The Review
March 22, 2003
The sweetness of liberty
(Review) From the BBC's Warblog:
Southern Iraq :: Duncan Kennedy :: 1632GMT
As we drove into southern Iraq we were greeted by the smiling faces and waves from local people clearly happy to be free from the control of Saddam Hussein. The civilian population here have welcomed the coalition forces but have already pleaded for help to build the schools and hospitals they say they have long been denied.
Basra :: David Willis :: 1446GMT
I'm looking out now as this large convoy and can see local people in Basra . There are lots of people coming out, lots of children and they are applauding. The people coming out to shake the hands of American forces who are seen as liberating the city of Basra. This has a significant impact on morale.
Al I can think to say is, I'm sorry we came 12 years too late. I'm sorry we encouraged you to revolt, and then left you in the lurch. I hope we can make up for it now.
Another "human shield" wakes up and smells the coffee
(Review) Human shield Daniel Pepper was shocked to learn the Iraqis actually want us to liberate them.
I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.
"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."
We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.
The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.
Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"
The sad thing is, Danny could truthfully answer, "Not a dime."
The Face of Truth
(Review) The truth has finally gotten through the steel reinforced concrete that the human shields call their skulls.
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
Those of us who've been saying this for the past 12 years can't help but feel the tiniest little bit of vindication.
What is it about the Left that makes it so difficult to see totalitarian regimes for what they truly are? How can they be so pointlessly obtuse?
Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy
(Review) Columbia Professor Edward Luck analyzes the failure of the UN, and looks toward the future.
Since the United Nations no longer tries to organize or oversee the use of force itself, this has been left largely to the discretion of member states. Even Secretary General Kofi Annan has acknowledged that unilateral military action is sometimes necessary. The forced removals of Idi Amin in Uganda, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, were justified "in the eyes of the world" because of "the internal character of the regimes," he said in June 1998. Likewise, the council did not authorize the use of force by the West in Kosovo, the United States in Afghanistan, Russia in Chechnya, or, most recently, France in Ivory Coast.
Opponents of the war in Iraq have been highly selective in their reading of the United Nations Charter. It is a compact by which the member states accept constraints on their use of force in the context of a binding system of collective security. Those who for years have sought to weaken the sanctions and inspections efforts in Iraq — undermining this compact — have set the stage for the use of force. It is hypocritical for them now to claim that the rest of the Charter's rules are sacrosanct.
Unless both the enforcement and legal pillars of the Charter are reinforced, what is left will indeed look a lot like the ill-fated League of Nations. Will the real United Nations please stand up?
A collective security organization that ignores collective security is not especially useful.
The power of negativism
(Review) Paul Johnson writes that in one blow, Jacques Chirac shattered the U.N., NATO and the EU.
We have to face the ugly fact: Internationalism--the principle of collective security and the attempt to regulate the world through representative bodies--has been dealt a vicious blow by Mr. Chirac's bid to present himself as a world statesman, whatever the cost to the world. France is a second-rate power militarily. But because of its geographic position at the center of Western Europe and its nominal possession of nuclear weapons, which ensures its permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, it wields considerable negative and destructive power. On this occasion, it has exercised such power to the full, and the consequences are likely to be permanent.
Now is the time to start thinking about the institutions that will replace them.
Steyn Speaks
Review) Mark Steyn offers some analysis for the readers of the Telegraph.
It's interesting how much was clarified in the first hours of the war. On Thursday, the Palestine Liberation Front released a statement announcing the identity of the first verified casualty: PLF "1st Lieutenant" Ahmed Walid Raguib al-Baz was killed in Baghdad, "while confronting the treacherous US air bombardment on Iraq".
The PLF is the terrorist group that, among other triumphs, hijacked the Achille Lauro back in the 1980s and pushed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American Jew, into the Mediterranean.
What was a PLF terrorist doing attending a war council of Saddam's inner circle in Baghdad? Well, I leave that to all the experts who've assured us that Baghdad has no ties to terror groups.
That was just the first of several myths to fall in the opening shots. If Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac are really interested in continuing with inspections, some of those missiles the Iraqis insisted they no longer have are now available for inspection in the sand on the Kuwaiti side of the border.
One thing about war is that it offers the ultimate test of reality, and strips away illusions.
The campaign continues
(Review) The "Shock and Awe" campaign continues in Iraq. I haven't been giving regular war updates, because I am not a reporter on the scene, and you can get much better real-time coverage on CNN or FOXNews. It is important to point out one thing, though.
The lights are still on in Baghdad.
It's a small item, and easily overlooked, but think about the implications. The targeted and precise nature of our strikes means that we can spare Iraq's civilian facilities. We may have dumped in over 1,000 Tomahawks into the place, but they've all been aimed at extremely tiny portions of the country. In Baghdad, for example, they've been concentrated in three small areas, the largest of which, the Palace complex along the Tigris river, is less than two square miles in area. These are also areas in which Iraqi civilians are prevented from entering by soldiers with machine guns, even in peacetime.
The Iraqis claim that 250 civilians have been injured and 8 killed. Now, they also say that allied forces are in retreat in Southern Iraq, and that we haven't taken Umm Qasr or Safwan. Obviously you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
But let's assume that their numbers are true. Numbers like that make my point. We've popped a couple hundred missiles into Baghdad, and done it with such precision and care that we've only killed 8 people. We lost more people than that in a single helicopter crash.
This is not to say that each life lost isn't a tragedy, but it's clear that we're doing everything humanly possible to spare the Iraqi people the horrors of war.
And that's why the lights are still on in Baghdad.
Pejman's Thought for the Day
(Review) War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
--John Stuart Mill
March 21, 2003
Turkish Double-cross
(Review) The Turks have given us permission to use two air corridors through Turkey. Sounds good, right?
Well, there's a catch. They've also announced that they will be invading Northern Iraq and occupying some of the Kurdish areas. They've blown us off for months, and now that they see a chance to grab some more territory for themselves, they're jumping in with both feet. Not to work with us, but to grab hold of the Kurds, who, by the way, they hate.
Five years ago, the Turks offered to move into part of the Kurdish area of Iraq under an agreement where they would temporarily assist the Kurds. The agreement was supposed to expire after one year. Five years later, the Turks are still there. The Kurds have no reason whatsoever to trust the Turks, and I don't think we do either, after the way they've jerked us around.
