Encouraging the Enemy Kills American Troops

Raise your hand if you think al-Qaida's deadly bombing in Baghdad yesterday had nothing to do with Harry Reid's "the war is lost" pep talk for the enemy? The Arab and Iranian press certainly had a good time with his comments. The soldiers seem to think increased violence and defeatism at home could be related.

Even if a US leader honestly was of the opinion that a war was lost, why would you say it? Somalia didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but our defeat there certainly emboldened our enemy, encouraging them to attack us. If the Democrats aren't going to join the fight for their civilization, is it at least too much to ask that they not actively fight for the enemy?

This is the danger of being so politically invested in defeat. If Iraq succeeds, the Democrats will face resounding defeats at the polls - and they know it. They need not have put themselves in this position, but they have through the language they've used. But they've gone so far over the line in their re-treaded Vietnam "America-causes-all-evil" rhetoric, that anything other than total failure there will eliminate their credibility for decades.

I'd rather the Republicans lose every election for the next 20 years than have us surrender in Iraq. The security of America comes first. It's unfortunate that the Democratic leadership can't say the same for their own strategies for power.

The Seattle Times Shills for the Enemy

Today the Seattle Times published one of the most ridiculous excuses for surrender in Iraq that I've ever seen. Using this single photgraph ((c) 2007, Seattle Times), seemingly without context, they opined:

The image in Tuesday's newspapers was of a sea of Iraqi flags, as tens of thousands of Iraqis paraded in Najaf against the occupation of their country by the United States. If anyone were looking for an Iraqi answer to the "surge," it is in that photo.

There are those in America who still believe that a measured increase in manpower could bring about order and safety in Iraq. To them, we say: Look at the photos from Najaf. There is what they think of your idea. Ponder that crowd. See how many flags are in it. Think of the last time you saw American flags flying everywhere — what event had just happened. That was 9/11. Recall how people felt then. That is Najaf now. "Death to America," the crowd said. Thousands said it.

There is no arguing with a force like that.

The piece went on to argue that leaving with our tails between our legs was perfectly honorable, and not a surrender at all because we weren't giving our troops up as prisonoers.

Daring to, in fact, "argue[] with a force like that," I wrote the following letter to the editor. I've included links in this version.

Editor, The Times:

Your absurd editorial, “The Flags of Najaf,” represents perfectly the complete disconnect between the reality of Iraq and the head-in-the-sand leftist media vision of it.

You paint a picture of a popular uprising, a spontaneous demonstration from everyday people who just want America to leave so they can get back to their lives and businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, you claim there were “tens of thousands” of demonstrators, when in reality, the numbers were closer to 5 – 7,000. Even the protesters themselves only were able to claim 10,000 – at most half of your claim. Either this is a sloppy oversight or flat dishonesty.

Second, you fail to mention that the demonstration was orchestrated by murderer Muqtada al Sadr from his hiding place in Iran, likely with logistical support and funding from Iran itself. This demonstration is actually a profound sign of this villain’s weakness, not strength. When the best he can do is get a few thousand people to waive flags as opposed to besting joint American/Iraqi forces in the field, things are definitely looking up. This was a failed attempt at enemy propaganda, and it takes a willful blindness to see it as anything other than that.

Finally, you laughably argue that leaving on a timeline demanded by those who have sworn to destroy our nation is not a surrender, as if Iraq is locked away in its own little hermetically sealed bubble. No serious person believes that leaving Iraq won’t have deadly consequences for the brave Iraqis still risking their lives to form their democracy, or for the safety of the United States itself. Iran’s fingerprints are all over the Najaf “protest” – does anyone seriously believe they aren’t a threat to us?

I urge the Times to stop going out of their way to shill for the enemies of America. Your readers deserve facts, not false jihadist propaganda.

I'm looking forward to their correction, of course.

Update: Shockingly, the Seattle Times didn't print my letter, or even include it in the "online only" letters. Oh, well. I suppose I understand, though - they had to make room for the guy informing us all about "Halliburton and the other fattening merchants of war" and "The unborn generations of Americans whose future has already been mortgaged by the Bush administration".

Journalism at its finest.

Walter Reed - A Casualty of the Political War

The emerging scandal surrounding the deteriorating level of care for wounded vets at Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a serious one, and one which even now seems not to be garnering the level of press attention it deserves. The reason for this, I'm convinced, is the heightened hyperbole of the political debate, and the cries of "Wolf!" coming from the left, and the smug, blind arrogance on the right.

Specifically, the left has been making charges against the Army's logistical, financial, and materiel support (this time around) since 2002. Not enough pay, not enough armor, not enough medical support. Some of them have been important and valid criticisms. Many (especially more recently) have been flatly ridiculous. But because the universal conclusion of these bomb throwers was, "So that means we shouldn't fight terrorists at all - run away!" the complaints were ignored for what in many cases they really were - an attempt to be anti-war and anti-military without sounding anti-war or anti-troop. Most telling was that almost none of them couched their critiques in terms of how to better improve the fighting efficiency and efficacy of the Army - They were nothing more than calls for pre-emptive American surrender. As a result, no one who took seriously America's crucial role in battling tyranny, fascism, and Islamo-terrorism world wide took any of the complaints seriously - even when they deserved to be soberly addressed.

Usually, I don't mind "partisanship" or "politicization." I usually consider those synonyms for "standing firm on principle" and "robust debate and democracy." But this is a case where the line has been crossed, and the team sport mentality causes substantial harm to those we can least afford to hurt - the volunteer bulwarks of freedom.

