No serious person can perceive Iran as anything but an enemy. From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the Ayatollahs' vision of a world without America, Iran habitually provokes the United States. Recent events aren't likely to warm the relationship. In fact, the Persian Gulf is simmering toward a boil.
Naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, routine events under normal circumstances, have escalated into threats against Western powers if further economic sanctions are imposed. Iran is testing missiles and issuing warnings to U.S. warships concerning navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has even threatened to blockade that strategic passage, claiming it can accomplish the task with relative ease. Toss in Iran's nuclear research and the match is as close as it's ever been to the Middle East's fuse.
The question isn’t whether Iran is an enemy or an ally; she's obviously an enemy. The question is how U.S. interests are best served: confrontation, sanctions, or bombing Iran to the Stone Age. Many adherents to the new age of Republican conservatism prefer the latter option. However, it may not be the best course.
First, this rather hawkish writer is weary of Washington's nation-building combat strategies, which send our troops into battle without the political will to achieve a decisive victory. Nation-building is a poor reason for military deployment. In fact, it's impossible until the enemy loses its will to resist. Only after the enemy's surrender did America help Germany and Japan rebuild.
Since World War II our nation has been more concerned with approval in the court of world opinion than with winning wars. Our troops won the battles in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, only to be denied their ultimate victory. Half of Korea and all of Vietnam fell to communism. The Taliban survives in Pakistan, ready to again infiltrate Afghanistan once our troops are withdrawn. We removed Hussein from Iraq, which was warranted. But we also helped install a Shiite power base -- Shia also drives the Iranian regime -- and a Sharia-based constitution. Did we engage the Taliban and Iraq to further entrench the theology that prompted 9/11?
What about the Iranian people? The Ayatollahs aren't highly esteemed on Tehran's streets. Iranians live oppressed lives based on the tyranny of a self-anointed few. Yet they indulge Western culture whenever possible, far more often than the imams and theocrats would like to believe. Western music, movies, videos, and bikini-clad Barbie dolls are so popular they've been subject to government crackdowns. The West has potential allies among the Iranian population. Attacking Iran would damage that affinity.
Besides, destroying Iran's nuclear program won't be easy. It’s difficult to believe Iran learned nothing from Israel's bombing of Iraqi and Syrian reactors. Their facilities aren't likely to be standing in open desert with bulls-eyes painted around them. If Iran has developed a nuclear weapon, or is progressing toward that end, their laboratories are surely shielded from air assault. Furthermore, public support for attacking Iran is tepid at best. How long before it soured completely, especially if a ground war ensued?
The benefits in bombing Iran are mitigated by the detriments. We might strike a fortified facility we can’t destroy. What if we bomb a non-weapons facility -- say an aspirin factory -- or inflict collateral damage that poisons the pro-Western sentiments among Iran's youth?
Sanctions won’t derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions either. Tyrannical regimes routinely prefer military development over citizen comforts, meaning economic sanctions will harm Iranians while having little effect on Iran's rulers. This scenario is unfolding even now in North Korea. The "people's army" holds grandiose military parades in Pyongyang while North Koreans themselves lack food and electricity. However, you'll notice Kim Jong Ill didn't starve to death in a dark room.
Even while recognizing Iran as an enemy, we might legitimately question whether a nuclear Iran poses a substantially greater threat to the United States than have other nuclear countries. Consider the Soviet Union and Pakistan. Russia was an outright enemy and Pakistan is an uneasy ally ruled by unpredictable Islamic doctrines. Yet neither country launched a nuclear attack on us or on our allies, and we've never bombed their nuclear facilities.
We have lived with nuclear weapons in the hands of enemies, both secular communist and Islamic theocracies, for 60 years. So Iran is charting no new course; they’re creating no new threat. The only way Iran would launch a nuclear weapon, or share atomic technology with terrorist organizations, is if they believe the United States wouldn't respond in kind.
To suggest a bilateral summit with Iran constitutes blasphemy in today’s conservatism. But two-party talks might prove the best option. A summit of proper tone would satisfy everyone from the hawkish neo-con to the peace-through-surrender pacifist, and render military action more palatable if it becomes necessary.
America’s history hasn't been to attack every potential source of danger. Yet Iran should face severe consequences for actual, not perceived, belligerence. Let us be blunt with Iran concerning America's position. Place the Ayatollahs on notice: if Iran’s nuclear program adopts an offensive posture, or if there’s the slightest hint their technology is being shared outside their borders, the United States will end the threat even if it means annihilating Iran. No further threats, warnings, resolutions, or sanctions will be necessary, just the response of our choosing delivered at our convenience.
The pacifists can be happy. There's no preemptive war with Iran. The hawks can be happy. Iran is on notice concerning their impending doom. Of greater benefit, we aren't further depleting our treasury and committing our troops to another war we're not determined to win.
Of course, this solution hinges on one key element; we must fulfill our threat if and when conditions warrant. Otherwise, we solidify the paper tiger perception, a perception that our politically calculated war policies in Afghanistan and Iraq have done little to dispense.
Iran's done nothing to warrant our trust. So, when the time comes for war I'll be as hawkish as General Patton. Let's join the battle with the full brunt and force the U.S. military can muster, and continue until resistance fails. But addressing possible threats with military force is a prescription for a permanent state of war, which is an unappealing proposal.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
A date that still lives in infamy
It seemed a normal Sunday morning for Oahu's military contingents. Early risers were out for morning chow, Sunday services, or the beaches and golf courses. Some would sleep in, burdened by the lingering affects of a late night. No one awoke anticipating war on 07 Dec 41. But the plan of the day changed when the first Japanese warplanes swarmed over Hickam Field, Schofield Barracks, and Battleship Row.
Within hours, well-trained Imperial Japanese Navy pilots had decimated the Pacific Fleet's battleships, destroyed hundreds of aircraft and buildings, and killed thousands of men. The attack drove a nation still reeling from a decade of economic depression to the edge of panic. Rumors swirled and West Coast residents feared a Japanese armada would appear on the Pacific horizon at any moment. In terms of national horror, only the War Between the States exceeds Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
You're fortunate if you've been privy to a firsthand account of the raid. I enjoyed that opportunity with Bill Rudder -- a Gastonia, NC newspaper man and inventor after the war -- who was an electrician with the 259th Q.M. Detachment assigned to the 7th Bomber Command at Hickam Field on 07 Dec 41. His contribution won't place him alongside Alvin York or Audie Murphy in American military lore. But Bill was there, he fought, and he lived to tell his story.
After realizing Pearl Harbor was under a genuine attack Rudder and two buddies, John Strickland and Sanford Garrett, rushed to the armory. They were given Springfield bolt-action rifles, an infantry staple from the First World War. Once armed and having overcome problems loading the Springfield, Rudder aimed ahead of a Japanese aircraft and sent a .30 caliber slug hurtling into the Hawaiian sky. He hit nothing, but jokingly claimed to have fired the first American rifle shot of World War II. Undeterred by his miss, Rudder joined fire on another Japanese plane, which trailed smoke and crashed at Fort Kam. Rudder later examined the wreckage, finding American-made Philco tubes in the Japanese plane's radio.
In the photo Mr. Rudder's vehicle is seen parked at the base of a flag pole while a bombed building burns in the background. According to Mr. Rudder, the tattered American Flag was the result of repeated machine gun fire from Japanese fighters. What a story.
The late Bill Rudder won't commemorate the 70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor. In fact, few men remain who witnessed America's entrance into the Second World War. The youngest Pearl Harbor survivors are in their late eighties and their numbers are dwindling. As they die, so too will die their innumerable stories of anonymous bravery, stories like Bill Rudder's.
The last American veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, passed away last February. In May, the world's last known WW I veteran, Claude Choules, died in Australia. When the last "Bill Rudder" dies America's firsthand connection to WW II will be forever lost, just as our connection to the "Great War" is lost. Pearl Harbor, 07 Dec 41, will remain a date that lives in infamy. But it will live as factual history, lacking the personal reference to which we've been accustomed. It will be a great loss.
Within hours, well-trained Imperial Japanese Navy pilots had decimated the Pacific Fleet's battleships, destroyed hundreds of aircraft and buildings, and killed thousands of men. The attack drove a nation still reeling from a decade of economic depression to the edge of panic. Rumors swirled and West Coast residents feared a Japanese armada would appear on the Pacific horizon at any moment. In terms of national horror, only the War Between the States exceeds Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
You're fortunate if you've been privy to a firsthand account of the raid. I enjoyed that opportunity with Bill Rudder -- a Gastonia, NC newspaper man and inventor after the war -- who was an electrician with the 259th Q.M. Detachment assigned to the 7th Bomber Command at Hickam Field on 07 Dec 41. His contribution won't place him alongside Alvin York or Audie Murphy in American military lore. But Bill was there, he fought, and he lived to tell his story.
After realizing Pearl Harbor was under a genuine attack Rudder and two buddies, John Strickland and Sanford Garrett, rushed to the armory. They were given Springfield bolt-action rifles, an infantry staple from the First World War. Once armed and having overcome problems loading the Springfield, Rudder aimed ahead of a Japanese aircraft and sent a .30 caliber slug hurtling into the Hawaiian sky. He hit nothing, but jokingly claimed to have fired the first American rifle shot of World War II. Undeterred by his miss, Rudder joined fire on another Japanese plane, which trailed smoke and crashed at Fort Kam. Rudder later examined the wreckage, finding American-made Philco tubes in the Japanese plane's radio.
In the photo Mr. Rudder's vehicle is seen parked at the base of a flag pole while a bombed building burns in the background. According to Mr. Rudder, the tattered American Flag was the result of repeated machine gun fire from Japanese fighters. What a story.The late Bill Rudder won't commemorate the 70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor. In fact, few men remain who witnessed America's entrance into the Second World War. The youngest Pearl Harbor survivors are in their late eighties and their numbers are dwindling. As they die, so too will die their innumerable stories of anonymous bravery, stories like Bill Rudder's.
