Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Beyond redemption
The Afghan parliament want to put American soldiers on trial for an auto accident. Over the weekend, an American truck lost its brakes and hit several vehicles, killing five Afghans in the initial crash. The scene soon turned into a riot, with at least fifteen more Afghans being killed by the time the mob was dispersed. By now the crowds are chanting "Death to America" and they will not be happy until their pathetic excuse for a legal system (Sharia Law) has American blood on its hands.
The truck accident, much like the persecution of Christian Abdul Rahman, has convinced me that the Afghans are beyond redemption. I don't even say that about the Iraqis, dispite my disdain and disrespect for them. America can never reform Afghanistan, because the country is barely out of the stone age. The best we can do is to leave with our dignity intact, and to try to contain Afghanistan's savagery.
Death to Afghanistan!
The truck accident, much like the persecution of Christian Abdul Rahman, has convinced me that the Afghans are beyond redemption. I don't even say that about the Iraqis, dispite my disdain and disrespect for them. America can never reform Afghanistan, because the country is barely out of the stone age. The best we can do is to leave with our dignity intact, and to try to contain Afghanistan's savagery.
Death to Afghanistan!
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Not in my Backyard
The state of Massachussetts is figuring out how to get a windmill farm built: put it in a working-class area, far away from where wealthy elitists like Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite can see it.
It always occurred to me that if people like Senator Kennedy want to demonstrate how "progressive" they are, they should be willing to tolerate an eyesore like a wind farm. America's leaders should set an example for the rest of America to follow. All residents of Massachussetts will benefit from wind power; why not build both wind-farms, in both Buzzard's Bay and the Hyannisport location?
The extreme fringes of the environmental movement have recently turned against wind power, out of fear that birds will get sliced and diced in the windmills. They may support the ethical treatment of animals, but I think that the ethical treatment of humans is more important. I'd rather see birds get chopped up in windmills than watch humans get trapped and killed while digging in coal mines.
All of our energy options involve some degree of sacrifice; the sacrifices associated with wind power are ones I am willing to make.
It always occurred to me that if people like Senator Kennedy want to demonstrate how "progressive" they are, they should be willing to tolerate an eyesore like a wind farm. America's leaders should set an example for the rest of America to follow. All residents of Massachussetts will benefit from wind power; why not build both wind-farms, in both Buzzard's Bay and the Hyannisport location?
The extreme fringes of the environmental movement have recently turned against wind power, out of fear that birds will get sliced and diced in the windmills. They may support the ethical treatment of animals, but I think that the ethical treatment of humans is more important. I'd rather see birds get chopped up in windmills than watch humans get trapped and killed while digging in coal mines.
All of our energy options involve some degree of sacrifice; the sacrifices associated with wind power are ones I am willing to make.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Heroes of OEF #4
Sergeant Gene Arden Vance was a prime example of the citizen soldier, dedicated to his country to the point where he would put his life on hold to answer the call to duty. On May 19, 2002, Sgt. Vance made the ultimate sacrifice during Operation Mountain Lion.
As a member of the West Virginia National Guard, Gene Vance kept his private and professional lives separate. He had gotten married and was poised to finish his degree just before the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that he would be recalled to service, he cancelled his honeymoon. The special forces likely put his linguistics skills to good use.
Gene Vance is survived by his wife, his mother and grandmother, nis brother and sister, and by his daughter and granddaughter. If you ever get a chance to meet his family, please tell them how thankful you are for having Gene Vance and others like him.
NSA: SSgt Gene A. Vance, Jr
Obituary
Lisa Vance's Tribute to her husband
Fallen Heroes of OEF
As a member of the West Virginia National Guard, Gene Vance kept his private and professional lives separate. He had gotten married and was poised to finish his degree just before the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that he would be recalled to service, he cancelled his honeymoon. The special forces likely put his linguistics skills to good use.
Gene Vance is survived by his wife, his mother and grandmother, nis brother and sister, and by his daughter and granddaughter. If you ever get a chance to meet his family, please tell them how thankful you are for having Gene Vance and others like him.
NSA: SSgt Gene A. Vance, Jr
Obituary
Lisa Vance's Tribute to her husband
Fallen Heroes of OEF
A Marine Reacts
I just caught this in the Washington Post. It's a brief letter from Lt Ilario Pantano. He was accused of war crimes in 2004, even though the accusations were being made by a jealous subordinate whose chances for promotion had been killed by Lt Pantano. Nevertheless, Lt Pantano was forced before the courts martial, and although he beat the charges, he had wasted a good potion of his life and was forced out of the Marine Corps.
The US government made a rush to judgement with Lt Pantano. I can only hope that it will not make the same mistakes with the Marines involved in Haditha.
The US government made a rush to judgement with Lt Pantano. I can only hope that it will not make the same mistakes with the Marines involved in Haditha.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Heroes of OEF #3: Nathan Chapman
Over this Memorial Day Weekend, please take a moment to remember Sergeant 1st Class Nathan Ross Chapman. He was killed fighting Taliban and al Qaeda forces near Khost, Afghanistan on January 4, 2002.
Sergeant Chapman had served in the Army since 1988 and volunteered for the mission in Afghanistan. He was a professional soldier, but he was always able to lift the spirits of his comrades with a well-timed remark.
