wearing thin. Their efforts to take control of their destiny and rebuild their country have been weak at best. They have been gripped with fear of the insurgency and contempt for the foreign occupiers who have tried to help them. I've already concluded that the Iraqis were not worthy of liberation. I'm on the cusp of believing that the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Bond Begins 

The handwringing has already begun amongst afficionados of the James Bond films regarding the new 007, Daniel Craig. He's the first blond actor to play the super-spy. I can't say too much about him because I've never seen his work. Perhaps a rental of Layer Cake, Road to Perdition, or Tomb Raider is in order.

Of more concern to me is the script for the upcoming movie, Casino Royale, and the direction that producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson want for the series. After all, George Lazenby couldn't hold a candle to Sean Connery, but his On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the best movie in the series.

The plan is to start James Bond from square one, returning to Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, Casino Royale. While the book was published in 1953, the story will be updated for 2006. I'd rather see a retro Bond (as Fleming's Bond was a man of his times,) but I don't think that updating the stories will make them bad.

What's next after Casino Royale? I'd hope that they could make movies of all of Ian Fleming's books in order, continuing down the line with Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and Diamonds Are Forever. Of all the movies made thus far, only Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service were faithful to the books of the same name. (For Your Eyes Only and Licence to Kill deserve credit for using elements from Ian Fleming's novels, even if the stories were largely original.)

I'd like to see John Cleese back as Q, but the gadgets have been way overdone throughout the history of the series (Die Another Day taking it to an absurd new level.) The gadgets detracted from Ian Fleming's vision of the character: a ruthless but charming spy who was more of a policeman than a detective.

Born in the pages of 40's pulp crime fiction, James Bond transcended the genre and gave birth to the cold war-themed spy thrillers. Ian Fleming made sure that James Bond's adventures were implausible, but never impossible. He rewarded his readers with the three "S's": Sex, Sadism, and Snobbery. All are apparent in Fleming's methodically-written tales.

Timothy Dalton tried to bring the series back to its roots, but he was stuck with an initial script (The Living Daylights) loaded with Roger Moore's inane prop comedy. Licence to Kill was a better effort, but didn't use much of Ian Fleming's source material. Going back to the basics is the way to go. Let's hope that Broccoli and Wilson can get things right and not give Ian Fleming's legacy a black eye.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

On Dissent 

Now that they have been excluded from power, the liberals have embraced the concept of dissent, enshrining it as the highest form of patriotism. What should we believe about dissent? Is it good, bad, or neutral?

Dissent has the potential to be patriotic.
Uninformed dissent is idiotic.
Dissent for dissent's own sake is counter-productive.
Informed, educated dissent is constructive.

Let's see if the libs try fitting the last of these addages on a bumper sticker.

Friday, October 14, 2005

The World's a Stage 

The media was abuzz with scandal the other day: Bush press conference with troops was staged! The Pentagon is scrambling to do damage control. The fact that the media is making a story out of this shows that they are either desperate for another way to attack the president, or thay have no clue how military press conferences are conducted.

By saying that the conference was staged, they mean to say that the questions were approved ahead of time. This is common at both political rallies and military press conferences. I've been to audiences with general officers that were not open to the public, and even then the questions were carefully filtered and approved ahead of time.

The press conference is a key public relations event. As such, it's carefully and methodically planned for maximum positive exposure. For politicians, the speeches are often crafted by top-notch speechwriters. Media are invited. The spectators are often screened ahead of time to ensure they are receptive to the message.

What happens when the questions aren't screened? We get instances like the soldier who asked Donald Rumsfeld why they didn't have proper armor on their Humvees. Such incidents are embarassing for the politicos.

What we saw on Wednesday was the real president giving a speech to real soldiers and then fielding softball questions. Honesty from politicians would be nice for a change. But we shouldn't be abnormally outraged by the president's speech; it's just par for the course.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Nobody Said Baseball Had to be Rational 

Even though I'm a White Sox fan, I'm objective enough to admit that the Angels got robbed last night. Did A.J. Pierzinski's third strike hit the dirt? Although it was a close call, most will agree that it didn't.

