<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, July 31, 2006

Entrapment 

In the current border clash with Lebanese Hezbollah, Israel has found itself trapped in a lose-lose situation.

This can be directly traced to the tactics employed by Hezbollah. The Lebanese militia shows none of the distinction expected of legal combatants under the Geneva Conventions. For Hezbollah, using civilians as shields and conducting attacks from schools and mosques is all in a day's work. The same can be said of the Iraqis, the Palestinians, and the Taliban. The war plan is not to inflict casualties on the enemy; instead, the aim is to lure the enemy into creating as many civilian casualties as possible.

This is the new "Arab Way of War." Judging by the performance of conventional Arab armies during the 1967 and 1973 wars, as well as Operation Desert Storm, it says much about the ineffectiveness of the old "Arab Way of War." The new tactics acknowledge the crucial role that world public opinion plays in armed conflict. The western world has a higher degree of respect for the life of the individual. Not only do they recoil at their own soldiers being killed, but they abhor the deaths of civilians in the enemy's nation. This respect for life is the western world's greatest strength in times of peace; it is also the west's achilles heel in times of war.

The Israeli government had to weigh two different strategies. The first, of not taking military action against Hezbollah, would probably not see the release of the captured Israeli soldiers, would probably encourage more kidnappings of Israelis by Hezbollah and Palestinians, and would likely not end the rocket barrages against Israeli towns. The military option, on the other hand, has predictably legitimized Hezbollah in Lebanon and throughout the Islamic world as a Lebanese resistance movement instead of a ruthless Shiite militia. It has also undermined Lebanon's elected government, which may be the only hope for democracy in the vast totalitarian wasteland that is bordered by Turkey and India.

Israel has chosen the military option, but has not committed its national will towards the effort. In order to accept the military option, one has to accept the high civilian casualties that will inevitably result. Nevertheless, Israel has backed off from its strategic air campaign for 48 hours because of the Qana bombing which killed 56 civilians. Some evidence suggests that Qana may have been orchestrated by Hezbollah to maximize its propaganda value; regardless of the fault behind the bombing, Hezbollah must be enjoying the windfall that Qana has generated for its cause. Not only has Israel's public support waned, but the fallout is causing Israel to go soft in pursuing the strategy it has chosen.

It's hard to see Israel achieving any positive solution from this crisis. That's why the US and its allies should have pushed for diplomacy immediately, rather than allowing Israel to wage a limited counterinsurgency that would cause lots of suffering and little (if any) gains in the name of peace.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Fortunate Son? 

John McCain's youngest son, James McCain, is enlisting in the US Marine Corps. Within a year from now, he may be in Iraq or Afgahnistan.

While this story has obvious political connotations, the most important issue here is the safety of James McCain, a young American like so many other who have volunteered to serve. The nation should pray for James McCain and all like him who embody the strength, bravery, and selfless ideals of our nation.

At the same time, it pierces the hearts of the war critics who repeat the mantra from System of a Down's cacophanous and grating "B.Y.O.B.": Why don't the presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? Likewise, Michael Moore is fond of sticking microphones in the faces of politicians and asking them to send their kids to die in Fallujah. Cindy Sheehan notoriously called for the president's trampy twin daughters to be sent to Iraq.

Of America's leaders, very few have children who are in the armed forces. The child of the average politician is likely spoiled and has no need to be self-sufficient. They are able to access the best educational facilities and rub elbows with the upper crust of America's society. They have no economic or educational incentives to join the armed forces. For the radical left, they view money and education as the only reasons why people sign their lives away to Uncle Sam. The idea of military service for the sake of patriotic duty doesn't register on their scales.

The implication of the radical left is that America's leaders wouldn't go to war if it was their children at risk. Still, there have been some politicians who have authorized the war, like Rep. Duncan Hunter, in full knowledge that their sons would be fighting it.

Throughout American history, the sons of priveledged families have largely found ways to avoid military service. Nevertheless, there have been some who decided to "man up" anyway, with an unquestionable sense of duty to this nation. The men and women who wear our uniform are all our sons and daughters. It is in this state of mind that Congress should debate the weighty matters of war and diplomacy, and put them at risk only if the consequence is a danger that will harm the entire nation.