Sergeant Chapman will remain in the hearts of all true Americans, and may his examples of quiet professionalism and compassion inspire us, every day.
Tribute at QuietPros.Com
Fallen Heroes Memorial
Photos of Sergeant Chapman's Gravesite
Sergeant Chapman had served in the Army since 1988 and volunteered for the mission in Afghanistan. He was a professional soldier, but he was always able to lift the spirits of his comrades with a well-timed remark.
Sergeant Chapman will remain in the hearts of all true Americans, and may his examples of quiet professionalism and compassion inspire us, every day.
Tribute at QuietPros.Com
Fallen Heroes Memorial
Photos of Sergeant Chapman's Gravesite
Always look on the bright side of life
Last weekend I saw Monty Python's Life of Brian for the first time. I couldn't help but think that the Judaen-Roman conflict mirror's today's Iraqi-American conflict. Think about this funny exchange for a second:
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
Now juxatpose "Moqtada al Sadr" for Reg (from the People's Front of Judaea) and replace Romans with Americans. Voila. From an American perspective, this exchange may sound absurd (indeed, this is what Monty Python was trying to point out.) Yet nationalism is a strong desire of all people. Nationalism is usually the enemy of occupation, no matter how benevolent that occupation may be.
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
Now juxatpose "Moqtada al Sadr" for Reg (from the People's Front of Judaea) and replace Romans with Americans. Voila. From an American perspective, this exchange may sound absurd (indeed, this is what Monty Python was trying to point out.) Yet nationalism is a strong desire of all people. Nationalism is usually the enemy of occupation, no matter how benevolent that occupation may be.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
When will Americans learn their lesson?
I'm reading CNN's "360 Blog" about the plight of people in the Congo. It's compelling stuff, but what's the point of all this reporting? CNN's agenda is to use America's power to make things right in the Congo.
Certainly CNN has done this numerous times before, whether it be Somalia or Kosovo. The lesson we should take from those conflicts is that America's power to end centuries-old conflicts and build nations is almost non-existant. CNN is quick to agitate for American intervention in foreign conflicts and just as quick to criticize our war efforts if they should break out.
For the people in the 360 Blog's comments section who think we should leave Iraq to help in Africa, I'm afraid that they are ignoring history's lessons. It might be forgivable if they never learned their ancient history; yet here they are failing to learn Iraq's recent lessons. In Iraq, we are unable to rebuild that country because we are unable to extinguish the eternal conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, between Muslims and Infidels, between Arabs and "Crusaders/Zionists." Are these people naive enough to think that we can succeed in the Congo where we are failing in Iraq?
There is a lot of strife in this world. As much as we may want to help to make things better, we have to realize that America's power to end conflict is very limited, and we often end up getting hurt in our abortive efforts to bring peace to war-torn nations. Unless a conflict poses a direct threat to the United States, we are best to let the fires of conflict burn themselves out without our help.
Certainly CNN has done this numerous times before, whether it be Somalia or Kosovo. The lesson we should take from those conflicts is that America's power to end centuries-old conflicts and build nations is almost non-existant. CNN is quick to agitate for American intervention in foreign conflicts and just as quick to criticize our war efforts if they should break out.
For the people in the 360 Blog's comments section who think we should leave Iraq to help in Africa, I'm afraid that they are ignoring history's lessons. It might be forgivable if they never learned their ancient history; yet here they are failing to learn Iraq's recent lessons. In Iraq, we are unable to rebuild that country because we are unable to extinguish the eternal conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, between Muslims and Infidels, between Arabs and "Crusaders/Zionists." Are these people naive enough to think that we can succeed in the Congo where we are failing in Iraq?
There is a lot of strife in this world. As much as we may want to help to make things better, we have to realize that America's power to end conflict is very limited, and we often end up getting hurt in our abortive efforts to bring peace to war-torn nations. Unless a conflict poses a direct threat to the United States, we are best to let the fires of conflict burn themselves out without our help.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Maligned Marines & Not-So-Innocent Iraqis
Less than a week after Jack Murtha accused Marines of a massacre in Haditha, it appears that the Pentagon will file courts martial in relation to the incident. The Haditha Scandal will likely eclipse Abu Ghuraib and may be viewed on the same level as My Lai from Vietnam.
The persecution of these Marines will undoubtedly be a futile attempt by the Pentagon to mitigate Islamic and Arabic anger over the incident. Abu Ghuraib proved that the Arab/Islamic world does not trust the American justice system and believes that only "eye for an eye" justice can make amends for perceived abuses. Nevertheless, the Marines in question will be hung up to dry.
When Jack Murtha says that innocent Iraqis were killed, I have to ask what his warped definition of "innocent" means. Is an Iraqi innocent if he or she gives insurgents a safe place to stay and a warm meal? Are Iraqis innocent if they refuse to tell Americans where IED's have been planted in their town? Civilians who aid insurgents should be treated just as harshly as the insurgents themselves. The sad reality is that neither the Sunni Arabs nor the Shiite Arabs can be trusted.
Marines have a tough job to do, especially in the immediate aftermath of an attack that kills a fellow Marine. They should not face a charade of justice for delivering Marine-style punishment to their enemies.