I watched Dan Rather interviewing Turkey's ambassador to the US. He's full of platitudes about how closely they're working with us, but clearly, watching what's going on, that's a load of crap. This is a total surprise to us, and they are presenting us with a fait accompli. He went on about how opposed the Turkish public is to our campaign in Iraq, and how hard it's been for the government to provide us any support due to that opposition. I notice that the opposition didn't stop them from invading Iraq themselves when they thought they could get away with it, though.
More and more, I'm starting to believe in the idea that the Anglosphere comprises the only trustworthy allies we have, with the possible exception of New Europe. One thing I do know is that I'm starting to get pretty ticked off by being constantly stabbed in the back by our "allies".
Stocks Up. Oil Prices Down.
(Review) The markets hate uncertainty. They have much less of it today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 225.56 as I write, and the price of oil is dropping.
Worthy only of Contempt
(Review) Jonah Goldberg express his disgust at the anti-war protestors.
Of all the wars and conflicts all around the globe, this is the one that has caused them to spill out onto the boulevards in rage. This is the one they've decided warrants human shields and boycotts. There were no human shields boarding buses to defend the Kurds or the Kuwaitis from Saddam Hussein — but they're falling over themselves for the opportunity to get in our way when we try to defend or liberate them. The useful idiots didn't rend their clothes and gnash their teeth when the Soviets invaded Kabul, but they were out in force when we liberated it. In short, these people don't hate war or care for the innocent nearly so much as they hate America.
Like it or not, war forces people to choose sides. If the vomiting protesters had had their way the United States would never have bombed Saddam's bunker. If they had their way, U.S. tanks would be turned around right now and we would apologize to Iraq, to France, and to the world for daring to shatter that glorious peace that allowed Saddam Hussein to keep the professional rapists' guild working overtime and the people of Safwan patting their empty bellies.
If the war goes well and the people of Iraq are saved, let the useful idiots cheer the liberation if they like. Let them applaud the alleviation of famine and disease should they feel so inclined. Indeed, let them claim all they like that they wanted all of these good things too. But don't let them forget that they never believed these things would be worth it if the price was letting America have its way.
I couldn't say it better.
Shock and Awe is Underway
Photo: FoxNews
(Review) It's starting. The bombing up to now has been peanuts compared to this. They should have surrendered when they had the chance.
Evidently, 3000 targets are slated for destruction in Baghdad. Tonight. Not over the next couple of days. Tonight.
Let's hope this encourages a quick end to battle.
Photo: FoxNews
Now I'm wondering why we liberated Paris in the first place
Review Jacques Chirac says France will not authorize a U.N. resolution allowing the United States and Britain to administer postwar Iraq.
Krauthammer's right. We need to stay as far away from the UN as possible, rather than let this SOB get his greedly little frog mitts on the post-war governance of Baghdad.
That's right. "Frog mitts". I said it.
Like Paris in '44, except without the wine and sex with French girls
(Review) Iraqis are beginning to exult in their liberation. Either that, or we scare the hell out of them so bad they're eager to be our friends right now.
UPDATE: Okay, that was an uncalled for crack. I'm watching the video from Safwan right now, and the people are jumping about, smiling, and mobbing US Marines to shake their hands. They look pretty darn happy. Let's hope this is the type of video we see again and again, so that the anti-war protestors can explain why the Iraqis are a heck of a lot happier to see us than the war protestors are to liberate Iraq.
And let's hope the post-war Iraqi government has some chocie words for the fellow-travelers and useful idiots who protested the liberation.
Kim Jong-Il to U.S.: Remember me? I'm still here. Waiting.
(Review) That killjoy Stanley Kurtz reminds us that, even with all of our attention on Iraq, North Korea is out there waiting.
Although all eyes are currently on the general Baghdad area, we are also on a course for war with North Korea, perhaps within the next six months, but surely within the next six years. Proposals for negotiations, whether multilateral or bilateral, are fatally flawed. Nothing short of war will stop the North Koreans from developing and selling nuclear weapons and fuel. The question is whether we will go to war before, or after, North Korea spreads its nuclear material. A case can be made for holding war off until we are struck first, even if by nuclear terrorism. But that is our fundamental choice — war before nuclear proliferation, or after.
I wish I believed Kurtz to be wrong. But the world is becoming a more dangerous place. Nuclear proliferation is becoming easier (it is, after all, a 50 year-old technology), and one-man dictatorships run by whack jobs like Kim Jong-Il possessing both nuclear warheads and ICBMs is the stuff of nightmares.
Finally, the Left can support this war, too!
(Review) Jonathon Adler writes that now Saddam Hussein has set 7 oil wells on fire, he has become an Eco-Criminal once again, thereby making it politically correct to hate him.
Not that the Left will do that, of course.
Cutting off the head
(Review) James Robbins writes on the morality of "Decapitation Strikes".
Targeting the leadership is also useful because it works. When an individual is the embodiment of the state, placing his life in danger will have much greater compellence value than killing thousands of conscript troops the dictator could not care less about. The Soviet leadership was greatly alarmed when Ronald Reagan decided that nuclear-war strategy would be much more sensible if, rather than targeting civilians in Moscow, our missiles were aimed at the Politburo's bomb shelters. During the air campaign against Serbia for the liberation of Kosovo (or whatever our objective was), Slobodan Milosevic showed no particular fear of the prospect of NATO air bombardment of his country or his forces, and in fact defied the air campaign for weeks, much to the surprise and embarrassment of President Clinton. Milosevic only gave in to NATO demands when the targeting set was changed from knocking out Serbian bridges and electrical grids, to dropping bombs close to Milosevic's bunker. You can't get a dictator's attention by inconveniencing his subjects, you have to get him to focus on something he really cares about, like his posterior.
One of the key weaknesses of dictatorships is that the reins of power are held in a single person, or a tight cabal. The nature of such government is that they eliminate, so far as it is possible, any idea of individual initiative from any person not a part of the top leadership. The general rule in such states is that anything which is not specifically permitted is forbidden.
In wartime, this is an invitation to crippling weakness.
