Friday, June 30, 2006
A Plan for When Castro is Castrated
The Bush Administration is planning ahead for the day when Fidel Castro is no longer "El Presidente" of Cuba. This is reassuring when one considers the shallowness of planning for the day when Saddam Hussein was no longer president of Iraq.
Fidel Castro frequently claims that he will live to be 140 years or some absurd number, but the truth is that he will not be able to cheat death forever. And when he does die, a power struggle between members of the Castro family and other Cuban factions is bound to erupt. If the civil strife is uncontained, South Florida will certainly bear the brunt of the chaos as refugees seek asylum from the violence. Thus, America's interest is a peaceful and stable Cuba.
The model for any kind of Cuban intervention would be the stabilization missions in Liberia (2003) and Haiti (2004.) In each case, the US worked closely with regional and international partners, deployed a small but elite force to stabilize the country and install a transitional government, and then use the UN to start a process for holding elections and creating a government of/by/for the people.
If the US is to have any influence over the shaping of post-Castro Cuba, it should start now by rethinking the aegis of sanctions that the US currently places on the island. The best way for America to build goodwill and respect with the Cubans is to smartly use American free enterprise in undermining the Communist system and rebuilding the country. Humanitarian sanctions should end immediately, and other sanctions should be re-evaluated over time.
The formation of a transitional government should occur in consultation with the Cuban-American community. I'm not saying that Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan should become president and vice-president of Cuba, but the Cuban refugees who have taken refuge in America can provide a valuable insight into the workings of Cuban culture and how to shape a government that will work towards amicable relations with America.
Fidel Castro frequently claims that he will live to be 140 years or some absurd number, but the truth is that he will not be able to cheat death forever. And when he does die, a power struggle between members of the Castro family and other Cuban factions is bound to erupt. If the civil strife is uncontained, South Florida will certainly bear the brunt of the chaos as refugees seek asylum from the violence. Thus, America's interest is a peaceful and stable Cuba.
The model for any kind of Cuban intervention would be the stabilization missions in Liberia (2003) and Haiti (2004.) In each case, the US worked closely with regional and international partners, deployed a small but elite force to stabilize the country and install a transitional government, and then use the UN to start a process for holding elections and creating a government of/by/for the people.
If the US is to have any influence over the shaping of post-Castro Cuba, it should start now by rethinking the aegis of sanctions that the US currently places on the island. The best way for America to build goodwill and respect with the Cubans is to smartly use American free enterprise in undermining the Communist system and rebuilding the country. Humanitarian sanctions should end immediately, and other sanctions should be re-evaluated over time.
The formation of a transitional government should occur in consultation with the Cuban-American community. I'm not saying that Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan should become president and vice-president of Cuba, but the Cuban refugees who have taken refuge in America can provide a valuable insight into the workings of Cuban culture and how to shape a government that will work towards amicable relations with America.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
A Superhero Allegory
Super-hero movies have become a reliable staple of the summer movie season. Hollywood beancounters love this formula, because the easily-recognizable characters already have an installed fanbase who will see the movie. To boot, many of the super-hero movies since 2000's X-Men have actually been good, unlike previous low-budget forays into the genre.
I submit to you my story treatment for a possible Fantastic Four movie.
The film begins with a look at the Fantastic Four's penthouse in New York. Using a sophisticated battery of sensors, Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) detects that Dr. Doom, dictator of the fictional country Latveria, has finally succeeded in building the "Doomsday Machine" that will finally allow him to dominate the world.
Reed Richards assembles the superheroes of the Marvel universe and briefs them on the situation. Dr. Doom, appearing via television, denies that he is building a Doomsday Machine and claims that Latveria is peaceful. Reed Richards counters by saying that Dr. Doom cannot be trusted and that he will be disarmed. He calls on the Marvel super heroes to join him in defeating Dr. Doom once and for all. The Marvel heroes are split over the idea of pre-empting Dr. Doom. Richards finds an ally in the form of Iron Man, who assembles a coalition of willing superheroes to fight "the mother of all battles."
The coalition of super heroes descends on Latveria, quickly advances towards the capitol, and finds Dr. Doom cowering in a spider hole. The dictator is placed in prison. Reed Richards decides that the super-hero coalition has a duty to use their super powers to rebuild wartorn Latveria, bring freedom to the Latverians, and create a model society for eastern Europe.
In spite of their good intentions, things quickly turn south for the Fantastic Four and their allies. Reed Richards discovers that he was wrong about the Doomsday Machine. The leaders of the Latverian Orthodox Church declare that super-powers are a form of satanic magic. Furthermore, Dr. Doom's robots are left without jobs and quickly resume their fight against the super-heroes. The Latverian insurgency claims the lives of several super-heroes. Things reach a boiling point when the Latverians capture the Invisible Woman, torture her, and behead her.
The death of his sister causes the Human Torch to snap. He torches a Latverian village and only stops after the intercession of The Thing. Reed Richards, disheartened at the death of his wife, silently releases Dr. Doom from prison and orders the super-hero coalition out of Latveria. Dr. Doom regains control of his Doom-bots, kills thousands of Latverians in the attempt to regain power, and restores the status quo. Reed Richards commits suicide, leaving Human Torch and The Thing to carry on with his work.
I submit to you my story treatment for a possible Fantastic Four movie.