[UPDATE] It looks like James McCain won't be alone. Another representative from Arizona is going to the sandbox to do his part. Impossible Scissors salutes all those who do their part in plucking the "Chickenhawk" label.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Night of the Living Wage 

Local and state government are increasingly finding Wal-Mart to be a good target for new regulations which impose a higher standard of living for employees. The most recent example is the Chicago city council's desire to impose a "living wage" on all large retail chains in the city. Under the proposal, employees would now make a minimum of $10.00 per hour, plus $3 per hour in benefits.

When I was in high school, I worked as a peon for a grocery store. For me, work was about a sense of self-worth. For many other high-schoolers in my position, working for a retailer in a low-wage job was a way to pay for a car and insurance while still living at home. For others, working these retail jobs was a way of providing additional income to supplement the person's career. None of the people I've alluded to had any aspirations of a career with the company, and probably don't have an interest in benefits.

In short, I would never dream of working for "Wally World" for a career. It would be a nightmare. The vast majority of Americans should aspire to work for a more fulfilling career. If anything, the living wage would make Americans more reluctant to leave these jobs in favor of something better. Large, low-wage retailers should not be "The American Dream." They should be temporary places for people who are just entering the workforce and for people who want supplemental income.

The biggest drawback of the living wage is the personnel cutbacks that will inevitably result. Factoring in the cost of the benefits, the Chicago living wage is double the Illinois minimum wage of $6.50. The wage increase will affect most employees across the board, not just those below the living wage. How will the big retailers react to this shock to their bottom lines? Price increases might be an answer, but competition will keep them in check. Instead, retailers will cut jobs, forcing the remaining employees to do more with less, and leaving consumers with a less satisfying shopping experience.

POSTSCRIPT: The involvement of religious groups in the anti-WalMart crusade shows that there is still a "religious left" in America. In spite of the crazy Pat Robertsons who use Jesus to justify views of a right-wing fringe, there are also liberals who use Jesus to justify their "big compassionate government" agenda. While the "religious left" doesn't have much national influence aside from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, it does have considerable sway in local politics.

Personally, I think that the government should act less like the oppressive Romans of Jesus's day, even if their motives are altruistic. Christians can express their faith by giving to the poor, rather than trusting King Herrod and the Romans to steal the people's wealth and hoping that the poor get a cut.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

The necessity of blood for oil 

In examining the governments of the middle east, one trend becomes apparent: the most stable nations are the opulent, oil-exporting nations which border the Persian Gulf. Countries like Syria and Lebanon, which don't have the same oil wealth, are in a lot worse shape.

Middle eastern despots have learned over the decades that spreading the nation's oil wealth is the key to stability. As much as the Saudi monarchs are reviled, they have clung onto power by creating a welfare state which takes care of the Saudi people and ensures that most manual labor jobs will be taken by third-country nationals from places like Pakistan, India and the Phillipines.

It has occurred to me that Iraq's stability will hinge on oil production. The Iraqi economy has been in shambles since the 1990 embargo; although this was ameliorated by Oil-for-Food in 1996 and completely lifted in 2003, the combination of a crumbling oil infrastructure and insurgent sabotage have ensured that Iraq's oil economy remained depressed. Oil production is still below pre-war levels, and predictions that oil would pay for the country's reconstruction proved to be a fantasy.

Many of the insurgents have been lured into their professions by a lack of jobs and the influx of insurgent funding, which have filled the vacuum created by de-Baathification. If Iraq's economy can be rebuilt on the basis of petrodollars, it may convince some insurgents to pursue more honest means of making a living. It will also ensure that poverty is not an incentive for future Iraqis who debate joining the insurgency.

For the United States, the wisest investment of American soldiers and reconstruction money would be the defense of existing oil infrastructure and the building of new infrastructure. Democracy is a challenge that can only come about by a fundamanetal change in Iraqi culture. Stability is a goal that the US can contribute to, if the economy can be improved, and if the profits of Iraqi oil go directly to the people.

There is some optimism right now over the repair of a major pipeline from Kirkuk to Turkey. But long term improvement will require American lives and American dollars. The pipelines need far more protection than they are currently receiving. The insurgents are no fools; they understand the importance of oil to our goal of Iraqi stability, and they will deprive the Iraqis of their oil sales just to see us fail. America will also have to rely on the Iraqis to spend their oil money wisely; the Iraqi Oil Ministry has been rife with corruption, and millions of dollars were stolen by the Oil Minister during Paul Bremer's term as the viceroy of Iraq.