The persecution of these Marines will undoubtedly be a futile attempt by the Pentagon to mitigate Islamic and Arabic anger over the incident. Abu Ghuraib proved that the Arab/Islamic world does not trust the American justice system and believes that only "eye for an eye" justice can make amends for perceived abuses. Nevertheless, the Marines in question will be hung up to dry.
When Jack Murtha says that innocent Iraqis were killed, I have to ask what his warped definition of "innocent" means. Is an Iraqi innocent if he or she gives insurgents a safe place to stay and a warm meal? Are Iraqis innocent if they refuse to tell Americans where IED's have been planted in their town? Civilians who aid insurgents should be treated just as harshly as the insurgents themselves. The sad reality is that neither the Sunni Arabs nor the Shiite Arabs can be trusted.
Marines have a tough job to do, especially in the immediate aftermath of an attack that kills a fellow Marine. They should not face a charade of justice for delivering Marine-style punishment to their enemies.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Day 6
Last night's 24 finale was pretty good, and really sets the stage for Season 6. Here are some of my ideas for storylines we'll see:
--Jack Bauer tells the Chinese everything he knows. The Chinese abandon him in Hong Kong, where he must escape from organ harvesters intent on selling his kidneys.
--The United Nations calls for the disbanding of CTU after releasing a report accusing CTU of torture and unlawful detention.
--Omicron Corp rebuilds Christopher Henderson as a cyborg named "RoboCrook."
--Jack Bauer tells the Chinese everything he knows. The Chinese abandon him in Hong Kong, where he must escape from organ harvesters intent on selling his kidneys.
--The United Nations calls for the disbanding of CTU after releasing a report accusing CTU of torture and unlawful detention.
--Omicron Corp rebuilds Christopher Henderson as a cyborg named "RoboCrook."
Monday, May 22, 2006
Ditzy Hicks
Three years after the Dixie Chicks were virtually blacklisted in the world of country music, lead singer Natalie Maines is back in the spotlight with her public tirades against President Bush. Over three years, she seems to have not learned the lesson that freedom of speech is a two-way street.
America is a marketplace of ideas. People are free to express themselves, but the public will only pay for what they agree with. Americans have no moral obligation to subsidize speech they disagree with; in fact, they often have a moral obligation to boycott offensive speech. The Dixie Chicks face the problem that they're liberals who are trying to entertain the overwhelmingly conservative segment of the music world that is country-western.
The dilemma facing country fans is whether they will still listen to the Dixie Chicks, even if they don't agree with the message. I guess it all depends on how much they fans like the music, and how stupid the celebrity is. For example, I will still listen to John Mellencamp (especially his older songs) even though he thinks the president is "a cheap thug." However, I quit watching Two and a Half Men because Charlie Sheen is a nutsack who believes 9/11 was a charade and a conspiracy. Moviegoers are starting to wise up, having shied away from Mission: Impossible 3 because of couch-jumping Tom Cruise.
My prediction: the "Ditzy Hicks" will only widen the gap of alienation between themselves and country music fans. However, they'll have no trouble switching to the pop music genre and appealing to blue-staters.
America is a marketplace of ideas. People are free to express themselves, but the public will only pay for what they agree with. Americans have no moral obligation to subsidize speech they disagree with; in fact, they often have a moral obligation to boycott offensive speech. The Dixie Chicks face the problem that they're liberals who are trying to entertain the overwhelmingly conservative segment of the music world that is country-western.
The dilemma facing country fans is whether they will still listen to the Dixie Chicks, even if they don't agree with the message. I guess it all depends on how much they fans like the music, and how stupid the celebrity is. For example, I will still listen to John Mellencamp (especially his older songs) even though he thinks the president is "a cheap thug." However, I quit watching Two and a Half Men because Charlie Sheen is a nutsack who believes 9/11 was a charade and a conspiracy. Moviegoers are starting to wise up, having shied away from Mission: Impossible 3 because of couch-jumping Tom Cruise.
My prediction: the "Ditzy Hicks" will only widen the gap of alienation between themselves and country music fans. However, they'll have no trouble switching to the pop music genre and appealing to blue-staters.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Four more years of Nestle Quik
Yesterday, New Orleans voters faced a choice between two men, with the winner holding the destiny of the city in his hands. Seeking reelection was Ray Nagin, well-known for his lack of preparedness when a hurricane sacked his city, and possessed with the the flawed belief that the federal government had the sole responsibility to save his city. Challenging Nagin was Mitch Landrieu, the latest member of the Landrieu machine that has dominated Louisiana politics (for better or worse) for decades.
In the end, a majority of New Orleans voters broke for Nagin. It's sad, especially knowing that Nagin has already failed New Orleans once, and it's doubtful that he can rise to the occasion to rebuild the city. At the same time, Landrieu wasn't much of an improvement over Nagin; I doubt that he will embrace the free-market approaches to rebuilding the city.
Ray Nagin will have four more years to preside over his "chocolate city," mixing 'chocolate and milk to make a delicious drink.' I hope for the sake of his consituents that his city planning is guided by sound engineering instead of a desire to appease the displaced, and I pray that Nagin will go to great lengths to transfuse new economic lifeblood into the city by wooing outside businesses.