The film begins with a look at the Fantastic Four's penthouse in New York. Using a sophisticated battery of sensors, Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) detects that Dr. Doom, dictator of the fictional country Latveria, has finally succeeded in building the "Doomsday Machine" that will finally allow him to dominate the world.
Reed Richards assembles the superheroes of the Marvel universe and briefs them on the situation. Dr. Doom, appearing via television, denies that he is building a Doomsday Machine and claims that Latveria is peaceful. Reed Richards counters by saying that Dr. Doom cannot be trusted and that he will be disarmed. He calls on the Marvel super heroes to join him in defeating Dr. Doom once and for all. The Marvel heroes are split over the idea of pre-empting Dr. Doom. Richards finds an ally in the form of Iron Man, who assembles a coalition of willing superheroes to fight "the mother of all battles."
The coalition of super heroes descends on Latveria, quickly advances towards the capitol, and finds Dr. Doom cowering in a spider hole. The dictator is placed in prison. Reed Richards decides that the super-hero coalition has a duty to use their super powers to rebuild wartorn Latveria, bring freedom to the Latverians, and create a model society for eastern Europe.
In spite of their good intentions, things quickly turn south for the Fantastic Four and their allies. Reed Richards discovers that he was wrong about the Doomsday Machine. The leaders of the Latverian Orthodox Church declare that super-powers are a form of satanic magic. Furthermore, Dr. Doom's robots are left without jobs and quickly resume their fight against the super-heroes. The Latverian insurgency claims the lives of several super-heroes. Things reach a boiling point when the Latverians capture the Invisible Woman, torture her, and behead her.
The death of his sister causes the Human Torch to snap. He torches a Latverian village and only stops after the intercession of The Thing. Reed Richards, disheartened at the death of his wife, silently releases Dr. Doom from prison and orders the super-hero coalition out of Latveria. Dr. Doom regains control of his Doom-bots, kills thousands of Latverians in the attempt to regain power, and restores the status quo. Reed Richards commits suicide, leaving Human Torch and The Thing to carry on with his work.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
An Unequal Peace
Eleven Sunni militant groups, led by the 1920 Revolution Brigades, are proposing a conditional cease-fire. But their long list of conditions reveals that they are unwilling to compromise on any of the major obstacles to a roadmap for peace. The insurgents demand that the US withdraw by 2008, immediately halt attacks against insurgent strongholds, release captured insurgents from prison, and compensate Iraqis for lost loved ones and property damage.
I've commented on similar peace plans before and how I think that they are merely timetables for failure. But I have to ask, are these militants willing to treat their enemies as they expect to be treated? Are they willing to pay reparations to the families of Americans they have killed? Are they ready to pony up the $17 Billion it will cost to repair and replace damaged Army vehicles for just this year of operations? Will they respect the Iraqi government after we're gone?
The answer to these questions is obviously "no." The insurgents will only agree to a lopsided peace deal because they feel they have the upper hand in negotiations. They can hurt America, but they won't buckle under American pressure. They are buoyed by reports of Americans, both citizens and legislators, who favor precipitous withdrawals and timetables. They believe that America has no leverage at the bargaining table, and they view American defeat as only a matter of time.
America can only achieve a more equitable peace by taking the fight to the Sunni community. Insurgent strongholds like Ramadi need to be decimated by bloody, Fallujah-style offensives. The common people of Iraq need to get the message that if they support insurgency of any kind, they will not be spared. The distinction needs to be made that harboring insurgents invites suffering; Iraqis will be punished if they grant safe haven to these cocky irregulars.
Perhaps the Iraqi government can sit down with the "1920 Revolution Brigades" and come to a more equitable peace through hard-headed negotiations. It's more likely that it will require American offensives that inflict massive casualties against the insurgency. The emboldened enemy will only compromise when he feels that all hope is lost and he has no option but settlement.
I've commented on similar peace plans before and how I think that they are merely timetables for failure. But I have to ask, are these militants willing to treat their enemies as they expect to be treated? Are they willing to pay reparations to the families of Americans they have killed? Are they ready to pony up the $17 Billion it will cost to repair and replace damaged Army vehicles for just this year of operations? Will they respect the Iraqi government after we're gone?
The answer to these questions is obviously "no." The insurgents will only agree to a lopsided peace deal because they feel they have the upper hand in negotiations. They can hurt America, but they won't buckle under American pressure. They are buoyed by reports of Americans, both citizens and legislators, who favor precipitous withdrawals and timetables. They believe that America has no leverage at the bargaining table, and they view American defeat as only a matter of time.
America can only achieve a more equitable peace by taking the fight to the Sunni community. Insurgent strongholds like Ramadi need to be decimated by bloody, Fallujah-style offensives. The common people of Iraq need to get the message that if they support insurgency of any kind, they will not be spared. The distinction needs to be made that harboring insurgents invites suffering; Iraqis will be punished if they grant safe haven to these cocky irregulars.
Perhaps the Iraqi government can sit down with the "1920 Revolution Brigades" and come to a more equitable peace through hard-headed negotiations. It's more likely that it will require American offensives that inflict massive casualties against the insurgency. The emboldened enemy will only compromise when he feels that all hope is lost and he has no option but settlement.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Superman Lives
I was amused when I heard the predictions about Superman Returns being a flop. Of course, these dire warnings came from Hollywood elitists who were miffed that the movie didn't appear at the Cannes Film Festival. They will soon be proven wrong.