The absurdity of many of the left's complaints allowed the right - who "knew" that their status as the only serious party when it came to national security was secure - to ignore ALL the complaints. The were entrenched in power - why should they bother with introspection? Why should they give any ammunition to their political enemies, who they (not incorrectly) feared would only use it to further undermine the American war effort?

And so it was that the conditions at Walter Reed continued to deteriorate, American heroes were left to fight through the red tape of the world's largest HMO on their own, and those who have sacrificed for our freedom were given lip service instead of real help.

I'm glad that heads have rolled at the highest level. I'm glad that the Bush administration has begun taking action to remedy the situation. I hope that the Republicans have gulped enough humble pie to take the time to sort the serious complaints from the chaff thrown up by pacifist appeasers of tyranny. And I hope that Democrats, now under the weight of leadership, will tamp down the shrill and the dishonest, so they can better serve the American military.

But I'm not going to hold my breath. Thanks be to the bloggers and the few reporters who wouldn't let this problem simply melt into the roar of partisanship.

Separation of War Powers

A very good rundown/overview by Jeffrey Rosen on the Constitutional issues surrounding Congressional contemplations on Commander-in-Chief encroachment. (That's called alliteration, folks! Woo hoo!)

War and US History

A great perspective piece from Victor Davis Hanson on our national successes, failures, and political silliness in times of war and conflict.

Even our most successful wars witnessed far more lethal stupidity than anything seen in Baghdad. Thousands of American dead resulted from lapses like the Confederate surprise at Shiloh, Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and the German surprise attacks in the Ardennes.

America's Baghdad?

This story detailing the spiraling crime in New Orleans is a great example of democracy guaranteeing the people the government they deserve. This line struck me particularly:

Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.

Considering they re-elected the incompetent Ray Nagin as Mayor, who thought race-baiting and Bush bashing would be just as effective as filling busses with refugees before the storm, not to mention sending the coldly dishonest William Jefferson back to Congress, one wonders just how much pressure there was after the storm, either.

But taking a cue from the Congressional Democrats, I have a solution to this mess. We should set a date six months from now to withdraw all federal monetary, logistics, and personnel support from Louisiana. This will send a signal to the corrupt state and local officials that the American People's patience with incompetent government, rampant corruption, and out-of-control violence is not limitless. If we set a date to withdrawal, they will know they have to get on the ball themselves.

Any takers? Didn't think so. So why does this sound logical when people are talking about retreating from Iraq? And as far as I know, no Cajuns have threatened to blow up landmarks in New York, if only they were left alone by the feds long enough to hatch an appropriate plot.

Yes, yes, I know New Orleans is in our country, and Baghdad isn't. But isn't it a liberal argument that international borders are outmoded, and that humanitarian efforts should not be determined by geopolitical considerations?

The idea that withdrawing from Iraq will motivate the Iraqi democratically elected government as opposed to destroying it is a pipe dream, a preemptive salve to the consciences of the Democrats who can't bring themselves to face the fact that their policy proposals will result in wholesale slaughter for years to come. If they're OK with that, fine - but let's be honest about the results of our actions: Freedom lost, democracy stillborn, millions dead, thousands more dead in vain, and a victory which will embolden the Islamofascists for generations to come.

Watada Played Chicken - And Won (For Now...)

Yesterday's mistrial of Ehren Watada will no doubt be taught as a case study to new JAGs, new military judges, and base commanders for years to come as an example of how to most effectively botch what should have been a five minute court martial.

He missed movement. He admitted it. After assuring his superiors that it was about him, and would face the consequences quietly, he broke faith and began touring around the country bragging about his crime. He didn't just "speak out against the war" (which hundreds of soldiers HAVE done legally, without legal consequence), he urged soldiers to join him in open insurrection against the elected civilian leadership of the military, and did it in public. He attempted to foment a coup. By declaring that merely getting on a plane to Iraq would be a war crime, he accused the hundreds of thousands who have served there of being war criminals. I personally witnessed his remarks, as did thousands of others. Many of his proud admissions were recorded on videotape (posted on Watada's own website, no less!), and made available to the court officers.

But he didn't understand what he was admitting to. Really! Right...

His intended defense was clearly inapplicable, and his activist lawyer (who I think cares far more about being a liberal activist than being a realistic advocate for his client) no doubt knew that Supreme Court precedent would clearly bar the judge from considering an "illegal war" defense. (Parker v. Levy, et al.)

Why would the prosecution make a deal? Why would they sign a sloppy factual stipulation - which they KNEW would for all intents and purposes be an admission of guilt - without making it clear to the defendant that such a stipulation could be used as a confession? Why did the judge, knowing its importance, not question him on the "meeting of the minds" before the jury had heard the Government's case in chief? In fact, why did the prosecution make a deal at all? Did they not have enough videotape? Did they need him to urge a military led rebellion at a few more "peace" rallies? Was he seriously going to be able to argue that he hadn't missed movement after all, or that he REALLY meant to go but simply forgot to set his alarm that morning?

The sad truth is that the most powerful military history has ever known is being cowed by the likes of Sean Penn. Despite the fact that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech or political opposition to policy, the DoD is deathly afraid to be accused of creating a political prisoner. A more senior and experienced officer should have been appointed to prosecute the case - one who would less intimated by the high profile and public nature of this trial. And there should have been no deal struck unless it included an out and out guilty plea. It's not as if the evidence was ever in any meaningful dispute.

Indeed, from the absurd double jeopardy arguments now being made, one has to wonder if this wasn't the strategy all along. Sign a stipulation that could later be used as a dodge. That a lawyer who specializes in defending draft dodgers and deserters, a loose ethical foundation is to be expected. But still...