Before the US went to war, it was dogged with allegations that our motive was to suck the Iraq's oil wells dry to make Halliburton richer. In hindsight, our inability to suck the oil wells dry has prevented us from achieving stability, or anything else that could be considered a victory in Iraq.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Georgie and the Jets 

Members of Congress are getting pretty mad about the administration's misguided decision to sell advanced F-16CJ fighters to Pakistan. My favorite quote about the deal comes from Republican Dana Rohrabacher, who is a staunch advocate of our armed forces and a good friend of Sammy Hagar.

The F-16 is for fighting India, not terrorists. How can we in good conscience permit such a poor country that is without a healthcare or education system for its people spend money on a blue ribbon show-off weapon system like the F-16?

The $5 billion deal includes 18 firm sales of Block 50 F-16C's, options for 18 more, upgrades to 26 of Pakistan's F-16A's (built in the early 1980's,) and advanced munitions like the AIM-120. Al Qaeda has no Air Force to be shot down by these AIM-120 air-to-air missiles. The only forseeable target is our ally India.

At the same time Pakistan's dictator is beefing up his air force, Venezuela's fanatical president is doing the same. In a deal with Russia worth over a billion dollars, Hugo Chavez is using his country's petrodollars to buy 30 Su-30 fighters and 30 helicopters. The Su-30 is a two-seat version of the Su-27 Flanker fighter that has already been exported to China and India. It would appear, at least upon first glance, that Chavez is getting a better deal than Musharraf. However, the full cost of the Venezuelan deal hasn't been revealed, and it should also be noted that the Pakistani deal includes all sorts of munitions that probably aren't part of Venezuela's package from Russia.

The proliferation of advanced fighter aircraft to unstable states poses a unique challenge, and the US government must rise to neutralize potential threats. In the case of Pakistan, this is an instance where the administration has fumbled badly, caving into the demands of a country that has never been more than a lukewarm supporter of our war against the Islamists, and appeasing an enemy of our ally India. Congress has a duty to block this dangerous arms sale, but it will likely shirk its responsibilities in the name of rewarding Pakistan for perceived victories over our terrorist enemies.

For Venezuela, the best thing we can do is to stay mum and let Hugo Chavez waste his country's resources on jets that they don't need. Hugo Chavez tells his people that the United States will invade Venezuela. I don't know if Chavez believes this paranoid delusion, of if this is merely to scare Venezuelans into supporting him. Either way, we reinforce his propaganda by making a big deal about it. We should be sitting back, forcing Venezuelans to question why their president fears us so much and why he squanders the country's wealth in pursuit of airborne folly.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The Death of Christian Outrage 

The strong affections that fundamentalist American Christians have for Israel are both amazing and puzzling. These feelings of support have come to the forefront in the latest Israeli-Lebanese fighting. Within the halls of Congress, in the midst of a congressional resolution supporting Israel, we are seeing the lemming-like support for the Israelis and the dissolution of Christian unity.

Israel has every right to fight the Hezbollah fanatics in south Lebanon, to degrade the terrorists abilities to hurt the Israeli people. I personally want to see thousands of Hezbollah killed in as ruthless a manner possible. But Israel has reached too far in attacking the infrastructure of the Lebanese capitol. Many Lebanese Christians are being killed and wounded, even though many of them do not support the terrorists.

Nevertheless, America stands on the sidelines, and most American Christians don't seem to care one bit about the suffering of their brothers and sisters in Christ. President Bush would rather let the situation play out, in the name of weakening Hezbollah. Members of congress, for various reasons, are in lockstep with the Israeli government. The only voices of protest from the world of Christendom are Pope Benedict and Pat Buchanan.

Christendom has become so disjointed over the centuries, to the point where an external attack can't bring Christians to the common defense of their coreligionists. As Christians we must all pray for the safety of our brothers and sisters in Christ who must witness the devastation of Lebanon. Indeed, we should pray for a peaceful resolution to this conflict before any more innocent blood is spilled.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Peacekeepers vs. Peacemakers 

Tony Blair, Dominique De Villepin, and Kofi Annan think that international peacekeepers are the best way to solve the Israel-Lebanon standoff. Still, I can't help but have flashbacks of the Beirut Barracks Bombing of 1983.