After 19 years away from the big screen, Superman will return tonight. While Superman is not my favorite costumed crimefighter (that honor belongs to Spider-Man, with Batman as a close second,) I'll probably watch it anyways. Director Bryan Singer, noted for his work on the first two X-Men movies and executive producer of House, is going to stay faithful to the character and recapture the spirit of the first two films, while still delivering enough excitement to keep moviegoers riveted.
After Warner Brothers spent years tossing around names like Nicholas Cage (perhaps one of the worst casting decisions in history) to play Superman, Bryan Singer finally settled on the unknown Brandon Routh. In a way, this reminds me of George Lazenby's stint as James Bond. Nobody would say that the previously-unknown Lazenby was the best actor to portray the hero, but he was "good enough," and his movie happened to be the best in the series. One can only hope that Routh can do as well or even better than George Lazenby.
Superman Returns will be the top-grossing movie of the summer. While it cost beaucoup bucks to film, it will still be a cash cow for Warner Brothers. Beyond that, it goes to show that Cannes exists to hype the artsy films that don't have blockbuster potential. For an American classic with widespread appeal like Superman, pandering to Hollywood elites is a waste of time.
After 19 years away from the big screen, Superman will return tonight. While Superman is not my favorite costumed crimefighter (that honor belongs to Spider-Man, with Batman as a close second,) I'll probably watch it anyways. Director Bryan Singer, noted for his work on the first two X-Men movies and executive producer of House, is going to stay faithful to the character and recapture the spirit of the first two films, while still delivering enough excitement to keep moviegoers riveted.
After Warner Brothers spent years tossing around names like Nicholas Cage (perhaps one of the worst casting decisions in history) to play Superman, Bryan Singer finally settled on the unknown Brandon Routh. In a way, this reminds me of George Lazenby's stint as James Bond. Nobody would say that the previously-unknown Lazenby was the best actor to portray the hero, but he was "good enough," and his movie happened to be the best in the series. One can only hope that Routh can do as well or even better than George Lazenby.
Superman Returns will be the top-grossing movie of the summer. While it cost beaucoup bucks to film, it will still be a cash cow for Warner Brothers. Beyond that, it goes to show that Cannes exists to hype the artsy films that don't have blockbuster potential. For an American classic with widespread appeal like Superman, pandering to Hollywood elites is a waste of time.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Walk, Don't Run
Last week, the Senate voted on two proposals regarding our force levels in Iraq. The first, supported by thirteen Democrats including John Kerry (who voted for this war before he voted against it,) would have called for a nearly complete withdrawal by July 2007. The second, which won the support of more moderate Democrats, called for some withdrawals in 2006 but left it an open question when the US would totally leave.
In a sense, I agree with the reasoning of the moderate Democrats. This year needs to be a year of transition, when Iraqis start to take the lead and the US moves into a supporting role. Some degree of a force drawdown would send Iraqis the message that they need to get their act together, because we can't stay in the lead forever. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Iraq will fail without some degree of American support that can be sustained over a decade or more.
At the same time, I can't support what these Democrats were trying to do, because military decisions of this nature should not be made unilaterally by the Congress. It is the military leadership, not the Congress or the Executive Branch, who best understands what force levels are necessary to achieve the national objectives. The second withdrawal proposal not only sets the national objectives, but tells the military leadership how to meet those objectives. This is not how wars should be fought. The elected leadership should set national objectives, in consultation with the military leaders in regards to the capabilities of the US military. The generals should determine how the national objectives are achieved.
It is rumored that General George Casey wants to take two brigades out of Iraq, beginning this September. He is essentially confirming the centrist Democrats' plan, despite the Republicans' successful attempt to block it. Senator Carl Levin has accused the Bush Administration of playing politics with the timing of this decision. Alas, it is Senator Levin who is playing political games. The withdrawal of two brigades has little to do with politics and everything to do with the established troop rotation (which is already down to around 127,000, from a high near 160,000 back in December.)
To achieve our national objectives in Iraq, we will have to creep away rather than sprinting. Hopefully our force levels can drop below 50,000 within the next year as more Iraqis take the lead in fighting the insurgency. However, we will need to provide the Iraqis with advisors, training, equipment, medevac, close air support, and other support functions for perhaps a decade or more. We should only cease in providing these support functions once the Iraqis are capable of handling these tasks. If we fail in providing any of these critical functions, the entire mission in Iraq will be a failure.
In a sense, I agree with the reasoning of the moderate Democrats. This year needs to be a year of transition, when Iraqis start to take the lead and the US moves into a supporting role. Some degree of a force drawdown would send Iraqis the message that they need to get their act together, because we can't stay in the lead forever. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Iraq will fail without some degree of American support that can be sustained over a decade or more.
At the same time, I can't support what these Democrats were trying to do, because military decisions of this nature should not be made unilaterally by the Congress. It is the military leadership, not the Congress or the Executive Branch, who best understands what force levels are necessary to achieve the national objectives. The second withdrawal proposal not only sets the national objectives, but tells the military leadership how to meet those objectives. This is not how wars should be fought. The elected leadership should set national objectives, in consultation with the military leaders in regards to the capabilities of the US military. The generals should determine how the national objectives are achieved.