In the end, a majority of New Orleans voters broke for Nagin. It's sad, especially knowing that Nagin has already failed New Orleans once, and it's doubtful that he can rise to the occasion to rebuild the city. At the same time, Landrieu wasn't much of an improvement over Nagin; I doubt that he will embrace the free-market approaches to rebuilding the city.
Ray Nagin will have four more years to preside over his "chocolate city," mixing 'chocolate and milk to make a delicious drink.' I hope for the sake of his consituents that his city planning is guided by sound engineering instead of a desire to appease the displaced, and I pray that Nagin will go to great lengths to transfuse new economic lifeblood into the city by wooing outside businesses.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Speak Easy
As the Senate debates the immigration reform bill, the thorny issue of mandating the English language is emerging as a potential roadblock. America is unique in that there is no national language; government documents are mandated by law to appear in a variety of languages.
The irony of the immigration language issue is that our leaders want immigrants to learn English, but they are not applying the same compulsion to make American citizens learn English. We allow inner-city schoolchildren to slide by with "Ebonics" instead of teaching them "The Queen's English." There are various ethnic ghettos where children learn exclusively in languages like Spanish or Polish. While making English the national language has the potential for unifying Americans, it's clear that we still have a long ways to go before all children have the opportunity to acquive effective English skills.
Our government faces the challenge of promoting English fluency (which cannot be ignored if people want to be constructive members of society) while not destroying the other languages and the cultural identities of the people who speak them. The government should make it clear that we are not waging war against non-English languages. We allow everybody to use the language of their choice in their households and communities. Still, the business of the federal government should be conducted in English exclusively. Hopefully the threat of disenfranchisement will encourage people to take English fluency seriously. If this works out, our national identity will be solidified; if not, it will only exacerbate the disunity of a multilingual nation.
The irony of the immigration language issue is that our leaders want immigrants to learn English, but they are not applying the same compulsion to make American citizens learn English. We allow inner-city schoolchildren to slide by with "Ebonics" instead of teaching them "The Queen's English." There are various ethnic ghettos where children learn exclusively in languages like Spanish or Polish. While making English the national language has the potential for unifying Americans, it's clear that we still have a long ways to go before all children have the opportunity to acquive effective English skills.
Our government faces the challenge of promoting English fluency (which cannot be ignored if people want to be constructive members of society) while not destroying the other languages and the cultural identities of the people who speak them. The government should make it clear that we are not waging war against non-English languages. We allow everybody to use the language of their choice in their households and communities. Still, the business of the federal government should be conducted in English exclusively. Hopefully the threat of disenfranchisement will encourage people to take English fluency seriously. If this works out, our national identity will be solidified; if not, it will only exacerbate the disunity of a multilingual nation.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Semper Infidelis
Representative Jack Murtha claims that US Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians in cold blood. The incident, which took place in Haditha last November, is still under investigation by the Pentagon. There is no evidence to suggest that the Pentagon has reached this conclusion; nor is there any reason to believe that Murtha is privy to facts being ignored by the Pentagon. It appears that Jack Murtha is resorting to extreme tactics so he can achieve his goal of ending the war.
Americans have every right to oppose this war, but they have no right to slander the soldiers and Marines who are forced to fight it. Every day, the troops face life or death decisions. Sometimes they mess up; this is the nature of war. But it is unpatriotic to baselessly attack their moral fiber or second-guess the difficult decisions they must make.
I might expect this behavior out of Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan, but not from a decorated, battle-tested Marine Colonel like Jack Murtha. I thought that his opposition to the war (which didn't exist back in 2002) stemmed from his compassion for the troops. On both counts, I have overestimated Jack Murtha's character. Murtha has forgotten the Marine Corps's motto "Semper Fidelis"--Always Faithful. The only faith Jack Murtha has is being placed in left-wing partisanship that hurts the morale of soldiers and Marines in the field.
Americans have every right to oppose this war, but they have no right to slander the soldiers and Marines who are forced to fight it. Every day, the troops face life or death decisions. Sometimes they mess up; this is the nature of war. But it is unpatriotic to baselessly attack their moral fiber or second-guess the difficult decisions they must make.
I might expect this behavior out of Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan, but not from a decorated, battle-tested Marine Colonel like Jack Murtha. I thought that his opposition to the war (which didn't exist back in 2002) stemmed from his compassion for the troops. On both counts, I have overestimated Jack Murtha's character. Murtha has forgotten the Marine Corps's motto "Semper Fidelis"--Always Faithful. The only faith Jack Murtha has is being placed in left-wing partisanship that hurts the morale of soldiers and Marines in the field.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Immigration Pufferfish
In nature, many animals will puff themselves up and put on all manners of threatening displays to protect themselves from predators. The "wild kingdom" of politics is no different. On the immigration issue, politicians are puffing up their bodies and showing their spikes to make themselves look tough on the issue of immigration. But when it comes time for results, they usually deflate themselves.
When President Bush announced plans to use the National Guard for border patrol, the cynic in me thinks that he was motivated in part by a desire to win support based on the popular stance of better border enforcement. But a look at the numbers shows that the 6,000 Guardsmen who will protect the border will be outnumbered by border guards, will only take a supporting role, and will only serve for a year. President Bush is not taking substantive steps towards better border enforcement (and he is losing whatever good will he has built up in the Hispanic community.)