For their timidity, the military officers overseeing this debacle have guaranteed that the media will shield all future deserters from punishment, and have made the maintenance of a well disciplined force that much harder. Their last hope is to do it the right way in March, if they haven't blown it completely already. If that fails, then they should order him to re-join his unit, or another one in Iraq, wait for him to refuse again, and then try him for the second refusal. We'll see if the military leadership has enough courage to tell all the tens-of-thousands of war criminals currently in Iraq that Watada's slander of them won't go unpunished.

Ehren Watada is not a coward in the sense that he is any more or less afraid than anyone else to head into a combat zone. I truly don't believe that's the case. But he is a moral coward in that he has made his bed, and now refuses to lie in it. His central argument is that no one should be held accountable for their actions, as long as they really, really mean it, and that civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest that, when undertaken for a really good reason, should be protected. And that just isn't the case.

If he were a man of moral courage, he would have plead guilty from the start, saying he'd rather sit in jail than do something he felt was illegal. He probably would have been given a suspended sentence and an Other Than Honorable discharge, but even if not, he would be accepting the consequences of his decision. But instead he ran behind the skirts of socialist anti-American activists, seeking to avoid negative consequences at all costs while courting celebrity political clout - all at the expense of the Constitution he swore to uphold, his country he swore to defend, and his fellow soldiers he swore to bear true faith and allegiance to.

This is not a matter of conscience. It is a matter of honor and of law. Watada has no respect for either.

Iraq vs. Darfur - Just What Is a Worthy Call to One's Conscience?

These pictures, taken at the University Temple United Methodist Church across the street from the UW law school, illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy, hypocrisy, and vapidity of the left's foreign policy worldview:

Around the country this weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in favor of the killing of countless Iraqis - the certain outcome if we were to retreat redeploy from that country. Whatever their signs may have said, it was clear what they wanted. They marched in favor of American defeat, in favor of the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, in favor of Fascist Iran's geopolitical goals. They literally spat at an OIF veteran who dared to disagree with them. Why? Because Bush lied about WMDs, because our presence there only creates more terrorists, and because we're only there for the oil anyway. (That none of these claims are in any way supported by facts have no impact, remember.) They claim to be anti-war, but the truth is that they don't care about war unless the US has something to do with it. Or at least, they care far less about mass killings than about being anti-Bush. A call to one's conscience indeed.

Why are the Christians in Darfur more worthy of being saved than the Kurds or Shi'ites were under Saddam's Iraq? Why is the sectarian violence (some could say civil war) in the Sudan worthy of sending American troops to battle al Qaeda, IEDs, and an "endless war" in a country without any real government, when at the same time, it is a moral imperative that we guarantee the same deadly results in Iraq by withdrawing immediately?

Because of the fact that Russia, France, India, and China buy substantial supplies of their oil from the same Sudanese government which is happily allowing the killings to continue (much as those governments prevented action against Saddam for the same reasons), why do they imagine the UN will do anything? And since it's by now obvious that these three permanent vetoes will prevent any kind of action in the Sudan, does this "Crisis of Conscience" require that we go in unilaterally? Or is intervention only morally justified if we can get a corrupt international debating club to sign off on it?

SaveDarfur.org, the organization the banner asks us to donate to, has four goals:

• Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peackeeping force already in Darfur.
  
• Push for the deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force.
  
• Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for aid delivery.
  
• Establish a no-fly zone.

How are these things any different than what we have tried and are trying to do in Iraq? How will they NOT result in US soldiers being killed, or in "distracting" us from the "real" war on terror? Wouldn't we be invading a sovereign nation that isn't a threat to us? There's no WMDs there! Wouldn't we just recruit more terrorists who can claim we're oppressing the Muslims because we are intervening on behalf of the Christians? Wouldn't we open ourselves up to accusations that we're only there to take the oil for ourselves? What's SaveDarfur.org's exit strategy? If Bush is an incompetent buffoon who only makes things worse for the locals by his military interventions, why are they demanding he lead the charge? Are these people Chickenhawks for advocating Darfur intervention without volunteering to go there themselves?

Why is it that being a super power means we can only use force when it's NOT related to our national interests? Even if the absurd conspiratorial accusations against Bush lying and terrorizing his way into Iraq were true, how do people who think it is worth American lives to prevent mass sectarian violence not demand we stay there?

There are no answers to these questions, of course. Darfur is hip, Iraq is not. That's it. That's the real difference. And Darfur has the added bonus of "never going to happen" because of French, Chinese, and Russian interests there. Which means the high school idealists, college-know-it-all hippies, academics, and other assorted activists can feel good about "making a difference" without ever having to face the consequences which come with the best intentioned humanitarian interventions.

I would love to intervene in the Sudan. I wish we had the military to do it. Unfortunately, our military is too small to solve every world problem at once. So how about we finish solidifying our victories for freedom and human rights against murderous oppressors where we already are first? Don't think success in Iraq will be able to be ignored by the Sudanese thugs who know they're next on the radar...
"Blessed are the Peacemakers" indeed. Too bad neither this church, nor the "anti-war" crowd, nor the defeatists in Congress can claim such a title.

How Do We Measure Troop Morale?

Much has been made of this Military Times poll from last December, which purportedly shows a drop in support for the way the Iraq war has been prosecuted. Senator Webb even referred to it in his attack on the war in his State of the Union response (although he didn't specifically cite it). The tiny handful of actively engaged anti-war activists in uniform are given as much press time as they can handle. So we're about to face a Carter-era crisis of troop defection, necessitating either a full scale retreat or a draft, right?

I don't think so.