It is rumored that General George Casey wants to take two brigades out of Iraq, beginning this September. He is essentially confirming the centrist Democrats' plan, despite the Republicans' successful attempt to block it. Senator Carl Levin has accused the Bush Administration of playing politics with the timing of this decision. Alas, it is Senator Levin who is playing political games. The withdrawal of two brigades has little to do with politics and everything to do with the established troop rotation (which is already down to around 127,000, from a high near 160,000 back in December.)
To achieve our national objectives in Iraq, we will have to creep away rather than sprinting. Hopefully our force levels can drop below 50,000 within the next year as more Iraqis take the lead in fighting the insurgency. However, we will need to provide the Iraqis with advisors, training, equipment, medevac, close air support, and other support functions for perhaps a decade or more. We should only cease in providing these support functions once the Iraqis are capable of handling these tasks. If we fail in providing any of these critical functions, the entire mission in Iraq will be a failure.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The Soldiers Report
This story is definitely worth a read. The soldiers talk about the danger and the frustration of fighting a dirty, ugly insurgency. It's far more insightful than the body counts that normally pass for "war reporting."
Amnesty, International
As part of a peace deal to end the Iraqi Insurgency, the Iraqi leadership is certain to offer amnesty to insurgents with American blood on their hands. Do I like this measure? No. Will I support this measure? Yes, on the condition that it causes insugents to lay down their arms and reduces US troop fatalities.
If the US is going to allow amnesty for Iraqis who have killed Americans, shouldn't the favor be reciprocated? Shouldn't there also be amnesty for Americans who have killed Iraqis? Unfortunately, forgiveness is a virtue hard to find in the Islamic world. The Pentagon certainly isn't helping out, with its politically-motivated railroading of several Marines and soldiers this week, and the anticipated railroading of the Marines at Haditha. If the Pentagon is willing to sit by and let Iraqi killers walk free, it should at least drop all charges against its own.
Beyond amnesty, the full peace proposal is a time table for failure. By halting US raids against insurgent strongholds, it allows Iraqi Sunni extremists to set up Sharia governments, which is exactly what happened in Fallujah after US forces withdrew in Spring 2004. Further, the UN-mandated timetable for withdrawal will allow insurgents to bide their time until they can launch further offensives against the government, this time without US forces to back the government up. Finally, a withdrawl of all US forces prevents the Iraqi army from receiving logistics support, training, equipment, and air support that are essential for the Army's survival.
The flawed peace proposal illustrates the folly of giving the Iraqis democracy and sovereignty. If they want to do something stupid, we don't have any authority to veto it. It's their sovereign country, ruled by their lawfully-elected government. If the Iraqi government wants to sign its own death warrant, it's out of our hands now.
If the US is going to allow amnesty for Iraqis who have killed Americans, shouldn't the favor be reciprocated? Shouldn't there also be amnesty for Americans who have killed Iraqis? Unfortunately, forgiveness is a virtue hard to find in the Islamic world. The Pentagon certainly isn't helping out, with its politically-motivated railroading of several Marines and soldiers this week, and the anticipated railroading of the Marines at Haditha. If the Pentagon is willing to sit by and let Iraqi killers walk free, it should at least drop all charges against its own.
Beyond amnesty, the full peace proposal is a time table for failure. By halting US raids against insurgent strongholds, it allows Iraqi Sunni extremists to set up Sharia governments, which is exactly what happened in Fallujah after US forces withdrew in Spring 2004. Further, the UN-mandated timetable for withdrawal will allow insurgents to bide their time until they can launch further offensives against the government, this time without US forces to back the government up. Finally, a withdrawl of all US forces prevents the Iraqi army from receiving logistics support, training, equipment, and air support that are essential for the Army's survival.
The flawed peace proposal illustrates the folly of giving the Iraqis democracy and sovereignty. If they want to do something stupid, we don't have any authority to veto it. It's their sovereign country, ruled by their lawfully-elected government. If the Iraqi government wants to sign its own death warrant, it's out of our hands now.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death
Here's a very inspiring story about a very brave man who is trying to do the Lord's work.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Zero Equals Five Hundred
Yesterday, Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra held a joint press conference regarding a recently-declassified document which catalogued the discovery of over 500 chemical munitions inside Iraq. For the two Republicans, it was validation for their reasons for invading Iraq. Most of the media took little notice, except for FOX. A rebuttal came from MSNBC, basically saying that the 500 chemical artillery pieces 'don't count as weapons of mass destruction.'
The 500 chemical rounds represent what was leftover from the Iran-Iraq War, and most of them were too old to be used as chemical artillery. Nevertheless, they prove without a doubt that the Iraqis did not meet one of their UN-mandated obligations, which was to destroy ALL chemical weapons in their possession.
Disturbingly, the chemical munitions were unmarked and stored alongside conventional artillery shells. It would have been fairly easy for a terrorist with connections to Saddam's army to smuggle such a weapon out of the country, where it could still be used in an IED, in a subway attack, or to poison a town's water supply. In fact, it was the use of an aging Mustard Gas shell in a May 2004 IED attack that first tipped the US off to the existence of these weapons inside Iraq.
When the Bush Administration made its case for war, it cited both the extant weapons from 1991 as well as purported new production of chemical and biological weapons. It's disingenuous to say that the 500 chemical shells don't count as WMD just because they were old.