If you kill an American general, there is a lieutenant general somewhere around who just steps into his place. Kill a Lieutenant, and a Sergeant First Class steps into the gap. But in a society like Iraq, killing a leader is a serious matter. His death is just as likely to start up 1) a serious power struggle for succession, or 2) complete paralysis as everyone wonders who they are supposed to receive orders from.
One of the reasons the "Shock and Awe" campaign--and can we please say those four words more--is the decapitation strikes have made is unnecessary so far. There appears to be no coordinated defense of Iraq. Such defense as there is seems to be entirely local initiatives by a few commanders. And that's a good thing, because it means far fewer deaths on both sides. Indeed, as I write this, there has been one (1) combat death among coalition forces, after two days of fighting.
If that's because decapitation has removed the Iraqi government's ability to organize their defense, then I'm all for it.
A Shield of Cynicism
(Review) Norah Vincent writes that the peace activists know that there truly is a difference between us and those we're fighting. Indeed, they presume it.
Reshuffling the world
(Review) Peter Brown writes that the War Against Terror is reshuffling the world. The Post-WWII order is finally disintegrating. Now is the time to start thinking about what is going to replace it.
Don't go back to the UN
(Review) Charles Krauthammer requests that we don't go back to the UN for help in administering a post-war Iraq.
No one knows when this war will end. But when it does, you'll have to decide the terms. Yet in the last few days both you and Tony Blair have said you will seek a new U.N. resolution, postwar, providing for the governance of Iraq.
Why in God's name would we want to re-empower the French in deciding the postwar settlement? Why would we want to grant them influence over the terms, the powers, the duration of an occupation bought at the price of American and British blood? France, Germany and Russia did everything they could to sabotage your policy before the war. Will they want to see it succeed after?
Somehow, I doubt it.
The Failure of the UN
(Review) Richard Perle writes that the main argument for supporting the UN is that order is preferable over anarchy. Unfortunately, The UN is no mean contender when it comes to engendering anarchy itself.
During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.
Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.
The UN does a number of pleasant, useful things. The World Health Organization comes to mind. Some peacekeeping missions have also been successful here and there.
But at the end of the day, the UN's chief weakness is that it tries to reconcile the interests of too many disparate views. It treats with equal gravity the views of totalitarian dictatorships and liberal democracies. History indicates that the times are rare when such different institutions have common goals.
The inability of the UN to reconcile those disparate goals leads to impotence and inaction.
Perhaps some day there will be no more dictatorships. Perhaps some day, there will be no nation willing to elevate its own interest in aggression above the needs of the international community.
As far as I can tell, though, that day is a long, long way away.
Conventional Ignorance
(Review) Victor Davis Hanson debunks the Myth of Worldwide Jihad, the Neoconservative (i.e. Jewish) Conspiracy, and the anti-war Left's moral bankruptcy. A good read, as always.
March 20, 2003
Administrative Announcement
Speaking of discontinued things, I'm going to stop doing the newsletter as well. I simply don't have the time to write new things for it, so it's become essentially a rehash of the past month's published articles. I've replaced it with a link to the TCS web site that lists all of my articles there, and I will go back to the old method of adding all of my essays to the Writings page after they are published.
That will also save me bandwidth charges, since I won't have 300-500KB PDF files downloaded, and for those of you on 56k modems (with 28.8 phone line speed) instead of high-speed Internet, you won't have to download the PDF files over your tortuously slow phone lines. You can view them from the Writings page in plain 'ol HTML or Word Doc format.
This will save me bandwidth charges and time, and will save you time as well.
Democrat Obstruction
(Review) Evidently the start of the war has given Senate Democrats cover to act to reject an entire slate of Bush judicial nominees.
Acting in concert, Michigan Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow told the Judiciary Committee they will block the nominations of Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Susan Bieke Neilson, and Henry Saad to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Levin and Stabenow said they will block the nomination of Thomas Ludington to a seat on the U.S. District Court. That means the two senators are attempting to kill every Bush nominee from the state of Michigan.
The move is all the more remarkable because much of the Sixth Circuit is in what the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts calls a "judicial emergency." The court normally has 16 members, but half of those seats are now empty.
I guess there's no tactic too disreputable for the Democrats to embrace in opposing the president.
Asministrative Announcement
Due to the extra bandwidth taken up by the pictures, I am disabling the comments feature. The database for the comments is located on another server, and it's just slowing the download time too much.
You can still contact me by using the "Send Comments to the Review" link located on the left side of the page.
The lame attempts at humor will continue
Perhaps some of you think the attempts at humor via the pictures below are inappropriate at this critical time for our country.
I would agree with you, if you were correct. The truth is that humor is an element of morale, and even in serious times, we need to calm the mind with a break from the tension. I can tell you from personal experience that our troops are finding whatever humor they can in their situations, even though much of that humor may be darker than the average civilian will find comfortable.
Being serious does not mean you have to be humorless. So, I'm going to keep on producing the pictures as previously, in an attempt to lighten the mental load a little bit.
Photo: Iraqi State Television
This is what happens when you give people 6 weeks of vacation each year
Photo: AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis
Photo: AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis
Photo: Reuters TV
Photo: FOXNews
Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder
Photo: AP Photo/Wayne Scarberry
Debunking the Critics
Review) Michael Baron debunks the criticisms of those who allege that W's failed diplomacy got us into this mess.
The Paratrooper's Burden
(Review) Karl Zinsmeister writes about the tough decisions our troops are training to make. It gives you a glimpse of how difficult it is to make right decisions in the heat of combat, at the spur of the moment. He describes one of these training scenarios:
In one, a squad simulates a helicopter drop into a hot zone where a friendly humvee had just been attacked. Their mission is to secure a perimeter and then evacuate the wounded American soldiers.
All is proceeding well until a mob of "Iraqis" — actually some other soldiers from the same company, wearing desert fatigues but no body armor or helmets — swarm out of an alley between some nearby tents. The role players menace the U.S. soldiers, shouting taunts, and throwing a few rocks.
Suddenly one Iraqi in the middle of the pack unslings a rifle that had been hidden behind his shoulder, and attempts to fire. An alert infantryman drops him with a single round (in this case, a shouted "bang"). Unfortunately, the rest of the crowd doesn't flee when the shot rings out, reacting instead with rage. "You killed my brother," shout several of the hostiles, rushing the kneeling perimeter guards.