The media (2003) has been banging this drum (2004) for years, now (2005), based on anecdote, inaccurate polls, and wishful thinking. What's more, I don't doubt that there's a hell of a lot of folks in uniform (a substantial majority, in fact) who wouldn't much rather be at home raising families than being shot at and bombed by fascists. I'm quite concerned about the effect on Reservists, who I think have been overused in a system still designed for a WWII type mobilization effort. And there's no question, I think, that we have too small of an overall force, that our people are spread too thin, and as a consequence, we are not as flexible and are more vulnerable now than is prudent.

But to the narrower question of morale. How to judge it? Polls of military members are difficult to conduct scientifically. The phrase, "A [griping] sailor is a happy sailor" is a truism older than Noah, which makes the results difficult to decipher. And the various press reports are hopelessly biased.

So let's just count heads. If they're staying, it probably means they're generally optimistic, and think they're being treated fairly. In an economy boasting 4.5% employment, with veterans even less than that, it's not like they can't take that training and get a better deal. So what is it?

They're joining. And they're staying. In ever increasing numbers. Higher than pre-9/11 rates. Voting with their feet. And that's a poll you can track with certainty.

Marine veteran W. Thomas Smith, Jr. explains why the retention and recruitment rates aren't reflective of the doom and gloom picture of imminent collapse distributed by the MSM:

What the numbers do suggest, and what we who have worn the uniform of the United States have always known, is that soldiers and sailors gripe. They get frustrated like everyone else. They blow off steam. And they have been doing so since armies first marched and navies sailed. They complain about the food (even when it is superb). They dismiss the equipment as being worthless (even when it is the best in the world). And they sometimes grumble that their leaders are stupid (though those leaders might be tactical masters on the battlefield). The unhappiest and most rebellious of those who gripe are also the most vocal in their griping.

To me, this doesn't validate or invalidate the Iraq policy per se. If war policy was based on how cushy we can make the lives of soldiers, I'm not so sure we'd be speaking English today. But undoubtedly, the probability of victory is a powerful retention motivator, while certainty of defeat would drive those numbers down. And that gives me a lot of cause for optimism.

Who Should Be Allowed to Make Policy?

By now, pretty much everyone has recognized that Senator Boxer was wrong (and beyond stupid both politically and logically) in implying that Secretary Rice couldn't understand the implications of her policy decisions because she doesn't have children. But like John Kerry's "botched joke," Senator Boxer's comment was simply a Freudian slip that showed the end result of the absurd logic employed by many of the anti-war activists.

This is an issue that's always been particularly irritating to me, from the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan (which ignores pro-war mothers), to the defenders of draft dodgers who only now demand that a President have served before he makes national security decisions. This absurd and un-democratic line of thinking is evident with every "chickenhawk" argument ever made. But I was moved to write today by a letter to the editor in today's Seattle Times which condemned Senator McCain for being pro-war despite him having a son serving in Iraq right now. Apparently, even if you DO have a "personal stake" in the Iraq war, you're only allowed to make the "correct" (liberal and selfish) decision.

So - if you're for the Iraq war, and have a son or daughter serving in Iraq (no one has children serving - those in Iraq are adults who have their own votes, opinions, and freedom to volunteer or not), you're exploiting your children for political gain. Pro-war and no kids, you're a cold hearted villain making decisions without understanding the impact on "real people." Pro-war and a veteran? Cynically exploiting your service for political gain. Pro-war and not a vet? Chickenhawk.

Of course, these are just the opposite on the other side of the isle. Anti-war with a family member in a combat zone? "Absolute moral authority." Anti-war with no family involved? Brave souls speaking out and "taking their democracy back." Anti-war and a vet? "How DARE you question a war hero!!!" Anti-war and not a vet? Well, they're speaking out for the soldiers who aren't allowed to because they've been silenced by their military-industrialist slave masters.

So how about this? Let's follow the "Chickenhawk!" shouters down their rabbit hole, and adopt their logic. Only veterans vote on national security issues, or parents whose soldier children are still minors and can't yet vote. Direct family members of active duty members get one half-vote, since they are impacted, but aren't risking their own lives. (I wonder how many hours the current Democratic Party would survive under this scheme - the shouters should be careful what they ask for...)

And then lets extend that to everything. Only taxpayers are allowed to vote on any issue which involves government expenditures, with more votes granted to those who pay more taxes. Only property owners are allowed to vote on eminent domain rules. Only people with children are allowed to vote on education policy.

And it doesn't need to just be about voting. We can have separate issue-specific legislatures, where only people directly affected by those issues are allowed to run for office. Only judges who have been through divorces can be on the bench in family court, only those with a history of drug use can prosecute drug crimes, and only convicted criminals can be Public Defenders. Better, let's require our judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to all have a personal stake in the outcome of the case they're involved with.

Or we can recognize that ALL Americans have a personal stake in national security, tax policy, education, and objective jurists. We can all recognize that "You don't know what it's like, man!" is a cowardly way to avoid having to make a hard policy decision yourself, and is "logic" best left on the playground. It has no place in the editorial page of the newspaper, or in the chambers of Congress.

Choices and War

Exactly.

It's frustrating that we've lost sight of who has what choices in this war. We didn't choose to fight it. We CAN'T choose NOT to fight it, except by surrendering and converting wholesale to Shariah Strength Islam. ("Peace" activists take note - if "peace" is the absence of fighting, and that "peace" is the ultimate "good," then this is the option for you. Enjoy your gay marriages and nose rings under Shariah. But for my part, I would rather be a free man at war than a slave and a prisoner at peace, as would most Americans. Some things are more important than "peace," and far worse than "war.")