Yet, to argue with the umpire's ruling after that controversial play is to not undertand the fundamental nature of baseball. The sport is one where tough calls are made on the fly. Was it a ball or a strike? Was the runner tagged before he touched the base? These things happen in a split second, and umpires are forced to call it. During his record-setting 1998 season, juicer Mark McGwire smashed a home run ball that was ruled foul by the umpires despite landing on the fair side of the pole. Had that ball counted, McGwire would have set the record earlier and finished with 71 home runs.

We often see managers and players argue with an umpire after a botched call. The usual result of this is an ejected manager or player. I have never seen an umpire reverse a decision. Perhaps the umpires are too self-righteous and proud to correct themselves when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them.

The idea that an Ump would stand by a bad call and not look at an instant replay is illogical; but nobody ever said that baseball has to be logical. It is what it is. If you want a sport where there is a definite logic to it, watch football instead. At least the NFL allows coaches to challenge rulings and referrees to review the tape.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Bill of Rights, Iraqi-Style? 

Back in 1787-88, the biggest obstacle faced by the US Constitution was by a block of citizens known as the Anti-Federalists. These dissident patriots were troubled by the trend to consolidate federal power at the expense of the states, and preferred the system of government laid out by the Articles of Confederation. They reasoned that the constitution did not protect the basic rights of the citizens.

Amongst the Federalists (not to be confused with the later Federalist party,) there was considerable debate about how to deal with the Anti-Federalists and get the Constitution passed. Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist Papers that the Constitution was a bill of rights, and no amendments were required. Other Federalists were more pragmatic, and agreed to consider amendments that would protect our most basic, God-given rights. History has demonstrated repeatedly how prescient they were.

Iraq faces a similar situation today, in that the Sunni Arab minority perceives the new constitution as a threat to the nation's unity and the rights of Sunni Arabs. Luckily, some hope came today as the main Sunni faction, the Iraqi Islamic Party, agreed to support the constitution in exchange for future amendments to satisfy their demands.

This development could be big. It must be noted that people affiliated with the Iraqi Islamic Party don't represent the average insurgent terrorist. The insurgents view Democracy as un-Islamic, or contrary to Ba'athism. But members of the Iraqi Islamic Party have been indifferent to the terrorists, and have even given them passive support. When the average Sunni Arab is motivated to turn against "Jihad Joe," the forces of evil will lose. Sunni Arab participation in the new constitutional government will play a big part in that.

The ball is in the court of the Kurds and Shiites. Will they agree to compromise on the issue of federalism, and will the Sunnis make a reasonable effort to meet them halfway? If the Shiites and Kurds want to punish the Sunnis for their decades of supporting Saddam, Iraqis will know only civil war for future decades. If they want to make an honest effort at reconciliation, hope will live to see another day.

With just three days left until Iraqis vote, will there be enough time to get the word out and get Sunni Arabs to vote for the constitution? If Sunni leaders are committed to peace, they will pull out the stops to make it happen.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

The "C" Word: Caliphate 

When World War IV began on Sept 11, 2001, President Bush told us that we were attacked because our enemies hate our freedoms. It was a simplified response to a complex question. In the years since, President Bush has shied away from explaining the true motives of our enemies. Yet on Thursday he came closest to explaining what militant Muslims want. The only thing missing was the "C" word: caliphate.

Granted, the Islamic caliphate was the most advanced society in the world between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance. Yet the caliphate sought by bin Laden and his brothers-in-arms is not rooted in knowledge and reason, but in twisted dogma and religious fanaticism.

The beliefs of fundamentalist Islam (whether militant or non-militant) are undisputable. Even American Muslims who claim to hate bin Laden will claim to be fundamentalists. The philosophy of fundamentalism can be summed up in three points:
1) The Koran and the laws of the Koran are perfect
2) Because those laws are perfect, there should be no distinction between the laws of the state and the laws of Islam
3) The only people qualified to lead and legislate are the clerics who fully understand Islamic teachings

Fundamentalist logic leads us to the goal of the Wahhabist movement: replace all secular Muslim governments with clerical, Sharia-based governments. In Iraq, we have seen this happen in enemy-controlled cities like Fallujah (remember the Mujaheddeen Shura and its reign of terror?) and Qaim.