Chaos breaks out. Additional shots are fired. "You want more? Who wants more?" yells one adrenaline-filled shooter at his enemies. In the end, four aggressive but unarmed civilians lay on the ground, dead.
At the end, all Charlie Company troopers gather around the experienced Rangers and special-forces officers leading the exercise. "You're f***ing going to jail," one Sergeant interjects, forcefully pointing at the rescue squad.
These lightning-fast decisions would be tough for even Solomon to deliberate all the way through. For teenaged men facing possible death in a hostile country, the choices are hellishly tough. In a scenario run immediately after the one I've just described, four GIs get shot because some non-uniformed Iraqi attackers weren't taken out quickly enough.
We put a lot of trust in 18-year olds, expecting them to make very difficult decisions at the spur of the moment. This is an excellent article that describes the training we put them through to help them make the right decisions, and how they respond to it.
Wort Case Scenarios
(Review) Anthony Cordesman reminds us that while hearing about the possibility of massive casualties from chemical weapons may be disturbing, it's important to remember that worst-case scenarios rarely happen.
Goodbye, Dixie Chicks
(Review) Kimberly Strassel explores the Dixie Chicks' professional suicide for the Wall Street Journal.
The Dixie Chicks have the right to say what they want. And fans have the right to never buy their CDs, go to their concerts or listen to them on the radio. That's called living in a free society. The Chicks are learning that the hard way.
It'll be interesting to see if Hollywood opens itself up for the same lesson at the Oscars.
Strategy of Shame
(Review) Jim Hoagland explains Saddam's strategy of shame.
Saddam Hussein's only effective weapon in the 1991 Persian Gulf War was the shame factor. He is preparing to deploy it again in a grisly replay of a military strategy based on sacrificing as many Iraqi civilians and soldiers as he must to save himself.
In Arab society and politics, a foe who can be made to feel shame is a weakened and vulnerable opponent. For the Iraqi dictator, that meant exhausting American willingness to kill leaderless and defenseless Iraqi troops to get a cease-fire 12 years ago. This time, Iraqi civilians and oil fields will be pawns in Hussein's strategy of morale-weakening destruction.
U.S. generals will also need to cope with Hussein's penchant for sacrificial battlefield surprise and his belief that an Iraq that fails him and his grandiose ambition does not deserve to exist. Failing to become Saladin, he could settle for being Sampson in the temple.
The best short-cut to rendering such a strategy ineffective is speed and surprise.
The war that will chane the world
(Review) Ralph Peters has more on the world-historical moment we find ourselves in. He's optimistic about the future.
The Arab Coalition
(Review) Dennis Ross writes that we are standing at a moment of historical opportunity that cannot be squandered. And like all historical moments, it is one of danger as well.
Assuming the war goes well, anger among Arab publics is going to abate once Saddam has fallen and pictures of Iraqis rejoicing over their liberation are beamed throughout the Arab world. Who in the Arab world will say that President Bush was wrong as images of a people released from the enduring hell of Saddam's rule are appearing on their television screens? Similarly, who will say war was a mistake when Iraqi scientists and technicians emerge from the woodwork after Saddam's demise to reveal the chemical and biological agents he has denied having?
But anger abating is not the same as the anger going away. The liberation of Iraq will create a window for us and for the region. If our liberation begins to look like an occupation, if our use of democracy continues to look like a slogan to be used against those we don't like, but never against those we do, and if we continue to appear to be indifferent to the sourness created by the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, we will find that regime adjustments are temporary and hostility toward us is more permanent.
The opportunities provided at historical moments are fleeting, and must be grasped quickly. Let's hope the Bush Administration realizes this as well.
March 19, 2003
And so it begins
The battle to liberate Iraq has begun. I offer these thoughts.
O God of battles
Give our men and women the courage to face this danger,
Confidence in the knowledge that they fight not to conquer, but to liberate the enslaved,
And comfort in the hour of their danger.
O God of Justice
Strike fear into the hearts of our enemies,
Show mercy to them if they flee,
But use us as the arm of your justice if they do not.
O God of Mercy
Protect the innocent as we advance.
Shelter them in the cleft of the rock,
So that they will be unharmed as the storm passes.
O God of Victory
Crown our arms with glory.
Let us bring down justice upon the guilty,
And liberty to the oppressed.
First Shots
(Review) Coalition aircraft have destroyed 10 artillery pieces that were in firing range of coalition forces in the Demilitarized Zone between Kuwait and Iraq.
Although, I think the Demilitarized Zone has now become the Extremely Militarized Zone.
Delta Force is on the job
(Review) Apparently, the US Army has teams of Delta Force commandos ready to go into bagdad to find and capture or Kill Saddam Hussein. Good to see they'll have something to keep them occupied.
Hopefully, it won't occupy them for too long.
Oscar Politics
(Review) According to The American Prowler:
On Sunday night, the Academy Awards will allow all winners to make a political speech -- if they choose to do so -- of between 45 seconds and one minute in length.
"As long as it's in good taste, we're happy to let these citizens speak their minds. Obviously our government doesn't care about what they say, or else we wouldn't be going to war," says a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in New York.
Uh-huh. Making anti-war political speeches while American boys are dying in a foreign land. With the approval of 70% of the American public. It'll be interesting to see how many careers crash and burn on Sunday.
Mutual Incomprehension
(Review) John Derbyshire writes about the mutual incomprehension that exists between Americans and Europeans. It's a very important piece, and I can tell you that I can confirm his observations after living in Holland for three years and England for one. Americans and Europeans face each other across a vast cultural, political, and historical divide.
The Party of Robert Scheer
(Review) I have written often that the Democrats greatest electoral weakness is their perceived weakness on national security issues. Cragg Hines expands on that theme.
Standing at the back of a cavernous hall in the Sacramento Convention Center last weekend as the California Democratic Party state convention wore on, Garry South, a long-time party strategist shook his head as delegates booed pro-war candidates and swooned over Dean.
"Our party has suffered since the early 1970s from the image among the public that we are not sufficiently concerned about national defense, and obviously after Sept. 11 that is not the place you want the party to be," South said.
South's is an observation that Democrats ignore at their peril, which, given their track record, means that the party almost certainly will.
