www.adamyoshida.com

Sunday, May 30, 2004
The NYT Gets it Right
Normally I think that the New York Times is a load of shit, but it's magazine finally wrote something accurate (if, admittedly, quite a few years after others started noticing the trend).
Terribly Beautiful


Am I the only one terribly impressed by the National World War Two Memorial? When I first heard about it, I feared that we'd end up with some ugly piece of post-modern art (like the FDR Memorial, yuck). But I've been watching the pictures of it on television (and looking at it online) and I don't think that they could have done a better job. Wonderful, a real national memorial, classically done.

One for the ages. Along with the most spelendid memorial in Washington- The Lincoln Memorial.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Our Friends, the Saudis
There’s a conventional wisdom about the Saudi Arabia ought to be considered an enemy in the War on Terrorism. The facts that fifteen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were of Saudi origin, that Osama Bin Laden himself is a Saudi, and that much of the initial funding for al-Qaeda came from Saudi sources are pointed out with such considerable frequency as to make them clichés. Even this author has subscribed to this theory in the past, believing that the overthrow of the House of Saud would be the best course of action. Events, however, have given me pause.

Any fair observer can see that there’s been a marked change in Saudi behavior since September 11th. Though, in my opinion, the real swing has to be placed somewhere in the spring of 2002. The turning point seems to have come with the capture of Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaeda official, in March of that year. Tricked into believing he was in the hands of Saudi interrogators, Zubaydah gave them contact information for a number of notable Saudis, including members of the Royal Family, along with at least one Pakistani General. Within a week, all three of the Princes named by Zubaydah were dead, all under suspicious conditions (one, aged 43, was said to have died of a heart attack, another died in a car crash and a third, 25, was claimed to have “died of thirst”). The Pakistani General died in a plane crash a few months later.

From this, I think, we begin to get a picture of exactly what happened. After his capture Zubaydah, believing himself in friendly territory, begins to talk. Within hours or days that information, with demonstrates high-level Saudi complicity in the September 11th attacks, makes its way on to President Bush. President Bush calls Prince Bandar (or some other high level Saudi) in to come see him. The resultant conversation is probably unpleasant, forceful, and emphatic. Thus are “Our Friends, the Saudis” transformed once more into our friends, the Saudis.

Whatever the President said, it must have put the fear of God into the Saudi Arabians. After all, in less than a week, they either killed three members of their own family or allowed the United States to do so and said nothing. Given that, after the bombing of the Khobar Towers the Saudis managed to stall the United States for years, the very speed of the action says something about the scale of the threat.

It’s silly to think that the senior levels of the House of Saud have some sort of ideological commitment to the spread of radical Wahhabism. What they have is a deep-seated and utterly unflappable belief in their own survival and continuance. While it is certainly true that some of their members do work to export Wahhabi ideology, this seems to be done more with the intent of exporting their growing ranks of home-grown nutjobs then with any evangelical deal. The commitment of the House of Saud is to its own power: nothing more, and nothing less. So long as they can retain their influence and wealth, they will do so and they will do so by whatever means necessary. In the pre-September 11th era that meant funding terror and paying protection money to al-Qaeda to keep it from mounting attacks inside the Kingdom. It made perfect sense to the Saudis, I suppose: after all, they weren’t capable of going after Bin Laden himself (even were they so inclined) without American support and the United States was distinctly uninterested in providing that kind of support. Then, when the winds began to blow differently, so did the House of Saud.

The proof is there, in plain sight. In the last year al-Qaeda has begun attacking Saudi Arabia, after more then a decade wherein they consciously refrained from doing so. The attacks are increasingly directed at the House of Saud in general, rather than foreign presence in the Kingdom. Surely it must be clear to the Saudi Royals by now that, absent American support, most of them would be swinging from lampposts inside of a fortnight.

There are two main anti-Saudi schools of thought in the West, one on the right and one on the left. The one on the left holds that the Saudi Arabians are the real villains of the War on Terrorism and that President Bush is ignoring them (or collaborating with them) for any of a number of nefarious reasons. Michael Moore’s upcoming propaganda film focuses largely on these supposed links.

On the right, a group of hawks holds a similar opinion, though the villains in their world are mostly Arabist State Department officials and the like. They, of course, actually have a practical proposal for dealing with the Saudis (whereas the left-wing school has none because, were they to gain power, they have no intention whatsoever to doing a damned thing to the House of Saud). Namely, they want to support the secession of the oil-rich (but sparsely-populated) sections of the country and then defend the break-away nation with American arms. This is an idea, in my opinion, which is admirable in theory but difficult in practice.

The main concern, of course, is that the population of Saudi Arabia, as befitting the keeps of Islam’s “holy” places are far more religious than the population with which we are dealing in Iraq. Whereas, when they are given the chance to vote, the Iraqis elect largely secular politicians I have very little doubt that, if there were to be a democratic election in Saudi Arabia, we’d soon find ourselves dealing with the “Islamic Republic of Arabia” on the other end of the line.

This is important because occupying (or “defending”) only a portion of the former Saudi Arabia therefore becomes much more difficult. Would it really be a good idea to create an American Oasis in the desert which would border onto a radical Islamist regime? You’d have daily clashes and, worse, the de-oiled Islamic Arabia would become a real breeding ground for the worst kinds of Islamists. The only other option would be to occupy all of the former Saudi Arabia, leaving the United States in effective control of both Mecca and Medina a situation which would, in short, be an absolute nightmare.

Therefore, action which undermines the stability of the Saudi regime ought to be undertaken only as a last resort. While, in the midst of an Islamist revolution, grabbing control of the oil-producing provinces and hoping for the best might be the best option available, it will merely be the best of the worst. Given that the Saudis seem to have turned our way in the fight against terror, acting against them now would be the height of foolishness.

Now, I know someone is going to bring up Saudi Arabia’s abominable record on human rights. I freely acknowledge that the Saudis are mostly sons of bitches but, for the moment, they’re our sons of bitches. I know that sentiment is out of fashion in virtually all quarters at the moment, but it’s a truism only because it’s true.

Let’s put things in perspective. Saudi Arabia isn’t Iraq. No one’s being fed into plastic shredders by the state, Olympic athletes aren’t being tortured for losing matches, and there aren’t any mass graves full of hundreds of thousands of people. There are countless examples of individual acts of brutality and thuggishness, some of them truly horrific (such as the schoolgirls forced back into a burning building because they were immodestly dressed due to their efforts to escape the fire). As repulsive as all this is, in my opinion, we must turn a blind eye to this for the time being. It’s quite clear to me that the Saudis, in the interest of their own self-preservation, are working to make the United States safer.

When the Saudis needed to support terror to protect themselves, they supported terror. When they needed to oppose terror to protect themselves, they did that as well. Their news today is filled with denunciations of the terrorists and terrorism. They’re on our side now and they’ll stay on our side so long as they’re scared of us. After all, if they mess up again, there’s nothing to stop us from putting every single one of the sons of bitches up against the wall.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
WMD and al-Qaeda Links Proven
The events of recent days have proven two important points beyond nearly any reasonable doubt. First, that Iraq likely continued the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction after the first Gulf War and that it retained a number of such weapons right through the present war. Second, that the former Iraqi regime was linked with al-Qaeda and that it was probably involved in staging the September 11th attacks upon the United States.

Let’s consider the evidence for the second statement first because it is certain to be the more controversial of the two. The key link between Iraq and al-Qaeda was a man named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Shakir worked in the airport at Kuala Lumpur where he facilities the arrival of two of the 9-11 hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi. Shakir then accompanied the men to a summit where terrorist attacks were actively planned, including the September 11th attacks.

All of this is already generally conceded and agreed to. Those who would challenge this mostly focus of the fact that, beyond Shakir’s nationality, there’s nothing to tie him to his government. After all, fifteen of nineteen of the hijackers were Saudi in origin and we have not punished the House of Saud for this. However, as revealed yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, Shakir was no rogue operator: three separate records uncovered in Iraq have identified him as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Fedayeen, the paramilitary group run under the personal command to Uday Hussein.

Shortly after September 11th, Shakir was arrested in Qatar, where a search of his possessions revealed that he the phone numbers for the safe houses used by the bombers in the 1993 attack on the Word Trade Centre, information about the 1995 plot to destroy commercial aircraft over the Pacific, and contact information for several of the 9-11 hijackers. Released (for some reason) by Qatar, he made his way to Jordan- where he was rearrested but soon released due to pressure from Amnesty International and a belief by the CIA that he was a nobody whose continued detention wasn’t worth the trouble.

Let’s review: a Lieutenant Colonel in an elite Iraqi unit, operating under cover, helped two of the September 11th hijackers into a country where planning for the operation occurred. Planning that he reportedly attended. After the attacks he was discovered to possess contact information for the hijackers.

When you consider all of the other evidence: the files uncovered in Iraq that show a long working relationship (lasting over a decade) between Osama Bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence, the persistent reports that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic, the terrorist training camp that Iraq maintained at Salman Pak (which included a Boeing 707 to be used in training hijackers), and all of the other evidence that is being laid out it becomes impossible to deny that a connection existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda and that, on the balance of probabilities, it is highly likely that Iraq had some degree of involvement in the September 11th attacks.

Now, let us move on to the question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The Sarin Gas shell used against our troops last week provides us with a great deal of new information which has so far gone unreported in the media. First, the weapons was a “mix-in-flight” shell. This is important.

Sarin is a binary chemical weapon, meaning that in order for it to be used two chemical components must first be mixed. All of the binary chemical munitions previously declared by Iraq had to begin the mixing process prior to launch- a dangerous proposition to say the least.

However, the shell used against American troops was one in which the chemical components would be mixed during the time between launch and impact. This is a sophisticated weapon which Iraq never declared.

Nor is it likely that this weapon came from anywhere other than Saddam’s arsenals. Only a few other nations would possess such sophisticated chemical weapons and, if they did, they wouldn’t be likely to give them to terrorists and, if they did give them to terrorists, they would be used for something other than an improvised explosive device. Had the shell been used properly it could probably have killed dozens or even hundreds of people. That it was expended as an IED strongly suggests that the people who set it had no idea what it was.

Now, why would they have no idea what was in the shell? The answer is obvious: it was stored somewhere alongside the literally millions of artillery shells which exist in Iraq. Whoever set the IED grabbed the shell from the arsenal unknowingly because it was purposefully made indistinguishable from other conventional artillery shells. Why would this be? Simple: because Iraq sought to hide its weapons from international inspections amid a pile of weapons so large that no one could ever find them.

The use of a Mustard Gas shell in another IED suggests the same. Saddam probably hid his weapons by destroying some, moving some into other countries and hiding others in places that UN inspectors would never look.

All of this goes to demonstrate the existence of a strong rationale for war beyond the larger strategic argument over “transformation” in the Middle East or the well-being of the Iraqi people. Iraq’s collaboration with al-Qaeda and its possible participation in the September 11th attacks alone represent a sufficient cause for war. Given this, Iraq’s continued efforts to retain an arsenal of WMD’s must be viewed with even greater alarm than it was before the war.

So, why haven’t we heard more about this? The answer is obvious: media gatekeepers do not wish the public to hear it because it would undercut all of the scurrilous slander they’re printing with the twin goals of defeating the President and undermining US efforts in Iraq. Moreover, most right-wing politicians and commentators are afraid of being roundly ridiculed by the liberal media for advancing these claims in the face of their convincing (though unsupported by facts) convictions that “Bush lied” about WMD and that there was “no connection” between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Other, that is, then the WMD being used against our troops and the twelve years of recorded contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. But forget about all that.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Towards Victory in Iraq
The hysteria in some quarters over the present state of affairs in Iraq actually bears very little relation to facts on the ground. For example, talk of “escalating violence” is patent nonsense. In truth, the violence in Iraq is in control, reconstruction is proceeding, and an orderly transition to democratic government is taking place. It is only a media-imposed blindness that prevents most of us from seeing this elementary fact.

During April, when US forces had to contend with both an uprising the “Mahdi Army” of rogue mullah Moqtada al-Sadr and an upsurge of violence by residual Ba’athist forces and al-Qaeda terrorists in the so-called “Sunni Triangle”, one hundred and thirty-nine American soldiers were killed. A high number, to be sure, but hardly one so high as to be considered astounding or, in military terms, unacceptable.

By way of comparison, US dead during the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War exceeded eleven hundred in less than a month. Moreover, US losses remained high thereafter. In Iraq, however, the death toll for May to date is less than half of that of April at sixty-five. Of greater note is the fact that forty-three of those sixty-five casualties occurred during the first half of the month. In other words, in April, American forces lost an average of 4.6 soldiers per day. In the first half of May they lost an average of 2.9. In the second half of May to date they have lost an average of 1.8.