At the same time, critics of the National Guard plan are letting out the collective whistle of deflating pufferfish. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson strongly opposes this use of the National Guard. While I agree with his concerns that the guard is being stretched thin, I also remember Governor Richardson declaring an "immigration state of emergency" back in summer 2005. If immigration is such an imminent danger, what does Governor Richardson propose to do about it?
The short answer to the question is that Richardson plans to offer a lot of criticism directed at the president but won't take any substantive action. The Democrats at large will shout "Right on!" whenever Lou Dobbs complains about immigration; it makes the Democrats look tough on national security, and it's a convenient polemic to drag the president down by a few more notches in the approval ratings. But when it's time to vote on immigration measures or tighten the security of the border, Democrats stonewall. They tread a fine line between "puffing up" on national security and putting their spikes away so they don't scare the Hispanic voters that the Democrats have traditionally relied on.
America will only make progress on immigration if we view the issue not as one of posturing and political correctness, but as one of supply and demand. Dry up the immigrant supply through real border enforcement and encouraging economic reforms in Mexico that will improve the quality of life. Decrease the demand for illegal immigration by making it easier for honest immigrants to cross the border legally, and punish Americans who hire and aide illegals. I don't want Democrat rhetoric or Republican rhetoric; I want American solutions.
When President Bush announced plans to use the National Guard for border patrol, the cynic in me thinks that he was motivated in part by a desire to win support based on the popular stance of better border enforcement. But a look at the numbers shows that the 6,000 Guardsmen who will protect the border will be outnumbered by border guards, will only take a supporting role, and will only serve for a year. President Bush is not taking substantive steps towards better border enforcement (and he is losing whatever good will he has built up in the Hispanic community.)
At the same time, critics of the National Guard plan are letting out the collective whistle of deflating pufferfish. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson strongly opposes this use of the National Guard. While I agree with his concerns that the guard is being stretched thin, I also remember Governor Richardson declaring an "immigration state of emergency" back in summer 2005. If immigration is such an imminent danger, what does Governor Richardson propose to do about it?
The short answer to the question is that Richardson plans to offer a lot of criticism directed at the president but won't take any substantive action. The Democrats at large will shout "Right on!" whenever Lou Dobbs complains about immigration; it makes the Democrats look tough on national security, and it's a convenient polemic to drag the president down by a few more notches in the approval ratings. But when it's time to vote on immigration measures or tighten the security of the border, Democrats stonewall. They tread a fine line between "puffing up" on national security and putting their spikes away so they don't scare the Hispanic voters that the Democrats have traditionally relied on.
America will only make progress on immigration if we view the issue not as one of posturing and political correctness, but as one of supply and demand. Dry up the immigrant supply through real border enforcement and encouraging economic reforms in Mexico that will improve the quality of life. Decrease the demand for illegal immigration by making it easier for honest immigrants to cross the border legally, and punish Americans who hire and aide illegals. I don't want Democrat rhetoric or Republican rhetoric; I want American solutions.
A lot of angry Italians?
For centuries, the origins of Christopher Columbus have been subject to intense debate by historians. Was he an Italian, as is commonly believed? Was he really a Spaniard? Could he also have French and Jewish roots? Forensic science aims to answer that question. Yet the truth might not be a pleasant one for certain Americans.
In the Italian-American community, Columbus is viewed as a great hero. Columbus Day is the "Italian Pride" holiday. It's not hard to imagine the awkwardness of celebrating Italian Pride if Columbus wasn't really Italian.
Of course, the Italians have no dearth of heroes to celebrate. The explorer John Cabot (who landed in the Maine and Labrador region just five years after Columbus's first journey) was really an Italian, Juan Caboto. Another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, brought the new world into the European consciousness--and became the namesake of the new world. Men of science, like Marconi and Fermi, should also take their place in the pantheon of Italian heroes.
At the same time, if Columbus's roots are murky, muddled and confusing, it would be an ironic relection of the blended heritage of the nations he discovered. America's great diversity could be mirrored by the complex and intertwined roots of Christopher Columbus.
In the Italian-American community, Columbus is viewed as a great hero. Columbus Day is the "Italian Pride" holiday. It's not hard to imagine the awkwardness of celebrating Italian Pride if Columbus wasn't really Italian.
Of course, the Italians have no dearth of heroes to celebrate. The explorer John Cabot (who landed in the Maine and Labrador region just five years after Columbus's first journey) was really an Italian, Juan Caboto. Another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, brought the new world into the European consciousness--and became the namesake of the new world. Men of science, like Marconi and Fermi, should also take their place in the pantheon of Italian heroes.
At the same time, if Columbus's roots are murky, muddled and confusing, it would be an ironic relection of the blended heritage of the nations he discovered. America's great diversity could be mirrored by the complex and intertwined roots of Christopher Columbus.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
National Guards
Reports suggest that President Bush will use the National Guard to patrol the US-Mexico border. At first glance, the idea makes a lot of sense. If the National Guard is not protecting the security of the American homeland, then what should it be doing? It is a mission that cuts to the heart of the guard's reason for existance.
Realistically, we have to ask how the guard will be able to handle the border security mission at the same time it is stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have often made the case that the guard units should be the first units to come home from Iraq, because their training is not of the same caliber as active-duty forces, and they are taking a disproportionately high number of casualties. Hopefully we will find a means of accelerating "Iraqi-zation,"and the guard can come home as American forces move from combat to advisory roles in Iraq.