The last American veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, passed away last February. In May, the world's last known WW I veteran, Claude Choules, died in Australia. When the last "Bill Rudder" dies America's firsthand connection to WW II will be forever lost, just as our connection to the "Great War" is lost. Pearl Harbor, 07 Dec 41, will remain a date that lives in infamy. But it will live as factual history, lacking the personal reference to which we've been accustomed. It will be a great loss.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki's death spurs 5th Amendment debate
Anwar al-Awlaki's death has stirred an interesting debate. Can we celebrate his departure as one less al-Qaeda operative? Or, should we lament the killing of an American citizen abroad as another step on the slippery slope toward domestic tyranny?
The slippery slope argument doesn't lack precedent. Governments are notorious for targeting their own citizens. Nazi Germany systematically eliminated Jewish citizens, Stalin's Soviet Union imposed a famine on Ukraine, and Chairman Moa oversaw millions of Chinese deaths. Just this year Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Libya have trained government guns on their own people, killing them without trial. There's no denying the dangers of a government that recognizes no bounds.
However, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment forces our government to recognize boundaries, specifically that no one can be deprived of life without due process. So, how does the Fifth Amendment square with Awlaki's death? Despite living in Yemen, Awlaki was American born and a U.S. citizen. Does his death establish the assassination of American citizens as standard federal procedure? One such death certainly doesn't place our government on par with history's most brutal regimes. But there are questions. Liberties and safeguards lost or surrendered are seldom regained.
Awlaki was an inflammatory critic of the United States. If he can be denied due process and killed because government leaders don't approve of his positions, could it lead to other Americans becoming government targets? If so, we're in grave danger. Pro-life activists and Second Amendment purists could be declared enemies of the state. Advocates for state's rights and a limited federal government would surely run afoul of the central authority. Should they be eliminated?
Anwar al-Awlaki's activities were certainly detestable. He was an al-Qaeda recruiter and jihad preacher who incited radicalism against the United States. But the Fifth Amendment question remains. Awlaki was an American citizen and his life was snuffed without due process of law. There've been other notorious Americans -- Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber -- who weren't killed without trial. What makes Awlaki different from them?
American citizens retain their constitutional protections whether they're home or abroad. Numerous Americans have engaged in questionable activities while overseas, including former President Jimmy Carter. None became missile targets. In fact, not even al-Qaeda operatives in the United States have been denied due process, as Awlaki allegedly was. Two Minnesota women suspected of raising funds and recruiting fighters for the Somali jihad group al-Shabab were recently arrested, not bombed.
However, one key factor has thus far been ignored. One of the central government's fundamental functions is to address threats to the citizenry. If government lacks either the ability or the will to defend the nation it cannot maintain the security necessary for liberty to flourish. Therefore, common sense establishes a line beyond which threats to security must be eliminated, even when posed by U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki crossed that line.
There are stark differences between mere rabble-rousers and someone like Awlaki. The fact that Awlaki left the United States doesn't mark him for death. But he left his country for a region where a recognized enemy is known to reside for the purpose of joining and aiding their cause. Essentially, Awlaki chose to become an enemy fighter.
Awlaki actively recruited al-Qaeda operatives with his radical doctrines and sermons. His résumé includes the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Bomber, and the failed Times Square bomb plot. No doubt a rouge government could manipulate evidence to cast suspicions on someone it would prefer to eliminate. But there's no need for cloak and dagger conspiracies in Awlaki's case. His decision to become a foreign enemy made him a legitimate target.
Anwar al-Awlaki's fiery departure didn't compromise our Fifth Amendment right to due process. The deaths of Randy Weaver's wife and David Koresh at the hands of federal authorities were much more troublesome to the cause of liberty than Awlaki's.
The dividing line between an imaginary enemy of the state, someone targeted solely for speech or activities the state doesn't approve, and a genuine enemy of the nation is quite clear. If we fail to see that truth it's simply because we choose to ignore it.
Debating the strategic value in Awlaki's death is an endless argument. But he wasn't killed because he didn't blindly support the federal government. He wasn't killed because he criticized America's foreign or domestic policies, or because his religion was strange, or because he was a quirky hermit on a mountaintop. Awlaki was killed because he left his country to voluntarily join an identified enemy whose hostilities toward the United States are well-documented. He was a legitimate target and the Fifth Amendment needn't shed a tear at his wake.
The slippery slope argument doesn't lack precedent. Governments are notorious for targeting their own citizens. Nazi Germany systematically eliminated Jewish citizens, Stalin's Soviet Union imposed a famine on Ukraine, and Chairman Moa oversaw millions of Chinese deaths. Just this year Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Libya have trained government guns on their own people, killing them without trial. There's no denying the dangers of a government that recognizes no bounds.
However, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment forces our government to recognize boundaries, specifically that no one can be deprived of life without due process. So, how does the Fifth Amendment square with Awlaki's death? Despite living in Yemen, Awlaki was American born and a U.S. citizen. Does his death establish the assassination of American citizens as standard federal procedure? One such death certainly doesn't place our government on par with history's most brutal regimes. But there are questions. Liberties and safeguards lost or surrendered are seldom regained.
Awlaki was an inflammatory critic of the United States. If he can be denied due process and killed because government leaders don't approve of his positions, could it lead to other Americans becoming government targets? If so, we're in grave danger. Pro-life activists and Second Amendment purists could be declared enemies of the state. Advocates for state's rights and a limited federal government would surely run afoul of the central authority. Should they be eliminated?
Anwar al-Awlaki's activities were certainly detestable. He was an al-Qaeda recruiter and jihad preacher who incited radicalism against the United States. But the Fifth Amendment question remains. Awlaki was an American citizen and his life was snuffed without due process of law. There've been other notorious Americans -- Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber -- who weren't killed without trial. What makes Awlaki different from them?
American citizens retain their constitutional protections whether they're home or abroad. Numerous Americans have engaged in questionable activities while overseas, including former President Jimmy Carter. None became missile targets. In fact, not even al-Qaeda operatives in the United States have been denied due process, as Awlaki allegedly was. Two Minnesota women suspected of raising funds and recruiting fighters for the Somali jihad group al-Shabab were recently arrested, not bombed.
However, one key factor has thus far been ignored. One of the central government's fundamental functions is to address threats to the citizenry. If government lacks either the ability or the will to defend the nation it cannot maintain the security necessary for liberty to flourish. Therefore, common sense establishes a line beyond which threats to security must be eliminated, even when posed by U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki crossed that line.
There are stark differences between mere rabble-rousers and someone like Awlaki. The fact that Awlaki left the United States doesn't mark him for death. But he left his country for a region where a recognized enemy is known to reside for the purpose of joining and aiding their cause. Essentially, Awlaki chose to become an enemy fighter.
Awlaki actively recruited al-Qaeda operatives with his radical doctrines and sermons. His résumé includes the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Bomber, and the failed Times Square bomb plot. No doubt a rouge government could manipulate evidence to cast suspicions on someone it would prefer to eliminate. But there's no need for cloak and dagger conspiracies in Awlaki's case. His decision to become a foreign enemy made him a legitimate target.
Anwar al-Awlaki's fiery departure didn't compromise our Fifth Amendment right to due process. The deaths of Randy Weaver's wife and David Koresh at the hands of federal authorities were much more troublesome to the cause of liberty than Awlaki's.
The dividing line between an imaginary enemy of the state, someone targeted solely for speech or activities the state doesn't approve, and a genuine enemy of the nation is quite clear. If we fail to see that truth it's simply because we choose to ignore it.
Debating the strategic value in Awlaki's death is an endless argument. But he wasn't killed because he didn't blindly support the federal government. He wasn't killed because he criticized America's foreign or domestic policies, or because his religion was strange, or because he was a quirky hermit on a mountaintop. Awlaki was killed because he left his country to voluntarily join an identified enemy whose hostilities toward the United States are well-documented. He was a legitimate target and the Fifth Amendment needn't shed a tear at his wake.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The problem with Paul
As Social Security is considered the third rail of national politics, Ron Paul is the third rail of the Republican Party. Paul's detractors are vehement in dismissing the Texas representative as the party's loose nut. Contrarily, Paul's supporters are dedicated to crowning him the savior of the GOP and the United States overall.
If Paul is as inconsequential as the haters claim, they needn't work so hard to dismiss him; he'll render himself irrelevant. But the GOP hierarchy cringes when Paul speaks because he's correct on so many issues. Audit the Fed? Ron Paul has a calculator. Worried about federally controlled healthcare delivery? Dr. Paul supports free market solutions to rising healthcare costs. Tired of burdensome regulations and Washington's shredding of our Constitution? Paul promotes personal liberty and states rights, viewing bureaucracy like a drunk at a Baptist picnic. His position on limited government offends Beltway Republicans who've fallen in love with federal largess.
Ron Paul is crystal clear on America's domestic problems. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the more Ron Paul talks the more his fatal weakness is exposed.
That's not to say Paul's foreign policy positions are total flawed. For instance, Paul suggests a non-interventionist policy would save money. He's obviously correct. Fewer foreign engagements would require lower government expenditures. Besides, acting as the world's policeman isn't a conservative principal. Conservatives weren't interested in policing the world when Clinton engaged the Kosovo conflict and Libya is on no one's agenda. Paul's non-interventionism doesn't necessarily equate to a refusal to defend the United States.