Equally notable is the fact that eight-seven of the one hundred and thirty-nine US losses in April occurred during the first fifteen days of that month (which coincided with the opening of the heaviest attacks on US forces. So, if we break down US losses by the half month, the following picture emerges:

First Half of April: 5.8 Soldiers Lost Per Day
Second Half of April: 3.7 Soldiers Lost Per Day
First Half of May: 2.9 Soldiers Lost Per Day
Second Half of May (To Date): 1.8 Soldiers Lost Per Day

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Certainly, any pattern which does exist is not one of “escalating violence” despite the use of that phrase by the Associated Press on May 15th and the Washington Post on May 16th. It’s obvious that, after an initial burst of violence, the situation was largely taken in hand. Through a carefully thought-out and well-executed strategy, Sadr’s militia has been destroyed and the remnants forced to flee the various “holy cities” they sought to control. While the Marines were prevented from fully pacifying Fallujah, the terrorists there were made to pay a terrible price for their crimes. The city has now been turned over to Iraqi security forces and, after the June 30th transfer of sovereignty, either their growing forces will take control of the city in the sort of violent, street-by-street battle which US forces did not engage in for fear of losses and negative publicity or they will leave the backwards, broken, habitually rebellious and traditionally lawless city to its own devices, just as previous Iraqi governments have done. So far as I’m concerned the job of the Marines in Fallujah was finished when they killed more than a hundred terrorists for each of the American contractors murdered by thugs in the city.

The thing that really amazed me about the President’s speech the other night is just how practical what he outlined is and how likely it is to work. The events of the previous year have showed us that an overwhelming majority, whether supportive of the occupation or not, hate the thugs and terrorists who oppressed them when Saddam Hussein was in charge and seek to oppress them now. The strategy set out is lucid, practical, and easily put into practice.

The June 30th handover of sovereignty, while sure to be accompanied by violence, is an important symbolic step. The new Iraqi Government, the first Iraqi Government ever to be accountable to the people of Iraq, will continue the arduous process of bringing their country into the modern world. In this they, and whoever follows them, will be guaranteed by American arms.

Already Iraqis have elected hundreds of local governments, showing a preference for secular and democratic parties over Islamist ones. Given the chance to choose nationally, Iraq will choose a fairly moderate and representative government which will, with American support, be capable of leading the nation onwards.

Then, as time passes, US forces will gradually withdraw- either back to the Continental United States or to massive American bases already under construction. In a few years, Iraq will be a powerful and honoured nation once more.

Reconstruction of Iraq, which is already bringing the people of that country one of the highest living standards in the region, will continue. I have little doubt that, if America’s commitment remains true, Iraq will enjoy a Western-level of prosperity just as other American allies in other parts of the world have. Not next year, and probably not in five years, but perhaps in a decade or so, certainly long before any other nation in the Arab world comes even close.

Moreover, a prosperous and growing Iraq will give rise to increased resentment by the people of other nations in the region, all directed against their oppressive governments. A free and prosperous Iraq will serve as a beacon to the rest of the region in a way that Israel never could, showing the people of nations like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran that they too may enjoy both the blessings and treasures of freedom along with the best traditions of their faith. This is at the heart of the long-term strategy of regional transformation which was at the core of the reasons for this war. Just as the prosperity of free Western Europeans undermined the Soviet Bloc, so will a free and rich Iraq convert the people who might otherwise fall under the sway of Islamist Mullahs and terrorist Sheiks.

Nor is all of this mere rhetoric. Consider a few statistics. In April Iraq managed to export 1.8 million barrels of oil a day, up from just 200,000 last June. 2500 Iraqi schools have been refurbished and 32,000 new secondary school teachers trained. Five million children have been immunized for basic diseases in the year since the war. The new Iraqi currency has stabilized versus the US dollar. These are just a few of the accomplishments of reconstruction to date- and all of this in a dangerous security environment.

So, where is the “crisis”? Is this the “quagmire”? Are we still “looking into the abyss”? Or have all of the warnings of imminent disaster been nothing more than overblown rhetoric, the twisted rantings of individuals who hate President Bush so much that they would gladly place the Iraqi people into the hands of terrorists and mass-murderers to ensure his defeat?

Our enemies in Iraq are being crushed and the Iraqi people are moving forward. The only thing which can stop the completion of our victory in Iraq is a failure of nerve here at home. Our forces in the field have done their job, and they’ve done it well. They can only be defeated by the anti-American left, that sad and sick group which sees anything achieved by the United States as inherently evil and amoral.

I said it in December and I say it still today: we are winning in Iraq and we shall go on winning so long as we remain stalwart.
Al Gore's Speech
I'm sorry, but has the man simply flipped?

Dominance is as dominance does.

Al Gore's voice has always reminded me of Forrest Gump's.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded. We also know - and not just from De Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other people's pain. It has been especially shocking and awful to see these paired evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of America.

"As we know from De Sade"? The idea of the combination of Al Gore and the Marquis together is a distrubing one indeed, but I'm pretty sure that most of the people who heard his speech would have no idea who the Marquis De Sade is and, those who did, would be rather mystified by Gore's apparent selection of him as a source of wisdom.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that a Democrat would invoke the name of a French pervert in attacking America.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.

And your Administration followed that doctrine, Al? In any case, I doubt if we could have conquered Iraq much quicker.

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting.

Nuclear materials? There was nuclear material in Iraq? What was it being used for, Al? Asprin manufacturing.

Oh, and I really liked this:

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating, but should rather preserve his, and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national nightmare is over.

So uhhhh... yeah... We don't know what we're doing but, uhhh... trust us anyways. I wonder if John Kerry will declare that he has a "secret plan."

Monday, May 24, 2004
In Praise of the Crusades
In many recent discussions relating to the War on Terrorism various advocates of the Islamist cause (and other, more well-meaning individuals) have invoked the Medieval Crusades by Christian Europe as an example of a justifiable Moslem grievance against the West. This is nonsense, mostly propagated by individuals who are pre-disposed to buy into myths of Western guilt and Islamic victimhood. In fact, the story of the Crusades is one in which the Christian West is more of a victim than a victimizer. Despite their being marred by atrocities (which accompanied any war of that era) the Crusades must (or rather, the first three crusades), in my opinion, be considered on the whole as a largely noble endeavour.

To understand the Crusades one must first understand the context in which they occurred. Unlike Christianity, which was spread over a period of centuries by peaceful conversion, Islam is a religion which was spread largely by the sword. After consolidating control in their Arabian base, Mohammed and his successors set out to conquer the world for Allah. Those who lived in the lands they conquered were given three choices: become a Moslem, become a Dhimmi and agree to pay special taxes while living as a second class citizen, or die. This is how, in less than a century after the founding of the Islamic faith, it controlled an Empire which spanned from the Middle East to Spain.

Islamic expansion in Western Europe was checked in 732 by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. However, for the time being, the Christians lacked the organization or military capability to throw the Moslems back. Meanwhile, in the East, Islam’s expansion was largely halted by the fracturing of the faith into several denominations. The result was several centuries in which neither side made significant advanced.

However, by the second half of the Eleventh Century, Islam had become more aggressive: encroaching on the territory of the Byzantine Empire, defiling Churches in the Holy Land, and denying Pilgrims access to Jerusalem. In response to both this and to the political disunity of Europe, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade both to rescue the failing Byzantines and to retake Jerusalem from the Moslem hordes.

Frankly, I’m not sure what objection anyone has to this much. After all, Islam continued to encroach upon the territory of the West though its continued invasions of Byzantium and they had no more valid claim to Jerusalem than the Christians did. Was the West expected to lie supinely on its back (or, given the customs of many of their opponents, on their fronts) and simply take whatever came at them? That hardly seems sporting.

Of course, there is also the small matter of the atrocities that the Crusaders committed upon their capture of Jerusalem. However, when one reads such stories, it’s worth considering both the circumstance of the age (it was an era when life was short, nasty, and brutish) and the likelihood that stories of atrocities have been played up by certain groups for political purposes. While I have no doubt that murder, rape, and pillage occurred on a massive scale, neither do I have much doubt that it occurred in any war of that day. This does not excuse the actions of individuals, but it is worth pointing out that the Crusades would never have occurred but for Islamic aggression against the West which, I am quite sure, was accompanied by conduct as beastly as any of that exhibited by the Crusaders.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because the Crusades are, like the conquest of North America, one of those incidents of which we were once collectively proud which have now been twisted to be used as an indictment of both the West and Christianity. Instead of being the noble accounts of the ingenuity and strength of our forbearers, as they were for generations that came before us, the stories of the Crusades and colonization are told with the intention of spurring individuals to collective repentance. “We’re all evil oppressors and murderers of innocent coloured people,” is the lesson which is being imparted. Stories which were once told in the hope of instilling a spirit of adventurism and pride are now told to create feelings of shame and guilt.

Well, I’m not sorry for the Crusades and, even if the present Pope says we do, we have nothing to feel sorry for. By encroaching upon Christian lands the Moslems of that era invited their fate and we therefore have no reason to apologize. Asking Christians to feel guilty for the Crusades is like asking Kuwaitis to feel guilty for the Gulf War on the grounds that more Iraqis were killed during the war to expel them from Kuwait than Kuwaitis were killed during the Iraqi invasion.

We need to shake our historic guilt complexes. It’s quite certain that the enemies of our civilization do not feel bad about the things their ancestors did hundreds of years ago so why, oh why, should we be expected to feel bad over things that we didn’t do which were largely justified in the circumstances under which they occurred?

All of the tearful invocation of the Crusades today is merely an effort by Islam’s advocates to perpetuate the myth of Moslem victimhood in place of the far more truthful story of thwarted (for now) Islamic aggression. Contrary to the perceptions of some, Islam is not a “religion of peace” set upon by crude and violent Westerners. Rather it is a blood-soaked religion of aggression whose violent ambitions were thwarted only by feats of Western arms at Tours in 732 and at the gates of Vienna in 1688. Given a few lucky breaks and the warriors of Allah would have poured into Central Europe, sweeping away all in their path. And, believe me, in the alternate 2004 there wouldn’t be any Islamic scholars worrying about those European Christians killed in those actions.

Islam isn’t the victim; it’s the bully who gets knocked on his ass by its would-be prey who suddenly feels itself horribly aggrieved. The pains of modern Islam have practically nothing to do with the Crusades or Western Colonialism: they have everything to do with the failure of Islamic culture and society to adapt to the modern world.

That’s the greatest truth in all of this. Our armies today would never behave as those of the Crusaders did. We explicitly (and occasionally foolishly) restrain our forces in order to show respect for Islamic sites and civilians. Yet, I feel, the average Jihadist we fight today is, in spirit and bearing, not all that different from the Holy Warrior who some Germanic thug might have met on the outskirts of Jerusalem a millennia ago. We’ve advanced while they’ve fallen behind.

It is, in fact, they very dynamism exhibited by the Crusades which led to the birth of the modern West. The Crusaders were often defeated and Jerusalem recaptured, but they kept coming back. They kept fighting, kept struggling for justice and God. Islam, on the other hand, displayed the characteristic skittishness of the bully: when they were finally dealt a real blow, they were stopped and retreated within to nurse their grudges.

The territory of Islam had contracted since the Crusades because Islam is, despite the fire of Osama Bin Laden, a dying faith which belongs to a long-dead century. There is no dynamism within it to keep it alive, only fires of bitterness stoked by resentments which most of the world left behind centuries ago. Once the initial spirit of the pioneers of Islam died there was nothing left but to hold on to whatever was left and all that’s left to them now are decaying cities filled with bulging and ignorant populations who can be forced to continue to adhere to the ways of their elders through constant indoctrination in ancient hatreds and grudges.
Michael Moore: Liar
(It's redundant, I know).

Fred Barnes tells a charming story about Michael Moore in the Weekly Standard:

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.


Now, I've never read any of Michael Moore's books, so I'd never heard of this passage before. But I mean, come on, I've rarely read a less believable lie in print*. Seriously: does any educated adult not know enough about the Odyssey and the Iliad to fool Michael Moore? That anyone could read that and not say (of Michael Moore) "this guy is simply full of shit" had to be stupid.

*My favorite distortion, however, is in Al Franken's Lies book (which I have read) in which he goes on for a page about how Ann Coulter claimed that Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas is former Socialist Party Presidential candidate Norman Thomas' son. He even goes so far as to print a little bit of an interview with Thomas which makes it appear as though there was no connection at all and Coulter simply came to the conclusion because they've both got the last name "Thomas." Of course, as it turns out, Evan Thomas is Norman Thomas' Grandson. All of this, by the way, comes amid a chapter wherein Franken attacks Coulter at length for taking quotes out of context.
Bush and Brown v. Board of Education
At least once recent column upbraided President Bush for joining in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education while, on that very same day, decrying “judicial activism” on the part of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. In essence, the argument goes; Brown was a positive example of “judicial activism” so praising it while attacking “activist judges” is hypocritical. Implicit in this argument is the acceptance of the doctrine that homosexual marriage is a fundamental civil right which the American people will come to accept just as they eventually accepted racial integration.

This line of thought totally ignores the context of the Court’s ruling in Brown. The Warren Court was certainly generally quite activist in its orientation. However, in Brown the court was not asserting itself as an activist- it was correcting the odious and activist decision that the court had made fifty-eight years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson.

“Judicial activism” as an American problem is actually quite old. When Chief Justice Taney used the Dred Scott case to declare that blacks were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, had no rights that a white man was bound to respect he was not interpreting either the laws or the Constitution of the land, he was abusing his power and authority to give his own beliefs the force of law by judicial fiat.