At the same time, it must be asked if the National Guard is truly necessary, and if the border patrol can be beefed up to perform the border security mission instead. At this juncture, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security has no intentions of making the border patrol an effective force for securing our borders. Michael Chertoff has ruled out any possibility of deputy border guards, even though there are hundreds of people who are willing to volunteer as "Minutemen."
The Air National Guard units in border states can play a vital role in border security by operating surveillance drones to detect illegal immigrants crossing the border. The border patrol has neither the budget nor depth of expertise to buy and operate unmanned aerial vehicles. At the same time, the ANG is on a perfect footing to perform this mission.
Realistically, we have to ask how the guard will be able to handle the border security mission at the same time it is stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have often made the case that the guard units should be the first units to come home from Iraq, because their training is not of the same caliber as active-duty forces, and they are taking a disproportionately high number of casualties. Hopefully we will find a means of accelerating "Iraqi-zation,"and the guard can come home as American forces move from combat to advisory roles in Iraq.
At the same time, it must be asked if the National Guard is truly necessary, and if the border patrol can be beefed up to perform the border security mission instead. At this juncture, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security has no intentions of making the border patrol an effective force for securing our borders. Michael Chertoff has ruled out any possibility of deputy border guards, even though there are hundreds of people who are willing to volunteer as "Minutemen."
The Air National Guard units in border states can play a vital role in border security by operating surveillance drones to detect illegal immigrants crossing the border. The border patrol has neither the budget nor depth of expertise to buy and operate unmanned aerial vehicles. At the same time, the ANG is on a perfect footing to perform this mission.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
"Dear George" Letter
There's a lot of sardonic humor to be found in Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, including this pithy little bit:
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God ... But at the same time, have countries attacked: the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed...
Since when has the Iranian President (or the Iranians in general) had any concern for Christianity and Christian teachings? Perhaps it's when they feel Christian teachings are the only way to save their worthless asses. Of course, they should also consider all the times when a vengeful God smote the enemies of the Israelites.
At the same time Ahmadinejad is lecturing George Bush about being a good Christian, he should be asking himself if he is being a good Muslim. Of course, this speaks to the dichotomous nature of Islam and the Koran. Should Muslims dwell on killing the infidels, or should they give alms to the poor? Ahmadinejad is clearly in the former camp.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God ... But at the same time, have countries attacked: the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed...
Since when has the Iranian President (or the Iranians in general) had any concern for Christianity and Christian teachings? Perhaps it's when they feel Christian teachings are the only way to save their worthless asses. Of course, they should also consider all the times when a vengeful God smote the enemies of the Israelites.
At the same time Ahmadinejad is lecturing George Bush about being a good Christian, he should be asking himself if he is being a good Muslim. Of course, this speaks to the dichotomous nature of Islam and the Koran. Should Muslims dwell on killing the infidels, or should they give alms to the poor? Ahmadinejad is clearly in the former camp.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Criticize your troops, blame your president
Nancy Pelosi has given the Democrat base an incentive to vote this November: a Democratic House of Representatives will investigate the Bush Administration to no end, presumably until they have the support to impeach the president.
She has hinted at an investigation into the use of pre-war Iraq intelligence. She has also promised an investigation into the secretive 2001 energy task force and the conduct of the war in Iraq. This last suggestion has me fuming.
What is to be gained by questioning how the war has been conducted? It's not like we can pin a lot of blame on the president here. He's not exactly the Lyndon Johnson type, who would approve target lists while taking a dump on the White House's porcelain throne. He has largely deferred the decision to the military and civilian leadership of the defense department.
The civilian leadership of the Pentagon is certainly open to criticism in how it has conducted itself during this war. But criticizing the bad decisions that have already been made will not serve a constructive purpose. Ignoring the generals who wanted hundreds of thousands more troops for securing post-Saddam Iraq was a mistake from the 2002-2003 time frame that cannot realistically be corrected now. There is no political support for escalating our force levels in Iraq (especially among the Democrats who want this investigation to go forward.) The slowness of the DoD in rushing armored Humvees and improved body armor to the field was certainly a problem, but it has corrected itself over the past year (thanks in large part to a ballsy reservist who asked the question during a press conference with Secretary Rumsfeld.)
The Democrats have often blamed our tactical errors in Iraq, including the abuse of prisoners, on the president. It accomplishes their goals of weaking the commander-in-chief while appearing to support the troops. Yet the criticism of our tactics in Iraq is really an attack on the troops instead of an attack on the politicians. George Bush doesn't decide to kill a wounded insurgent because he may be hiding a bomb. Dick Cheney doesn't decide to shoot cars that speed through check points because they are potential suicide bombs. These tasks fall on the soldiers and Marines who must make split-second decisions, because their lives and the lives of their comrades depend on it. Similarly, the task of the grand strategy and the rules of engagement fall on the generals and lower-ranking officers who bear the burden of implementing our national goals in Iraq.
I have often said that "Support the Troops" is the hollowest phrase in the American lexicon; for the Democratic leaders, this is especially true. Democrats think that they can criticize the troops and then deflect blame onto the president. While this suits their political strategy just fine, it damages the morale of our fighting men and women. Second-guessing the actions of brave people who dodge bullets and bombs on a daily basis is a wicked strategy for any politician to follow.