On terrorism, Paul believes America's presence in Muslim lands provokes hatred toward us. Paul reasons, "What would we do if another country . . . did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"
Well, what would we do? We'd fight, of course, just as we did following 9/11. Were another country to establish a military presence on U.S. soil we would summon every weapon from pitchforks to Tomahawk missiles against the foreign occupier. Americans would demand all-out war against the infiltrators. Should we not do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
Paul believes our "foreign occupations" spurred the 9/11 attacks. There is some credibility in his assertion, for the prior mentioned reasons. However, "foreign occupation" falls short in explaining the reason Islamists choose violence. The culture reflected in the jihad movement relishes conflict. If there were no Israel, Islamists would find another justification for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was anti-Zionist before the post-war establishment of Israel. If there were neither a United States nor an Israel, another enemy would spark the fanatic's flame. Even in biblical history, pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians fought not only with Jews but with each other. Any reason, provocation, or insult, whether real or perceived, can stir Islamist violence.
America certainly isn't perfect; we've made foreign policy blunders. Whether for better or worse, the United States has propped-up unpopular dictators to further our interests in the Middle East. If an outside interest so meddled in our affairs we'd be seething and rightly so. But the problem with Ron Paul, his fatal flaw, is his belief that America will be safer if we bring all troops home and adopt a quasi-isolationist foreign policy.
Paul's view of international relations is similar to the one America held prior to World War II. The U.S. thought neutrality was an option in an increasingly hostile world. Thus Hitler's Germany went from a defeated and demilitarized nation to a burgeoning and aggressive war machine. A huge price was extracted, in blood and money, for our ambivalence. Is the next Third Reich on the horizon? Maybe not. But protecting U.S. sovereignty relies on the ability to respond quickly to gathering threats.
A strong and ready military is essential to our survival, but not necessarily the "neo-con" view of militarism. While America can and should promote liberty and a better opportunity to an oppressed world, we aren't responsible for overthrowing dictators in every third-world hellhole. Suppose we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Was Jefferson averse to the aggressive use of force? Ask a Barbary pirate.
America would be better served if all its military engagements were defensive in nature. This is especially true if we continue fighting wars like police actions, which has become our standard strategy regardless of the party in charge. Yet an aggressive foreign policy must remain an option for dealing with demonstrable threats. The jihad has a track record of attacking the United States and her interests, at home and abroad. America must confront Islamists even if it means acting preemptively, unilaterally, or overwhelmingly. The reason for Islamic terrorism is found in the prejudices and cultures of the Islamists, not on an air base in Riyadh.
This is the problem with Ron Paul. On domestic, economic, and constitutional issues he is right on target. Ron Paul is correct in believing the United States isn't responsible for forcefully establishing freedom and self-government throughout the world. But Paul is dangerously wrong regarding how America must deal with external threats in the modern world.
President Ron Paul isn't the answer. Federal Reserve Chairman Ron Paul? Now that has a nice ring to it.
If Paul is as inconsequential as the haters claim, they needn't work so hard to dismiss him; he'll render himself irrelevant. But the GOP hierarchy cringes when Paul speaks because he's correct on so many issues. Audit the Fed? Ron Paul has a calculator. Worried about federally controlled healthcare delivery? Dr. Paul supports free market solutions to rising healthcare costs. Tired of burdensome regulations and Washington's shredding of our Constitution? Paul promotes personal liberty and states rights, viewing bureaucracy like a drunk at a Baptist picnic. His position on limited government offends Beltway Republicans who've fallen in love with federal largess.
Ron Paul is crystal clear on America's domestic problems. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the more Ron Paul talks the more his fatal weakness is exposed.
That's not to say Paul's foreign policy positions are total flawed. For instance, Paul suggests a non-interventionist policy would save money. He's obviously correct. Fewer foreign engagements would require lower government expenditures. Besides, acting as the world's policeman isn't a conservative principal. Conservatives weren't interested in policing the world when Clinton engaged the Kosovo conflict and Libya is on no one's agenda. Paul's non-interventionism doesn't necessarily equate to a refusal to defend the United States.
On terrorism, Paul believes America's presence in Muslim lands provokes hatred toward us. Paul reasons, "What would we do if another country . . . did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"
Well, what would we do? We'd fight, of course, just as we did following 9/11. Were another country to establish a military presence on U.S. soil we would summon every weapon from pitchforks to Tomahawk missiles against the foreign occupier. Americans would demand all-out war against the infiltrators. Should we not do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
Paul believes our "foreign occupations" spurred the 9/11 attacks. There is some credibility in his assertion, for the prior mentioned reasons. However, "foreign occupation" falls short in explaining the reason Islamists choose violence. The culture reflected in the jihad movement relishes conflict. If there were no Israel, Islamists would find another justification for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was anti-Zionist before the post-war establishment of Israel. If there were neither a United States nor an Israel, another enemy would spark the fanatic's flame. Even in biblical history, pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians fought not only with Jews but with each other. Any reason, provocation, or insult, whether real or perceived, can stir Islamist violence.
America certainly isn't perfect; we've made foreign policy blunders. Whether for better or worse, the United States has propped-up unpopular dictators to further our interests in the Middle East. If an outside interest so meddled in our affairs we'd be seething and rightly so. But the problem with Ron Paul, his fatal flaw, is his belief that America will be safer if we bring all troops home and adopt a quasi-isolationist foreign policy.
Paul's view of international relations is similar to the one America held prior to World War II. The U.S. thought neutrality was an option in an increasingly hostile world. Thus Hitler's Germany went from a defeated and demilitarized nation to a burgeoning and aggressive war machine. A huge price was extracted, in blood and money, for our ambivalence. Is the next Third Reich on the horizon? Maybe not. But protecting U.S. sovereignty relies on the ability to respond quickly to gathering threats.
A strong and ready military is essential to our survival, but not necessarily the "neo-con" view of militarism. While America can and should promote liberty and a better opportunity to an oppressed world, we aren't responsible for overthrowing dictators in every third-world hellhole. Suppose we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Was Jefferson averse to the aggressive use of force? Ask a Barbary pirate.
America would be better served if all its military engagements were defensive in nature. This is especially true if we continue fighting wars like police actions, which has become our standard strategy regardless of the party in charge. Yet an aggressive foreign policy must remain an option for dealing with demonstrable threats. The jihad has a track record of attacking the United States and her interests, at home and abroad. America must confront Islamists even if it means acting preemptively, unilaterally, or overwhelmingly. The reason for Islamic terrorism is found in the prejudices and cultures of the Islamists, not on an air base in Riyadh.
This is the problem with Ron Paul. On domestic, economic, and constitutional issues he is right on target. Ron Paul is correct in believing the United States isn't responsible for forcefully establishing freedom and self-government throughout the world. But Paul is dangerously wrong regarding how America must deal with external threats in the modern world.
President Ron Paul isn't the answer. Federal Reserve Chairman Ron Paul? Now that has a nice ring to it.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Three rails of pacifism, and each is off-track
No person is easier defeated than one who holds nothing worthy of defense. The board of directors at Goshen College, a Mennonite school in Indiana, fits that category to some extent. But the Mennonite pacifism is at least partially pure. Secular pacifism can’t make that claim.
Mennonites are traditional pacifists, shunning war and confrontation no matter the provocation. In that spirit Goshen has deemed the Star Spangled Banner inappropriate because it incorporates war and military power in national defense. The national anthem therefore violates the school’s religious standards and will no longer be heard at Goshen’s sporting events.
Goshen is within its rights to bypass the national anthem, although their decision will doubtlessly offend many Americans. But simply possessing that right doesn’t mean Goshen deserves a free pass. Their pacifist doctrine contains inconsistencies that warrant examination.
The Mennonite pacifism is based on their understanding of Jesus Christ as a peacemaker. Jesus didn’t kill other human beings; he didn’t fight wars. Thus his followers must also shun violence no matter the provocation. No doubt Jesus was a peaceful man. But did Jesus exemplify a pacifist, peace-at-all-cost attitude? Maybe not.
Jesus didn’t yield when resistance was warranted. He repeatedly and publicly chastised community and religious leaders for their hypocrisies. Jesus was anything but meek when he physically drove the frauds and con artists from the Temple courtyard. Furthermore, Jesus gave credence to the idea of a just conflict when he said, “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I might not be delivered.”
America isn’t a kingdom. But it is our sovereign slice of this world. Sorry Mennonites, but Jesus didn’t teach absolute capitulation as a tenet of discipleship. In fact, his teachings prevent no one from participating in their own defense.
The Mennonite attitude toward war is a moral pacifism, even if somewhat naïve. Their passivity is based on a quest for spiritual purity; it is their constitutional and ecclesiastical right. Secular pacifists, conversely, practice a pacifism that is unclear, indefensible, and inaccurate.
Intellectual pacifism deplores warfare not because of religious beliefs but philosophical ideals. This person never considers war a valid response to any provocation. War, in the intellectual pacifist’s mind, is invariably based on lies. Not even America’s role in World War II is immune from this viewpoint.
According to intellectual pacifists, Germany posed no threat to the United States, their army couldn’t have crossed the Atlantic, and Americans wouldn’t be speaking German if not for our military adventurism in Europe. But their arguments are untenable.
Germany didn’t possess the amphibious capability necessary to cross the Atlantic and assault America’s east coast. However, Germany’s desire to confront the United States dates to the late 19th Century. That dream became an obsession for Hitler. According to James Duffy’s book, Target: America: Hitler’s Plan to Attack America, Nazi Germany had both ambitions and plans for striking the United States.
Germany’s “Amerika Bombers” were long-range aircraft designed and produced to varying degrees by Messerschmitt, Junkers, Heinkel, and other German aviation firms. As the name implies, those bombers were intended to fly transoceanic raids on the U.S. mainland. Germany also considered occupying the Azores as a refueling station for the Amerika Bombers. Another strategy employed seaplane bombers, with submarines serving as seaborne refueling stations. Germany was also developing rocket propulsion, hoping to produce guided or piloted missiles that could reach New York.