Perhaps an international force might be able to forestall a major regional war, at least for the time being. But Hezbollah will not sit idly by while "infidel occupiers" sit in south Lebanon in the name of peace. The peacekeepers will be prime targets for terrorism, just as the Marines were in 1983. And because Hezbollah is the bastard child of Iran, the Iranians may use terrorism against the peacekeepers to increase their leverage (already significant) in negotiations over the nuclear program.

This highlights the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Peacekeeping assumes that there exists a state of peace that can be kept. The international force must be prepared to fight back with a ruthlessness that the UN is not capable of, because there is no state of peace to be kept. Peace can only be made once Hezbollah is disarmed. We should never discount the possibility that Hezbollah is being encouraged by the Iranian leadership, in hopes of igniting a larger regional war that destroys Israel.

At the same time, alternatives to the Blair/Annan proposal are hard to find. The Israelis want the Lebanese army to occupy south Lebanon. In an ideal world, this would be the best solution. Unfortunately, the Lebanese army is far too weak to make a difference. Hezbollah is a regional fighting force that is matched only by the Israelis. Perhaps Egypt and other Arab countries can send peacekeepers who will not provoke the same reaction that westerners will, but the problem of weakness still persists.

The current regional crisis will only be resolved two ways. The first is if Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria (to a smaller degree) decide to back down. The second is if Israel steps up its offensive and begins a ground invasion of south Lebanon. The first situation is ideal (but unlikely) in the short term. The second will be ugly, but it will at least be decisive.

Spirit of Discovery 

It seems that America just can't catch a lucky break. The world wants to believe that America is the root of all evil. America kills babies. America takes naked Iraqis and piles them up into a pyramid of butt-crack. America sucks the world's oil dry, and then covers the earth in pollution. For the rest of the world, the litany of America's sins is miles long. The good that America does, and the good we try but fail to do, will likely be interred with America's bones.

A notable exception is America's space program. It's a bold gesture that can never be ignored in the same way that building a school or renovating a hospital can. At the same time, manned spaceflight can't be spun as being malevolent. Manned spaceflight is benign and pure in comparison to most national endeavors.

When Discovery lifted off on Independence Day, the Team America theme music was playing in my mind. Here was a symbol, on our nation's birthday, of all that is good with America. Upon the successful completion of the mission, Discovery's crew and all of the NASA people who made it happen must be commended. Thank you for giving the doubters a reason to believe in America again.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

They Just Don't Write Protest Music Like They Used To 

Regardless of what the current generation of musicians think, I still think that the golden age of protest songs lies in the late 60's and early 70's. The catchy songs of old (Eve of Destruction, Run Through the Jungle, Fortunate Son) have yielded to overplayed and forgettable tracks like Green Day's American Idiot.

In case you haven't noticed, the subtlety and nuance of the past has been lost. Gone is the eloquence of Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, replaced by the blunt and direct style of American Idiot. Nine Inch Nails wanted MTV to display a large banner of President Bush during their Video Music Awards performance, just in case people didn't get the point of their The Hand That Feeds. And if there is any doubt about the meaning of Neil Young's "Living With War" album, it is all dispelled by the time the listener gets to the track Let's Impeach the President.

Perhaps the downfall of protest music was best summed up during a recent Chicago concert I attended. Prior to playing Dialogue Parts I & II, the song was introcuded as "We wrote this one back in 1972, and the more things change, the more they stay the same." Within the past week, we've been introduced to John Mayer's Waiting on the World to Change. While the song reminds me of the superior piece by Chicago, the message is totally different, written for a generation of slackers. Mayer seems to be saying, "Your generation has screwed things up. We'll wait for you to fix it, and then we'll realize our potential." Chicago would have never settled for that weak sauce. Chicago optimistically wanted its generation to change things, not waiting for the generation currently in power to fix their mistakes.

Today's generation of rockers who want to get political might be better off covering the songs of the past, as the recent attempts have been forgettable and depressing. Current rock stars would be best served by remembering the optimism of Chicago back in 1972:
We can make it happen
We can change the world now
We can save the children
We can make it better
We can make it happen
We can save the children
We can make it happen

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Hallowed Dead and The Vultures 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has, after three weeks, pulled an internet advertisement using images of flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base. It was not until this week that many Republicans, and even a few Democrats like John Spratt and Chet Edwards, voiced their opposition to the advertisement.