Yet the rationale for invading Iraq is actually undercut by the nature of these weapons of mass destruction. When Saddam was in power, the shells were under control (to a degree) of Saddam's army. After the fall of the dictator, the shells were out in the open for any jihadist to take home. Shortly after the chemical IED attack in May 2004, Polish forces in south-central Iraq broke up an attempt by an Iraqi to sell two cyclosarin-filled rockets to terrorists. More chemical weapons are out there inside Iraq, and God help us if a terrorist gets hold of one and realizes the potential value of the weapon.
The 500 chemical rounds represent what was leftover from the Iran-Iraq War, and most of them were too old to be used as chemical artillery. Nevertheless, they prove without a doubt that the Iraqis did not meet one of their UN-mandated obligations, which was to destroy ALL chemical weapons in their possession.
Disturbingly, the chemical munitions were unmarked and stored alongside conventional artillery shells. It would have been fairly easy for a terrorist with connections to Saddam's army to smuggle such a weapon out of the country, where it could still be used in an IED, in a subway attack, or to poison a town's water supply. In fact, it was the use of an aging Mustard Gas shell in a May 2004 IED attack that first tipped the US off to the existence of these weapons inside Iraq.
When the Bush Administration made its case for war, it cited both the extant weapons from 1991 as well as purported new production of chemical and biological weapons. It's disingenuous to say that the 500 chemical shells don't count as WMD just because they were old.
Yet the rationale for invading Iraq is actually undercut by the nature of these weapons of mass destruction. When Saddam was in power, the shells were under control (to a degree) of Saddam's army. After the fall of the dictator, the shells were out in the open for any jihadist to take home. Shortly after the chemical IED attack in May 2004, Polish forces in south-central Iraq broke up an attempt by an Iraqi to sell two cyclosarin-filled rockets to terrorists. More chemical weapons are out there inside Iraq, and God help us if a terrorist gets hold of one and realizes the potential value of the weapon.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Hypocrisy on High
The US Military is court-martialing seven Marines and a Navy Corpsman for allegedly murdering an "innocent" Iraqi. This comes just a day after two American soldiers were murdered and mutilated by our Iraqi enemies.
The hypocrisy of America's leadership, both military and civilian, is astounding. We will not hold accountable the enemies of freedom, but we're going to rake eight of our own servicemen over the coals for giving some Iraqi dirtbag a permanent dirt-nap. During their time in custody, the eight were shackled and deprived of their dignity, at the same time we are punishing American soldiers for depriving Iraqis of their dignity at Abu Ghuraib.
This sickening dichotomy convinces me that America's leaders do not believe in victory. They are merely trying to save face without causing too much offense to America's critics. America is not capable of the brutality that will be required to stabilize Iraq.
The hypocrisy of America's leadership, both military and civilian, is astounding. We will not hold accountable the enemies of freedom, but we're going to rake eight of our own servicemen over the coals for giving some Iraqi dirtbag a permanent dirt-nap. During their time in custody, the eight were shackled and deprived of their dignity, at the same time we are punishing American soldiers for depriving Iraqis of their dignity at Abu Ghuraib.
This sickening dichotomy convinces me that America's leaders do not believe in victory. They are merely trying to save face without causing too much offense to America's critics. America is not capable of the brutality that will be required to stabilize Iraq.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Reciprocity
All Americans should be thoroughly disgusted with the murders of two American soldiers in Iraq, with their desicrated bodies being used by the terrorists in an attempt to bomb even more soldiers. It's time to start mowing down these Iraqi animals, arranging a face-to-face meeting between the Iraqis and the false prophet Mohammed in the pit of Hell.
The best thing President Bush should do is to announce a change in policy for the United States: the United States will respond with reciprocity in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The laws of Geneva are a two-way street; if one side chooses not to play along, other side has a legal right to respond in similar fashion.
Most elements of the Iraqi Insurgency do not fall under Geneva's definition of lawful combatants. Likewise, most Iraqi insurgents have violated Geneva's basic principles, including the execution of hostages, the targeting of civilians, and the use of mosques and hospitals as fighting positions. At the same time, US policy has been to treat Iraqi prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convetions. Obviously there have been times when members of the armed forces deviated from this policy, and they have been punished accordingly.
The unspeakable deaths of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker should be reciprocated with an appropriate response against Iraqi prisoners. Physical abuse should become an approved interrogation technique. When prisoners are no longer of intelligence value, they should be executed with a gunshot to the head.
America's enemies know they can play dirty with us, because we refuse to stoop to their level. We need to teach our enemies to fear us again. We tried to give Iraqis freedom, only to be greated with misery. It's time for the Iraqi people to taste all the death and carnage they can stomach from us.
The best thing President Bush should do is to announce a change in policy for the United States: the United States will respond with reciprocity in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The laws of Geneva are a two-way street; if one side chooses not to play along, other side has a legal right to respond in similar fashion.
Most elements of the Iraqi Insurgency do not fall under Geneva's definition of lawful combatants. Likewise, most Iraqi insurgents have violated Geneva's basic principles, including the execution of hostages, the targeting of civilians, and the use of mosques and hospitals as fighting positions. At the same time, US policy has been to treat Iraqi prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convetions. Obviously there have been times when members of the armed forces deviated from this policy, and they have been punished accordingly.