Now we have a letter from al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri to his top commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If authentic, the letter is a blueprint for al Qaeda's caliphate. First, the insurgency forces the US to withdraw from Iraq. Presumably, an Iraqi version of the Taliban would ascend to power over central and southern Iraq (while the Kurds would retreat to the mountains and put up fierce resistance.) Using Iraq as a staging ground, Wahhabists would wage war against Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt until those countries come under control of Wahhabist clerical governments. With Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt all under Wahhabist control, al Qaeda fighters would launch a final thrust into "Little Satan," Israel. If such a horrible scenario played out, one would only hope that the US and UK came to Israel's aid with nuclear armageddon.

Whether the caliphate would seek to regain only Muslim lands, or if it would expand beyond its historical borders, can only be known to the fanatics who wish for the caliphate to reappear. The US has always been the obstacle to the caliphate by supporting secular Arab governments (many of whom admittedly don't deserve our support) and by stationing American forces in Arab countries (with the consent of the previosuly-mentioned secular Arab governments.) America should not feel remorse in preventing the caliphate's re-emergence up to this time. America should instead recognize the danger of the caliphate and spare no expense and avoid no burden in ending the Wahhabist movement.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Nobel GreenPeace Prize? 

Mohammed El Baredi will soon have a new job, in addition to running the International Atomic Energy Agency: polishing his Nobel Peace Prize.

My reaction to the award was one of muted enthusiasm. While I feel that El Baredi hasn't taken a sufficiently hard line on Iran's nuclear activities, I know that he is operating in good faith, and his only agenda is countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I would have preferred that Senators Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn got the award for the program which, as of October 1, has reprocessed half of Russia's weapons-grade Uranium into fuel for nuclear power plants.

The main criticism of El Baredi's honors hasn't come from the American right-wing. Instead, it's extreme leftist groups like Greenpeace who are protesting. They argue from the basis that nuclear power can never be used safely or peacefully, and that all civilian power plants pose a risk for use in nuclear weapons programs. While it's true that a nation with Uranium enrichment technology could apply it towards making a bomb, the number of nations who actually enrich Uranium is less than the number of nations who use Uranium for nuclear power. The lofty goal of the IAEA is to use international supervision to ensure that this technology is not used for nuclear proliferation.

America is at a crossroads in terms of its future energy choices. The end of American nuclear reactor constructiuon in the 1980's was reactionary, illogical, and short-sighted. Countries like China and India are committing to nuclear power, while companies in Maryland and Florida are seriously discussing that possibility. Not only does the United States need a strong industry to build nuclear plants at home and abroad, it needs a strong IAEA to ensure that nuclear technologies are not used to give weapons to rogue nations.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Accountability is only for Republicans (Clinton lied, people died) 

Bill Clinton has found himself back in the spotlight by criticizing President Bush's Iraq policies and expressing pessimism over our chances of success. Normally, former presidents stay mum on such issues out of deference for the sitting president; yet Bill Clinton has never disappeared from the public eye, nor has he learned to hold his tounge.

Other Clinton administration officials haven't been shy about attacking President Bush on the topic of Iraq. Al Gore has been delivering shrill anti-war screeds for the past three years, going as far as saying that the president manipulated our fears and lied to us. More criticism has come from Sidney Blumenthal and former SecState / UN Ambassador Madeline Albright.

None of the criticism from the former Clinton White House should be regarded as sincere. When examining the eight years of Bill Clinton's Iraq policies, it's clear that the Clinton administration only hastened us down the path to war. All of the allegations and critiques expressed by our former leaders should be viewed as little more than an attempt to exonerate themselves in front of the Democratic party's liberal wing.

George W. Bush had no reason to lie about weapons of mass destruction; Americans were already convinced about Iraq's arsenal before Bush was elected. Bill Clinton was so convinced that he ordered Operation Desert Fox, a four-day campaign of airstrikes in December 1998. Yet it's now known that of the 93 targets hit during the campaign, only 11 were believed to be WMD sites (the rest were directed at Saddam's security forces in order to weaken the regime.)