The only choices we have are where, when, and how we fight. We currently control those three factors absolutely - we can set our table anywhere we please, but we have to set it. If we refuse to make a choice, we'll merely be surrendering that choice to our enemies.

After 9/11, we absolutely made the correct choice on the when. It was now, or it was later - and it wasn't going to be cheaper later. After every Jihadist attack prior to 9/11, we kept choosing "later" - and the result was a MORE entrenched enemy with MORE recruits who had seen us run away time after time. Iraq may rally new jihadists to the cause, but no more so than did Somalia, the first WTC attack, Khobar Towers, Beirut, USS Cole, or even our unfinished business in Gulf War I. For some odd reason, we're turning to the same geniuses who kept choosing "later" as the Jihadists grew in strength until they could attack us here at home, and once again, those "realists" are saying "later." What are they waiting for? A dirty bomb in LA?

Indeed, if Iraq is in fact a cause celebre that attracts more fighters, it is only because of the perception that we are losing and on the brink of running again - helped in no small part by the defeatist left and their anti-Bush media enablers who have been declaring "Quagmire!" from the beginning. This report itself is already rallying them on with its hung-headed hand wringing and non-solutions to the cancer of Global Jihad.

The where was tougher - Afghanistan was the obvious choice, but with so many local governments eager and willing to keep supplying our enemies, we couldn't simply stay holed up in Central Asia. You can't win "Whack-A-Mole" with a single mallet. And so our choices were Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, the Sudan, etc. - or the United States. It could be that Iraq wasn't the best option in 2002-3, although I still think it was. Today, we seem intent on choosing the United States, for if we pull back behind our borders with our tails between our legs, that is where we will fight it. Anyone who seriously doubts this, and thinks our enemy will adopt a "live-and-let-live" policy, simply hasn't been paying attention.

But it is the how that is the most crucial. From the start, we have fought hobbled. Afraid of what dictators, Europe (who has abrogated their military responsibility in the world to us while surrendering their cultures at home), or corrupt UN officials might say about us, we refused to shoot looters, refused to fire on mosques that are being used as firing towers, and released detained terrorists who must then be re-captured on the battlefield. We ignored Iran and Syria's active involvement against us. We were RE-active. Against a culture which above all respects strength, we chose to be weak and half-hearted. Worse, that's the AGGRESSIVE half of our government - the rest worked as hard as they could to feed the enemy propaganda, assure them we could not win if only they would be a little more patient...

The American People were right last month to repudiate our tepid how of warfighting (which would change very little even if we followed the Baker-Hamilton report to the letter). Do this for real, or don't do it at all, they said, and as usual, the wisdom of the electorate is worthy of our ear. But unfortunately, we cannot chose to simply not do it at all, which leaves only to DO IT RIGHT. We must unequivocally crush the enemy first, and only then rebuild his cities and governments.

There is no exit strategy but through total victory, no "peace" until every last Jihadist is dead or captured and Islamo-Fascism is as universally repudiated as Nazism. To accept less is to ensure an "Iraq" every ten years or so, each time leaving us weaker and our enemies stronger, until our culture and freedoms are lost to attrition after millions are slaughtered in the name of "pure" Islam both here and abroad. The liberal refrain has been how evil we were to support Afghani mujahadeen or Iraq in the 80s (ignoring the more severe threat at the time from the USSR), and how it led to today's problems. Those same liberals who now demand we adopt the Baker plan have apparently changed their minds, demanding we support Iran and Syria if they'll help up "stabilize" the region. What will they say in 10 years when we're battling a nuclear armed Iran? You guessed it - it'll be Bush's fault for not listening.

Unfortunately, if we adopt the Baker "plan," we choose less - along with the consequences that go with it. And we will have given our remaining choices to our enemy. Be certain they well care far less about UN protocol or NGO admonitions on human rights violations, and that they will not give anything less than their all. It must be admitted that this choice is indeed a path to peace, but not a peace worth having.

The Watada Report

Well, just came back from the Ehren Watada event. Wow. There are simply no words of invective strong enough to adequately convey an accurate picture of this guy, or of the hippies, socialists, and (I’ll say it) anti-Americans who were there to laud this criminal. Somewhere, members of al Qaeda are laughing. Going in, I strongly suspected he joined planning to desert like this as a political stunt. Having heard him speak, I am now certain of it.

The absurdities of his legal claims have already been discussed on this blog. Indeed – there was really no attempt to refute them at the event (more on that below).

The event was carefully controlled and orchestrated from the beginning. There was no panelist who would be the least bit critical of his actions. There was no opportunity for direct questioning – questions had to be written on a small slip of notecard and passed to the moderator, where they were subsequently censored and/or modified to soften the ball. More on that in a bit. The bottom line is that this was an event supposedly about the courage to state an unpopular point of view, but done in a liberal echo chamber with no opportunity to challenge the speaker.

Said echo chamber was surreal. The aged hippies had come out of the woodwork. Next to me sat a woman with one of those “united socialist” newspapers, printed complete with red ink. She was writing a letter to Watada praising his courage and “real patriotism,” and pledging her support.

[The post continues in the comments section below...]

"Conscience" vs. National Defense - 1st LT Watada's Absurd Excuses

As you may know, Ehren Watada is the commissioned Army officer who has refused to deploy to Iraq as ordered, and now face court martial for missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer. His defense against the charge of "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer" is based on going out on the anti-war speaking circuit and encouraging other soldiers to refuse to go.