The unspeakable deaths of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker should be reciprocated with an appropriate response against Iraqi prisoners. Physical abuse should become an approved interrogation technique. When prisoners are no longer of intelligence value, they should be executed with a gunshot to the head.
America's enemies know they can play dirty with us, because we refuse to stoop to their level. We need to teach our enemies to fear us again. We tried to give Iraqis freedom, only to be greated with misery. It's time for the Iraqi people to taste all the death and carnage they can stomach from us.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
A Goldwater Republican?
It appears that John Dendahl will run for the governorship in New Mexico, perhaps bringing the "Goldwater Republicans" the upper hand over the religious right in the state of New Mexico. Dendahl gathered a lot of controversy for trying to liberalize the drug laws; the New Mexico Democrats (whose party platform explicitly calls for the impeachment of President Bush) are hypocritically trying to brand him an extremist.
At this juncture in my life, I would consider myself a Goldwater Republican. I think that our domestic policies need to become more Libertarian. At the same time, I cannot caucus with the Libertarian Party because I believe that America should ruthlessly slaughter its enemies overseas. These beliefs are most in line with the iconoclastic Arizona Senator who sought the presidency in 1964.
And I think that Dendahl is right on the drugs issue. People have a personal responsibility to protect their bodies from illict drugs. The government's resources should be devoted to facing the true evil in our society, which is posed by militant Islam. The prisons should be filled with militant Muslims, not with drug pushers and crackheads. We should start by decriminalizing small quantities of marijuana; if people are able to handle this measure responsibly, we can further liberalize our drug laws.
At this juncture in my life, I would consider myself a Goldwater Republican. I think that our domestic policies need to become more Libertarian. At the same time, I cannot caucus with the Libertarian Party because I believe that America should ruthlessly slaughter its enemies overseas. These beliefs are most in line with the iconoclastic Arizona Senator who sought the presidency in 1964.
And I think that Dendahl is right on the drugs issue. People have a personal responsibility to protect their bodies from illict drugs. The government's resources should be devoted to facing the true evil in our society, which is posed by militant Islam. The prisons should be filled with militant Muslims, not with drug pushers and crackheads. We should start by decriminalizing small quantities of marijuana; if people are able to handle this measure responsibly, we can further liberalize our drug laws.
Friday, June 16, 2006
The Daily Show: More Accurate Than You'd Expect
Comedy Central's The Daily Show and the network's parent company, Viacom, are taking heat for saying "We've had fake news years before CBS hired Katie Couric." Some would say that Jon Stewart and crew are denigrating Katie Couric as a journalist. Yet I have to ask, "What makes you call Katie Couric a journalist to begin with?"
Katie Couric is a veteran of the morning news circuit. While it would be easy to dismiss television journalism in America as being vapid, the national morning news broadcasts are the worst of the worst. They blur the line between journalism and entertainment. The best you can expect from the morning news programs is shallow summaries of major events, fluff interviews with newsmakers, and guest performances by entertainers who are playing an outdoor councert or shilling for a new movie.
It's not fair to single out Katie Couric as vapid; the entire lot of morning broadcasters reeks. Katie's old partner-in-crime, Matt Lauer, has done his part to lower the bar. So have Charlie Gibson on ABC, E.D. Hill & Steve Doocy on FOX, and the O'Briens on CNN. The news producers of the world insult the intelligence of the American public with the tripe that passes for journalism in the morning. Perhaps they think we're too groggy and we'll need a few more cups of coffee before we can put some serious thought into the days events. To the news producers, I suggest that they get to know the average Americans and learn to respect their intelligence.
Katie Couric is a veteran of the morning news circuit. While it would be easy to dismiss television journalism in America as being vapid, the national morning news broadcasts are the worst of the worst. They blur the line between journalism and entertainment. The best you can expect from the morning news programs is shallow summaries of major events, fluff interviews with newsmakers, and guest performances by entertainers who are playing an outdoor councert or shilling for a new movie.
It's not fair to single out Katie Couric as vapid; the entire lot of morning broadcasters reeks. Katie's old partner-in-crime, Matt Lauer, has done his part to lower the bar. So have Charlie Gibson on ABC, E.D. Hill & Steve Doocy on FOX, and the O'Briens on CNN. The news producers of the world insult the intelligence of the American public with the tripe that passes for journalism in the morning. Perhaps they think we're too groggy and we'll need a few more cups of coffee before we can put some serious thought into the days events. To the news producers, I suggest that they get to know the average Americans and learn to respect their intelligence.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Jack Murtha, Still Supportin' the Troops (Not)
In the eyes of many Democrats, Jack Murtha is untouchable. His years of duty in Vietnam make him above reproach and resistant to all forms of criticism.
The reality is that Jack Murtha is saying a lot of false things that insult the men and women of our armed forces. Case in point is Murtha's twist on the Zarqawi takeout. He claims that the airstrike is evidence that the US can accomplish its objectives without soldiers and Marines on the ground. The real operation was far more complex than Murtha will ever admit. The Zarqawi airstrike would not have been possible if a team of Task Force 145 soldiers didn't take up position nearby Zarqawi's safehouse and make the positive identification. The same special forces troops might have made the assault themselves if they felt they had sufficient manpower and firepower to ensure that Zarqawi wouldn't escape. To deny their role in this important mission is a tremendous insult on Jack Murtha's part. Then again, it's hard for a Marine to say anything positive about the US Army.