The case for WMD was just as weak then as it was in 2002-3. When Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan in 1995, he claimed that Iraq had scrapped its WMD's (although he admitted that Iraq always had the ability to produce more.) The western intelligence agencies didn't trust Hussein Kamel and dismissed his claim as a lie. The Clinton White House fed us incredulous accounts of mobile weapons labs and jet trainers that had been turned into chemical-laden drones. It also sent UN inspectors on an increasing number of spy missions inside Iraq as America's human intelligence capabilities were left to wither away. It should have come as no surprise that Iraq interfered with the UN inspections; but we were denied the truth, and this gave the impression that Iraq had something to hide (and, in fact, Iraq was hiding an extensive ballistic missile program, but no fieldable WMD's.)

One of the liberal talking points is the lack of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda (which isn't entirely true, although it can be said that Iraq did not play a direct role in the 9/11 attacks.) Yet Bill Clinton made the Iraq-al Qaeda connection when he was president. The most visible example came after a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant was attacked with cruise missiles. The Clinton Administration not only linked the plant to al Qaeda, but claimed that the plant was producing a powderized form of VX nerve gas for Saddam Hussein.

The littany of hypocrisies carries on. Madeline Albright rejected Iraq's detente overtures back in 1993. According to former National Security Council member Kenneth Pollack, Al Gore was the most hawkish member of the Clinton White House when the subject of Iraq came up.

The former Clinton Administration is doing its best to save its legacy by obscuring its past mistakes when dealing with Iraq. Unfortunately, the liberal community refuses to hold their feet to the fire, heaping all of the blame on the current administration. Intellectual honesty would be nice for a change. If they can't forgive the current administration, the least they can do is demand a little accountability from the past one.

Sacrificial Constitution 

An intriguing possibility just popped into my mind. What if Iraq's constitution was deliberately designed to fail? The recent about-face by Iraq's parliament, which will allow unregistered voters to ratify or reject the constitution, might lead to this possibility.

The proposed constitution has its share of problems, real and perceived, which have mobilized Sunni Arabs to vote against it. Although rejecting the constitution would create a spate of problems (the dissolution of parliament and a new round of elections,) it would also allow the Sunni community to feel that their votes mattered. The election of a new parliament after such an event would probably see more Sunni Arab participation (and more Sunni Arabs in the resulting parliament.)

Whether or not the Iraqi constitution passes, it's important that the country's political leaders encourage respect for the rule of law, Iraqi unity, and political participation. A flawed constitution can always be fixed by the democratic process, assuming that the Iraqis have the civility to make it happen.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Georgie and Harriet 

The most polarizing event for American conservatives in recent years has been the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Conservative pundits David Frum and William Kristoll quickly pounced on the president for his pick; other conservative groups offered praise, and still more have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. I would probably fall into the latter category.

Also in the "wait and see" mindset is Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to today's show, and I was startled to hear Rush's callers disputing Ms. Miers's conservative credentials. While she is a stealth nominee, I think her previous positions (such as the challenge to the American Bar Association's support of Roe v. Wade without a referendum) give her strong conservative credentials. Her support for Al Gore in 1988 is no surprise; back then, the chameleon-like Gore supported the second amendment and opposed federal funding for abortions.

I'm most concerned about President Bush's penchant for making politically-motivated appointments of underqualified people. FEMA's Mike Brown is only the most recent example. Employees of the Department of Energy are still lamenting Spencer Abraham's four years at the helm.

Can Harriet Miers make a good supreme court justice without having served as a judge? While it has been done before, I still have my reservations. Perhaps the Senate should live up to its responsibility and consult with current Supreme Court justices to see if Miers has what it takes to interpret the law of the land.

Never Argue With An Idiot 

John McCain has tried to appease Cindy Sheehan by meeting with her. The response McCain got only validates the president's decision not to meet with her again.

Senator McCain should heed the words of the wise man who once said: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level, and they have more experience." Let Cindy Sheehan live in her fantasy land, where the Muslims will go back to their peaceful existence once America and Israel remove their evil tentacles from the middle east and Afghanistan. The rest of us will live in the real world, fight the real war against Wahhabism, and protect the lives of real Americans.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?