Whatever else the Democratic party may be, on issues of national security, it is no longer the party of FDR and Harry Truman.
Tom Daschle's "Sadness"
(Review) George Will writes that Tom Daschle's comments attacking Bush were absurd.
Monday, before Bush spoke, Daschle said that the president had ''failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war.'' Well. Presumably Daschle meant that Bush has failed to secure the support of the French and a majority of other Security Council members for enforcing the plain meaning of Resolution 1441, which the French co-authored and the Security Council unanimously adopted. But had Bush succeeded, the result would have been the ''serious consequences'' 1441 calls for: war. The French and everyone else, including Daschle, understood that.
So Daschle's position is: America is ''forced to war'' because presidential diplomacy failed to produce a broader coalition for war. A descent into absurdity, for sure.
There are many honorable exceptions among the Democrats: Joseph Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, for instance. As for Daschle, he has become the Democrats' Trent Lott, with two differences. Lott was embarrassing about 1948, and his fellow Republicans were embarrassed.
Jonah Goldberg has an even better line:
Now, I have no doubt that Daschle is truly "saddened, saddened" by Bush's decision. After all, that's a pretty low threshold for Daschle. Being "saddened" is his favorite rhetorical device. George W. Bush could pet a puppy and Daschle would hold a press conference sighing, in that stage whisper of his, that he's "saddened and disappointed that President Bush couldn't muster more than a token level of affection" for the poor creature.
Funny, though, how gung-ho Daschle was for military attacks on Iraq when Bill Clinton was doing them.
Who will celebrate, and who will weep?
(Review) The NY Post reprints a portion of Tony Blair's speech before Parliament yesterday.
Always the optimist
(Review) Hans Blix says that Iraq won't use chemical weapons against US troops. Maybe they won't, although the Pentagon seems pretty darned concerned about it.
But, of course, Hans is the guy who failed to find the Iraqi nuclear program when it was operating right under his nose in the 1980s. And, of course, he failed to find any actual chemical weapons during the last 6 months of inspections. So, maybe we should take his track record of accuracy into account when judging his pronouncements.
March 18, 2003
Good news from the front
(Review) According to FOXNews:
As the 48-hour clock continues to wind down on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, there are signs that thousands of Iraqi troops are planning to surrender to the U.S. and its allies even in the first hours of war.
Not all the news is good, however.
Officials say numerous intelligence reports continue to point to a Republican Guard unit in the southern city of Al Kut, southeast of Baghdad, being armed with chemical weapons - artillery shells filled with VX, Sarin, or mustard gas.
Weapons that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly claimed not to have.
London stays the course
The Parliament has defeated a motion against the war by a 396-217 vote. The House of Commons later voted to give the PM approval to take "all means necessary" to disarm Iraq. According to The Telegraph, "At the end of a highly-charged nine and a half hour emergency debate in the run up to conflict, the Government's motion supporting the use of "all means necessary" to disarm Iraq was carried by 412 votes to 149, majority 263." It appears that 139 Labour MP's voted against the motion, up from 122 that last time. Still, that gives the PM solid support from the House, if not from his own party.
Not only that, but public support for Blair's policy is up. The Evening Standard reports that a majority - 52% - said they would vote with the Government in favor of war if they were an MP, while 42% said they would vote against.
52% still think Tony Blair is a poor or very poor PM, but they've switched to a majority on support for the war.
What our troops should expect from us
(Review) Ralph peters explain what we need to do to support our troops as war begins: Be prepared for setbacks, or for the unexpected, for they are inherent in the very nature of warfare.
Patience. Calm deliberation. Resolve. Those are the watchwords of the day.
Political Pressure on Blair
(Review) Two more cabinet ministers have resigned from the Blair Governmentm John Denham from the Home Office and Lord Hunt from the Health Department. Oddly, enough, International Development Minister Claire Short decided not to resign after all.
At 10:00 pm GMT, Parliament will vote on the war with Iraq. Blair must have less than 200 no votes from Labour Party MPs, or else rely on Tory MP's to sustain the government's action. The Conservative Party's leader Ian Duncan Smith has already pledged Tory support for the PM's actions. But losing 200 Labour votes would be interpreted as a virtual "No", and make it hard for Blair to stay on as PM, even though the measure itself would pass. Last time parliament voted on Blair's Iraq policy, there were 121 Labour MPs who voted against the government.
There's been a lot of nasty rhetoric inside the Labour Party today because of the resignations, and the pre-existing split on Iraq policy. If things go badly at the vote this evening, we may have a new, and less supportive PM. But, the Evening Standard reports that blair may be able to keep the Labour revolt from growing, due to his actions today.
[A]t a packed meeting of Labour backbenchers, the mood also appeared to be turning Mr Blair's way. The Prime Minister used the private meeting at the Commons to deliver a passionate appeal to his MPs to rally round. His 18-minute speech won long and loud applause and afterwards even some of his critics described it as "very persuasive". Of the 20 MPs who spoke, 15 backed the Government line and those who spoke against were said to have been "subdued".
Good Luck, Prime Minister.
Photo: Reuters/Peter Morgan
The coalition
(Review) The state department has released the full list of coalition nations that will be helping us liberate Iraq. The coalition nations are Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
Japan will be offering only post-conflict assistance, since their constitution prohibits the use of Japanese troops in combat anywhere but Japan. (A constitutional provision sponsored by Doug MacArthur, by the way.)
As far as troops go, the three largest coalition partners are the US (240,000), the UK (45,000), and Australia (2,000).
So much for unilateralism.
65 Percent Back Iraq War
(Review) 65% of respondents in a new NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll support invading Iraq, even though they think it will make terrorism more likely.
Thanks, but no thanks
(Review) Despite France's opposition to war with Iraq, their ambassador to the US, Jean-David Levitte, says that if Iraq uses chemical weapons against the coalition, they might join it as well. The coalition, I mean. Not Iraq.
Although I can understand why you'd be confused on that point. Anyway, Levitte said:
"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.
"But I confirm it would change completely the perception and the situation for us," said Jean-David Levitte, who told CNN he hoped that biological and chemical weapons would not be used.
Although he declined to give details on the possible shape of French participation, Levitte said: "We have equipment to fight in these circumstances."
You had the equipment to fight in the circumstances of 1940, too, for all the good that did you.