Similarly, the Court’s ruling in Plessy is a perfect example of Judges reading into elements of the Constitution elements which no plain reading of the text would ever uncover. Thus, in Plessy, the court decided that the 14th Amendment, which had very plainly been written for the purpose of assuring the equal rights of American blacks, suddenly gave states the right to order entirely separate accommodations for different races on the entirely specious logic that forcing blacks (or even an individual, in the case of Mr. Plessy, of 1/8 African descent) into separate facilities was only a “badge of inferiority” insofar as blacks choose to interpret it as such.

There was about as much of a Constitutional basis for the court’s ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson was there was for its discovery of various Constitutional “penumbras” which somehow authorized the court to devise and enshrine an entirely arbitrary set of rules for abortions in Roe v. Wade. As much as Roe (or Goodridge or Lawrence v. Texas), Plessy was an example of an abhorrent decision made by the court to match with the fashion of the times, rather than the letter of the law.

As Justice Harlan, in his dissent in Plessy, explained, the purpose of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution should be as plain as day. It was written specifically for the purpose of assuring the rights of the Negro race many of whom, as the Justice points out, had so recently fought for the preservation of the Union. To demand that such a provision be enforced is not to demand that the Court behave in an “activist” fashion, but to demand that it properly interpret the laws of the land.

There is no connection between this and the argument for gay marriage. “Equal protection” cannot be reasonably interpreted to provide unlimited rights to an individual to marry whomever the want, regardless of outside factors. All individuals in the land are (or rather, were) subject to the very same restrictions as to whom they could marry- an individual of the opposite sex who is over a certain age (which varies by state). No one was being discriminated against unless you believe that the Constitution carries within it some provision which requires the government to recognize and sanctify your “love” as a means of making you feel better about yourself.

Of course, in the end, those comparing Brown and Goodridge are probably going to win, if only because they command the cultural and linguistic heights in the battle. Given the chance, neither the people nor the people’s representatives ever would have voted for gay marriage, but the campaign of terror waged by gay rights activists in recent years have left so many decent people desperately afraid of being smeared as a “homophobe” that the average person will never dare to speak against the love that dare not speak its name.

Still, I hold out a slim hope that, at some point in the future when the tides of popular culture are flowing in another direction, some future Court might well decide to revisit Roe, Lawrence, and Goodridge (or whatever Supreme Court case inevitably supersedes it and nationalizes homosexual marriage) with the purpose of restoring the lost liberties of the land.


Sunday, May 23, 2004
The Latest Debate
Certian individuals are accusing me of being "scared" of the revelation that the Whois entry on this web site pulls up my mother's name. I'm not. I've addressed this before.

I'm twenty years old now. This site was registred in 2002, about a month after my 19th birthday. The age at which an individual can acquire a Credit Card in the Province of British Columbia is 19 (this site had to be urgently registred because I was then running for School Board).

Do the math. It was before I could get my first Credit Card. As a result the Whois entry remains as it is until when, later this year, the present registration will expire and I will pay for another few years and switch the names.

That is not the reason why I'm banning people posting the entry- the entry also contains my home address (mostly) and a personal phone number. That's my problem with the damned thing.

Now, enough.

The hell with it- I've lifted all your bans. I find most of you rather amusing.
In Defense of Watergate
I’ve been thinking lately about Richard Nixon (I know, I know, now some Paleocon or leftist is going to start shouting about the “demoralization of the neocons”). The thing that strikes me the most about the downfall of Dick Nixon is how he was punished and shamed for sins which, compared to those of his predecessors, were actually rather minor. Watergate wasn’t an example of Richard Nixon’s self-destructive personality or an outgrowth of the rising power of the Presidency during the Cold War- but rather an exercise of power by a rising left. If ensuring the defeat of America in Vietnam was the Baptism of the New Left then Watergate was its First Communion.

Strip away all the rhetoric about Watergate and move down to the basics. What really happened? In essence, it was nothing more than a bungled burglary of little consequence carried out by overzealous aides of the President. Not something to be commended, to be sure, but something to bring down a President? Lyndon Johnson stole his first election to the Senate, enriched himself via nearly criminal business dealings, and himself ordered all manner of break-ins and harassment against his enemies. Those who rant about who the FBI “wiretapped Martin Luther King” would do well to recall that the Presidents during his time of prominence were Kennedy and Johnson- men who happened to have a “D” behind their names. Of course, the ranting individual typically doesn’t get around to that.

John Kennedy was involved in rampant electoral corruption, carried on an affair with a mobster’s girlfriend, and deliberately concealed a debilitating health condition from the public. The media was aware of this and kept is largely secret. Certainly, I would argue, all of those things merit worse censure than a single break-in.

The obvious problem is that the media, then as now, is controlled by liberals who are largely sympathetic to the Democratic Party and who will, therefore, display a greater degree of discretion and reverence in dealing with a Democrat President than they will in dealing with a Republican one. Does anyone think that, had Bill Clinton been implicated in a break-in at the Dole Headquarters in 1996, he would have been forced to resign? After all, he was caught taking cash from the Chinese Communists in 1996 (in my opinion a far worse sin than a little failed political espionage) and pretty much no one cares. Conversely, does anyone really believe that had Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush been exposed as having had a “Monica” of their own they would not have been swiftly forced from office and banished into disgrace?

Watergate is, to this very day, the political sin by which we measure all other political sins. However, I put it to you that it is an invented sin. No one has ever argued that the break-in did anything to turn the election or that it had any real intention beyond discovering information on the McGovern campaign. It was then covered up by the President and those around him. That’s the extent of the thing. From the fuss made about it in history books (where more space is often devoted to it than to major wars) you’d think that, in 1972-1974, Nixon had placed the country under Martial Law and sent Death Squads out in a reign of terror to wipe out all the members of his alleged “enemies list.”

Watergate is also another good example of how often Republicans end up being kneecapped by the weak-sisters in their own party, who flail about and cry about supposed Republican misdeeds which the average Democrat would not turn from were they committed by their own party. By holding their colleagues to a higher standard then their opponents, this group constantly undermines any Republican effort. Had the GOP maintained the same level of unity in 1973-74 as the Democrats did in 1998-99 then Nixon never could have been forced from office. For all the shouting of the Democrats and the partisan media, had the Republicans held in the Senate, he’d have been fine.

We need to fight back against the myths of Watergate (just as we must fight the myths of Vietnam) because those myths are integral to the modern left’s vision of itself. To the leftist of a certain age Vietnam and Watergate are the model of their gloried youth, where they stood up and changed the world. That is why they are obsessed with recreating them, just as Kevin Spacey’s character in American Beauty was obsessed with recapturing his nihilistic youth by ignoring his family, smoking pot, and pursuing a teenaged girl.

This is why every new American war becomes the new Vietnam and why, every time there’s a scandal on the watch of a Republican (Iran-Contra being the most notable example) all the old clichés are chipped and repainted to make themselves ready for renewed service. It isn’t even political for these people anymore, it’s innate- it’s something else. Primal, in its own way.


The Canadian Federal Election
I've set up a new blog for my thoughts on the present Canadian Election.
Commenting
I've decided to start banning annoying users. They're very distracting.

Initially I was resolved to allow them to comment in the name of free speech. But then it occured to me that I'm not actually a big fan of free speech.
Friday, May 21, 2004
A Thousand Kent States
No nation, in the history of the world, has ever fought a successful war with a disloyal opposition allowed to roam free at home. The successful conduct of any war requires political unity at home. When socialists and other disloyal individuals opposed American efforts in the First World War, they government did not hesitate to throw them in jail, nor did the people hesitate in thoroughly condemning all who expressed traitorous sentiments. In order to preserve the Union during the Civil War, President Lincoln did not hesitate in ordering the arrest of those who sided with the enemies of the Federal Government. Had some fools tried to march in Washington in the spring of 1944 with “Not in Our Name” placards, I’m quite certain that they’d have quickly found themselves somewhere unpleasant.

One of the primary reasons that America has had so much difficulty fighting long wars since the end of the Second World War is that the gentle nature of the average American has allowed them to be taken advantage of by certain elements within society which are opposed to American power and, in fact, utterly determined to destroy it.

Can you imagine if the same levels of “dissent” had been allowed in previous wars as allowed in this war? Could we have defeated Germany with millions marching in the streets for the Nazis? Could we have saved the Union if Lincoln had allowed those preaching disunion to move about freely as they pleased?

Now, some will say, you’re out to “suppress all dissent.” This plainly is not true. I’m out to suppress all “dissent” whose purpose is something other than to assure American victory in war. I believe in constructive criticism. In fact, I believe that it is essentially to any successful war effort. However, any fool can see plainly that the purpose of those who speak against the war, who nitpick its details, and who poke at every point, is not to bring about victory but rather to ensure it does not come to pass.

Are most of the people howling about prisoner “abuse” doing so because they’re afraid the abuse could hurt the war effort? Of course not. The abuses in question ended months ago and, in any case, were neither widespread nor particularly immoral given the identity of the “victims”. The people bringing this issue up aren’t interesting in seeing America win: they’re desperate to help America lose.

What about the people who moan over the casualties? Are they not sincere? Perhaps a few of them are. There are, after all, many stupid people in this world. But does anyone really believe that the average protestor on the streets insisting that they “support the troops” really give a damn about them except insofar as their deaths can be used to smear the President?

The people running this war have made a fair number of mistakes. Anyone can see that. Just as plainly, any fair person can also see that no war in history has ever been won without at least a few mishaps. The supposed war supporters who linger upon the mistakes have been made are like fans who after their football team has won a game 77-9 sit about brooding over the three field goals. Of course, if you’re a covert supporter of the losing team, then it makes perfect sense that you would fix upon every negative.

We have come to the point where believing in American victory and opposing it are seen merely as different shades of politically opinions, the same thing as the difference between being for a tax cut or against. They’re not. From the moment the first shot is fired there is only one position which a patriot can support: the total victory of the United States of America and the utter destruction of its enemies. Any deviation from this belief is treasonous and any word spoken against it is sedition.

We must accept this point totally. Freedom, if left unrestrained, provides for its own destruction. “Dissent” whose aim is anything other than American victory must be considered impermissible.

I upset some people a few weeks ago when I noted that one of the principle problems with the Vietnam War was not that an event like the shooting of four protestors at Kent State occurred, but that such events did not occur often enough. I stand by that statement. It cannot be that our soldiers are allowed to fight and die for our freedom while, at the same time, many of their supposed countrymen are allowed to openly align themselves with our enemies at no risk to themselves. Yes to Kent State, I say. Yes to a thousand Kent States, if the need be there. I’d rather see four thousand dead protestors than a single dead American soldier.

Sure, a few Vietnam protestors later went on to recant and lead decent lives. But not that many. Certainly far from a majority. If you look at all of the corruption which has spread throughout our society, it’s a fair bet that most of the individuals responsible have fond memories of waving VC flags and chanting in praise of Ho Chi Minh. I often think that our country, and the world, would be much better off if, at the height of the war in Vietnam, there was a patriotic Passover in which the Angel of Death passed over the land, smiting the traitors and sparing the patriots.

The success of the left in Vietnam has made treason mainstream. The average person believe that whether or not America should win is an issue which needs debating and on which reasonable people can disagree. This is an evil idea which must be purged from the world, even if the work must be done by the bullet and the bayonet.

In reality, this is a generational issue. We need to take the schools back from the left and once more teach the real story of America: of the great nation which conquered this continent and which has a profound destiny in the world. But, in the meantime, we shall have no choice but to resort to rougher methods.


Wouldn't You Like...


Man, would I like to see that son-of-a-bitch die. Hanging or firing squad. Hell, even a lethal injection (preferably bleach injection) would do.

Did you know that he's the son of a Communist folk singer and a "peace activist"?

Of course not, the media didn't mention that. Nor did they seem to play up that desertion is a crime punishable by death and so should it have been punished in this case.

Man, I'd pay to see that fucker go.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
A Fascinating Read
I stumbled upon this today. It's from the the Congressional Record of 1963. Read it and consider, for a moment, just how many of these things (especially the ones unrelated to the Soviet Union) have come to pass. Karl Marx's body may be a'mouldering in the grave. But his soul is marching on.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963



Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.


33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.


44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.


It's funny, aside from a few USSR-specific things, the agenda of the left today looks pretty much identitcal to what right-wingers thought the International Communist agenda was at the height of the Cold War.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
The Story of President Arthur MacArthur
Those Democrats who excoriate President Bush for being “extreme” in his pursuit of the War on Terrorism don’t know what “extremism” is. In virtually all matters of the War on Terrorism, George Bush has taken the middle course, the moderate course. He has done what is politically possible and what is in keeping with his character. President Bush is not, by temperament, either a crusader or an evangelist. He has become one only so far as is necessary and, even then, done so with a strong degree of reluctance.

Economist and historian Niall Ferguson maintains that, to understand history, we must also understand counterfactual history- namely, the history of what might have been. To that end, I am going to engage in such an exercise with the aim of demonstrating what the last three years might have looked like were we led by a man who actually behaved as the left likes to think President Bush has behaved.

Surveying the ranks of likely Presidential contenders, it’s hard to find such a man (Newt Gingrich is, I think, the closest thing, and I’m not going to use him). So we’ll reach further back into history and yank a lost man forward to the present day.