Our esteemed University is putting on a "panel" discussion, starring Lt. Watada himself. From the risible title - "A Matter of Conscience" - you can guess just how diverse this panel will be. The event is this Wednesday at 3:30 - I encourage all to attend.

Fortunately for the country, and UNfortunately for Watada and his ACLU enablers, the law is not on his side. This isn't the first time an activist and/or coward has offered this type of excuse. Adam Ake, a 3L here and a Major in the Army National Guard, has put together a very powerful outline explaining the state of the law in this case for the Military Law Association. With his permission, I've reproduced it in the comments section below. Well worth a read.

To this I can only add these thoughts. If a military member (and a junior one at that) is allowed to make his own judgments on the veracity or even legality of policy made by elected civilians, then those elected civilians no longer have control over the military. That conclusion portends only two outcomes - either the military establishment begins acting on its own and we have a coup, or the military is emasculated and could no longer be counted upon to defend American interests. Make no mistake - Watada's backers are too short sighted to fear the first outcome, while working hard to ensure the second.

My Fear

When Professor Turner spoke Monday, he talked about the Khmer Rogue bashing babies' heads against trees when they ran out of bullets. Last night, I read one of Ronald Reagan's drafts of a radio commentary about the brutality of the Cambodian communists. Millions died who didn't need to die, because the United States abandoned the good guys. Americans ignored it, and now even otherwise well-educated law students ignorantly snicker that Communism could be a threat to anyone. But bin Laden took notice, and is counting on a repeat of our cruel and self-defeating indifference.

The Democrats were elected on the promise that while they would change course in Iraq, they would not abandon the effort. This is what America voted for - if the Dems betray that directive of the people, they will doom millions of human beings to the most brutal of deaths, send a clear message that America can't be counted on, and invite destructive Jihadist aggression on our own shores and against our interests.

I trust the American people, but I'm worried the Democrats will misinterpret their mandate and repeat this awful mistake:

It was a Democrat-controlled Congress that decided to sink free South Vietnam, by cutting off its supplies even of rifle ammunition after the peace treaty signed by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. It was Congress that ordered all U.S. bombing halted -- air strikes that could have made mincemeat of the regular North Vietnamese army, marching openly along the South's main highways in 1974. The U.S. never lost the war militarily, and could easily have won it without self-imposed restraints. But the enemy was more ruthless, and the allied will to fight evaporated.

Why did it evaporate? For the same reason then as now. The "alternative America", ruling from its ivory towers in academia, the media, and the entertainment industry, could not understand why anyone should die for any cause at all; could not distinguish between freedom and tyranny; and instinctively sided with any enemy of what they fancifully imagined to be "American imperialism".

My 21st birthday happened to coincide with the final evacuation of Saigon. From my modest experience on the ground in that country, I knew what was coming next. The boat people were no surprise to me. I think that was the day I fully realized, in adult terms, that evil often prevails in this world. So this is nothing new.

The fate that will befall all those millions of courageous Iraqis, showing the dye on their fingers after they had voted -- in defiance of all the terror threats -- will not come as a surprise to me, either. They are being sold out, as the Vietnamese were before them. But the consequences of abandoning Iraq will come home to the United States and the West, in a way Vietnam never touched us.

Will we act to preserve the people of the region we promised not to abandon? For the sake of humanity, freedom, and our own self preservation, I pray we do.

The War - History, The Enemy, and The Stakes

This is one of the best explanations I've seen of why we're in Iraq, why it's so important to stay, and why who we vote for tomorrow matters.

John Kerry Should Be Thanked For His Honesty

I was so happy to see John Kerry's remarks yesterday about how if you're stupid, you get "stuck in Iraq."

Not that I wasn't massively offended. Here, I play both my veteran card and my from-the-South-Dakota-trailer-park card. The Navy was a great opportunity for me, but it certainly wasn't my only one. And ultimately, I chose to serve even after a really negative ROTC experience because I decided I owed my country my service. And so my very first reaction to John Kerry's latest bits of wisdom includes words and phrases better suited to the ship than to public writings. He is truly beneath contempt.

But then I realized that this was preferable to the pander about how everyone "supports the troops" (a phrase almost without meaning). Because the bottom line is that Kerry doesn't, and neither do the liberals he was appealing to at the California rally or at his hole-digging press conference here in Seattle the next day. The far left Phil Angeledes supporters and Kerry himself hold military people in deep, deep contempt. It's not universal from liberals, but it's pretty darn close. I saw it all the time from people in college, and even back home - "Why would you join the military? You can do other things!"

This morning I was flipping around the radio on my way to school, and turned to Hippy Radio to see what they had to say about it. Predictably, Stephanie Miller said Bush was the one who should apologize to the troops. Yawn. But then she took a call from a listener that insisted Kerry was right, and that if they'd just poll the troops they'd see that they all were forced to join the military because they didn't have any other options. The host agreed, but then quickly pointed out that wasn't what Kerry REALLY meant. Right.

Even worse, the military are actually much better educated than their civilian peers. Not only was he a jerk, he's just factually wrong.

Last night on Hannity and Colmes, John McCain was visibly angry in denouncing Kerry's comments. And remember, this is from the guy who was mad about the Swift Boat Vets.

The bottom line is that they believe that the military is the last refuge for the dumb who couldn't get into Community College, because the vast majority of liberals wouldn't even think about joining the military. I believe they're sincere when they say they "support the troops," but they say that like they say they support infants. There's no respect there, and there's an insulting ignorance about the men and women currently serving, why they're serving, and their education levels. And worse, they think "supporting the troops" means to keep them home at all costs. You can't tell me Eisenhower didn't support the troops, but they were less well equipped, trained, treated, educated, and led than our soldiers are now.