Beyond Murtha's spinning of Zarqawi's death, more dents are being made in his armor. The most recent criticism comes from Major Paul Hackett, a Democrat and war critic who has been shunned by the Democrat leadership. Hackett is incensed by Murtha's accusations of a Marine massacre in Haditha. Hackett has connections with Marines who were on the scene, and Hackett asserts that the Marines were responding lawfully to enemy action. One of the accused Marines blames Murtha for tainting public opinion during the ongoing investigation, and plans on calling Murtha to testify as a hostile witness in a potential trial.
At this point, Americans should be questioning everything Jack Murtha says. His announced desire is to be House Majority Leader. He is clearly staking his reputation on a belief that anti-war voters will determine this November's congressional elections. He's also enjoying his status as "War Protestor Flavor of the Week" that he enjoys in the media. The sad reality for Jack Murtha is that the media will dump him, just as they dumped Cindy Sheehan, once they find a more sympathetic character.
Murtha crosses the line by defaming the people who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line. He agrees with the insurgent sympathizers of Haditha and slanders the Marines who were in the same position he was in during Vietnam. All Marines should be ashamed of being associated with Jack Murtha.
[EDIT 6/17/2006] Ann Coulter, who thrives off her off-the-wall remarks which drive liberals up the wall, is at it again. She's claiming that Jack Murtha is the reason why soldiers invented fragging. I would posit that Jack Murtha is the one guilty of fragging, in a figurative sense. He's taking cheap, unwarranted shots at soldiers and Marines; he's tainting public opinion and destroying reputations. Jack Murtha's actions amount to nothing short of fratricide.
The reality is that Jack Murtha is saying a lot of false things that insult the men and women of our armed forces. Case in point is Murtha's twist on the Zarqawi takeout. He claims that the airstrike is evidence that the US can accomplish its objectives without soldiers and Marines on the ground. The real operation was far more complex than Murtha will ever admit. The Zarqawi airstrike would not have been possible if a team of Task Force 145 soldiers didn't take up position nearby Zarqawi's safehouse and make the positive identification. The same special forces troops might have made the assault themselves if they felt they had sufficient manpower and firepower to ensure that Zarqawi wouldn't escape. To deny their role in this important mission is a tremendous insult on Jack Murtha's part. Then again, it's hard for a Marine to say anything positive about the US Army.
Beyond Murtha's spinning of Zarqawi's death, more dents are being made in his armor. The most recent criticism comes from Major Paul Hackett, a Democrat and war critic who has been shunned by the Democrat leadership. Hackett is incensed by Murtha's accusations of a Marine massacre in Haditha. Hackett has connections with Marines who were on the scene, and Hackett asserts that the Marines were responding lawfully to enemy action. One of the accused Marines blames Murtha for tainting public opinion during the ongoing investigation, and plans on calling Murtha to testify as a hostile witness in a potential trial.
At this point, Americans should be questioning everything Jack Murtha says. His announced desire is to be House Majority Leader. He is clearly staking his reputation on a belief that anti-war voters will determine this November's congressional elections. He's also enjoying his status as "War Protestor Flavor of the Week" that he enjoys in the media. The sad reality for Jack Murtha is that the media will dump him, just as they dumped Cindy Sheehan, once they find a more sympathetic character.
Murtha crosses the line by defaming the people who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line. He agrees with the insurgent sympathizers of Haditha and slanders the Marines who were in the same position he was in during Vietnam. All Marines should be ashamed of being associated with Jack Murtha.
[EDIT 6/17/2006] Ann Coulter, who thrives off her off-the-wall remarks which drive liberals up the wall, is at it again. She's claiming that Jack Murtha is the reason why soldiers invented fragging. I would posit that Jack Murtha is the one guilty of fragging, in a figurative sense. He's taking cheap, unwarranted shots at soldiers and Marines; he's tainting public opinion and destroying reputations. Jack Murtha's actions amount to nothing short of fratricide.
Trip Meter
Democrats are wringing their hands over President Bush's visit to Iraq, just as they have done with every Bush visit to Iraq since Thanksgiving 2003. I don't view this as a stunt or charade, like the Democrats cynically would. I view this as an essential thing that any commander-in-chief should do after sending brave Americans to war. I'm also trying to remember any time that President Clinton visited the troops in Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia. If he did, his Republican opponents never made a big deal about it.
The anti-war left thinks that President Bush has no concern for the armed forces; after all, he sent them to war. But President Bush also realizes that our men and women in uniform are prepared to sacrifice themselves if the cause is just. The president genuinely believes in the cause, and I think he respects the troops all the more for their sacrifices they have made for the cause.
The anti-war left thinks that President Bush has no concern for the armed forces; after all, he sent them to war. But President Bush also realizes that our men and women in uniform are prepared to sacrifice themselves if the cause is just. The president genuinely believes in the cause, and I think he respects the troops all the more for their sacrifices they have made for the cause.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The Roof is on Fire
It feels good to live in a world without Zarqawi. After all the bombings he was responsible for, it's a delicious irony to see him crushed to death in a house that crumbled under 1,000 pounds of explosives.