(Begin Counterfactual)

Arthur MacArthur IV is the only son of General Douglas MacArthur. Born later in MacArthur’s life (in 1938, to be exact) he has shunned the spotlight, declined to follow in his father’s footsteps, and even reportedly changed his last name. But what if things had gone differently? Supposed Arthur was cut from the same cloth as his father (as his father was from his own father). He attends West Point in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, distinguishes himself there, serves with honor in Vietnam, and rises to high rank within the Army. Imbued with a sense of his own destiny and an eloquent command of the English language (along with a noble lineage) he is, by the time 1990 rolls around, a four star General in charge of Central Command.

Under his command the Gulf War goes much as it did in our time and, as a result, the third General MacArthur wins wide acclaim and popular support. When Colin Powell retires in 1993, he is made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a job which he accepts mostly because he does not trust President Clinton and is determined to, as his father did with FDR, do his best to defend the military from a President he sees as potentially dangerous.

As his father was an Asia specialist, Arthur MacArthur had a particular expertise in the Middle East. Not only did he spend four years as the Theatre Commander, but he also spent many years involved there in the 1970’s and 1980’s. He carries with him a deep conviction that the entire region is a cesspool which poses a grave threat to America.

Retiring as Chairman in 1997, the fifty-nine year old MacArthur contemplates his future and decides that he is not yet done with serving America. While he was unable to match his father in military rank (Douglas MacArthur being one of only four Five Star Generals in the history of the United States), he believes he can do him one better and achieve the one dream which eluded his father: the Presidency.

Through all of 1998 and much of 1999, General MacArthur crosses the country making speeches about leadership and his view of America. A strongly conservative Republican (as his father was), he writes a well received (and often moving book) in which he lies out a vision of American “moral revival” and “national power.” By the end of 1999 he is the heavy favourite for the Republican Presidential nomination.

However, the campaign itself proves more difficult than he ever thought it would be. In the primaries MacArthur finds himself assailed from both the left (Senator Chuck Hagel attacks his foreign policy proposals as a “recipe for war”) and from the right (Pat Buchannan attacks MacArthur’s newly revealed social conservatism as insincere, using countless examples of cases where he presided over the administration of socially liberal policies while an Army General). Moreover, MacArthur’s overly patrician and aloof style does not thrill as much on the campaign trail as it did when he was presenting cold briefings on the destruction of targets in Baghdad. Despite all of this, in the end, he manages to secure the nomination.

Choosing popular Texas Governor George W. Bush (who was considered an early favourite before MacArthur jumped into the race) as his running mate (it is hoped that Bush’s message of ‘compassionate conservatism’ will soften MacArthur’s image) he hops into the fall campaign against Vice President Al Gore with a fifteen point lead in the polls. MacArthur’s speech accepting the Republican nomination is widely praised, especially for a line where he declares his aim to see, “America rise to its great calling as a nation, rising above the petty squabbles of today, and sailing into an eternity of liberty and hope.”

MacArthur-Bush wins a solid popular majority (55-40-5) and manages to win forty-three states in the Electoral College. Thus it comes to pass that, on January 20th, 2001, Arthur MacArthur IV is sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States.

The first few months of MacArthur’s Presidency go smoothly. He puts together a solid cabinet, with former Navy Secretary (and close MacArthur friend) John Lehman elevated to Secretary of Defense, Gulf War colleague Colin Powell in as Secretary of State, Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson as Attorney General, and New York Federal Reserve Chairman William McDonough (a Democrat) as Secretary of the Treasury. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is brought back into the Cabinet to serve as the Director of the CIA.

September 11th still comes as it did in our timeline, only this time the terrorists get a little bit luckier. Two planes destroy the World Trade Centre, and the final plane is still brought down by its passengers, but the third plane manages to catch sight of the White House and destroy it, killing Vice President Bush and a great deal of the White House staff.

President MacArthur, on a visit to California to tout his immigration reform plan, is much better versed on emergency planning and has extensive combat experience. He issues a brief statement declaring to the American people that, “our nation has been attacked and, as of this very moment, we are at war,” before embarking on the flight back to Washington, DC.

As a staff officer in the 1970’s, then-Major MacArthur was strongly familiarized with the nation’s emergency plans, plans which he has since reviewed. Not knowing what is coming next, he orders the full implementation of the Joint Emergency Evacuation Plan. All senior officials of the Federal Government will be removed to secure locations. He contacts the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (who, in this timeline, is Strom Thurmond) and receives their recorded assurance that, should he be killed before a new Vice President can be appointed, they will decline to serve in favor of the Secretary of State who is already Airborne and over the Atlantic Ocean in a NECAP plane.

As the nation watches both the frantic recovery operations in New York and at the White House, helicopters swoop down on Washington to evacuate high officials. The Press Secretary at the (undamaged) Pentagon steps before the cameras and informs the world (the President has already informed major world leaders) that the entire Armed Forces of the United States, except its nuclear forces, are on Defense Condition One and will fire if approached. Furthermore, she announces that the President has signed an order Federalizing the entire National Guard (except for those units being used in recovery operations in New York City and Washington) and calling all members of the Reserves to active duty.

Additionally, on the orders of the President, FBI agents rapidly descend upon the homes of every individual on their terrorist watch list, rounding up thousands of mostly-Moslem individuals (but also a considerable number of anti-Government militia members and the like). When informed that such actions are potentially illegal and unconstitutional, the President responds that, “those things will be dealt with later.”

On the ground in Washington, the personally fearless MacArthur addresses the nation (and the world) with the smoking ruin of the White House as a backdrop. He once again affirms that, “from the moment that our enemies took over those planes, our nation was called to war.” Additionally, he specified al-Qaeda as the perpetrator of the attack but goes on to explain (very briefly) that the enemy is “much larger and more dangerous than it would appear even now.” He announces that he will address a Joint Session of Congress the next day with specific proposals for meeting the present danger and warns the American people of “terrible days ahead.”

Non-essential members of Congress are ferried back to Washington for the address (to those who fear a nuclear attack on the Capitol, the President suggests that, in the aftermath of such an attack, the absence of Congress would be more a blessing than a curse). The speech is pulled together by a massive team of people who are not regular White House speechwriters (most of the regulars having been killed). Peggy Noonan is called in to polish things up.

As President MacArthur sees the threat, the only way to defeat it is through the destruction of every rogue regime which sponsors or assists terror, the reformation of the Middle East, and the reassertion of American power on a tremendous scale. In his speech, he makes several specific proposals:

1) That the Congress pass a formal declaration of war which empowers the President to invade any nation which assisted or supported the September 11th attacks or which, in the view of the President, is likely to and capable of supporting such attacks in the future.

2) That the defense budget be tripled, to $1 trillion a year. MacArthur illustrates this point by holding up a $1 bill and asking the Congress if 1 in every 10 dollars created each year in America is too high a price to pay to defend the lives of its people. Moreover, he calls for such spending to be financed via borrowing and decreased domestic spending, pointing out that tax increases will further hurt the already-damaged economy. He points to the Second World War’s borrowing to argue that such increased spending (he hopes for $300 billion in domestic budget cuts and $300 billion in borrowing) is in line with what happened during the Second World War.

3) He calls for the immediate reactivation of the Selective Service system, with a view to bringing the total strength of the Armed Forces up to three million. He hopes that volunteers will provide these numbers but, if they do not, he will resort to a draft.

4) He asks the Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in terrorism-related cases.

5) That the Posse Comitatus Act be repealed and the Army allowed to take over Homeland Security functions.

In the fevered atmosphere after 9-11, all of these proposals (with slight modifications- a Congress eager to look hawkish and load up on pork gives him $1.1 trillion for defense, and deficit hawks and wealth-haters manage to slightly raise the income tax rate for the top bracket).

President MacArthur’s first target is Afghanistan, which goes much as it did in our time line (though it goes a little but faster because some of the tactics used by President MacArthur are a little harsher). Europe views the American reaction to terror as nearly hysterical. When the German Chancellor refuses to support the Afghan War and compares the laws quickly passed by Congress to the infamous German “Enabling Act”, the President orders all US forces out of Germany, but only after they trash and pollute the land on which their bases sit so thoroughly as to make it unusable. When US opponents rush a resolution condemning American bombings which kill civilians through the UN General Assembly, the President declares that the UN is “impotent” and orders the US Ambassador to veto every single resolution that moves through the Security Council, regardless of subject, until the General Assembly votes a formal apology. He also orders the Treasury to cease the payment of any funds whatsoever to the United Nations until such an apology is forthcoming.

As US forces finish up in Afghanistan, deployments into Iraq begin. US aircraft are ordered to bomb Iraqi targets around the clock as US Special Forces move into the country. “They know we’re going to invade,” the President tells a Prime Time Press Conference, “so I see no reason to give them time to get ready.” By March of 2002, two US Divisions have marched on Baghdad and Green Berets have killed Saddam Hussein. US dead in the war number just slightly over three hundred. The Iraqi Government is, almost immediately, turned over to a coalition of Iraqi exiles who begin the process of creating a loose federation.

That same month, following a terror bombing which kills twenty-seven, Israeli forces invade the West Bank and kill Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat. President MacArthur calls upon the people of “all civilized nations” to congratulate Israel for bringing about the just death of one of the world’s leading terrorists. When the expected riots to accompany Israel’s killing of Arafat begin, the Israelis put them down with live ammunition. The UN resolutions condemning these actions are the 241st and 242nd, respectively, consecutive resolutions to be vetoed by US Ambassador Ann Coulter.

In the months after the liberation of Baghdad, another full six divisions are deployed to Iraq. Altogether, this makes for ten US Divisions in the Middle East (the 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division, 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 42nd Infantry Division (National Guard), 40th Infantry Division (National Guard), 24th Infantry Division (National Guard), and the 49th Armored Division (National Guard). By July 1st, nearly 600,000 US troops are deployed into Iraq, with another 40,000 (the First Marine Division plus supporting units) stationed offshore. Every single other active American regular unit has been deployed overseas (the 10th Mountain Division is in Afghanistan, and both the 4th and 25th Infantry Divisions are in Korea). Back in the United States, reservists and new volunteers (no draft numbers have been called yet) are forming new divisions.

As US forces prepare to move against both Iran and Syria, a major break comes thanks to Libya. Realizing that he is next unless he acts, the dictator of Libya switches sides in the war. In so doing he reveals the true extent of North Korea’s nuclear activities. When US diplomats demand the truth from the North Koreans, they publicly declare that they have a number of nuclear weapons and warn that they will use them if the US attempts to move against their regime. President MacArthur declares that such blackmail is “unacceptable” but takes no obvious immediate action. Meanwhile, with the onset of the fall, eight divisions strike into Iran while two move against Syria.

On September 11th, 2002 (the date, obviously, chosen for effect), US forces strike North Korea, using intelligence won with the greatest of difficulty. Tactical nuclear weapons are used against both North Korea’s missiles and nuclear sites, as well as against some targets along the DMZ. The 173rd Airborne Brigade, thought to be in Iran, makes a surprise strike against the DMZ, along with units of the Third Marine Division. With the commencement of the attack, the Eighth Army (consisting of the 2nd, 4th, and 25th Infantry Divisions) strike desperately into the North with the goal of saving Seoul from destruction. The South Korean government is outraged, but reluctantly joins in the battle.

Eleven days after the start of the war, the Syrian regime collapses and Bashar Assad and his family accept a Libyan offer of exile in that country. The Iranians fight harder and even resort to the use of chemical weapons. President MacArthur responds to this act by ordering the use of nuclear weapons to obliterate two complete Iranian divisions. In the aftermath of this exchange, Iran’s waving Ayatollahs are overthrown by young Turks who vow to fight to the death. However, within hours, these too are overthrown by a pro-Western “provisional government.”

The Second Korean War lasts nearly a month, as shattered remnants of the North Korean regime fight on. In an ironic tragedy, one North Korean nuclear weapon is successfully mated with a missile on the third day of the war. However, it badly misfires and obliterates a small city near the demilitarized zone… on the Northern side of the border.

With this convincing demonstration of force, the tide of liberty continues into 2003. US forces, almost as an afterthought, invade the Sudan and overthrow that nation’s Islamist regime. A US-backed coup takes care of Venezuela’s President Chavez, while the 2nd Marine Division is dispatched to deal with Fidel Castro (who ends up being hanged by his own people in downtown Havana). When Saudi Arabia proves reluctant to take certain actions against terror, the US supports the secession of the oil-producing regions of the country and conquers the rest.

Through all of 2003 US forces are gradually consolidated. The UN General Assembly apologizes to the United States and the Security Council resumes operations, its first act being to legitimize all American actions over the past few years. All across the world the wind is blowing towards the United States. Individuals who repressive governments think might even contemplate taking anti-American action quickly wind up dead. The residents of Cuba, liberated from communist tyranny (and soon rejoined by many of their Floridian relatives) request permission to be annexed and become the fifty-first state.

While there exists some opposition to all of this in the United States, it is mostly muted. The political side of the opposition is muted by the overwhelming public sentiment in favor of these policies (carefully cultivated by an extensive propaganda program), while those hardened anti-Americans who would protest against them mostly find themselves behind barbed wire in Nevada (thanks to the suspension of Habeas Corpus). Particularly popular at home is the round-up and deportation of all illegal immigrants (presented as a “security measure”) and the consequent revision of immigration laws to their pre-1965 state, where individuals from a friendly, Western, nation are heavily favored over Third Worlders who are, after all, more likely to be potential terrorists.