Certainly the value of such raids, had they materialized, would’ve been more psychological than strategic. But Germany unquestionably desired to strike the U.S. mainland. And the idea of a ground assault on the U.S. wasn’t ignored either.
Germany attempted to forge relationships in South and Central America, including Mexico. The objective was to secure a base for launching a ground offensive across our southern border. Was such an invasion feasible? The U.S. military thought so. Furthermore, had intellectual pacifists met the theoretical Nazi offensive the only thing stopping Germany’s northward march would’ve been the Canadian border.
Intellectual pacifism ignores contemporary belligerence, regardless its source, just as it still ignores Nazi Germany’s aggression. Their worldview contradicts the venerable truism, “If there’s nothing worth dying for there’s nothing worth living for.” What, then, is the intellectual pacifist’s reason for being?
On pacifism’s third rail is the immoral pacifist. The immoral pacifist differs from both the moral and intellectual pacifist, but is closer aligned to the later. Neither a thirst for spiritual clarity nor an innate preference for surrender drives the immoral pacifist. Political expediency motivates their attitude, which is personified in the anti-war marcher.
This mindset selectively deploys anti-war sentiment where it can best serve a political goal. For instance, leftwing ideologues used the Iraq War to demonize President Bush, claiming he waged an unauthorized and illegal conflict. Both charges were lies. Congress authorized military force against Iraq and the operation was conducted within those guidelines.
The Iraq War protester has been conspicuously absent since a preferred president, President Obama, joined the United States to the Libyan fray. And Obama is waging an illegal war. He authorized military action without Congress’ consent. He has ignored the timelines for unilateral presidential action outlined in the War Powers Act and obfuscated Congress’ attempts to understand his adventurism. Yet the immoral pacifists are deafening only in their silence.
The moral pacifist can be challenged with their own religious doctrines. Yet they can defend their pacifism on ecclesiastical grounds. For the intellectual pacifist there are fewer defenses. Their pacifism isn’t grounded on a quest for spiritual truth but a combination of foolhardiness and ignorance. No logic is apparent in the intellectual pacifist’s dismissal of all war as unwarranted. There’s no defense whatsoever for the immoral pacifist. Their objectives are political, based on falsehood and opportunism.
Ironically, Goshen College’s ban of the Star Spangled Banner fulfills its commitment to higher education. The board’s decision laid bare the three rails of pacifism, none of which secure a nation’s sovereignty. In fact, any nation trying to run on pacifism’s track is hurtling toward derailment.
Mennonites are traditional pacifists, shunning war and confrontation no matter the provocation. In that spirit Goshen has deemed the Star Spangled Banner inappropriate because it incorporates war and military power in national defense. The national anthem therefore violates the school’s religious standards and will no longer be heard at Goshen’s sporting events.
Goshen is within its rights to bypass the national anthem, although their decision will doubtlessly offend many Americans. But simply possessing that right doesn’t mean Goshen deserves a free pass. Their pacifist doctrine contains inconsistencies that warrant examination.
The Mennonite pacifism is based on their understanding of Jesus Christ as a peacemaker. Jesus didn’t kill other human beings; he didn’t fight wars. Thus his followers must also shun violence no matter the provocation. No doubt Jesus was a peaceful man. But did Jesus exemplify a pacifist, peace-at-all-cost attitude? Maybe not.
Jesus didn’t yield when resistance was warranted. He repeatedly and publicly chastised community and religious leaders for their hypocrisies. Jesus was anything but meek when he physically drove the frauds and con artists from the Temple courtyard. Furthermore, Jesus gave credence to the idea of a just conflict when he said, “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I might not be delivered.”
America isn’t a kingdom. But it is our sovereign slice of this world. Sorry Mennonites, but Jesus didn’t teach absolute capitulation as a tenet of discipleship. In fact, his teachings prevent no one from participating in their own defense.
The Mennonite attitude toward war is a moral pacifism, even if somewhat naïve. Their passivity is based on a quest for spiritual purity; it is their constitutional and ecclesiastical right. Secular pacifists, conversely, practice a pacifism that is unclear, indefensible, and inaccurate.
Intellectual pacifism deplores warfare not because of religious beliefs but philosophical ideals. This person never considers war a valid response to any provocation. War, in the intellectual pacifist’s mind, is invariably based on lies. Not even America’s role in World War II is immune from this viewpoint.
According to intellectual pacifists, Germany posed no threat to the United States, their army couldn’t have crossed the Atlantic, and Americans wouldn’t be speaking German if not for our military adventurism in Europe. But their arguments are untenable.
Germany didn’t possess the amphibious capability necessary to cross the Atlantic and assault America’s east coast. However, Germany’s desire to confront the United States dates to the late 19th Century. That dream became an obsession for Hitler. According to James Duffy’s book, Target: America: Hitler’s Plan to Attack America, Nazi Germany had both ambitions and plans for striking the United States.
Germany’s “Amerika Bombers” were long-range aircraft designed and produced to varying degrees by Messerschmitt, Junkers, Heinkel, and other German aviation firms. As the name implies, those bombers were intended to fly transoceanic raids on the U.S. mainland. Germany also considered occupying the Azores as a refueling station for the Amerika Bombers. Another strategy employed seaplane bombers, with submarines serving as seaborne refueling stations. Germany was also developing rocket propulsion, hoping to produce guided or piloted missiles that could reach New York.
Certainly the value of such raids, had they materialized, would’ve been more psychological than strategic. But Germany unquestionably desired to strike the U.S. mainland. And the idea of a ground assault on the U.S. wasn’t ignored either.
Germany attempted to forge relationships in South and Central America, including Mexico. The objective was to secure a base for launching a ground offensive across our southern border. Was such an invasion feasible? The U.S. military thought so. Furthermore, had intellectual pacifists met the theoretical Nazi offensive the only thing stopping Germany’s northward march would’ve been the Canadian border.
Intellectual pacifism ignores contemporary belligerence, regardless its source, just as it still ignores Nazi Germany’s aggression. Their worldview contradicts the venerable truism, “If there’s nothing worth dying for there’s nothing worth living for.” What, then, is the intellectual pacifist’s reason for being?
On pacifism’s third rail is the immoral pacifist. The immoral pacifist differs from both the moral and intellectual pacifist, but is closer aligned to the later. Neither a thirst for spiritual clarity nor an innate preference for surrender drives the immoral pacifist. Political expediency motivates their attitude, which is personified in the anti-war marcher.
This mindset selectively deploys anti-war sentiment where it can best serve a political goal. For instance, leftwing ideologues used the Iraq War to demonize President Bush, claiming he waged an unauthorized and illegal conflict. Both charges were lies. Congress authorized military force against Iraq and the operation was conducted within those guidelines.
The Iraq War protester has been conspicuously absent since a preferred president, President Obama, joined the United States to the Libyan fray. And Obama is waging an illegal war. He authorized military action without Congress’ consent. He has ignored the timelines for unilateral presidential action outlined in the War Powers Act and obfuscated Congress’ attempts to understand his adventurism. Yet the immoral pacifists are deafening only in their silence.
The moral pacifist can be challenged with their own religious doctrines. Yet they can defend their pacifism on ecclesiastical grounds. For the intellectual pacifist there are fewer defenses. Their pacifism isn’t grounded on a quest for spiritual truth but a combination of foolhardiness and ignorance. No logic is apparent in the intellectual pacifist’s dismissal of all war as unwarranted. There’s no defense whatsoever for the immoral pacifist. Their objectives are political, based on falsehood and opportunism.
Ironically, Goshen College’s ban of the Star Spangled Banner fulfills its commitment to higher education. The board’s decision laid bare the three rails of pacifism, none of which secure a nation’s sovereignty. In fact, any nation trying to run on pacifism’s track is hurtling toward derailment.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Obama's "gutsy" no-brainer
President Obama made the correct decision in sending Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. But was it the "gutsy call" the media, and the administration itself, has led us to believe? Logically and politically the President had no alternative.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The case of Lindsay Graham vs. Free Speech
All rise! The Court of Historical Accuracy is now in session, the Honorable First Amendment presiding. The Court will entertain arguments in the case of Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) vs. Free Speech. At issue is the protected status and free application of speech during wartime.
Sen. Graham, hereafter the Prosecution, alleges free speech is invalid when it denigrates a national enemy. The Prosecution reserves belief in free speech, but also claims said speech must be approved in order to be free. In summary, Prosecution alleges, “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”
Free Speech, hereafter the Defense, intends to prove that free speech indeed protected derogatory attitudes toward America’s World War II enemies. The Defense calls as its first witness Moe Howard, Curly Howard, and Larry Fine, a.k.a. the Three Stooges, in You Nazty Spy.
The Three Stooges displayed no fear of inspiring der Fuhrer, his Nazi regime, or the Axis in general. In You Nazty Spy they satirized dictatorships, Hitler’s rise to power, and the gullibility of the entire population of “Moronica,” which represented pre-war Germany.
Your Honor, the Defense contends that Moronica’s Dictator Moe Hailstone (Hitler), Field Marshal Curly Gallstone (Goering), and Propaganda Minister Larry Pebble (Geobbels) could’ve offended and thus inspired Nazi Germany. The Defense will also prove that You Nazty Spy wasn’t an isolated example of uncensored speech during World War II.
The Defense calls as its second witness the same Three Stooges in I’ll Never Heil Again.
Dictator Hailstone and his henchmen broke treaties and double-crossed allies, just as Hitler did to Chamberlain and Stalin. I’ll Never Heil Again bristles with jabs at the Nazi regime and “der Fuhrer” himself. Hailstone and Moronica’s allies fight over the world, with the Japanese representative taking frequent snapshots during the melee.