She has hinted at an investigation into the use of pre-war Iraq intelligence. She has also promised an investigation into the secretive 2001 energy task force and the conduct of the war in Iraq. This last suggestion has me fuming.
What is to be gained by questioning how the war has been conducted? It's not like we can pin a lot of blame on the president here. He's not exactly the Lyndon Johnson type, who would approve target lists while taking a dump on the White House's porcelain throne. He has largely deferred the decision to the military and civilian leadership of the defense department.
The civilian leadership of the Pentagon is certainly open to criticism in how it has conducted itself during this war. But criticizing the bad decisions that have already been made will not serve a constructive purpose. Ignoring the generals who wanted hundreds of thousands more troops for securing post-Saddam Iraq was a mistake from the 2002-2003 time frame that cannot realistically be corrected now. There is no political support for escalating our force levels in Iraq (especially among the Democrats who want this investigation to go forward.) The slowness of the DoD in rushing armored Humvees and improved body armor to the field was certainly a problem, but it has corrected itself over the past year (thanks in large part to a ballsy reservist who asked the question during a press conference with Secretary Rumsfeld.)
The Democrats have often blamed our tactical errors in Iraq, including the abuse of prisoners, on the president. It accomplishes their goals of weaking the commander-in-chief while appearing to support the troops. Yet the criticism of our tactics in Iraq is really an attack on the troops instead of an attack on the politicians. George Bush doesn't decide to kill a wounded insurgent because he may be hiding a bomb. Dick Cheney doesn't decide to shoot cars that speed through check points because they are potential suicide bombs. These tasks fall on the soldiers and Marines who must make split-second decisions, because their lives and the lives of their comrades depend on it. Similarly, the task of the grand strategy and the rules of engagement fall on the generals and lower-ranking officers who bear the burden of implementing our national goals in Iraq.
I have often said that "Support the Troops" is the hollowest phrase in the American lexicon; for the Democratic leaders, this is especially true. Democrats think that they can criticize the troops and then deflect blame onto the president. While this suits their political strategy just fine, it damages the morale of our fighting men and women. Second-guessing the actions of brave people who dodge bullets and bombs on a daily basis is a wicked strategy for any politician to follow.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Through our enemies' eyes
With all the controversy surrounding the choice of an Air Force general to run the CIA, a civilian alternative should be considered. When I think back on Porter Goss's tenure, I have a pretty positive impression about the way he ran shop. I think that Mr. Goss understood how the agency worked, having been a CIA case officer before entering politics.
In the same vein, I think that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer should be considered to head up the agency. If anybody understands the Jihadi Wars, it's Michael Scheuer. After all, the guy wrote Through Our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris. Not only does he understand how the agency works, but he understands how the enemy ticks.
Supposedly, Porter Goss was angry about turf battles with the National Intelligence Director before he resigned. If that's correct, I would have to agree with Porter's reasoning. The CIA shouldn't be disemboweled in favor of giving more authority to the National Intelligence Director (an unneeded and potentially-harmful layer of bureaucracy atop the intel community.) At the same time, The CIA doesn't need to be turned into a wing of the military intel community; that's why we already have the DIA, NGIA, NRO, NSA, and countless other military intel agencies. It needs a guy like Michael Scheuer who understands the threats our nation faces, and knows how to get his hands dirty in ruthlessly eliminating our enemies.
In the same vein, I think that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer should be considered to head up the agency. If anybody understands the Jihadi Wars, it's Michael Scheuer. After all, the guy wrote Through Our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris. Not only does he understand how the agency works, but he understands how the enemy ticks.
Supposedly, Porter Goss was angry about turf battles with the National Intelligence Director before he resigned. If that's correct, I would have to agree with Porter's reasoning. The CIA shouldn't be disemboweled in favor of giving more authority to the National Intelligence Director (an unneeded and potentially-harmful layer of bureaucracy atop the intel community.) At the same time, The CIA doesn't need to be turned into a wing of the military intel community; that's why we already have the DIA, NGIA, NRO, NSA, and countless other military intel agencies. It needs a guy like Michael Scheuer who understands the threats our nation faces, and knows how to get his hands dirty in ruthlessly eliminating our enemies.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Mission Accomplished? Let's hope not.
Some self-appointed terrorism experts may view Abu Musab al Zarqawi's new video (where he displays his face for the first time in a propaganda video) as a sign of desperation. He has failed to unseat the Iraqi government, he hasn't driven America from Iraq, and he has alienated Muslims around the world. There are even rumors that he is being brushed aside by the insurgents, aware that his public persona erodes support for their cause.
In my eyes, however, the Zarqawi video reeks of boldness. He is bold enough to show his face when he should logically be hiding in fear. Zarqawi probably feels that, while victory is not yet certain, he is coming closer to accomplishing his mission.
Ever since Zarqawi wrote his 2004 manifesto detailing his strategy in Iraq, he has followed it to a T. His primary mission is to forment sectarian war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiite "innovators" (against the wishes of Osama bin Laden, who seeks in the short term to unite Muslims against Infidels.) Over the past three years, Zarqawi and the people he has inspired have pounded Shiite civilians with an unending torrent of suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, and executions.