(End Counterfactual)

Now, I admit that such actions are unlikely. But they certainly could have been taken by the right President under the right circumstances. To suggest that President Bush has taken the “extreme” course is silly when you view the plausible alternatives.
Can't They Shoot?
In Iraq yesterday, twenty British Highlanders killed thrity-five Iraqi terrorists in a Bayonet Charge.

There were only three minor wounds among our forces.

I don't get it. We see numbers like this all the time. Look at Mogadishu, to see another example. Can't our enemies even shoot straight? They seem to die at a ratio of something like 50:1 in battle.

It's almost enough to convince you that, compared to Americans and Britons, most foreigners are an entirely inferior race. It's like something out of an action movie.

Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Sarin Gas Find
Tests have confirmed that the Improvised Explosive Device which exploded yesterday contained 3-4 litres of Sarin. Well, not quite, it contained three to four litres of a binary compound that, when mixed, forms Sarin.

Addtionally, another IED with Mustard Gas was found on May 2nd.

Here's a little bit (thanks to Free Republic) on the lethality of Sarin Gas:

Lethal dose of Sarin: 0.5 milligrams.
Density: 1.089 g/cm3
Grams per liter: 1,089g
Lethal doses per liter: 2,178,000
Lethal doses of sarin contained in this shell: 6,534,000 to 8,712,000


In reality, of course, the effects would not be nearly that high. However, in 1995, Japanese Cultists used about five litres of very low-grade Sarin to kill five and injure six thousand. I imagine this quantity of weapons released, say, in the New York Subway System by suicide terrorists could kill hundreds or thousands.

This makes it quite clear to me that these materials are not being made by the terrorists themselves, nor are they being shipped from elsewhere. No terrorist with any sense and the ability to make chemical weapons would manufacture binary effect artillery shells*.

These are Saddam's weapons. This is a "Smoking Gun." More to come.

*A Binary Chemical weapon is one in which the deadly compound is formed as a result of the mixing of two chemicals.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Victory and Defeat in the Culture War
Let’s face it: those of us on the social right have had our asses kicked in the culture war. We’ve lost pretty much every single battle on every front: our ranks our depleted and show no sign of growing in the near future. Abortion, gays, drugs- you name it, we’re losing. We are losing this war, I might add, in spite of the fact that we greatly outnumber the proponents of cultural liberalism.

This is not a new or original insight, to be sure, but it is one that bears repeating. The social conservative right has been reduced to little more than a joke, the perpetual Cassandra who warns of ruin (and it usually right), but who still always fails.

Tomorrow morning the first legal gay marriages in the United States will occur is Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, all of the advocates of this practice who have, in recent months, become newfound lovers of Federalism will take to the airwaves all across the land to demand that Massachusetts gay marriages be recognized as valid in every state in the Union. Given the results to date, I have very little doubt that this crusade for the spread of moral perversion will be eminently successful and that, much quicker than anyone thinks, we shall have homosexual marriage everywhere.

After all, what the proponents of gay marriage have known all along is this: once these abominations are allowed to be done they will never be undone. The chance that gay couples, having been “married” will subsequently be “unmarried” by any court decision or Constitutional Amendment is essentially zero. Through a breathtaking array of deceitful and immoral tactics the enemies of all decent people have completed the destruction of marriage in such a through way as to make this a fait accompli. Gay marriage will happen all across America, whether the people want it or not, just as abortion has happened and just as drugs will, in the relatively near future, be legalized.

It is an advanced state of degeneracy which has allowed all of this to come to pass. How could those of us on the social ever been so naïve to believe that we could stop this when its taken us thirty years to get a law passed illegalizing a practice which is practically infanticide? The social left gets whatever the hell the social left wants and there’s nothing that we can do about it until the day of judgement comes, either when the Lord Jesus returns to the Earth or when enough of the great silent and moral majority of the people are pissed on enough to take to the streets.

As things stand, if we whine until the year 2035, we just might well get a law passed cutting off government funding for sex changes for eight year-olds which, I assume, we will then celebrate as a great victory in the forces against moral degeneracy. We are impotent in the face of our foes because they command the cultural high ground. The face of the homosexual in America is not the thirty-five year old man wasting away from a self-inflicted disease at public expense or a pervert preying upon children but rather the bubbly and lovable Jack on NBC’s Will and Grace. Most people don’t read books or newspapers or, for that matter, even watch the (propaganda-laced) news. They gather most of their opinions second or third-hand in the form of vague perceptions. Given this, the moment we lost the popular culture, we lost the culture war. Ten thousand first-rate sermons or well-studied op-eds have less worth in this battle than a single popular movie or television show.

There is only one hope for ultimate victory over the forces of perversion, and it is a long-shot at that. We must emulate the extremely successful tactics of the left and enact a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” or our own. We must gradually take over and subvert the institutions controlled by the left and then use that power to bludgeon a reluctant people into accepting our point of view. We must lie, we must cheat: we must do whatever it takes to win.

The first step towards this end is the abandonment of far-reaching goals. Conservatives need to emulate the left and reveal their real agenda piece-by-piece instead of bring up front about things.

Look at the battle for gay marriage. It didn’t happen overnight- it happened through a series of deliberately incremental and reasonable-sounding steps with the left all along denying that the destruction of marriage was their final goal. Think back a few decades. All they wanted to do was to the let the poor and unfortunate gay live in peace without fear of being arrested for “being themselves.” Who could say no to that? Then they “only” wanted to ban “discrimination” in the workplace and then “only” to allow gays to enjoy employer benefits. “Only,” was their watchword. It was the careful adopting of the Hitlerian practice of the “last demand” that allowed the steady march of the advocates of perversion.

Rather than call for the banning of abortion, conservatives should declare themselves to be pro-abortion, only believing that it is medically necessary that some minor anti-abortion step be taken in the public interest. By moving quickly towards an all-our ban on abortion we unite the left. If we were to make a constant effort to disclaim any intent to ever ban abortion, we would have an easy time of picking up a few wavering individuals on the left. Then, with a sufficient passage of time, we could take the next step, all the while angrily declaring that we have no intent of doing exactly what we plan to do. This may not be honest but, as the left has demonstrated, it works very well. This is especially true because the hard-core opponents of any movement are usually the ones best-equipped to understand that their enemies have a hidden and deeper agenda behind their transient objective- a fact which “moderates” of all types seem to be utterly incapable of comprehending. Thus, when those bright enough to see the truth manage to shout it out, they can be ridiculed for their honesty.

The real key to any of this will be to consciously infiltrate and, eventually, take over the media as a prelude to the conquest of popular culture. The politics of celebrities are, as much as I hate to say it, somewhat consequential. After all, everyone knows who Brad Pitt is- whereas no more than a handful of people know who John Ensign is. Politicians matter very little to the average American and, in general, their views matter less. Most people who bother to vote do so on the basis of half-remembered distortions and vague prejudices. For every well-read and studied voter of any ideology there are another ten voters like the woman who was going to vote against Barry Goldwater because he was going to take away her TV (when, in reality, he wanted to abolish the Tennessee Valley Authority or TVA).
Saturday, May 15, 2004
The Indian Myth
I have (and I am quite sure that the same holds true for the vast majority of you) sat through more than my share of sanctimonious sermons about how North America’s virtuous and “at one with nature” Indians were horribly oppressed and, indeed, the victims of “genocide” on the part of Evil White Men™. Indian leaders (I eschew the various politically correct synonyms that have since been developed) seem to believe, or at least a majority of them do, that they are entitled to play the role of perpetual victims because of events that happened hundreds of years ago. Of course, even that line of argument (the “it-was-two-hundred-years-ago-so-shut-the-hell-up” argument) works from the basic presumption that what happened to the North American Indians and their “culture” was wrong. I don’t concede that point.

This is important because the Indian myth is at the cornerstone of the anti-American myth. “If the United States was built upon the genocide of a peaceful people,” so the theory goes, “then everything it has ever done is morally tainted.” Nonsense. The vast majority of North American Indians who died did so as a result of diseases to which they lacked natural immunity. Those of us who hail from other parts of the world can hardly be held morally culpable for that, anymore than we can hold the Indians responsible for any of our number who died from their diseases. Many of the other who died did so in wars which were made necessary by armed resistance on the part of various Indian bands. In any case, most of those killed died long before the conquest of the West.

Of course, there is more to it than just this. Not only can we not be held at fault for most of what happened, but most of those actions that we did take were morally right. This is such a contrarian statement that it must sound absurd: but think about it for a second.

Where would the world be today if we’d simply done what some would seemingly have had us do and we’d left the Americas to its indigenous inhabitants? By most accounts, the Americas would look pretty much exactly as they did in 1491. When Columbus arrived the Indians had been stuck in their traditional patterns for, in all probability, thousands of years and showed no sign of breaking with those patterns any time soon. Absent the conquest of the Americas by Europeans a huge percentage of human resources would remain untapped and a huge reservoir of human potential would have gone to waste.

Yes, Indian cultures were “destroyed” by the arrival of Europeans. To this I say: so what? Of what practical use were they to humanity? Would they have provided a greater benefit to the world than the creation of the United States and the other nations of the Americas? No sane person thinks so. The history of humanity is the history of the destruction of weaker cultures and civilizations by stronger ones. This is not something to be mourned or regretted, for it is this very process of creative destruction which drives us forward though time.

When the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, they were not inhabited by any civilized men. They were dotted with a few scattered tribes of primitives and savages. If the price of the future glory of North America was the destruction of those wandering hordes, Deus lo volt. After all, at one point, the entire world was inhabited by tribes and bands and, eventually, virtually all of these examples of an inferior form of human organization met their fate. It’s just that most of the truly primitive tribes in the Old World were destroyed before the advent of written history and, therefore, we don’t know enough about them for more than a handful of lunatics to mourn their loss.

Given the limited supply of usable land on the Earth, any land which is inhabited by no more than a scattering of savages must be considered Terra Nullius- no man’s land. It is the right and, indeed, the duty of superior civilizations to seize that land and to bring the blessings of modern life to it.

This is an important point to consider because we are on the verge of an age of great space exploration. The cult of Indian victimhood, if it is allowed to endure, is very likely to deter our descendents from simply displacing by force alien primitives they might encounter on some far away and Earth-like world. It is only though the re-interpretation of our history (or, more accurately, the re-re-interpretation of our history) that we can make it clear to those who come after us that they have a sacred duty to conquer and civilize the lands of primitives. It would be the height of folly to abandon useful land for the sake of a few scattered tribes.

It’s time to stop feeling guilty about our history. After all, none of us would even be here had history turned out differently. The Indians simply met their destiny and, in the end, their decedents get to live in a civilization which is a hundred times greater than anything that they, on their own, ever could have provided.

Oh, I know I will be attacked as “unfeeling” and “uncaring” for this, but I truly don’t care. Countless cultures and civilizations have been destroyed over time and I see nothing which does not suggest that all this was to our great benefit. The only reason we care more about the Indians then, say, the lost glories of Abyssinia or Carthage is that the North American Indians have better press. Hell, Carthage and Abyssinia are bad examples in that they were actual civilizations. We mostly don’t know the names of the European equivalents of the Haida or Sioux since they were pretty much all dealt with, one way or another, long before anyone was keeping real records. The level of sophistication displayed by the North American Indian is comparable only to that of African tribes, and who cares about them?

Of course, for all our whining about the Indians we aren’t actually about to do anything serious about it. Given this, it’s downright silly of us to spend time flagellating ourselves over something that happened hundreds of years ago.

My advice to both the Indian activists and those few sad North Americans feeling bad over what happened: get over it. We’re all much better off for what happened.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet
The only thing worse than the whining of subversives, seditionists, and traitors about the treatment of Iraqi detainees and al-Qaeda prisoners is the hand-wringing that we’ve got coming from various weak-kneed and limp-wristed commentators on the right who express their pathetic fears that America has lost its “moral credibility” as a result of a few pictures of activities no worse than those carried out by many high school football teams.

Our enemies in this war are savages and their deaths do nothing but make America safer and bring joy to the heart of the Lord and of every decent man alive. To mourn for them or worry about their treatment is the height of folly. They are sub-human filth, to be disposed of as we see fit. More deadly than a rodent, the enemy is equally foul. As in dealing with rats, the only way to defeat this enemy is to exterminate it. Total victory in this war will be achieved with the death or neutralization of each and every single individual who believes in Radical Islam, supports it, wages war on its behalf, or sympathizes with it in any way. The ideology of our enemies is a disease of the mind, an evil and Satanic creed which much be wiped from the very face of this Earth.

Oh, it’s alright to be mad about what happened at Abu Ghraib: if it is the case that the soldiers there engaged in bizarre, sado-masochistic abuse simply for their own pleasure then those soldiers need to be severely punished. Not because of the “rights” of the Iraqi detainees, virtually all of whom were caught while engaged in acts of resistance against the United States, but because such perversions disgrace the uniform which they wear and are conducive to the breakdown of discipline in the Armed Forces.