Kerry claims he meant to insult the President, not the soldiers. I believe that, too. But the Vietnam "Baby killer!" shouting anti-war protester he came of age as reflexively came out instead. It's hard to contain your true beliefs constantly. This was the ultimate Freudian slip.

Kerry said that you're "crazy" if you think that "a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there[.]" Well, call me crazy, but Kerry did just that, and has done it his entire adult life. (He actually did both in this case, so his statement isn't technically wrong.) But remember, this isn't the first time Kerry slagged active troops in combat zones as a veteran. Anyone remember his completely false allegations of war crimes and "in the manner of Jen-jis Kahn" Senate testimony? The MSM doesn't. How about his more recent comments that American troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children? Kerry criticizes troops all the time. He's arrogant and elitist, and anyone that didn't go to Yale or marry a bajillionaire ketchup baron is naturally less smart than he is, which includes pretty much everyone in uniform.

But again, I'm happy. This election is about the base, and now the base is mad. POed, in fact. Michael Savage, who has spent the last few months explaining how no one should vote for Republicans, either, was on the war path yesterday, saying the Kerry comments were a "personal turning point" for him on for whom - or if - he should vote. Millions of others, unhappy with Republicans and with no particular reason to vote against Democrats, surely feel the same.

Dick Morris has more numbers:

Among independents, the percent that plan to vote Republican has risen from 15 percent on Sept. 22 to 23 percent on Oct. 11 to 26 percent on Oct. 24. While independents are still voting for more Democrats, it'’s only by 38-26 compared with 38-15 last month.

But as the Republican Party has gained among Independents, it is losing its base. Republicans who plan to vote Republican in 2006 have dropped from 75 percent on Sept. 22 to 72 percent on Oct. 11 to 68 percent on Oct. 24! Obviously the impact of the Foley scandal has yet to diminish among the morality-minded Republican base.

Foley who? Morris wrote this before Kerry's political suicide vest went off.

This may well have solidified the GOP get-out-the-vote advantage, and will serve to retain the Congress for the Republicans. I hope it does, and I hope further that this puts the exclamation point on the end of John Kerry's contemptible political career.

UPDATE: Here's the forced "apology." Too little. Too late.

What's Really Happening In Iraq? And Does America Still Have the Will to Win?

Unquestionably, the violence and seeming endless chaos in Iraq is disheartening to those of us who understand its central importance in the global war on Islamo-Fascism. Failure now - whether due to poor execution or simply surrendering - would have catastophic consequences to our nation and to the world. But is there really no end in sight? Or is there reason for hope?

It is important to remember that most of us (including most politicians) see Iraq through the Western Media, an overwhelmingly liberal conglomeration that is stridently anti-Bush and anti-Republican. This media has now stooped to unfettered airing of Fascist propaganda, consequences to the nation be damned, because they think it will hurt the GOP. And even without their political bent, when was the last time we heard a report on Iraq politics? Successes of any kind? Ba'athist death stats alongside the American death numbers? Most reporters never leave the green zone, and face abduction and beheadings if they do. No thinking person can or should take most news reports from Iraq simply at face value, or think they represent the whole of the situation in that country.

Articles like this one from Amir Taheri give me hope:

Iraq today is the central battlefield in the global war between two mutually exclusive visions of the future. Yet the jihadists now know they can't win on that battlefield. After three years of near-daily killings, often in the most horrible manner imaginable, they've failed to alter Iraq's political agenda. Nor have they won control of any territory or even broadened their constituency.

The jihadists have suffered thousands of casualties, with many more captured by Coalition forces and the new Iraqi army and police. Despite more than 120 suicide operations, and countless attacks on civilian targets, the jihadists have been on the defensive since they lost their chief base at Fallujah last year. Their strategic weakness: They can't translate their killings into political gains inside Iraq.

They kill teachers and children, but schools stay open. They kill doctors and patients, but hospitals still function. They kill civil servants, but the ministries are crawling back into operation. They kidnap and murder foreign businessmen, but more keep coming. They massacre volunteers for the new army and police, but the lines of those wishing to join grow longer.

They blow up pipelines and kill oil workers, but oil still flows. They kill judges and lawyers, but Iraq's new courts keep on working. They machine-gun buses carrying foreign pilgrims, but the pilgrims come back in growing numbers. They kill newspaper boys, but newspapers still get delivered every day.

All Americans must understand that the enemy intends to use our media and our perceived soft impatience against us. Declarations of defeat or calls to retreat behind our porous borders must be seen in the context of this Jihadist goal. Those Americans and other Westerners who make such proclamations do not understand the central strategy of attrition our enemy has employed since Osama was first emboldened by our flight from Somalia. Remember, this strategy worked against us in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Yemen, in Beirut, in Iran (until Reagan), in Somalia, and even in pre-9/11 Iraq. Either we left completely, or gave only token responses.

Not since 1945 have we shown the collective will as a nation to truly defeat a world-wide enemy. Even when Reagan inspired us to victory in the Cold War, he did it with a reluctant Congress and a hostile press drug along behind. Some Democrats and that same press, bitter over the public's choosing of Reagan over them, are now seeking their revenge in what I charitably assume they must not know would be a devastating pyrrhic victory. They cannot see past Bush, and so they are blind to the greater needs of American security. And in part because Bush lacks so many of Reagan's gifts, millions of Americans are happy to follow down this unthinking and unthinkable path.

Is our enemy right? Have we given up?