Your Honor, the Defense submits Moronica as de facto Nazi Germany and Hailstone’s dictatorship as personifying the Hitler regime. The Defense argues the Three Stooges did willfully and with forethought mock and ridicule both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, that these entities were enemies of the United States, and that the Three Stooges’ actions could’ve inspired enemy forces. Furthermore, since the Three Stooges’ testimony was filmed, distributed, and viewed during the World War II era and remains available 70 years after the fact, free speech protects similar conduct today. Your Honor, the Defense also charges the Prosecution with intentionally misleading the public about the application of free speech during wartime, past and present.
The Prosecution has maliciously revised history and perpetrated fraud to cause the public to doubt their memories. In summation, the Defense believes the Three Stooges’ testimony verifies the validity of Free Speech and the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Sen. Graham. Defense requests that Graham answer perjury charges in the Court of Public Opinion.
The Defense rests.
Sen. Graham, hereafter the Prosecution, alleges free speech is invalid when it denigrates a national enemy. The Prosecution reserves belief in free speech, but also claims said speech must be approved in order to be free. In summary, Prosecution alleges, “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”
Free Speech, hereafter the Defense, intends to prove that free speech indeed protected derogatory attitudes toward America’s World War II enemies. The Defense calls as its first witness Moe Howard, Curly Howard, and Larry Fine, a.k.a. the Three Stooges, in You Nazty Spy.
The Three Stooges displayed no fear of inspiring der Fuhrer, his Nazi regime, or the Axis in general. In You Nazty Spy they satirized dictatorships, Hitler’s rise to power, and the gullibility of the entire population of “Moronica,” which represented pre-war Germany.
Your Honor, the Defense contends that Moronica’s Dictator Moe Hailstone (Hitler), Field Marshal Curly Gallstone (Goering), and Propaganda Minister Larry Pebble (Geobbels) could’ve offended and thus inspired Nazi Germany. The Defense will also prove that You Nazty Spy wasn’t an isolated example of uncensored speech during World War II.
The Defense calls as its second witness the same Three Stooges in I’ll Never Heil Again.
Dictator Hailstone and his henchmen broke treaties and double-crossed allies, just as Hitler did to Chamberlain and Stalin. I’ll Never Heil Again bristles with jabs at the Nazi regime and “der Fuhrer” himself. Hailstone and Moronica’s allies fight over the world, with the Japanese representative taking frequent snapshots during the melee.
Your Honor, the Defense submits Moronica as de facto Nazi Germany and Hailstone’s dictatorship as personifying the Hitler regime. The Defense argues the Three Stooges did willfully and with forethought mock and ridicule both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, that these entities were enemies of the United States, and that the Three Stooges’ actions could’ve inspired enemy forces. Furthermore, since the Three Stooges’ testimony was filmed, distributed, and viewed during the World War II era and remains available 70 years after the fact, free speech protects similar conduct today. Your Honor, the Defense also charges the Prosecution with intentionally misleading the public about the application of free speech during wartime, past and present.
The Prosecution has maliciously revised history and perpetrated fraud to cause the public to doubt their memories. In summation, the Defense believes the Three Stooges’ testimony verifies the validity of Free Speech and the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Sen. Graham. Defense requests that Graham answer perjury charges in the Court of Public Opinion.
The Defense rests.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Sen. Lindsay Graham: Fool, liar, or historically ignorant?
During a recent appearance on Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) addressed free speech in relation to the current war effort. Apparently, words and activities that could incite or motivate an enemy are beyond the First Amendment's protection. Government can then silence such speech. Frankly, that is a foolish and utterly un-American idea. But it isn't as foolish as Graham's use of World War II to justify his position. "During World War II," Graham explained, "you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy."
Such a claim would be news to the World War II generation, who weren't the least bit concerned with whether or not their attitudes inspired their enemies. In fact, they went out of their way to denigrate the Nazis and the Japanese at every opportunity.
Has Sen. Graham never seen a poster from the WW II era? Those posters appeared throughout the United States and they were anything but complimentary toward the Germans and the Japanese.
One WW II poster depicts the Axis powers firing on Jesus Christ as he hangs on the cross. On another poster a Nazi is thrusting his bayonet through the Holy Bible. An anti-Japanese poster displayed the "Tokio Kid" (Misspelled intentionally?) with slanted eyes, big teeth, round eyeglasses, and devilishly pointed ears. A war bonds promotion poster shows an aggressive Japanese soldier holding an all-American girl at knifepoint. The caption reads, "Keep this horror from your home."
Inciting? I think so. Obviously, Sen. Graham hasn't paid much attention to WW II posters. He must not have watched cartoons, either. A wide array of animated characters, from Popeye to Donald Duck, took turns poking the Axis in the eye.
In Daffy the Commando, Daffy Duck took on a ranting Nazi officer and his bumbling subordinate, Shultz. In one scene the German commander springs to attention and shouts "Heil Hitler" when a skunk crosses his path. After making a total mockery of the Nazi army Daffy drops in on a Hitler speech and conks der Fuehrer on the head with a mallet.
Popeye the Sailor deployed to the Pacific Theatre in You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap. He tangles with two stereotypical Japanese sailors, each with a penchant for treachery. The Japanese promise peace, but attack Popeye when he turns his back. A not-so-subtle reference to Pearl Harbor, perhaps? Popeye eventually eats his spinach and gives an entire Japanese battlewagon a thorough whipping. You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap poked fun at everything Japanese from their manufacturing quality to their doctrine of honorable suicide. It ended with the Rising Sun being "flushed" in the ocean.
In Her Honor the Mare, Popeye's nephews disguise a horse as a house painter to sneak the nag into the house. The "painter" looks like Hitler -- an obvious insult to Adolf's artistic aspirations -- with the face drawn on the horse's backside. Sen. Graham can draw his own conclusions about inspiring the enemy. But to me, the animators were calling Hitler a horse's ass.
Walt Disney joined the anti-Axis animation parade with Der Fuehrer's Face, in which Donald Duck dreams about living in the Third Reich. The cartoon begins with an unflattering Nazi marching band and a song that resembles someone breaking wind "right in der Fuehrer's Face." Everything in Donald’s home is a tribute to the Nazi police state and he’s forced, at bayonet point, to read Mein Kampf. Then it's off to work for Donald, where he'll "Heil Hitler" in forced servitude at a Nazi munitions factory. The cartoon ends with Hitler being hit in the face with a tomato.
None of these print and animated insults could’ve provoked the enemy? Senator Graham is either ignorant of this nation's attitude toward our enemies during the Second World War, a complete fool, or a dastardly liar. Choose the lesser of the evils, if there is a lesser between ignorance, foolishness and dishonesty. Whichever you choose, there is one certainty; free speech wasn't limited so as to avoid inspiring the Germans and the Japanese. In fact, the Greatest Generation reveled in insulting their enemies at every opportunity and their war ended just fine.
The good guys won World War II, in case Senator Graham needs reminding. There were no focus group plans for appeasing our adversaries. Victory didn’t come from seeking common ground with Hirohito or proving to the Nazis how we meant no harm to their Fuehrer and his concentration camps. We won because we put victory above the nonsensical notion that offending our enemy was off-limits.
Sen. Graham isn’t ignorant of America’s attitudes toward the Axis powers. But he’ll promote a historically false perspective and believe Americans are foolish enough to accept his dishonesty.
Such a claim would be news to the World War II generation, who weren't the least bit concerned with whether or not their attitudes inspired their enemies. In fact, they went out of their way to denigrate the Nazis and the Japanese at every opportunity.
Has Sen. Graham never seen a poster from the WW II era? Those posters appeared throughout the United States and they were anything but complimentary toward the Germans and the Japanese.
One WW II poster depicts the Axis powers firing on Jesus Christ as he hangs on the cross. On another poster a Nazi is thrusting his bayonet through the Holy Bible. An anti-Japanese poster displayed the "Tokio Kid" (Misspelled intentionally?) with slanted eyes, big teeth, round eyeglasses, and devilishly pointed ears. A war bonds promotion poster shows an aggressive Japanese soldier holding an all-American girl at knifepoint. The caption reads, "Keep this horror from your home."
Inciting? I think so. Obviously, Sen. Graham hasn't paid much attention to WW II posters. He must not have watched cartoons, either. A wide array of animated characters, from Popeye to Donald Duck, took turns poking the Axis in the eye.
In Daffy the Commando, Daffy Duck took on a ranting Nazi officer and his bumbling subordinate, Shultz. In one scene the German commander springs to attention and shouts "Heil Hitler" when a skunk crosses his path. After making a total mockery of the Nazi army Daffy drops in on a Hitler speech and conks der Fuehrer on the head with a mallet.
Popeye the Sailor deployed to the Pacific Theatre in You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap. He tangles with two stereotypical Japanese sailors, each with a penchant for treachery. The Japanese promise peace, but attack Popeye when he turns his back. A not-so-subtle reference to Pearl Harbor, perhaps? Popeye eventually eats his spinach and gives an entire Japanese battlewagon a thorough whipping. You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap poked fun at everything Japanese from their manufacturing quality to their doctrine of honorable suicide. It ended with the Rising Sun being "flushed" in the ocean.
In Her Honor the Mare, Popeye's nephews disguise a horse as a house painter to sneak the nag into the house. The "painter" looks like Hitler -- an obvious insult to Adolf's artistic aspirations -- with the face drawn on the horse's backside. Sen. Graham can draw his own conclusions about inspiring the enemy. But to me, the animators were calling Hitler a horse's ass.