That’s the real story at Abu Ghraib: a unit was allowed to spin out of control for the sake of political correctness. The Commander of the Prison Brigade in question happened to be a woman and, for that reason, the Army was reluctant to remove her for incompetence. As a result, all discipline broke down and the men and women under her command began to behave like modern high school students.

Look at Private Lynndie England, who has managed to come home from Iraq six months pregnant. Does she appear to have been under proper command? She claims she was “just following orders.” What nonsense. No one in their right mind would select such a girl to be used in the breaking down of prisoners.

It’s gut check time here folks. This is a very little incident in a very big war. This doesn’t matter. Or, at the least, it shouldn’t. A few soldiers under a piss-poor General started behaving like children and the internal processes of the Army are dealing with it. End of story. Or, at least, it would have been if it weren’t for the traitors at CBS.

The beheading of Nick Berg ought to bring things back into focus for everyone. Our enemies, who lately were outraged that a few of their friends were apparently made to prance about in women’s underwear and scared by frightening Dogs, apparently think that it’s perfectly acceptable and normal to kidnap an innocent civilian and decapitate him for the sport of it. The video is then passed on to Islamo-fascists the world over who view it with glee. These people use this stuff for recruiting. Their propaganda videos are filled with it. We’re up against the kind of people who think that the beheading of a defenseless civilian is great.

Even more telling as to the nature of the crisis was the reaction of Nick Berg’s father, Michael Berg. While admitting that his son was, in fact, a supporter of the Bush Administration and the invasion of Iraq, Michael immediately sought to use the opportunity of his son’s death to blame the President.

I don’t know which is sicker: that Islamists the world over are getting off on watching the decapitation of an innocent man or that the father of the same man thinks that the best way to honor his son is by reciting Democratic talking points. That a father, fully aware of his son’s views, would use the occasion of the death of said son to advance a cause which his son opposed comes across to me as absolutely disgusting.

This whole sordid affair has exposed more than the evil of Islam, it has also exposed the sickness of the modern left. A left which thinks that funerals are excellent venues for stump speeches and that the dead are to be used as props for political theatre. It isn’t just this. Look back at the Nightline fuss a few weeks back or the controversy over the fact that President Bush declines to attend the funerals of dead soldiers. Does anyone sincerely believe that the left actually cares about those who have been lost? Does a single person think that they think of either the name-reading or the funeral kafuffle as anything more than a political weapon with which to wound the President?

How sick. They who dishonor the dead by attacking the cause for which they died in the name of those who died for that cause are practicing an evil form of anti-American nihilism and cynicism which has infected modern politics. It is the slap disguised as the affectionate pat. They don’t “honor” the dead by their insincere tributes, they spit on their graves and soil the cause for which they gave their Earthly lives.

Those who truly honor the dead as those who defend the cause for which they fought and died. Make no mistake about it: they who died did so in defense of their country and its people.

We are engaged in a war against a monstrous enemy, one whose ability to kill is limited only by its resources. They kill without mercy or distinction. They randomly murder the Moslems in whose defense they claim to be fighting.

This war may seem endless, but someday it will end. The “exit strategy” and “endgame” and obvious and easily definable: the war ends either when our enemies cease fighting or when they are all dead (and therefore cease fighting on account of that incapacity). If we just keep on killing them, eventually we will reach the number that constitutes “enough.” They can’t go on fighting forever. Even the Japanese, raised to worship the divine Emperor and believe that the conquest of Asia was the destiny of the Yamato race, eventually gave up. The number we will have to kill before the radical Moslem reaches the point of surrender is probably closer to the millions than the thousands, but it is somewhere out there. That’s our “exit strategy.”

That is why we were right to go into Iraq and why we must go on fighting. Those who have attempted to decouple this war from the larger War on Terrorism are fools. Whatever Casus Belli was provided by Saddam’s regime cannot be separated from the broader and overarching reason for war: the need to move forward in the wider war.

Yes, it’s nice to have Saddam removed from power. Not only did he brutally oppress his own people, but he was also a loose cannon who could easily have caused a great deal of trouble at some later point in the war. Moreover, so long as Saddam remained in power it was impossible for the United States to put convincing pressure on Saudi Arabia to crack down on terror. It is not, in my opinion, a coincidence that senior Saudi figures associated with al-Qaeda began dying at about the same time as the invasion of Iraq or that, shortly after that time, al-Qaeda suddenly began launching attacks against the Saudi regime. Those whining that the Saudis are the real enemies are several years out of date. For all of their flaws, the senior members of the House of Saud are not stupid. They know how to play the game. That they are doing so effectively is well-demonstrated by the fact that al-Qaeda is now attacking its former benefactor.

More importantly, the battle of Iraq has opened up another front where al-Qaeda members and other Jihadists can be killed in great numbers. I have no idea how many terrorists have been killed in Iraq but, from fragmentary reports, I’d wager that the number is in the thousands. Every terrorist who is banished to Hell in the sands of Mesopotamia is one unavailable for duty elsewhere.

Better still, those being killed are certain to be some of their most valuable assets. A large percentage of the Jihad-waging and Jihad supporting elite are militarily worthless. This was seen during the Afghan War, when thousands of Moslems waged Jihad against the Soviet Union by the courageous act of firing their AK-47’s into the air at random at various camps near the Pakistani border. For all the talk about the “fierceness” of the average Afghan, it’s worth noting that the average Taliban soldier didn’t even understand the advantages of lying prone during combat. Give this, when our enemies attempt to meet us in open battle, they are massacred- and with good reason.

So, why do I say that we will probably have to kill “millions” to secure victory? Simple: terrorists hide and this makes getting to them difficult and slow. Yet, we cannot afford to be slow. The process must be expedited. To this end, we must make the moral judgement that anyone who assists or associates with a terrorist has, by their actions, secured their own fate. The way to get at the terrorists is by eliminating their support network. This means the destruction of states friendly to terrorism and, in all probability, attacks on the tribes and families of individual terrorists.

Will we kill innocent people in this process? Tragically, we will. Yet it will be their friends and countrymen, not us, who have chosen their fate. Their blood be upon them. In this we must follow the time-honoured principle of Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. Kill them all. God will know his own.

Given the chance, the enemy will hide and wait for an opportune moment to treacherously strike. We cannot wait. We cannot give them the chance. They must be stopped before they can strike.

How are we to do this? Isn’t it obvious? We must do what we have done in Iraq. We must take and hold ground which they cannot yield and then make them bleed in futile attempts to retake it.

“Be careful,” some warn, “you will have twenty years of fighting in Iraq.” I fail to see why this should be considered the worst-case scenario. The resources of our enemies are far more limited than ours. Any that they use for fighting over there they cannot use to strike us over here. A generation of Islamists will charge into Iraq for glory in the fight against the infidel occupiers and their puppet regime. And that same generation will die there.

The best way of protecting America is to force the enemy to fight us overseas. It is the fight in Baghdad that ensures that there will be no future battle in Baltimore. Our forces are steadily killing the enemy and will go on killing it son long as we, those of us at home, maintain strong and stalwart hearts.


Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Nick Berg Reflection #2
It's indicative of liberalism's nature as a mental illness that:

1) The first reaction of a father whose son was just murdered would be anger at people trying to kill his murderers.
2) A father would dishonour the memory of his brutally murdered son by using his murder as a chance to attack the policies of a President that his son supported.

Quite frankly, I think that if one of John Kerry's daughter's were to be murdered by street thugs, he'd use the Eulogy to blame it on George Bush's foreign and economic policies.
Bush’s Middle Course
Most people simply do not understand how vulnerable America is to terrorist attacks. If al-Qaeda had twenty trained men in the country, even without Weapons of Mass Destruction, and simply sent them to kill as rampantly and indiscriminately as possible, it is my belief that the death toll would probably massively exceed that of September 11th.

Think about it for a second. Imagine that you are Mohammed Bin al-Qaeda Commander, in charge of utilizing a number of assets in the United States. You have twenty operatives dispersed across the United States and a million dollars with which to fund them. What do you do?

One team of four could be assigned to attack a heavily-populated Elementary School. Perhaps at Christmas, when the school gymnasium might be filled with a thousand people for a concert. A pair of suicide car bombers are combined with two men armed with Assault Rifles and grenades to attack the survivors plus another bomb or two left behind to impede rescue and response efforts. How many die? How do the American people respond?

Another team attacks a suburban shopping mall. A bomb virtually destroys a Wal Mart in the middle of the holiday season, when the store is packed. Gunmen rush through the mall shooting anyone and anything that get in their way. Hundreds die.

Small (but powerful) bombs are left anonymously in suburban gas stations. A few minutes after the al-Qaeda member pulls away the station blows sky high. The process is repeated. Gas station attendants call the police every time they see a package of any sort. People stop travelling as much in order to avoid the need to fill up their tanks.

A major sporting event (but not one major enough to draw heavily enhanced security such as the Super Bowl) is attacked with bombs and bullets. People begin to stay home, afraid to go out in public.

An extremely powerful bomb destroys an urban apartment building, killing hundreds. The next day, on the other side of the country, the process repeats.

American society is so free, so big, and so vibrant that it would be practically child’s play for a sufficiently determined enemy, with enough time for planning, to bring to its knees. Everywhere you go in the West there are people or, to al-Qaeda’s way of thinking, targets. Schools and public infrastructure are extremely vulnerable and nearly impossible to protect. Are we going to surround every building in the nation with concrete barriers and protect each of them with a Platoon of Marines?

What is a single half-trained mall security guard going to do against a small group of widely-dispersed men with AR-15’s, grenades, and plenty of ammunition? At best he’ll probably die gallantly. At worst, he’ll probably run away. And people will die. In great numbers.

We’ve been conditioned to think of Columbine as the worst possible sort of massacre which could be carried out by individuals in America. Yet, if the plan of the killers there had been successful, more than a thousand might have died. Think about that for a second. A pair of goofs without any significant money or resources developed a plan which, but for a few fortunate breaks, could have killed hundreds upon hundreds of people (had a bomb they’d set in the Cafeteria and bombs they’d left behind to target rescue workers gone off). What might professional killers do?

The problem with this is that we lack any politically plausible way of providing a certain or near-certain defense against such attacks. We do not have the resources to deploy an Army Division (or a Corps, in the case of some) into every city in America. Nor, I suspect, would the people of such cities much enjoy living under Martial Law. This, of course, ignores altogether the fact that the most tempting soft targets for al-Qaeda to strike are going to be outside Urban areas. Suburban schools and shopping malls must, from their point of view, make very appealing targets. Assuredly, we wouldn’t have the troops to defend all of those even if ever young man in America were drafted and handed a rifle.

Given these vulnerabilities, President Bush has adopted the only politically plausible course of action with a reasonable chance of success: we must confront, and kill, our enemies overseas to ensure that they never reach America. We must do this by seizing and defending ground which they could never yield to us. In defending that ground we must dig in and bleed the enemy white.

Thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of al-Qaeda members and supporters have been killed or captured during the course of this war. They are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis. Each of our enemies left to rot in the Mesopotamian sands is one unavailable for duty elsewhere.

This is the only strategy open to the President which offers a reasonable chance for success. Tighten security as much as possible, fight the enemy on their home territory, and hope for the best.

Contrary to what some would suggest these actions are not those of an ideological extremist. They are, in fact, the middle course between two extreme alternatives which, in a greater crisis, would become the only two options open to us.

Imagine that tomorrow nuclear bombs destroyed New York City and Washington, DC. The President and Vice President are dead, along with most of the rest of the line of succession. The new President is some previously faceless mid-level Cabinet Secretary. What options are open to him or her?

The first option (and the one which I imagine being embraced by many under such extreme circumstances) is capitulation disguised as strength. The President orders American troops home from overseas, cuts loose our allies, and hopes to appease the Islamists (it will take them at least a few years to overrun the entire Middle East and then transform it to their satisfaction). Some symbolic retaliation is ordered, but it’s mostly for show.

The second option is total war. This, in fact, is the option that I would prefer, even today. The President orders a total mobilization of all American forces (combined with a draft) and begins a systematic campaign to physically destroy the sources of our enemies’ power. Nuclear weapons are used freely against targets of convenience. Sine our enemies cannot be expected to treat those of ours that they take prisoner well and that they are of no use to America in captivity, no quarter is offered or given to the Islamist. Those who stand in the way domestically will be dealt with harshly and expediently.

Frankly, I believe that it will ultimately come to such a war against our enemies. They are determined and they are driven by a totalitarian ideology which, I believe, cannot be destroyed without the physical destruction of those things they hold dear. Yet, I may be wrong.

That is why I support President Bush and his conduct in the War on Terrorism. He is taking the strongest action which he could plausibly take and doing it in such a way as to have the best chance of success. It is risky and it carries with it great potential risks: yet it is the best road open to us at the present time. Total war, the only option which offers certain success, will be available only after a truly horrific attack, one worse than September 11th.

In choosing to support the President, we must understand that his course is the only one which could enable us to avoid the horrors of either capitulation or total war. We must also understand that the policies of John Kerry will lead to one other the other, or both in turn.

For the defeat of the President would be the greatest victory achieved by our enemies in this war so far. A vote for John Kerry is a vote for al-Qaeda. A vote for John Kerry is an expression of support for the killers of innocents and the murderers of thousands. That’s what a vote for John Forbes Kerry means.