The use of these images in a political ad is despicable exploitation of America's war dead. I prefer to think that inside each coffin was some brave American who volunteered to be in our armed forces and made the ultimate sacrifice. Some of them may have supported the Democrats; some of them may wanted to end the war; and still others may not. Nobody should put words in the mouths of those who have died while defending our freedoms. We should honor them with respectful silence, not with partisan exploitation.

If Democrats want to make some kind of profound anti-war statement, there are plenty of alternate ways they can make their point. They can use disabled veterans who support them in their commericals; they can use footage of explosions and pissed-off Iraqis. But keep the vultures away from our hallowed dead.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Bombs over Beirut 

The most frightening thing about terrorism, and the thing that makes it most effective, is the enemy's ability to hide in plain sight while forcing anti-terrorist measures to take provocative actions against the civilian population. Nowhere is this more true than Lebanon in the wake of a Hezbollah attack that killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two more.

The Israelis have no means for getting their loved ones back. The only option they saw was to hold the entire Lebanese nation responsible for the actions of Hezbollah, which enjoys a power base in Shiite-controlled southern Lebanon. The Israelis are holding to classical air war theory, and using their airpower to attack the Lebanese economy. The Beirut airport has been cratered, undoubtedly impacting Lebanon's tourist indutry.

My concern lies with the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and with the Lebanese Christians who will suffer, even if they do not support Hezbollah. I want the Hezbollah kidnappers, as well as the Hamas kidnappers of Gilead Shalit, to capitulate: for the good of their own people, and out of compassion for the kidnapped soldiers, the innocent pawns in this deadly game.

Sometimes I think that the situation needs intermediaries to prevent it from spiraling out of control. Perhaps Egypt can try to get the captured soldiers back, and the US will lean on Israel to call off the offensives. The problem is that the captors want prisoners out of Israeli jails instead of peace, and they don't seem to be too concerned about the welfare of their own people who are being caught in the crossfire.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

International Man of Mystery 

Everyone loves a good mystery. In this case, I'm stumped by the identity of Bob Nowak's primary source in the Valerie Plame story.

I want to apologize beforehand for 1) giving this story more attenmtion than it deserves, and 2) publicly speculating and "accusing" people who may be totally innocent.

Bob Novak has given us three clues about his source:
--It's somebody in the White House
--It's not a "political gunslinger;" In other words, somebody who doesn't have a political agenda or partisan ax to grind
--It's not Karl Rove

Based on these clues, I suspect that Novak was tipped off by Andrew Card, President Bush's former Chief-of-Staff. Perhaps this would explain why Mr. Card left his position, even though his replacement wouldn't have had any effect on the president's poll numbers (this was the media's explanation, which I never really bought.)

Some day, the full story about this tempest-in-a-teapot will be known, just like the revelations about Mark Felt from last summer. I may yet be surprised by the time that the tale is told in full.

George Bush wusses out 

After four years of political pressures by the European Union, Amnesty International, the ACLU, the International Red Cross and others, President Bush is now caving. Captured al Qaeda fighters will now be given Prisoner of War status under the Geneva COnventions. Mr. President, your conservative base will eat you alive and shit you out for betraying the nation.

A reading of the Geneva Conventions gives no reason why captured al Qaeda fighters should be granted the full protections of Geneva. They fall into the same grouping that covered spies and saboteurs in previous conflicts: unlawful combatants. Geneva grants unlawful combatants no rights, in light of the fact that these fighters are violating the rules of war and cause excessive suffering. Any protections granted to unlawful combatants by their captors should be viewed as a gift of mercy.

Captured terrorists do not deserve the full protections of Geneva. To grant them that would be a reward for their atrocities.

Hopefully the last chapter 

After three years of controvery in the Valerie Plame non-event, Bob Nowak is finally breaking his silence. Seeing as how he initially broke the story, his word should be regarded as definitive. Novak's source was a Bush administration official but was not "a political gunslinger." Novak's intent was not one of retribution, but to expose Joe Wilson's fraud that he was sent on a mission by the Vice President (when he was shamelessly promoted by his wife.) Furthermore, the primary source will not be charged, apparently because Valerie Wilson doesn't meet the legal definition of a covert agent.

Now if only Bob Novak could get his job back at CNN by taking back his "hick" remark to James Carville...