For most of 2003 and 2004, it appeared that the Shiite community was going to sit on the sidelines and absorb whatever punishment Zarqawi would throw at them. The only real backlash was Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, who falsely held the US accountable for Zarqawi's carnage. But a growing number of Shiites are throwing their support behind Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades. The militias are not defending Shiites; they are offending Sunnis through their brutal revenge killings. The Sunni-Shiite rift continues to grow as long as the Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads continue the tit-for-tat violence.
While the sectarian tensions in Iraq haven't gotten to the point of no return, it's clear that we are inching dangerously closer. Americans have shown that they want no part in trying to mediate a full-blown civil war in Iraq; similarly, America's leadership has no illusions about the unfeasibility of this messy, chaotic task. If Iraqis can be reasonable about the situation, they will look over the precipice and into the dark chasm of civil war. If they are rational, they will step back and try to work towards national reconciliation. If they fall into the darkness of all-out civil war, then Zarqawi's mission is accomplished.
In my eyes, however, the Zarqawi video reeks of boldness. He is bold enough to show his face when he should logically be hiding in fear. Zarqawi probably feels that, while victory is not yet certain, he is coming closer to accomplishing his mission.
Ever since Zarqawi wrote his 2004 manifesto detailing his strategy in Iraq, he has followed it to a T. His primary mission is to forment sectarian war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiite "innovators" (against the wishes of Osama bin Laden, who seeks in the short term to unite Muslims against Infidels.) Over the past three years, Zarqawi and the people he has inspired have pounded Shiite civilians with an unending torrent of suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, and executions.
For most of 2003 and 2004, it appeared that the Shiite community was going to sit on the sidelines and absorb whatever punishment Zarqawi would throw at them. The only real backlash was Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, who falsely held the US accountable for Zarqawi's carnage. But a growing number of Shiites are throwing their support behind Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades. The militias are not defending Shiites; they are offending Sunnis through their brutal revenge killings. The Sunni-Shiite rift continues to grow as long as the Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads continue the tit-for-tat violence.
While the sectarian tensions in Iraq haven't gotten to the point of no return, it's clear that we are inching dangerously closer. Americans have shown that they want no part in trying to mediate a full-blown civil war in Iraq; similarly, America's leadership has no illusions about the unfeasibility of this messy, chaotic task. If Iraqis can be reasonable about the situation, they will look over the precipice and into the dark chasm of civil war. If they are rational, they will step back and try to work towards national reconciliation. If they fall into the darkness of all-out civil war, then Zarqawi's mission is accomplished.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Hoping for something to hope for
Iraqi president Jalal Talabani announced that an Iraqi general had been negotiating on his behalf with representatives of seven insurgent groups. This is a hopeful sign, but even if these insurgent groups lay down their arms and join the political process, the bulk of the insurgency will remain.
The Sunni Arab insurgents involved in the negotiations are waking up to reality: the US will not remain in Iraq forever, but the Iranians and their Iraqi Shiite allies will be a persistent problem, perhaps for decades. The key to maintaining Iraq's independence from Iran is for the Sunni block (both Arabs and Kurds) to show unity. That's what's happening between President Talabani (a Kurd) and these insurgent groups, which probably represent secular Sunni Arab nationalists and disaffected tribes.
The negotiations do not include the most numerous or most dangerous insurgents: the former Baathists and Salafist Sunni jihadists. These elements are too ideological to accept pragmatic solutions and too fanatical to be stopped by anything short of bombs and bullets. The most well-known of Iraq's jihadists, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, is now so bold as to release his first propaganda video where his face is clearly seen (perhaps a sign of a fear that he is losing influence amongst Iraqi jihadists.)
The diplomacy must continue, even if it means amnesty for those Iraqis who have the blood of noble Americans on their hands. Anything that gets insurgents and their weapons off the streets is a good thing, as it means less people to shoot at or bomb American soldiers and Marines. It also has potential for swelling the Iraqi Army's ranks with battle-hardened men who are now willing to kill the followers of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, or Moqtada al Sadr.
The Sunni Arab insurgents involved in the negotiations are waking up to reality: the US will not remain in Iraq forever, but the Iranians and their Iraqi Shiite allies will be a persistent problem, perhaps for decades. The key to maintaining Iraq's independence from Iran is for the Sunni block (both Arabs and Kurds) to show unity. That's what's happening between President Talabani (a Kurd) and these insurgent groups, which probably represent secular Sunni Arab nationalists and disaffected tribes.
The negotiations do not include the most numerous or most dangerous insurgents: the former Baathists and Salafist Sunni jihadists. These elements are too ideological to accept pragmatic solutions and too fanatical to be stopped by anything short of bombs and bullets. The most well-known of Iraq's jihadists, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, is now so bold as to release his first propaganda video where his face is clearly seen (perhaps a sign of a fear that he is losing influence amongst Iraqi jihadists.)
The diplomacy must continue, even if it means amnesty for those Iraqis who have the blood of noble Americans on their hands. Anything that gets insurgents and their weapons off the streets is a good thing, as it means less people to shoot at or bomb American soldiers and Marines. It also has potential for swelling the Iraqi Army's ranks with battle-hardened men who are now willing to kill the followers of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, or Moqtada al Sadr.