But seriously, it's an interesting position for the froggies to take. Why would they make such an interesting statement now? My cynical mind has gone to work on the question, and this is what I come up with:
- France has supplied a good portion of Iraq's chemical weapons capability.
- France knows that there is a good chance that documentary evidence of this will be found soon.
- If coalition soldiers are killed by chemical weapons, someone will be asking the French government some uncomfortable questions.
- Having French troops risk their lives as part of the coalition will short-circuit that process of questioning because, after all, French soldiers were just as at risk as American or British ones were.
Pearl Harbor 2003?
(Review) Frederick Kagan reminds us that the North Koreans are still there. And getting impatient with us, besides.
Trust Tony
(Review) Former president Bill Clinton writes in The Guardian that the British people should trust the judgement of Tony Blair.
As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the British people will too.
Now, how many of you are willing to bet that a similar article praising George W. Bush will appear under the former president's byline in the NY Times?
Class? Class? Anyone?
Yeah, I thought so.
Saddam's Evil
(Review) British Prime Minister Tony Blair can count on at least one firm Labour vote in favor of destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. Anne Clwyd (pronounced "Clwyd"), is the Labour MP from Cynon Valley. She writes about the years-long campaign she has waged to document the brutality of the Iraqi regime. She opens with a particularly nasty example, taken from an eyewitness account.
There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.
Looks like somebody in the Hussein clan has watched "Fargo" a few too many times.
Saddam's War Plan
(Review) Amir Taheri writes that Saddam's war plans have three main objectives:
1. Slow down the advance of coalition forces as much as possible.
2. Hide the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard behind the regular army.
3. Maximize civilian casualties.
If he can hold the coalition forces off for a few weeks, he will use the time to try for UN interference in the war.
Saddam hopes that his tactics will slow the coalition advance towards Baghdad for several weeks during which his European friends could go to the U.N. Security Council and ask for an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations under Security Council auspices.
All this may sound fanciful. But George W. Bush should beware. He has already been duped once by the "unanimous" victory he won with Resolution 1441, and should remember that President Jacques Chirac has vowed to do all he can to prevent Saddam's overthrow. Saddam may well offer to resign at the last minute and hand over power to his son Qusay, who would immediately call for a ceasefire and full cooperation with the coalition forces.
"The world is on our side," Saddam told his commanders on Sunday. "We can win this war as we won the last one."
This is no empty boast. Saddam may have no supporters inside Iraq itself. But he does enjoy widespread support in many countries because he has come to symbolize all strands of anti-Americanism. All those who hate the United States for whatever reason will do all they can to make sure that Saddam is not toppled.
Time is not our ally, any more than it has been for the last six months. If the military campaign launched by the coalition forces is not fast and furious, it will give America's opponents time to create a growing consensus for some kind of negotiated settlement. One that will leave Saddam or his son, or one of their Ba'athist ilk in charge. No matter how you cut it, such an end would be a massive defeat for us.
Ready to go
(Review) Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen say they're ready to go, and get their job done.
March 17, 2003
Living in a fantasy land
(Review) The UNSC is still not living in the real world.
In a report to the Security Council, Blix said if Saddam Hussein cooperates, the dozen key remaining disarmament issues could be resolved in months.
France, Russia and Germany have seized on Blix's presentation of the disarmament tasks to call for a council meeting Wednesday to set a "realistic" timeline to complete the tasks.
Uh, that ship has sailed, folks. The disarmament issues won't be solved in months. They'll be resolved in days.
The Speech
(Review) The president's speech was done about as well as W can do that sort of thing.
He gave us the appropriate historical context, assured us that many other nations supports us as part of the coalition, and assured the Iraqi people that really are going to liberate them this time.
Chances that Saddam Hussein will take up the offer of exile: 0%
Chances that we'll be at war with Iraq very soon: 100%
"When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says," Saddam said.
Review) If Saddam is telling the truth, then where do you suppose the Iraqi Army is getting chemical warheads?
Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.
"The information is raw … and hard to confirm ... but we are seeing -- using different methods -- that Saddam Hussein has armed troops south of Baghdad with chemical weapons," one official said.
Officials say it's hard to tell how many of these weapons are being distributed, but the intelligence reports indicate that "some chemical shells" have been provided to troops.
Well, even if he doesn't mean what he says, he'll sound find out that we do.
Going to "orange" and other tidbits
(Review) Events are moving quickly today, on nearly every front.
- The Terror Alert level will be elevated to Orange this evening.
- The Turkish Government has made an urgent request to the Parliament to allow US troops into the country.
- Saddam Hussein declares that Iraq has no WMDs at all, but there's still chatter about Iraq using them against the colaition.
- Cabinet Minister Robin Cook has resigned from tony Blair's Labour Government due to his disagreement with the PM over Iraq.
Speech Preview
(Review) Leaks are coming out about what President Bush will say in about 2 1/2 hours. It seems as if he's going to give Saddam less than a week to leave Iraq, along with the rest of his vicious and evil family of thugs.
Even his defense attorney refers to him as "The Perpetrator"
(Review) Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper is a total whack job.
The self-proclaimed prophet accused of abducting Elizabeth Smart told his attorney he considers the 15-year-old girl his wife and wants her to be renamed "Remnant Who Will Return."
"He wanted me to tell the world that she is his wife, and he still loves her and knows that she still loves him, that no harm came to her during their relationship and the adventure that went on," attorney Larry Long said in an interview aired late Sunday on KUTV.
Well, unless you're one of those sticks-in-the-mud like me, who believes that being repeatedly sexually assaulted by a maniac doesn't fit your definition of "no harm".
Long, who said he had agreed earlier Sunday to become Brian David Mitchell's attorney, was speaking for his client for the first time.
Long said Mitchell -- whom he referred to as "the perpetrator" -- would consider the girl's nine-month disappearance a "call from God," not a kidnapping.
A jury of his peers, however, will consider it to be something entirely different.
People seem to be piling on to this poor girl for not doing...something or other. That strikes me as being totally unfair. First, in a long-term hostage situation, the victim begins to identify with the hostage-taker. This is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. The kidnapper holds your life and death in his hands. This identification is a psychological survival mechanism that comes in to play to help you live through the hostage situation by becoming an ally, so he won't bump you off if you become inconvenient.