President Bush’s strategy could fail. John Kerry’s will fail. He wants to rely upon the United Nations: the same United Nations that cut and run after a single attack on the assets it deployed into Iraq. Worse still, it seems certain to me that he will wilt under renewed attack.

After all, if President Bush is defeated, what will al-Qaeda and its allies conclude? They will see that the use of their power weakens American resolve and they will continue to attack and kill Americans, secure in the knowledge that their savagery and influence elections.

A near-withdrawal of US forces from Iraq might even bring a respite. Albeit a temporary one. Our enemies are motivated by deeper causes than the mere politics of today. If we fold under attack then, sometime in the not-too-distant future, they’ll be back: and they’ll want more.

For now, our only options is to fight to the end with President Bush. His noble endeavour is the only one with a hope of quickly (and as close as possible to bloodlessly) delivering us from evil.
In a Supreme Bit of Irony...
The father of the American beheaded by members of the Religion of Peace apparently signed an anti-war statement earlier this year. (Search for "Michael S. Berg" to find the name).

The funny thing about this war is that, if militant Islam ever came to rule a part of the West (France, I'm looking at you) is that many of the same people who have been loudest in their foolish and genuinely stupid oposition to the war would be the first to die.

Take those Code Pink women, for example, under Radical Islam I'm sure they'd be on the road to a swift stoning or beheading.

UPDATE: As a side note, the AP reports that Nick Berg was a Bush supporter. Figures, the morally decent son is killed and the traitorious father is left behind to bitch about the Secretary of Defense.
Monday, May 10, 2004
More Pictures...
I notice how the references to the pictures that remain to be released refer to, "sex between two U.S. soldiers." Note the gender-neutral language. Yet, most of the same articles refer to pictures of American soliders abusing a, "female detainee."

Frankly, I suspect that this might be a good time to make the case against gays and women in the military.

The whole thing, I might add, really does sound like a textbook example of why women shouldn't be in the regular Armed Forces.
Sign to Support Secretary Rumsfeld
Right here.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
The Next Picture
This poor fellow is sure to end up on a number of newspaper front pages in the next day or so:


To this I say: so what? He certianly looks like an adult and is almost certianly a member of the resistance. I hope he died.
Andrew Sullivan: Defeatist
That is all.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
What Price Victory?
The key front in the present war is the home front. Our enemies in Iraq, for whatever noise they can make, have no hope whatsoever of being victorious by military means alone. Thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) of them have died in recent fighting. The total American dead in this war (including non-combat deaths) amount to less than those which would have been sustained in an few hours of fighting at Wilderness, Gettysburg, Normandy, Okinawa, or many others battles that America fought. They amount to less than a quarter of the number of souls that our enemies took from us in just a few minutes on September 11th, 2001. They are an infinitesimal fraction of those that they will someday take from us were we to lose this war.

This is not to minimize the tragedy of each individual loss. Every American life is precious and it is just and proper that we should mourn those who have been lost. However, it is essential that we not allow our own grief (or the pretend grief of others) to lead us towards a course of action which would devastate the cause for which they fought and dishonor the nation for which they died.

One memory seared into me from a pacifistic Canadian childhood is John McCrae’s poem In Flanders Fields. Typically presented amid a multi-hour denunciation of all wars, most readings of the poem I encountered deliberately omitted the third verse. When I read it, many years later, I never forgot it:

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.


The death of our soldiers should not stimulate within us hatred for the cause for which they died, but rather an implacable determination to carry this war through to its only acceptable conclusion: the eradication of the plague of radical Islam and the total destruction of any rogue state or group which poses a plausible threat to the security or interests of the United States of America.

It disgusts me that the opponents of this war seek to use the corpses of the dead as ghoulish props in their jihad against President Bush. “Why hasn’t President Bush gone to funerals?” they cackle with the irreverent immorality of the sort of people who think that it’s acceptable to use a eulogy as a stump speech. The virtually unspoken rejoinder to their sick question, of course, is “because President Bush isn’t an emotionally needy attention whore like all of your idols are.”

It’s easy to see John Kerry using the funeral of a dead soldier to remind us all that, yes, he served in Vietnam. It is equally easy to see President Clinton weeping crocodile tears and mouthing eloquent but empty words about sacrifice, stealing the show on a day that (of all days) should be set aside for the warrior who gave all. These are not the acts of decent men: they are the deeds of Democrats. President Bush isn’t that sort of man. He understands that the private grief and emotions of families shouldn’t be exploited for crass political advantage.

We must keep our commitment to the dead: not by theatrics, but through victory. We owe it to them to press on and to honor the sacrifices that they have all made.

I am fearful, my friends. I am fearful that our enemies at home are winning. I am fearful that they will again use lies to deceive the innocent and force to cajole the weak-willed and once more, as they did in Vietnam, inflict a defeat upon the unbeatable armed forces of the United States by stabbing them in the back on the home front. I am fearful that we will lose, not because we lack the resources to win, but because we lack the will to do so.

Our enemies at home our strong and growing in strength with each passing day. They are powerfully aided by fifth columnists, seditionists, and traitors who have successfully infiltrated virtually every aspect of American life. The schools, the media, the entertainment industry- those sources of virtually all modern Americans know about politics and war- are filled with treason and seditious libel. Worse still, the foul stench of disloyalty has seeped into other worlds: business in particular. We stand on unsettled ground, friends: nearly anyone you meet at any place and at any time could very well be a traitor.

The fighting men and women of the United States our doing their job abroad: we must do ours here at home. This is the decisive battle of this war. Our brave soldiers, who risk their lives for our freedom, are endangered by our domestic enemies, who will stop at nothing to destroy the Untied States and all that it stands for.

In the past we could count on the patriotism and good-will of our fellow countrymen. This is no longer the case. Look at CBS and the images from Abu Ghraib. They were asked by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to broadcast those pictures on the grounds that doing so would endanger American servicemen and women, yet they went ahead and did so anyways. Why? To damage President Bush? That’s the only reason I can think of. A media that would so endanger American soldiers is clearly too irresponsible to operate without supervision.

Look at the reaction to Abu Ghraib as a whole. This outrage is not for a few battered and “humiliated” Iraqi murderers: it is part of a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the President of the United States and deliver into the White House that traitor of traitors, John Forbes Kerry. Such abuses are routine in warfare. To the extent they occurred against Iraqi insurgents they are, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable. If they were, as some now suggest, perpetrated against innocent children as well (and I’ve yet to see proof of that allegation) then the “soldiers” responsible for those specific abuses should be rounded up and hanged until they are dead. Problem solved. Certainly the military was already well on the way to self-correcting these problems when CBS decided to make it into a global firestorm.
When William Tecumseh Sherman began his march, one of the first actions he took was to order the expulsion of all reporters following his troops. He considered them worse than spies since they revealed military secrets merely to sell newspapers. Reporters are and unreliable and (these days) broadly unpatriotic lot. Allowing them free reign in Iraq is merely asking for trouble.

The US should immediately return to the system of embedded reporters used during the war, ordering the expulsion of all freelance crews from Iraq. No network should be allowed to report from Iraq unless they have an actual reporter on the scene of events (or receive clearance from military authorities). If Press Censorship was good enough for the Second World War, it’s certainly good enough for this one.

And I know that someone will now shout, “If we start censoring the press, then we’ve already lost!” To this I can only shake my head and mutter, “what nonsense, what nonsense.” Liberty cannot be sustained in the face of enemies from within or without who wish, for reasons that are their own, to see it destroyed. To hold to absolutes in the face of crisis is, at best, foolish and, at worst, a deliberate effort to aid the enemy. Some might now throw a Thomas Jefferson quote in my face, but I remind you, that when the Sage of Monticello was the Governor of Virginia his bizarre philosophy of “limited government under fire” led to disaster for the State.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. To, for the sake of some minor point of principle, insist upon exact adherence to the letter of the Constitution (or any other document, for that matter) in an hour of grave crisis would be ultimately injurious to that document. Your rights will do you little good if you are dead and the Constitution will serve us little if we are conquered. We can always (as we have in the past) restore rights which have been suspended: we cannot restore life to the murdered. In any case, I find it ironic that those who violently insist that various unwritten “penumbras” grant license to murder the unborn without conscience or regret suddenly find reason to love strict constructionism when they think it will defend the rights of our enemies. It is certainly illuminative as to their priorities.

At what price is victory to come in this war? “Any price,” must be the answer of the patriot. In the run-up to war there may be dissent and discussion, but once the first shot has been fired, the first hero made, there can be no acceptable outcome for America save absolute and unconditional victory. Our enemies in this war must not only be defeated: they must be destroyed so thoroughly, devastated so utterly, killed in such great numbers, that even ten generations from now their descendents will shudder at the thought of presenting a challenge to America’s military might. If we can achieve this outcome by killing one hundred of our enemies, so be it. If we must killed a hundred million of our enemies to do it, so be that as well. Deus lo volt. From the moment that hostilities commence the lives of our enemies cease to have any value except as things to be targeted and destroyed as necessary to the war effort. If we can win the occasional war by finesse and diplomatic skill: wonderful. If we cannot, then we must and shall continue to fight our wars in the great and grand American tradition of killing as many of the enemy as possible until they stop fighting. Any population, even one as crazed and brain-washed as that of Imperial Japan, has a breaking point. American warfare is simply a matter of using enough bombs to find it.

I’m not worried about the military aspects of this war: our Armed Forces will win on the battlefield one way or another. What I am worried about is the growing strength of the enemies in the rear. The enemy within is the strongest of our foes and the one which is must difficult to confront.

I shall write again soon on the challenges that we face in the destruction of this, our greatest foe.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Too Extreme For Free Republic
I see that my material has been declared "too extreme for Free Republic" and an individual there has been reprimanded for posting it.*

Well, so be it: I can only be what I am and shall be nothing else. I shall not moderate my views for anyone: any government, any electorate- let alone any web forum moderator. That is why I maintain this site: to make myself heard.

By my last count I've been banned from more web sites than virtually any other person in the history of the internet. I'm used to it by now.

Regardless, I am making myself heard. Someone angrily denounced me on Democrat Underground the other day and not one person said, "Who is Adam Yoshida." I'm being heard, though I'm not being listened to. That's good enough for now.

After all: you're here and you're reading this. And you're here for a reason.

I'm not crazy, for the record. I'm laying my bets on future events.

I support President Bush because I believe that the actions he is taking are the best possible under present circumstances. I am not certain he will be successful: but of all the options open to us, his give the greatest chance of success.

To this very day one of my High School history teachers tells his students (when they study the Great Depression) that, "if things ever get this bad again, we'll elect people like Adam Yoshida." He doesn't mean it in a nice way. But I take it in such a way.

After all- if the West declines, if China rises, if Islam conquers Europe, if our Social Program collapse, if our morals decline, just what sort of person do you think that the people will turn to for leadership?

There will be only one option. Only one reliance.

This, my friends, is all I can do and all I will do. And you may say, "You’re not even American." This is true. But I'm sure you can think of examples, good and bad, of those who rose to lead in crisis who were not themselves native sons of their lands.

Now, of course, some will accuse me of Nazi tendencies. I deny any such thing. I hate Nazism every bit as much as I hate Communism, Islamism, or any of the ideologies of our enemies. I hate anything which opposes the United States or Britain. Period. For much the same reason, I'm not even all that fond of Napoleon, given my Anglophile tendencies.

Similarly, I despite Shinto Emperor-worship and other such Pagan aberrations. What I love and care for are the Anglo-Christian lands and their peoples.

We are in a long-term crisis of the West. Only a fool would miss this. This crisis will not be abated or avoided by moderation and calmness.

One way or another, for our generation, it will all end in fire. The only real questions are those of who will start the fire and who will survive it.

We are living in an unreal age. Corruption will be enjoyed while it can be enjoyed and then it will all fade away.

Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.

*To make it quite clear, I'm not the individual in question, nor have I ever spoken with them to my knowledge. I was personally banned from Free Republic some time ago for making some... intemperate... comments towards anti-Bush posters during one of the periodic Great Immigration Flamewars.

** For what it's worth, I understand the offending passage was this:

Vietnam was lost both because seditionists were allowed to run free and because the government failed to take proper action to curb them. Today Kent State is memorialized as a great tragedy because a few traitors (or those stupid enough to stand near them) were killed when, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the war was that there were obviously too few Kent States. 55,000 Americans ultimately died for nothing because of those people. If a few of them would have had to die to curb their disloyal behavior, then so be it.

However, I do not recant or modify. Our enemies are both at home and abroad and we must confront them both equally if we are to be successful.

It is plain to me that the domestic enemies of all decent men are determined to repeat the Vietnam War: that they are resolved to see America defeated and humiliated. It must not be allowed to happen.

I’ve often written about and studied the Vietnam War. Every history teacher I’ve had has advised me to avoid the subject in papers and conversation (well, except for one Marxist University Professor who, for some perverse reason, gave me an “A” on a paper I wrote attempting to explain away the My Lai massacre). And whenever I’ve studied that war, a single thought has come into my head “Never Again.”

Never again, I tell myself, will America be allowed to win the battlefield and lose the war through the actions of traitors at home. They are the real enemy: the one over there can be destroyed with ease given time and patience. They cannot win the war: but the traitors can. No measure taken to combat them can be considered too extreme. They must be destroyed.