Walt Disney joined the anti-Axis animation parade with Der Fuehrer's Face, in which Donald Duck dreams about living in the Third Reich. The cartoon begins with an unflattering Nazi marching band and a song that resembles someone breaking wind "right in der Fuehrer's Face." Everything in Donald’s home is a tribute to the Nazi police state and he’s forced, at bayonet point, to read Mein Kampf. Then it's off to work for Donald, where he'll "Heil Hitler" in forced servitude at a Nazi munitions factory. The cartoon ends with Hitler being hit in the face with a tomato.
None of these print and animated insults could’ve provoked the enemy? Senator Graham is either ignorant of this nation's attitude toward our enemies during the Second World War, a complete fool, or a dastardly liar. Choose the lesser of the evils, if there is a lesser between ignorance, foolishness and dishonesty. Whichever you choose, there is one certainty; free speech wasn't limited so as to avoid inspiring the Germans and the Japanese. In fact, the Greatest Generation reveled in insulting their enemies at every opportunity and their war ended just fine.
The good guys won World War II, in case Senator Graham needs reminding. There were no focus group plans for appeasing our adversaries. Victory didn’t come from seeking common ground with Hirohito or proving to the Nazis how we meant no harm to their Fuehrer and his concentration camps. We won because we put victory above the nonsensical notion that offending our enemy was off-limits.
Sen. Graham isn’t ignorant of America’s attitudes toward the Axis powers. But he’ll promote a historically false perspective and believe Americans are foolish enough to accept his dishonesty.
Friday, April 22, 2011
In defense of Western Culture
Imagine what the world would be like had the United States fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror.” Thankfully, Americans then weren't tepid in war, nor did they care if their attitudes agitated the Germans and Japanese. The World War II generation sought nothing less than total victory. If the enemy was offended, well, so be it. Times have certainly changed.
The United States has sunk to new depths of political correctness. We're so conscious of offending Islam that our culture is becoming its sacrificial lamb, methodically slain on the altar of a mythical peace with radical Muslims. Political correctness wields undue influence on our attitudes, exacerbating our insatiable desire to placate our enemies even at the expense of values we ostensibly hold dear.
Enter the politically incorrect Rev. Terry Jones. Government, media, and religious leaders sang Jones' condemnations, and rightly so, when he ignited his copy of the Koran. But what duplicity! What has happened to our zealous defense of free speech? Burning offending items is a protected First Amendment right, is it not? Perhaps free speech exists only when desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.
Wise and insightful protesters are engaging in dissent when they burn the flag of the United States. In fact, torch the American flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who censure Terry Jones. Offending religion is equally acceptable, so long as the religion is associated with Western culture. For instance, an eccentric "artist" submerges a crucifix in urine and receives rave reviews for cutting edge artistic expression. But let that same "artist" sink a statue of Muhammad in a jug of whiz and see what happens.
One peek at the riots in Afghanistan should serve to indicate how Islamists respond to the degradation of their beliefs, be the offense real or perceived. Remember the outrage when Dutch cartoonists depicted Muhammad as a bomber? Remember Salman Rushdie, or Molly Norris? Rushdie lived under a death order for ten years and death threats forced Norris to surrender not only her profession (she was a cartoonist) but her very identity.
The only surprise in the Afghan response to Terry Jones is that anyone was shocked at all. This isn't the first time Muslims have deemed destruction the proper avenue for venting their anger at the enemies of Allah. In fact, reactionary violence in Islamic lands is the norm, not the exception. Amazement at the Islamists' overreaction to Terry Jones is akin to tossing a rock in the creek and being stunned when it sinks.
In fairness, we must recognize that the Afghans didn't entirely escape blame for their violence. But shouldn't we be troubled when a single insignificant minister pulls a boneheaded stunt and more outrage is directed at him than toward widespread violence perpetrated at the Taliban's behest? Explaining how Jones' bonfire doesn't justify mob scenes becomes something of an afterthought, an obligatory complaint offered without sincerity. There's no reason for Westerners to apologize to a people so ignorant they will toss Molotov cocktails on their neighbors and attack unrelated entities in response to one person's alleged blasphemy.
I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. Burning books indicates a vapid intellect, a mind void of purpose and reason. But Jones’ campfire did nothing to threaten Islam as a religious doctrine. It did, however, reiterate the Islamist's propensity for committing horrendous violence to the glory of Allah. The appalling aspect is seeing so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the opportunity to apologize to an enemy. We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of "Islamophobia" to recognize the pattern of our enemy's behavior and the threat they pose to Western culture.
When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones, the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. We're afraid to do so now. Could those divergent attitudes explain why complete victory in World War II took less than four years while the "war on terror" drags on ad infinitum?
The United States has sunk to new depths of political correctness. We're so conscious of offending Islam that our culture is becoming its sacrificial lamb, methodically slain on the altar of a mythical peace with radical Muslims. Political correctness wields undue influence on our attitudes, exacerbating our insatiable desire to placate our enemies even at the expense of values we ostensibly hold dear.
Enter the politically incorrect Rev. Terry Jones. Government, media, and religious leaders sang Jones' condemnations, and rightly so, when he ignited his copy of the Koran. But what duplicity! What has happened to our zealous defense of free speech? Burning offending items is a protected First Amendment right, is it not? Perhaps free speech exists only when desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.
Wise and insightful protesters are engaging in dissent when they burn the flag of the United States. In fact, torch the American flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who censure Terry Jones. Offending religion is equally acceptable, so long as the religion is associated with Western culture. For instance, an eccentric "artist" submerges a crucifix in urine and receives rave reviews for cutting edge artistic expression. But let that same "artist" sink a statue of Muhammad in a jug of whiz and see what happens.
One peek at the riots in Afghanistan should serve to indicate how Islamists respond to the degradation of their beliefs, be the offense real or perceived. Remember the outrage when Dutch cartoonists depicted Muhammad as a bomber? Remember Salman Rushdie, or Molly Norris? Rushdie lived under a death order for ten years and death threats forced Norris to surrender not only her profession (she was a cartoonist) but her very identity.
The only surprise in the Afghan response to Terry Jones is that anyone was shocked at all. This isn't the first time Muslims have deemed destruction the proper avenue for venting their anger at the enemies of Allah. In fact, reactionary violence in Islamic lands is the norm, not the exception. Amazement at the Islamists' overreaction to Terry Jones is akin to tossing a rock in the creek and being stunned when it sinks.
In fairness, we must recognize that the Afghans didn't entirely escape blame for their violence. But shouldn't we be troubled when a single insignificant minister pulls a boneheaded stunt and more outrage is directed at him than toward widespread violence perpetrated at the Taliban's behest? Explaining how Jones' bonfire doesn't justify mob scenes becomes something of an afterthought, an obligatory complaint offered without sincerity. There's no reason for Westerners to apologize to a people so ignorant they will toss Molotov cocktails on their neighbors and attack unrelated entities in response to one person's alleged blasphemy.
I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. Burning books indicates a vapid intellect, a mind void of purpose and reason. But Jones’ campfire did nothing to threaten Islam as a religious doctrine. It did, however, reiterate the Islamist's propensity for committing horrendous violence to the glory of Allah. The appalling aspect is seeing so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the opportunity to apologize to an enemy. We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of "Islamophobia" to recognize the pattern of our enemy's behavior and the threat they pose to Western culture.
When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones, the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. We're afraid to do so now. Could those divergent attitudes explain why complete victory in World War II took less than four years while the "war on terror" drags on ad infinitum?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The United Caliphates of America?
If the United States had fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror” we would now speak German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it. Thank God Americans weren’t concerned about offending the sensibilities of Hitler and Hirohito in 1942. The World War II generation put this country first and settled for nothing less than defeating our enemies. Times have changed.
Either the United States has succumbed to unbridled political correctness, or we’ve lost heart to the point we’ll sacrifice our culture and our very survival to the mythical concept of peace with Islamic radicals. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Political correctness influences our attitudes to an unreasonable degree. But a greater problem is our insatiable desire to placate our enemies, even at the expense of values we allegedly hold dear.
When Rev. Terry Jones ignited his copy of the Koran our government and media rose to condemn his intolerance. Ah the duplicity! What happened to free speech? I thought burning an offending item was a protected First Amendment right. Perhaps free speech extends only to desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.
Insightful and wise protesters can burn the flag of the United States with impunity. In fact, torch our flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who condemn Terry Jones. Offending religion is just as acceptable, so long as the religion is prevalent in Western culture. For instance, submerging a crucifix in urine is hailed as cutting edge artistic expression and the “artist” is an eccentric genius. Try sinking a statue of Muhammad in urine and see what happens.
Why do we abandon our heritage, sacrifice our culture, and belittle our values? What is honorable in elevating depraved ideologies above our own?
I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. But where is the condemnation for the Muslims who are using Jones’ campfire as their latest excuse to commit horrendous violence for the glory of Allah? And why are so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the chance to apologize to an enemy? We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of intolerance toward Islam to recognize the threat radicalization poses to America’s future, or even our own assaults on our liberties.
When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. Isn’t it time we revived our ancestors’ attitudes before we awake in the United Caliphates of America?
Either the United States has succumbed to unbridled political correctness, or we’ve lost heart to the point we’ll sacrifice our culture and our very survival to the mythical concept of peace with Islamic radicals. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Political correctness influences our attitudes to an unreasonable degree. But a greater problem is our insatiable desire to placate our enemies, even at the expense of values we allegedly hold dear.
When Rev. Terry Jones ignited his copy of the Koran our government and media rose to condemn his intolerance. Ah the duplicity! What happened to free speech? I thought burning an offending item was a protected First Amendment right. Perhaps free speech extends only to desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.