While we can hope that the death of Zarqawi would be as devastating to the insurgency as the capture of Emilio Aguinaldo was in the Phillipines, the reality is more sobering. Al Qaeda will continue its operations in Iraq, in addition to Iraqi Islamist groups like Jaish Ansar al Sunnah. Even if all support for the jihadists dried up, the insurgency would shift to one with natonalist motivations instead of religious ones.
Americans have to resist the foolish temptation to declare a hollow victory and initiate a hasty exit upon Zarqawi's death. Likewise, troop levels should be dictated by the reality on the ground, rather than a future that we hope emerges from the death of Zarqawi.
We have killed the terrorist but we still have to repair the damage that the terrorist has unleashed during his four years in Iraq. He waged a three-year war against Shiites; his indiscriminate bombings eroded what little faith the Shiites had in America and reinforced the flocking of Shiites to the radical, Iranian-backed militias. Zarqawi's goal was all-out civil war, and he got too close to success during his lifetime. At the same time, the death photos of Zarqawi will hopefully convince Sunnis of the evil that has exploited their community (which they had viewed as an illusion created by America to justify occupation.) If any lasting good comes from Zarqawi's death, it will be a unified Iraq that Zarqawi fought with all his soul during his life.
While we can hope that the death of Zarqawi would be as devastating to the insurgency as the capture of Emilio Aguinaldo was in the Phillipines, the reality is more sobering. Al Qaeda will continue its operations in Iraq, in addition to Iraqi Islamist groups like Jaish Ansar al Sunnah. Even if all support for the jihadists dried up, the insurgency would shift to one with natonalist motivations instead of religious ones.
Americans have to resist the foolish temptation to declare a hollow victory and initiate a hasty exit upon Zarqawi's death. Likewise, troop levels should be dictated by the reality on the ground, rather than a future that we hope emerges from the death of Zarqawi.
We have killed the terrorist but we still have to repair the damage that the terrorist has unleashed during his four years in Iraq. He waged a three-year war against Shiites; his indiscriminate bombings eroded what little faith the Shiites had in America and reinforced the flocking of Shiites to the radical, Iranian-backed militias. Zarqawi's goal was all-out civil war, and he got too close to success during his lifetime. At the same time, the death photos of Zarqawi will hopefully convince Sunnis of the evil that has exploited their community (which they had viewed as an illusion created by America to justify occupation.) If any lasting good comes from Zarqawi's death, it will be a unified Iraq that Zarqawi fought with all his soul during his life.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Global Cooling?
A prominent climatologist thinks that we're just 3-4 years away from a major downtrend in global temperatures. If it plays out, it might be the most "inconvenient truth" that Al Gore ever had to face down. The columnist is totally right, in that global warming is a debate that is far from settled. Perhaps if the media gave equal time to the opposing points of view (instead of allowing Al Gore and James Hansen to monopolize the issue,) our society would be better-informed and less demogogued.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Out of the blue
Color me surprised that the President and the Senate are talking about a Federal Marriage Amendment, two years after it was shot down in the Senate. Cynically, I have to say that this is a forlorn attempt by the president and congressional Republicans to stop their skid in the polls.
I've said before that Democrats have exaggerated the effect that gay marriage had on the 2004 elections. I have no doubt that the president's poll numbers will continue to slip after the Federal Marriage Amendment fails to pass the Senate during this coming week.
I've said before that Democrats have exaggerated the effect that gay marriage had on the 2004 elections. I have no doubt that the president's poll numbers will continue to slip after the Federal Marriage Amendment fails to pass the Senate during this coming week.
Friday, June 02, 2006
A Rumor of War
These days, America's enemies don't even need to try in their attempts to win the information wars. The western media will do the hard work for them.
In the media's feeding frenzy over Haditha, BBC picked up on a tape being distributed by a Sunni Islamist party. The tape was supposed evidence of an American massacre near Balad, which was "covered up" when a Spectre gunship fired on the house in question and collapsed it. Local police (who are likely insurgents themselves) echoed the claims of the Sunni party.
While BBC and CNN were eager to run with the story, it didn't even pass the sniff test. How likely is it that an Iraqi could run into a building and take this video during the short interval between the initial shooting and the airstrike? Perhaps the video was a fake, or it was taken by one of the al Qaeda fighters who was alleged to be in the safe house before the airstrike.
The Pentagon has acted quickly, concluding that the soldiers involved followed the correct rules of engagement. Nevertheless, the damage has been done, and the Islamic world largely believes that there was a massacre in Ishaqi. Even a quick reaction to enemy misinformation isn't as good as no misinformation at all.
In the media's feeding frenzy over Haditha, BBC picked up on a tape being distributed by a Sunni Islamist party. The tape was supposed evidence of an American massacre near Balad, which was "covered up" when a Spectre gunship fired on the house in question and collapsed it. Local police (who are likely insurgents themselves) echoed the claims of the Sunni party.
While BBC and CNN were eager to run with the story, it didn't even pass the sniff test. How likely is it that an Iraqi could run into a building and take this video during the short interval between the initial shooting and the airstrike? Perhaps the video was a fake, or it was taken by one of the al Qaeda fighters who was alleged to be in the safe house before the airstrike.
The Pentagon has acted quickly, concluding that the soldiers involved followed the correct rules of engagement. Nevertheless, the damage has been done, and the Islamic world largely believes that there was a massacre in Ishaqi. Even a quick reaction to enemy misinformation isn't as good as no misinformation at all.