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Hey, Ken Lay! Send my regards to Zarqawi! 

The nation really doesn't know how to respond to the death of former Enron CEO Ken Lay. For the thousands of people whose lives were devastated when Enron collapsed, any therapeutic benefits of seeing Ken Lay in prison are lost to them. For me, as an American taxpayer, I'm glad that our tax dollars won't be spent on Ken Lay's white-collar incarceration. Too bad Lay's partner in crime, Jeffrey Skilling, didn't follow through on his suicidal urges.

I wouldn't be surprised if the toxicology tests show that Lay induced his own heart attack rather than face prison. If that's not the case, then the fear and stress of his date with prison most likely triggered the massive coronary bleeding that broke out in his over-abused and under-utilized heart.

Spinning History 

Of all the former Clinton Administration officials who have stayed in the public eye, perhaps none is more odious than Madeline Albright. She made that clear last night by using North Korea's missile tests to condemn the Bush Administration.

In 1994, the Clinton White House was justifiably upset about North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Their solution was to send Jimmy Carter to negotiate with the late Kim Il Sung. The result was an incomplete deal that gave North Korea fuel and two light-water reactors while leaving the door open to a uranium-enrichment program.

During the second Clinton term, when Madeline Albright became Secretary of State, more concessions were made to the North with little in return; the Clinton spin was that the two Koreas were moving towards peaceful relations. The reality was that North Korea was biding its time, buying uranium centrifuges from Pakistan, re-engineering its missiles using Russian technology, and counterfeiting massive quantities of US currency.

President Clinton's supporters try to make it look like President Bush threw all of the treaties to the winds and forced Kim Jong Il into making the choices he made. This observation is not the observation of a rational or honest person. President Bush deserves a lot of credit for seeing that the emperor (Kim Jong Il) has no clothes. Kim cheated on every agreement his country ever signed. Furthermore, President Bush realizes that Kim Jong Il will never listen to Jimmy Carter, but he just might listen to Russia and China.

The current state of affairs is that we are pretty close to where we were in 1994. North Korea may have used its Plutonium to make a few nukes, but that claim has yet to be verified, and without a nuclear test the truth is still ambiguous. North Korea's missile program may even be set back before 1994 levels, because their massive investment in Russian technologies has resulted in a non-functioning ICBM. North Korea's fuel imports from the west have been cut off, and the light-water reactors were terminated.

Madelaine Albright and other defenders of Clinton-era policy towards North Korea are undermining the current efforts at resolving the crisis, and they are guilty of spinning history. In the end we must realize that Kim Jong Il is totally nuts, and that President Bush should not carry the blame for the actions of a mad dictator. Nobody forced Kim Jong Il to put nukes and ICBM's ahead of his people's welfare, but he is paranoid enough and desperate enough to do it anyways.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Joe Lieberman's Independence Day 

Senator Lieberman is facing a stiff primary challenge in Connecticut which many seasoned observers (especially Dick Morris) feel that he will lose. What's more, although Lieberman can run as an independent, it's doubtful that he can win if he loses his momentum in an unsuccessful primary.

Dick Morris's suggestion is that Senator Lieberman should drop out of the Democratic primary race now and immediately declare himself an independent. I would go one step beyond this if I were Lieberman. I would hold a press conference and explain to the people of Connecticut that I am not abandoing the Democratic party; the Democrats are abandoning me because the party is moving so far to the extreme left of the political spectrum. The party's leaders like Howard Dean and John Kerry want to leave Iraq as a failed state in the center of the middle east, which will become the terrorist anarchy that Afghanistan was in the 1990's. The Democrats are so blinded by their hatred for the president that they are willing to sacrifice the security of the American people so they can regain political power.

The dynamics of a three-way race in Connecticut will be intreresting to watch. Lieberman can still draw moderate Democrats away from the Democratic challenger, while taking Republicans with liberal social views from the Republican candidate. Assuming that Lieberman doesn't lose credibility in a failed primary race, he has a good shot of winning re-election. After all, Dick Morris's basic premise is that America is a centrist country that will reject extreme candidates in an election. Even if Lieberman loses as an independent, he still positions himself to be John McCain's running mate in 2008.

Tit for Tat 

The current Israeli-Palestinian showdown over Gaza has the potential of spiraling out of control. At the same time, we have to look at the history of this situation to determine root causes.