Insightful and wise protesters can burn the flag of the United States with impunity. In fact, torch our flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who condemn Terry Jones. Offending religion is just as acceptable, so long as the religion is prevalent in Western culture. For instance, submerging a crucifix in urine is hailed as cutting edge artistic expression and the “artist” is an eccentric genius. Try sinking a statue of Muhammad in urine and see what happens.
Why do we abandon our heritage, sacrifice our culture, and belittle our values? What is honorable in elevating depraved ideologies above our own?
I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. But where is the condemnation for the Muslims who are using Jones’ campfire as their latest excuse to commit horrendous violence for the glory of Allah? And why are so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the chance to apologize to an enemy? We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of intolerance toward Islam to recognize the threat radicalization poses to America’s future, or even our own assaults on our liberties.
When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. Isn’t it time we revived our ancestors’ attitudes before we awake in the United Caliphates of America?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
What a difference a war can make
How times have changed! The United States isn’t the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We’ve shed the “I ride alone” image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday’s news and America can again wage a just war. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Remember the arguments against President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren’t heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don’t consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that’s a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a “police action.”
While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration’s “rush to war” in Libya they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrat’s chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.
Bush’s detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush’s agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq’s elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.
President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We’re unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.
For a proper perspective on our current alliance, look at World War II. What if America had fought Nazi Germany in Europe while joining forces with them on the Russian Front? The scenario sounds ridiculous. But that’s what we’re doing with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Libya.
Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries than Obama’s coalition in Libya. What’s more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.
Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.
Gaddafi’s government hasn’t directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush’s critics charged him with involving America in Iraq’s civil war. So what’s happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.
The Iraq War began without Congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.
The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there’s no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya, where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn’t the same true in Iraq?
Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn’t kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein’s fall. What’s more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.
The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama’s decision to bomb Libya. I’ll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren’t meddling in their affairs. Hussein’s actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.
Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I’ll loose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops’ safety and their mission's success. Alas, there’s no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.
The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olberman. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama’s military-industrial complex. Obama hasn’t been labeled a Nazi and I’ve yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.
What a difference a war can make!
This article originally appeared on American Thinker.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Colonel Gaddafi needs a promotion
Any dictator worth his salt holds a rank or a title befitting his position. Hitler was der Fuehrer, Stalin a Premier and Castro the leader of the people’s revolution. Despots invariably come packaged with lofty monikers, either by personal choice or popular declaration. So what happened to Col. Muammar Gaddafi?
Gaddafi is no doubt the perfect thug. But he falls short when it comes to image. Gaddafi has ruled in Tripoli since shortly after Thomas Jefferson’s forces persuaded the Barbary pirates to give up the ship. Yet the highest rank he has attained is that of colonel?
No disrespect intended toward colonels, mind you. Some of America’s greatest military leaders wore the silver eagle at one time or another: Pershing, Patton, Ridgeway, McArthur, Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf. But each one moved on to general before making their reputation and securing their fame. Few are the colonels who are household names.
Sure, there are some. Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th M.A.S.H. comes to mind, as well as Colonels Hogan and Klink from Stalag 13. A colonel managed Elvis Pressley, at least for a while, and Col. Sanders is famous worldwide. There were also the Kentucky Colonels of the defunct American Basketball Association. Yet “Colonel Gaddafi” lacks the requisite pizzazz we would expect from an iron-fisted dictator who has ruled for half a lifetime.
Col. Gaddafi, your grip on Libya is tenuous at best. Still you’ve vowed to die rather than surrender. If the time is nigh for your departure to the land of seventy virgins grant yourself a promotion before you go. I assume you possess that authority, and it’s only fitting for a tyrant to outrank his military generals.
Pick a new title, Colonel. Call yourself a Six-star General, or High Commander of the Libyan Revolution. How about Exalted Excelsior or Perpetual Potentate? Or you can go the acronym route. How about the Sympathetic, Understanding, Caring, Knowledgeable and Excellent Ruler of Libya (S.U.C.K.E.R. for short)?
Chose anything you like. But don’t die a colonel. You don’t want to be the lowest ranked despot gathered around Satan’s fireplace. The other dictators--the ones with cool titles--will laugh at you. “Hey, Col. Gaddafi, fix me another cup of brimstone.”
Your boasts are bold, Muammar. You’ll fight to the last drop of blood. Judging from the mobs in your streets, the defection of senior diplomats and air force pilots, and the fall of one city after another you’ll probably get your chance. Don’t disgrace history’s great dictators by checking out of here a mere colonel. Go out with a new title, something grand, eloquent and memorable.
Libya’s Supreme Sultan of the Ceaselessly Shifting Sands. Now there’s an epitaph any tyrant would envy, and it’ll look great on your tombstone. What’s more, a Supreme Sultan won’t spend his eternity fetching cups of brimstone for Chairman Mao.
Gaddafi is no doubt the perfect thug. But he falls short when it comes to image. Gaddafi has ruled in Tripoli since shortly after Thomas Jefferson’s forces persuaded the Barbary pirates to give up the ship. Yet the highest rank he has attained is that of colonel?
No disrespect intended toward colonels, mind you. Some of America’s greatest military leaders wore the silver eagle at one time or another: Pershing, Patton, Ridgeway, McArthur, Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf. But each one moved on to general before making their reputation and securing their fame. Few are the colonels who are household names.
Sure, there are some. Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th M.A.S.H. comes to mind, as well as Colonels Hogan and Klink from Stalag 13. A colonel managed Elvis Pressley, at least for a while, and Col. Sanders is famous worldwide. There were also the Kentucky Colonels of the defunct American Basketball Association. Yet “Colonel Gaddafi” lacks the requisite pizzazz we would expect from an iron-fisted dictator who has ruled for half a lifetime.
Col. Gaddafi, your grip on Libya is tenuous at best. Still you’ve vowed to die rather than surrender. If the time is nigh for your departure to the land of seventy virgins grant yourself a promotion before you go. I assume you possess that authority, and it’s only fitting for a tyrant to outrank his military generals.
Pick a new title, Colonel. Call yourself a Six-star General, or High Commander of the Libyan Revolution. How about Exalted Excelsior or Perpetual Potentate? Or you can go the acronym route. How about the Sympathetic, Understanding, Caring, Knowledgeable and Excellent Ruler of Libya (S.U.C.K.E.R. for short)?
Chose anything you like. But don’t die a colonel. You don’t want to be the lowest ranked despot gathered around Satan’s fireplace. The other dictators--the ones with cool titles--will laugh at you. “Hey, Col. Gaddafi, fix me another cup of brimstone.”
Your boasts are bold, Muammar. You’ll fight to the last drop of blood. Judging from the mobs in your streets, the defection of senior diplomats and air force pilots, and the fall of one city after another you’ll probably get your chance. Don’t disgrace history’s great dictators by checking out of here a mere colonel. Go out with a new title, something grand, eloquent and memorable.
Libya’s Supreme Sultan of the Ceaselessly Shifting Sands. Now there’s an epitaph any tyrant would envy, and it’ll look great on your tombstone. What’s more, a Supreme Sultan won’t spend his eternity fetching cups of brimstone for Chairman Mao.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The war that will not end
Thirty-five years ago the last U.S. soldiers left Vietnam. Yet the war continues because Vietnam’s veterans returned home to contempt rather than appreciation. Even today a celebration in their honor--held near Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, NC no less--can’t escape the longstanding divisions.
Fayetteville’s mayor organized this “homecoming” celebration. But he also invited Quaker House to participate in the festivities. Quaker House represents a pacifist, anti-Vietnam War attitude, a fact readily recognized by the organization’s director, Chuck Fager. Fager defended his group’s participation on the basis that anti-war sentiment is a historical aspect of the Vietnam era. While he’s factually correct, he has missed this event’s point.
Not every celebration needs to be a history lesson. The Holocaust is a historical fact of World War II. Selling out neighbors to the British was common during the Revolutionary War. But we don’t recognize Nazis on Victory in Europe Day or Tories on Independence Day. These examples are extreme, yet the inclusion of an anti-Vietnam protest organization in a Vietnam veteran’s recognition ceremony is equally inappropriate.
The mindset represented at Quaker House had its day. Protesters received the hero’s treatment during the Vietnam War. Sure, they had their share of detractors. But media coverage gave protesters far more favor than was their due. Why can’t the Fayetteville celebration honor the soldiers who did Vietnam’s dirty work? Why should they share the spotlight with an organization promoting anti-Vietnam War films featuring the traitorous Jane Fonda, which is Quaker House’s plan?
Mr. Fager, stay home and keep your sympathizers with you. Keep your films in the can and the North Vietnamese Army’s favorite vixen off the screen. This is the soldier’s day, not yours. Fayetteville’s mayor shouldn’t have invited you and you should gracefully butt-out.
People can disagree with why Vietnam was fought and how it was managed. They’re free to question and second-guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or whoever. But the men who fought, bled and died in those steamy jungles didn’t deserve the anti-war protester’s scorn.
The Vietnam soldier fought the communist expansion in Southeast Asia. They won the battles in a war where political considerations denied them victory. Vietnam’s ultimate outcome wasn’t what their efforts earned. There was no justifiable reason for a misguided generation of Mao disciples and slovenly hippies to spit on them and called them “baby-killers.”
Vietnam veterans gave what they had and proved that America wouldn’t sit idly in the face of communist aggression. They fought under restraining rules of engagement against an enemy that knew no rules. And they did so at the behest of a government that tied one hand behind their backs before sending them afield.
Sure, efforts have since been made to recognize and honor the Vietnam veteran’s service and sacrifice. But they deserved a proper homecoming when they returned from Southeast Asia. A little extra recognition now is more than justified.