America is the only nation with the power, strength, and influence to stop the millions and millions (and growing) adherents to the Jihadist Culture of Death, dedicated to world wide imposition of Sharia law. Europe is under assault, has already all but capitulated. Israel has lost their first war. The UN is in the pocket of the enemy, and Russia and China care nothing for American safety. We stand alone.

But just as we are the only nation who can win this clash of civilization against barbarism, this conflict is also ours - and ours alone - to lose. Far too many of us are bent on doing just that, even while blind to the peril they are putting us all in.

I am still optimistic that our great Republic and our Constitution have many more centuries of life, and that this grave threat shall be overcome by the forces of good. But I have for many years now given up the notion that victory is a foregone conclusion.

It's up to us. All of us. Up to CNN not to demoralize us with needless and newsless snuff films; up to Republicans to stop being stubborn and be more flexible and more ruthless; up to Democrats to shake of their hippy past and stop letting the enemy use them for their rhetoric, or to think more cargo inspections will keep us safe; up to our security agencies not to leak classified information to the press for any reason. We don't need to grow victory gardens or ration rubber, but we do need to stand up and say to the Islamo-Fascists with one voice that we will stay in Iraq because they are there, and will not leave until they are gone. And we will stay in Afghanistan because they are there. And we will stay on Iran's case because their belligerence is incompatible with Democracy's survival.

It's up to us. Can we do it?

The Anti-Federalist Society and "Fair Trials"

Lately I've seen a couple of pieces in various press sources about our erstwhile rivals and student office mates, the American Constitution Society, and thought they were worth commenting on.

The first is this amusing piece in the Weekly Standard about how imitation of the Federalist Society is the sincerest form of flattery, along with some tongue-in-cheek suggestions on how to further capitalize on more of FedSoc's good ideas.

But second and far less amusing is their participation in an event advertised in Eat the State, an angry socialist rage-against-the-MAN,-man! rag of little note and picked up for its laughter value. But the events they advertise are wider and more main stream in scope. The one I'm talking about in particular is The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, also sponsored by such self-styled non-partisan, Islamo-fascist apologist luminaries as the ACLU and Amnesty International.

Here's the description of the event:

The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld is an educational event that will feature nationally recognized speakers and dramatized trial testimony. Speakers include Jennifer Harbury, author of Truth, Torture and the American Way; Ron Slye, Professor in International Comparative Law, Seattle University School of Law; and Pramila Jayapal, Founder and Executive Director of Hate Free Zone Washington. Trial vignettes will include stories by detainees and the cross-examination of Donald Rumsfeld. Please join us for this historic event and help us hold senior U.S. officials accountable for facilitating torture. Through this event, we will call on the U.S. Government to:

(1) close all torture camps,

(2) provide due process rights to all detainees, and

(3) prosecute war crimes.

It's ironic to me that they're calling for (what I can only assume are) full US Constitutional due process rights for non-citizen terrorists captured on the field of battle while denying the Secretary of Defense his own. Look again. The "trial" they're putting on only has prosecution witnesses and a prosecution cross examination. There is no defense direct examination, witnesses, context, re-direct, cross examination of the "victims" of "torture" who are the accusers, jury of peers, etc.

And there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the outcome will be.

What is an event where a person's guilt is pre-determined, where he has no lawyer, where he cannot confront his accusers, where he cannot appeal to his peers, and where he cannot call witnesses in his defense?

This is not a trial, but a show trial - a well-worn method used for centuries by despots who wish to claim legal and moral legitimacy in extra-legal and profoundly immoral systems. I have my own concerns about lacks of any kind of fact findings in US detention facilities in some limited circumstances, but feel far better about the protection of my rights under the Bush Administration than if the ACLU, ACS, or a law professor at Seattle University were in charge. For mainstream organizations supposedly worried about "America Fascism," it's a disappointing - but unfortunately not surprising - turn of events.

---

UPDATE: A good discussion about what trial rights detainees SHOULD have grew out of the comments on this post, but it just wasn't that relevant to what I wanted to discuss here. As such, I saved the comments under its own post above.

Also, I forgot to mention that the Eat the State rag was also lionizing Hugo Chavez, a guy who knows a little something about show trials and lack of separation of powers.

Bush's foreign policy -- a dismal failure

President Bush and his team have consistently, and smugly, indicated that they care nothing for current domestic or international appraisals of the effectiveness of the administration's foreign policy; they will wait, they say with an air of informed tolerance, for the verdict of history. I don't know about the verdict of history, but after five years of watching his deft hand at foreign policy, its impossible to come to any conclusion other than that it's been an abject disaster.

The President has had the right impulses. His decision to attack Iraq was probably the right one. He recognized the danger posed by North Korea and Iran early. He's made articulate and compelling speeches about the role freedom and democracy can play in the middle east.

The problem is that his foreign policy has been, to borrow a Texan phrase, all hat and no cattle. He's made all the right noises, given the grand Churchillian speeches, employed all the gestures appropriate to a no-nonsense, straight-shooting, straight-talking man who gets things done. Unfortunately he really has n't got things done.

His incompetence and laziness have hurt this country, and have hurt the chances of there being a lasting peace in the middle east.

Gerard Baker of the Times of London has an excellent article on Bush's foreign policy failures.

I look forward to a spirited debate with Orrin :-) ...

NYT Iraq Coverage - Dishonest By Omission

The RealClearPolitics blog does a great clarification piece today on the New York Times' doom and gloom front page story on Iraq. Yesterday, the Times led with a story about how that humanitarian organization Hezbollah is rebuilding the shattered lives of the Zionist's victims.

Does anyone still seriously think the NYT does actual journalism any more? It makes this even funnier - and sadly true:


The People's Cube via Michelle Malkin.