Palestinian militants have frequently rallied around the Palestinians who are currently rotting in Israeli prisons. Never mind the fact that many of them are terrorists with the blood of innocents on their hands. They are brothers in jihad, and the Palestinians want them back. How do they gain leverage they can use to negotiate a release? They kidnap an Israeli soldier. In this case, it was Corporal Gilead Shalit, abducted just over a week ago.

Israel responded with a show of force, invading south Gaza and hitting buildings belonging to the Hamas leadership. The offensive is designed to avoid casualties but send a psychological message to Hamas: if Corporal Shalit is not returned, your regime will be erased from the face of the earth. However, the effectiveness of the operation is questionable, because the Hamas political leadership (and even the military leadership in Damascus) does not effectively control all of the militants who fly the Hamas flag.

For that matter, Israel's seriousness was undermined by delays while waiting for the Egyptians to barter an end to the standoff. The best that came out of these efforts was an offer by Corporal Gilead's captors to exchange him for 1,000 militants currently in Israeli prisons. It speaks to the depth that the Israelis care about just one soldier while the Palestinians can't identify a sole prisoner that they would want in exchange for the corporal. At the same time, the Palestinians need quantity in their militias to respond to the Israeli army's quality.

My standard response during these kidnap negotiations is to start offing prisoners, undermining the leverage of the captors and giving them less to negotiate for. I am a cruel person; I doubt that even the Israelis would resort to such extreme tactics. If the corproal dies, I am certain that the Israelis will drown Gaza in a tidal wave of annihilation. At the same time, an all-out conflict may be exactly what the captors want, as it could force the all-out, apocalyptic conflict desired by Twelver Shiites like the Iranian president (who may be pullng the strings behind Hamas, for all we know.)

We should offer our prayers for Corporal Gilead Shalit, who is just another innocent pawn in this awful chess game that has killed so many for so long.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Why We Fight 

The anti-war left has been totally ecstatic about filmmaker Eugene Jarecki's Moore-ish documentary "Why We Fight," released on DVD last Tuesday, which blames profit motives and the nebulous "Military-Industrial Complex" for American wars. I have yet to see the film (I have no desire to see it, besides,) but the arguments behind the villification of the military-industrial complex run against logic.

When President Eisenhower coined the term "Military Industrial Complex" in his 1961 farewell address, he did not explicitly condemn this institution (despite what the left may say.) I view Eisenhower's remarks as a statement of observation, as the role of defense contractors had grown to proportions unprecedented in our history. Prior to World War II, America had been trapped in a cycle of maintaining a small standing army in peacetime, then rapidly mobilizing when a war came. The practice dated back to old colonial fears that a standing army would be the instrument of a tyrannical government.

Because the Soviet Union emerged as a threat to global security in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the US went against 170 years of history and maintained a large army in peacetime. The growing reliance on increasingly-sophisticated technology, especially long-lead items, ruled out any hopes of maintaining John C. Calhoun's "expansible army," or rapidly producing the items that our soldiers will need to fight.

Instead of being a warning, Eisenhower's observation was a call to use this new miltary-industrial complex responsibly. Looking back over the past forty-five years, the complex can actually be attributed with diminishing the profit motives behind warfare. By maintaining a wartime military posture during a time of peace, the complex is kept happy while the troops are kept safely at home.

During the first world war, the arms manufacturers were kept happy, first by selling arms to the belligerents, then by supplying the U.S. after April 1917. Such was life in the world before the complex. If we fast forward to the 1980's, which was a golden decade for the complex, we will see that while there were a few brushfire, short-duration conflicts, there were no large-scale American wars.

Today, while the US is fighting on two fronts, the military-industrial complex is a sick dog. Unregulated mergers galore during the 1990's have narrowed the field down to just a few large firms like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. The monopolistic behavior has led to a decline among revolutionary technologies being delivered from the major contractors to the warfighter.

A military-industrial complex is the only way the US can stand prepared with a professional military that is technologically superior to potential foes. It gives us the ability to strike back when our enemies give us reason to fight. After all, a corporate CEO never flew his jumbo jet into the World Trade Center. Americans are more reluctant to fight than the world believes, but seeing the craters at Ground Zero should make all real Americans mad enough to fight. We fight in the belief that it's the only way to make our world and our nation more safe, and we fight out of the belief that democratic nations will mot make war against each other.

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