Fayetteville’s mayor organized this “homecoming” celebration. But he also invited Quaker House to participate in the festivities. Quaker House represents a pacifist, anti-Vietnam War attitude, a fact readily recognized by the organization’s director, Chuck Fager. Fager defended his group’s participation on the basis that anti-war sentiment is a historical aspect of the Vietnam era. While he’s factually correct, he has missed this event’s point.
Not every celebration needs to be a history lesson. The Holocaust is a historical fact of World War II. Selling out neighbors to the British was common during the Revolutionary War. But we don’t recognize Nazis on Victory in Europe Day or Tories on Independence Day. These examples are extreme, yet the inclusion of an anti-Vietnam protest organization in a Vietnam veteran’s recognition ceremony is equally inappropriate.
The mindset represented at Quaker House had its day. Protesters received the hero’s treatment during the Vietnam War. Sure, they had their share of detractors. But media coverage gave protesters far more favor than was their due. Why can’t the Fayetteville celebration honor the soldiers who did Vietnam’s dirty work? Why should they share the spotlight with an organization promoting anti-Vietnam War films featuring the traitorous Jane Fonda, which is Quaker House’s plan?
Mr. Fager, stay home and keep your sympathizers with you. Keep your films in the can and the North Vietnamese Army’s favorite vixen off the screen. This is the soldier’s day, not yours. Fayetteville’s mayor shouldn’t have invited you and you should gracefully butt-out.
People can disagree with why Vietnam was fought and how it was managed. They’re free to question and second-guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or whoever. But the men who fought, bled and died in those steamy jungles didn’t deserve the anti-war protester’s scorn.
The Vietnam soldier fought the communist expansion in Southeast Asia. They won the battles in a war where political considerations denied them victory. Vietnam’s ultimate outcome wasn’t what their efforts earned. There was no justifiable reason for a misguided generation of Mao disciples and slovenly hippies to spit on them and called them “baby-killers.”
Vietnam veterans gave what they had and proved that America wouldn’t sit idly in the face of communist aggression. They fought under restraining rules of engagement against an enemy that knew no rules. And they did so at the behest of a government that tied one hand behind their backs before sending them afield.
Sure, efforts have since been made to recognize and honor the Vietnam veteran’s service and sacrifice. But they deserved a proper homecoming when they returned from Southeast Asia. A little extra recognition now is more than justified.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The two faces of Julian Assange
Julian Assange, Wikileaker extraordinaire, is somewhat the enigma. His appearance is, at best, unimpressive. In fact, his visage screams “metrosexual” with the subtlety of a train horn on a still summer’s eve. His sexual preference is in question even while he’s accused of raping two women. Assange is both a heroic freedom-fighter and a treasonous lout, depending on who you ask and when. Perhaps he is equally both and yet neither, all the while turning American politics on its ear.
Regressives cheered when Assange’s Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would’ve considered leaking the U.S. military’s big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.
Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn’t seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn’t realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren’t invariably conducted according to Robert’s Rules is rather naïve.
Assange’s leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department’s diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.
But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange’s two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That’s a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.
Regressives cheered when Assange’s Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would’ve considered leaking the U.S. military’s big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.
Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn’t seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn’t realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren’t invariably conducted according to Robert’s Rules is rather naïve.
Assange’s leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department’s diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.
But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange’s two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That’s a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wow, didn’t see that one coming!
Palestinian kills 4 Israelis on eve of peace talks - Yahoo! News
Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).
Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.
A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).
Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.
Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.
As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.
In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.
The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.
Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.
Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).
Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.
A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).
Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.
Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.
As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.
In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.
The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.
Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.
Monday, May 25, 2009
A Memorial Day memorial
The three-day weekend! It’s as American as baseball, cookouts, swimming pools and the blood of an unknown warrior spilled in defense of ideas and convictions. From an old bridge in New England to the bullet-riddled streets of Baghdad Americans have fought and died for the cause of liberty and independence. This is their day, not ours.
When our Founding Fathers birthed a nation with the immortal words of our glorious Declaration of Independence we began a struggle to preserve liberty in a world hostile to the very concept. Yet to that end our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Some ideas are simply greater than personal well-being.
Our Founders took an army of farmers and merchants to war against what was then the mightiest military on the face of the Earth. By God’s Hand they won! But it wasn’t cheap. More than 4400 perished to make reality the Declaration’s immortal words.
From those days forward our history is rich with heroism and self-sacrifice. Our ancestors have fought valiantly in defense of our nation’s freedom and sovereignty. They have served from the War of 1812 through the westward expansion, including a bloody disagreement that is inexplicably labeled the Civil War.
Americans charged up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. They filled the trenches of World War I to thwart Kaiser Wilhelm’s imperialism. They answered the call by the millions when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and they rid Europe of an indescribably brutal Nazi regime.
American troops braved the harsh combat and the bitter extremes of the Korean peninsula to prevent the spread of communism. In the steamy jungles of Vietnam they fought an often unseen and unidentifiable enemy for the same cause. They received little gratitude, neither the dead nor the survivors. Instead of a hero’s welcome they were mocked, cursed and spat upon. Shameful.
Since Vietnam our family and friends in uniform have routinely confronted hostility from the Iran Hostage Crisis and Beirut to Grenada and Panama. They expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Milosevic from Bosnia and the Taliban from Afghanistan. Finally, they deposed Hussein entirely and quelled an al-Qaeda insurgency.
It’s been said, “All gave some, some gave all.” We’ll reserve Veteran’s Day to honor everyone who has served. But on Memorial Day it is the “some gave all”, along with wartime survivors who have since died, that we should honor.
Can you spare a minute to remember their service and sacrifice? Can you take a moment to remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans who left for battle and never returned? Can you pause to remember your American brethren whose bodies are entombed in sunken warships, dismembered in mangled aircraft, buried in unknown graves, or lost forever on obscure battlefields?
More than 4,400 Americans died in the Revolution and 2,260 in the War of 1812. The Mexican War claimed 13,283 lives, the misnamed Civil War 364,511, and the Spanish-American War 2,446.
America lost 521,915 sons and daughters in World War I (116,516) and World War II (405,399). Korea claimed 36,574 and 58,209 perished in Vietnam. Nearly 6000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died since militant Muslims launched their current campaign against the West with the 1979 invasion of the US embassy in Tehran.
On this day, Memorial Day, you can certainly spare a moment to remember those whose blood made your festivities possible. And if it’s not too much of a burden, will you make a commitment to reignite liberty in the United States of America so that the blood of our countrymen and ancestors will not have spilled in vain?
It seems the least we can do.
Links to state-by-state casualty lists from each war. Does anyone from your state bear your family name?
US Army/Air Corps casualties World War II
US Navy/Marine/Coast Guard casualties World War II
Korean War Casualties by state and last name
Vietnam War Casualties by state and last name
Iraq War casualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom
Afghanistan War Casualties: Operation Enduring Freedom
When our Founding Fathers birthed a nation with the immortal words of our glorious Declaration of Independence we began a struggle to preserve liberty in a world hostile to the very concept. Yet to that end our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Some ideas are simply greater than personal well-being.
Our Founders took an army of farmers and merchants to war against what was then the mightiest military on the face of the Earth. By God’s Hand they won! But it wasn’t cheap. More than 4400 perished to make reality the Declaration’s immortal words.
From those days forward our history is rich with heroism and self-sacrifice. Our ancestors have fought valiantly in defense of our nation’s freedom and sovereignty. They have served from the War of 1812 through the westward expansion, including a bloody disagreement that is inexplicably labeled the Civil War.
Americans charged up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. They filled the trenches of World War I to thwart Kaiser Wilhelm’s imperialism. They answered the call by the millions when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and they rid Europe of an indescribably brutal Nazi regime.
American troops braved the harsh combat and the bitter extremes of the Korean peninsula to prevent the spread of communism. In the steamy jungles of Vietnam they fought an often unseen and unidentifiable enemy for the same cause. They received little gratitude, neither the dead nor the survivors. Instead of a hero’s welcome they were mocked, cursed and spat upon. Shameful.
Since Vietnam our family and friends in uniform have routinely confronted hostility from the Iran Hostage Crisis and Beirut to Grenada and Panama. They expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Milosevic from Bosnia and the Taliban from Afghanistan. Finally, they deposed Hussein entirely and quelled an al-Qaeda insurgency.
It’s been said, “All gave some, some gave all.” We’ll reserve Veteran’s Day to honor everyone who has served. But on Memorial Day it is the “some gave all”, along with wartime survivors who have since died, that we should honor.
Can you spare a minute to remember their service and sacrifice? Can you take a moment to remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans who left for battle and never returned? Can you pause to remember your American brethren whose bodies are entombed in sunken warships, dismembered in mangled aircraft, buried in unknown graves, or lost forever on obscure battlefields?
More than 4,400 Americans died in the Revolution and 2,260 in the War of 1812. The Mexican War claimed 13,283 lives, the misnamed Civil War 364,511, and the Spanish-American War 2,446.
America lost 521,915 sons and daughters in World War I (116,516) and World War II (405,399). Korea claimed 36,574 and 58,209 perished in Vietnam. Nearly 6000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died since militant Muslims launched their current campaign against the West with the 1979 invasion of the US embassy in Tehran.
On this day, Memorial Day, you can certainly spare a moment to remember those whose blood made your festivities possible. And if it’s not too much of a burden, will you make a commitment to reignite liberty in the United States of America so that the blood of our countrymen and ancestors will not have spilled in vain?
It seems the least we can do.
Links to state-by-state casualty lists from each war. Does anyone from your state bear your family name?
US Army/Air Corps casualties World War II
US Navy/Marine/Coast Guard casualties World War II
Korean War Casualties by state and last name
Vietnam War Casualties by state and last name
Iraq War casualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom
Afghanistan War Casualties: Operation Enduring Freedom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