Second, this was a 14 year-old girl from a relatively sheltered life, who was kidnapped at gunpoint in the middle of the night. I think it's pretty low to criticize a child for not responding in a more aggressive way to her kidnapper. She was a child. She took the path of least resistance. She made it home. That's perfectly acceptable.
I have absolutely no criticism of the way she handled herself. She lived through it, and that is the best outcome that she could have hoped for. Sure, she'll be working this out in therapy for the next several years, but that's a heck of a lot better than being killed by this maniac.
Had it been me who was kidnapped, Mr. Mitchell would be dead right now, and I would have been home months ago. But, Unlike Elizabeth Smart, I have the advantage of a decade's worth of combat and law enforcement training and experience. I can think of all sorts of things Ms. Smart could have done to escape. I can think of a couple of ways she could have killed Mr. Mitchell with a ballpoint pen. But I can think of those things because I am not a teenage girl who lives a sheltered, upper middle class life in my parents house.
So lay off Elizabeth Smart. Mr. Mitchell bears the entirety of the responsibility for her kidnapping and extended confinement. Hopefully, a jury of his peers will be able to extract an appropriate penalty for that responsibility.
I guess he's finally convinced that we're serious
(Review) UN Secretary General Kofi Anan has ordered all UN personnel out of Iraq, including the weapons inspectors.
The balloon is going up.
Photo: AP Photo/Adrian Dennis
Photo: AP Photo/Eitan Hess-Ashkenazi
Photo: Reuters/Richard Drew
Photo: Reuters Television
Dimplomacy's over
(Review) Britain has pulled the second UNSC resolution. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The diplomatic window has closed as a result of the U.N.'s failure to enforce it's own resolutions for Saddam to disarm."
The president will speak to the nation at 8:00pm, EST. I think we all know what he's going to say.
Why We Need a Democratic Iraq
(Review) Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing for the Weekly Standard, explains why, in the long run, democracy may be the only effective defense against the disease that struck us on 9/11.
It's a long article, writtten with a fairly scholarly tone, and you need to read every word of it.
A line in the sand
(Review) Tim Hames writes that the war against Saddam Hussein will send a powerful deterrent message to other tinpot dictators.
"With Thanks for your valuable service"
(Review) John Podhoretz writes that Hans Blix doesn't seem to know that he's just been served with retirement papers. UNMOVIC, the UN organization created to monitor Iraqi disarmament, has become superfluous. The new inspection organization, known by its informal name "the US Military", will be assuming those responsibilities now.
Mr. Blix's main duties from now on will be to enjoy his golden years.
It's all Tony's Fault
(Review) Anne Applebaum writes that W's big mistake was to listen to Tony Blair and go to the UN.
Practically nobody is willing to say it, so let us be as frank as possible: the decision to conduct the invasion of Iraq in consultation with the United Nations - a decision taken by President George W Bush partly to mollify his friend Tony Blair - has been utterly disastrous. Even if it proves possible to bribe Guinea and Angola and Chile into voting for a second UN resolution - even if the French, miraculously, change their minds about the whole thing tomorrow - the diplomatic events of the past week will go down in history as the most embarassing for the United States and Britain in a long time.
Yep, it's certainly been a diplomatic shambles. One that many predicted months ago. But, that's neither here nor there. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and, of course, who could predict that the French would take the hard line they took?
Without France's loud opposition, and without President Chirac's claim that this is all about "American power", not about Iraq, it is hard to see how Guinea and Mexico would have had the nerve to stand up against the United States, and hard to see how this would have evolved into the diplomatic disaster that it has become.
It's hard to argue with that assessment.
Oh, well, water under the bridge, now.
Now, we have to concentrate on winning quickly, and winning big.
But the war does not have to be lost to produce quite a different result. If it lasts much longer than it is supposed to do, if it degenerates into civil war, if the fighting in Baghdad is bloody and chaotic and expensive, then the aftermath may look quite different. President Bush may be finished, along with Mr Blair and Nato. France and Germany will once again be the most important countries in the EU. The next US president will think twice before doing anything without UN approval, and the next British prime minister will think twice before involving himself in foreign adventures without the explicit permission of his European colleagues.
It's a big gamble we're going to embark on now. If it goes as predicted, we'll be able to move forward without a lot of diplomatic baggage. The best possible outcome, and, I think the most likely one, is that we thrash the Iraqi Army, find the hidden WMD stockpiles, and liberate the Iraqi people. In general, regimes like Saddam's collapse like a pricked balloon when they are invaded, and the people turn against the leadership of the state.
Let's hope that historical trend holds true this week.
Compare and Contrast
(Review) Robert Bartley provides his answer to the test question, "Compare and contrast the UN with the League of Nations."
"They Don't Speak for Me"
(Review) Iraqi refugee and new American Esra Naama writes for the LA Times that MArtin Sheen, Sean Penn, et al. don't speak for her when it comes to war with Iraq.
I am an American now, and I have been educated to respect the right to free expression by any citizen, a right no member of my family enjoyed when we lived in Iraq. I know from personal experience that the Hollywood actors who decry action against Hussein are really opposing the liberation of the Iraqi people. I wish they would praise the American troops in the field or just stay silent.
The Left finds it difficult to speak about the brutality of Saddam's regime, except as a preface to a "but" statement. The practical upshot of taking their advice, however, is for more time for the Iraqi regime to brutalize its people, build further links with terrorists, and poroduce WMD.
Every decision we make in life--as in diplomacy--has a price. We can't just look at the price of war. We also have to look at the price we--and innocent Iraqis--pay for doing nothing. The anti-war movewment prefers to concentrate on the former, rather than honestly considering the latter.
March 16, 2003
The European Century?
(Review) Mark Steyn writes that this isn't the first time that we've heard sentiments like those that regularly issue from Old Europe.
In 1898 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, prime minister of America's northern neighbor, declared that just ''as the 19th century was the century of the United States, so shall the 20th century belong to Canada.''
The line caught on. ''The day is coming,'' predicted another prime minister, Sir Charles Tupper, ''when Canada, which has become the right arm of the British Empire, will dominate the American continent.''
Now, if you'll quit laughing and wipe the tears from your eyes, I'll get to the point. Sir Charles was talking to the historian John Boyd, who fleshed out the soundbite: ''Canada,'' he explained, ''shall dominate the American continent, not in aggression or materialism, but in the arts of peace, in the greatness of its institutions, in the broadness of its culture, and in the lofty moral character of its people.''
Does that sound familiar? It's the European argument today.
And the modern European idea that echoes these sentiments is just as removed from reality as the Candaian sentiments of a century ago. Indeed, the only reason that the Europeans can persist in such dangerously illusory policies is because they have had the privilege of unquestioned shelter from the American Security umbrella. As I wrote in TCS last August:
The truth is that in a postwar world dominated by the two superpowers, European Nations no longer had the financial, military, or political means to engage the world as Great Powers. Nor did they have the freedom to engage each other on those terms because of the Soviet threat and their reliance on the American security umbrella. Western Europe was forced to band together by the nature of the Soviet threat. At the same time, the existence of the Alliance with America provided a measure of relative security. It's loss of overseas colonies, and the American ability to pick up the burden of international security, allowed Europe to turn inward. In short, the creation of the EU was made possible only by a unique set of circumstances that existed nowhere else in the world. Many in today's generation of European leaders seem to have forgotten this history. For this reason, many of them believe, almost entirely without justification, that the European model is equally useful when dealing with the rest of the world. One might have thought that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia would have disabused them of this notion, but apparently this is not the case. In that conflict, Slobodan Milosevic, et al., were entirely uninterested in negotiation, except insofar as it bought them time to prepare for their next outrage. No one will ever know how many thousands of people were killed during those long years of negotiation. We do know, however, that most of the killing stopped when the US became directly involved, decided to begin dealing with the region on Great Power - in other words, realistic, rather than utopian - terms.By forgetting this stark truth, European politicians are implementing policies that fail the test of realism in significant ways. As Steyn writes: Step forward Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who says that ''the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests.'' That's oxymoronic. Either you can be a great power, or you can announce your unwillingness to defend your interests. You can't do both, and only the ease that comes from living under the protection of the United States can delude you into believing otherwise. It would be a wonderful world if all our differences could be solved through negotiation. Twelve years of negotiation, however, do appear to have significantly changed the obstreperousness of the Iraqi regime. The plain fact is that the Europeans have no means of defending their own interests. They may try to make a virtue of this shortcoming, but it doesn't change the fact that the shortcoming exists. The Europeans can haughtily declare that they won't use force. Indeed, they have to, because they have no other choice. But they are seriously deluded if they think that any basis for becoming a Great Power can be built on such a shaky foundation.
Hours remaining for the UN to remain relevant: 24
(Review) The leaders of the US, UK, Spain, and Portugal say that tomorrow is the UN's big day to put up or shut up.
It's about time.
Screen Actors Guild's idea of free speech
(Review) The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has put out a press release, prompted, no doubt, by the anti-war stance of many of SAG's members.
In that spirit, the Screen Actors Guild Board of Directors, appreciating the value of full and open debate and devoted to the belief that the free flow of information, opinions and ideas contributes to the health of our nation, supports the right of all citizens, celebrated and unknown, to speak their minds freely, on any side of any issue, as is their Constitutional right. In the same vein - and with a painfully clear appreciation of history - we deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation.
Ah. I see. Your members wish to make political statements unpopular with much of the country, but they wish to be absolved of the responsibility of paying any price for them. How nice a world it would be if there were no consequences for our actions!
Well, guess what? That's not what free speech is all about. The principle of free speech is that the government has no right to bar you from making any politcal statements you desire. It is not a license to say anything that pops into your mind, without suffering a popularity backlash.
As the Dixie Chicks are now starting to learn.
Producers pay actors, especially big-time actors, out of the belief that the actor is a box-office draw. If producers feel that an actor has made himself unpopular because of his outspoken political views, they are perfectly justified in passing on hiring him. While a big actor can make millions is salary for his performance, the producer's only hope for recovering the $20 million he paid to, say Martin Sheen, is for the public to buy tickets to the movie. Because if they don't, that's money down the drain for the producer, while Mr. Sheen still has his 20 mil.
SAG wants its membership to have the luxury of taking any unpopular stand they wish, without having the bear the price for the resulting unpopularity.
The real world--the one producer lives in--doesn't give us that luxury. In the real world, the governing paradigm works as follows: Cake. Have it. Eat it. Please choose one.
It isn't just Iraq
(Review) John Eibner and Charles Jacobs write in the Boston Globe that Iraq isn't the only place where "Old Europe" are defending cruel and oppressive governments. They are actively collaborating with the government of Sudan as well.
For years, these atrocities were largely ignored by the international community. Only in the mid-1990s did the Clinton administration finally wake up to mounting evidence of Khartoum's sponsorship of international and domestic terrorism. The response was robust. The US government declared Sudan to be a terrorist state. It sponsored strong resolutions at the UN Commission for Human Rights condemning Khartoum for slavery and a host of other crimes. Strict US economic sanctions were imposed.
What did the Franco-German duo do? It led the EU in the opposite direction. France provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Driving black, non-Muslims out of their homes creates greater security for the investments of oil firms like Total Fina (France/Belgium) and the German engineering giant Mannesmann.
The Sudanese government's role in the revival of the country's once-dormant slave trade formed the greatest single political obstacle to legitimizing the EU's appeasement policy. France and Germany therefore spearheaded a UN whitewash of this crime against humanity. With the rest of the EU and their new East European satellite states in tow, they overcame American objections and easily persuaded the UN Commission on Human Rights to censor any use of the word ''slavery'' from official documents on Sudan and replace it with the euphemism ''abduction'' -- a lesser offense.
The Atlantic Ideal is dying, and France and Germany are intentionally killing it. It is difficult to see what a government has to do to be so evil that Old Europe won't give it active support, as long as it allows them to oppose American policy. Thousands of people are marching in the streets against the threat posed by George W. Bush, and are utterly indiffernet to the blood on the hands of their own governments vis a vis Iraq or Sudan.
The irony is that France and Germany inhabit a fantasy world wherein their post-war accomplishments were a result of their own efforts, rather than the result of a European security that was established primarily under the umbrella of of American military power. As a result, they are embarking upon dangerously illusionary policies.