I will discuss this some more tomorrow.
My Proposed Bet With Andrew Sullivan
Once again today he insists that legal gay marriage in Massachusetts will not lead to the imposition of legal gay marriage elsewhere through any legal means.

You may recall that, a month or so ago, I offered to bet him $100 (USD) that it would. He has yet to respond to this challenge (and I know he reads at least some emails I send him since, at least once, he responded to suggest that I was crazy). So, I offer the challenge again. If he's so sure, why doesn't he take the bet?

Obviously it's because he knows that he's distorting the truth. Sure, little in the law makes it obvious that gay marriage will be imposed outwards after May 17th- but what in the law authorized gay marriage in the first place?

Sullivan's words are merely meant to be a stall. He understands that everywhere, once gay marriage has been imposed, it has become impossible to undo because:
1) The proponents, following the onset, get the powerful "old news" and "time to move on" cards in their deck.
2) The negative effects of gay marriage are not obvious in the short term, so proponents can defuse opponents' arguements by saying "see, the sky didn't fall."
3) Gay marriage can be argued for in the sense that abolishing it would "unmarry" people.

Just watch. The second that gay marriage begins to be imposed on other states, Sullivan will suddenly start screaming once more about "fundamental human rights" and other such nonsense.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Our Enemies are on the March
We have underestimated the strength of our enemies. Not that of our enemies abroad: they are being rapidly reduced and defeated. Rather, we have failed to account for the strength of the traitors, seditionists, and subversives here at home and we have neglected to provide adequate plans and resources for their destruction.

Those who protest, oppose, or criticize this war or the President’s conduct of it have blood on their hands: both American and Iraqi. It is their actions which provide hope to our enemies by encouraging them to continue their fight. The protestor, the flippantly anti-war celebrity, and the French-looking Democratic politician are all, by their words and deeds, providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

Liberals often encourage us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who we oppose. So, let us do just that with the Iraqi “resistance” and their fellow travellers.

Suppose that President Bush was at 70% in the polls and therefore had the freedom of action to simply crush any pocket of Iraqi resistance. Marines and GI’s storm Fallujah and Najaf, killing thousands of Iraqi (and foreign) fighters while losing only a handful of their own. In actually battles, the Marines and the US Army kill dozens of your fighters for every one of theirs you can wound or kill. Even when you manage to, at great cost, deal them a blow they simply come on coming. America has a seemingly infinite supply of courageous, well-armed, and well-trained young men who have the ability and will to wipe any resisting Iraqi from the very face of the Earth. Individuals who support the resistance face draconian punishments while those who support the Americans get the full benefits of participation in a reviving Iraqi economy.

If you were an Iraqi, would you fight under such circumstances? The evidence suggests you would not. Left with the choice between American-directed recovery and continued pointless resistance all but the most fanatical of the fanatical Imperial Japanese consented to live under occupation. In a South where one in every ten white men had been killed fighting the North, there was essentially zero irregular warfare following the Southern defeat because everyone recognized its futility.

History records again and again that most people do not fight for futile causes. A few will, here and there, but most of them end up dead in short order. It is one of the enduring myths of our time that people will fight against “occupation” even when they have no hope of victory or deliverance. Evidence suggests that this is an utterly fallacious notion.

So, why do the Iraqi terrorists and their foreign allies still fight? They fight because of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. They fight because the traitors and subversives in America, along with an Arab and European press that gleefully echoes their ramblings, give those who fight against America hope that if they keep on killing Americans then George W. Bush will be defeated and replaced by someone who will give them what they want. Each bump up in the Democrats poll numbers represents additional American dead, as the appearance of damage to George W. Bush gives increased hope to our enemies.

Think about it for a second. Suppose that there had been a Presidential election in November 1945 and suppose that, all along the way, the Republican candidate and his party had viciously savaged President Truman for every single decision he made about the war. Suppose that these comments were then picked up and echoed, in turn, first by a partisan domestic media and then an anti-American international media. Imagine that such criticism was vicious enough to hurt his poll numbers and make him demonstrate more restraint than he ought to out of political necessity.

Do you think the Japanese would have still surrendered in August? Or would they have fought on, bringing more death to America and to themselves, at least until the election was settled? I suspect the latter and I’ve got at least a little bit of real-world evidence to back that up.

By 1864 most senior Confederates knew that they no longer had any real chance at winning the war on the battlefield. Yet the South fought on. Why? The answer can be found in countless contemporary documents and statements: they believed that President Lincoln would be defeated in the election and replaced by someone willing to negotiate with the Confederacy. Had they known with certainty that Lincoln would be re-elected (and would continue his war policy until the Confederate States were destroyed) it seems likely to me that they would not have resisted as long or as heard. The words of seditionists and traitors during the Civil War gave courage to the enemies of the Union and, therefore, cost lives on both sides.

If we lose this war it will not be because we have lost it on the battlefield or have failed in a military sense: it will be because a well-organized cabal of traitors whose power extends throughout society have collaborated with our foreign enemies to stab America in the back and bring about her downfall.

This war is another Vietnam in the sense that our real enemy is not that we are meeting upon the field of battle but rather the enemy within. Our enemies abroad can hurt us: our enemies at home can beat us.

Can any rational person deny that Michael Moore is a traitor? He is a man who speaks of the virtue of our enemies while producing subversive films whose deliberate intent is to undermine morale at home, among civilian and soldier alike. He is a man who goes abroad to spread lies and slander about America and its President with the obvious purpose of bringing about our defeat in this war. If this is not an example of a man providing aid and comfort to our enemies, then what is?

Michael Moore should be made an example of. During the Revolutionary War, loyalists were tarred and feathered and sometimes killed. During the Civil War President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus: those who expressed support for the Confederacy were jailed and sometimes even exiled. During the First World War seditious and treasonous material was banned from the mail and subversives were prosecuted to the full extent of the war. During the Second World War all Japanese-Americans were interned, along with individuals known to be pro-fascist. Had war ever broken out with the Soviet Union communists and other fellow travellers would have been jailed.

In short, during virtually every major American war, subversion, sedition, and treason have been harshly dealt with and civil liberties have been curbed. This is the way things ought to be. This is the way that things must be.

Vietnam was lost both because seditionists were allowed to run free and because the government failed to take proper action to curb them. Today Kent State is memorialized as a great tragedy because a few traitors (or those stupid enough to stand near them) were killed when, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the war was that there were obviously too few Kent States. 55,000 Americans ultimately died for nothing because of those people. If a few of them would have had to die to curb their disloyal behavior, then so be it.

We can win the war against the enemy abroad by taking the fight to the enemy at home. Destroy the opponents of this war and you’ll convince our enemies that they have no chance of beating us either on the battlefield or at the ballot box.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
I Seem to Have Upset Lew Rockwell...
Earlier this morning Lew Rockwell lamented that he isn't receiving nearly as much hatemail as he once did.

So, in kindness, I sent him some.

Now he seems a little agitated.

What gives?

PS: I never called for "everyone who opposes Bush" to "swing from lamp posts." I suggested that, after a nuclear attack upon the United States, that would be the likely fate of those who tried to violently resist full moblization and warfare. Quite different things.

I don't even think that this is entirely desireable. Most people opposed to (or for, for that matter) the war are blow-hards who will blow with the winds when they get strong enough. However, I don't imagine the public would be in the mood to make distinctions if the International ANSWER folks tried to start marching with a few million dead.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Panic in Iraq
Frankly, one of the main reasons for the present troubles in Iraq is the fact that the initial offensive into that country was overly quick and insufficiently destructive.

Irregular resistance is almost always contemplated (and often planned for) at the end of a major war. At the end of the Civil War some Confederate hotheads wished to fight on, but were discouraged from doing so by General Lee. Various factions in Germany and Japan pondered continued resistance after the Second World War but, ultimately that resistance failed to materialize in any meaningful way. Too many were already dead and the people, essential to any successful guerrilla conflict, were tired of war. The South, Germany, and Japan had been so utterly destroyed by multi-year wars and were so convincingly defeated that virtually everyone had come to see the futility of further resistance.

The very rapidity of the destruction of the Iraqi Army (combined with the selectivity of US attacks) failed to provide an object lesson in the destructive powers of the United States. The main problem with the United States vis a vis the Moslem world is not that the United States is viewed as an overly strong bully that props up the Zionist entity and it plotting to destroy Islamic heathenism (though it is generally viewed as those things). The problem is that it is viewed as a weak bully. Arabs and Moslems are used to making their own accommodation with bullies or, in the words of Osama Bin Laden, “strong horses.” If the various supporters of the Iraqi resistance knew that any action against the United States would bring certain death for themselves and, in all probability, for their families as well then I suspect that resistance would virtually cease. Given the chance a large percentage of any nation will participate in acts of resistance against an occupying force: but only a very small percentage will engage in suicidal acts of resistance.

In my opinion, the people worrying that the images of “torture” from the Abu Ghraib will hurt the United States by damaging its reputation in the Islamic world are taking entirely the wrong message from the affair. Yes, this will hurt the United States, but it is not the “torture” itself that will do the damage. By the standards of the Islamic world whatever went on at Abu Ghraib is a child’s game. While it is true that the dozen or so classical liberals in the Middle East will watch the Americans respond to this by self-criticism and applaud, but that will be all. Many of our friends in Iraq will look at the outrage over a few mildly abused prisoners, turn to their friend and say, “Tarik, I don’t think the Americans will have the will to stay and defend us. Better not to collaborate and wait for the resistance to take charge.” Elsewhere the resistance (and al-Qaeda) will say, “see, the Americans don’t have the stomach to take the measures necessary,” and then they will redouble their efforts.

What is really needed is a “get tough” program in Iraq, rather than efforts to adhere to the humans rights standards supported by Amnesty International. Occupations require occasionally draconian laws and measures. First: anyone caught attacking or attempting to attack an American solider or to launch terrorist attacks against Iraqis should be summarily executed. Second: the homes of resistance leaders (and, where appropriate, members) should be targeted and destroyed. Third: US forces should storm Najaf, even if it means damaging the supposedly “Holy” sites there, for it is absurd to allow our opponents to use their religion as a shield for their military actions. Fourth: anyone attempting to transit the borders between Iraq and Syria or Iraq and Iran should be targeted for death from the air. Fifth: the execution of Saddam Hussein should be expedited and allowed to occur in public.

Of course, I don’t expect any of that to be undertaken for the very obvious reason that it appears to me that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are at least partially right about one thing: too many of the American people no longer have the stomach necessary to defend either their country or their principles. If it were up to me, I would cure this problem by having the worst traitors hanged and other subversives shoved into crowded (and hopefully disease-ridden) camps in the Nevada desert. But it isn’t. A generation raised on MTV doesn’t have the will to do what is even minimally necessary and support the death of all of America’s enemies.

In historic terms, this occupation should be extremely easy. It is forgotten now, but Japan was in such a shabby state after the end of the Second World War that many Japanese were eating diets of less than a thousand calories a day as late as 1947. As for the American losses, as tragic as they are, they must be put into perspective. During the four years of the Civil War an average of four hundred Americans died every single day. Given that the population of the North and South at that time was about thirty million, that’s the equivalent (as a percentage of the population) of four thousand dead each day in our time. Four hundred thousand Americans died in the Second World War. The Union lost more men in a few minutes at the Wilderness than we have lost in an entire year of war in Iraq (and, I might add, that by counting non-combat deaths among the toll of the dead- something not done in the Gulf War- the numbers are being deliberately inflated). Are Americans today less of a people than those who signed their honor in blood at places like Antietam, Belleau Wood, Normandy, or the Chosin Reservoir? Some days I begin to wonder.

The morale of the nation is being constantly sapped by treason, which lurks behind every corner, on every television channel, and in nearly every newspaper in the land. The most dangerous lesson of Vietnam is that it had led many average Americans to believe that, in an American war, it is acceptable to support anything other than utter destruction of the enemy by the forces of the United States. People think they have to make a decision as to who they would rather win when, as the true patriot knows, there is no choice and no option. Regardless of what any person may think of the reasons for war, any personal feeling beyond unconditional and total support for the victory of American forces is traitorous, deserving of death, and ultimately a certain ticket to hell. Unconditional loyalty to the American cause is both demanded and required of all decent human beings anywhere in the world. Those who oppose the United States in any way, shape, or form are traitors to God, mankind, civilization, and, indeed, to the universe itself. They are the flotsam and refuse of an increasingly diseased human race whose deviancy is increasingly producing inferior and flawed models of man. The opponents of America do not deserve to be considered human. They are trash, to be disregarded and ignored where possible, but disposed of when necessary.

Alas, I don’t expect anyone to take my counsel anytime soon. President Bush certainly shouldn’t at the present time, given the practicalities on the ground. Too many of the American people are not yet ready to take the measures necessary to assure their God-given place in the world. So, we are left with the great and traditional American strategy of muddling on in Iraq.

Simply muddling on through is a great and typically workable American tradition. Keep the troops there, gradually turn power over to the Iraqis, and, over a few years, things will drastically improve.

Our domestic enemies should not congratulate themselves on the degree to which they’ve managed to hamper American operations and undermine American morale. Because they are restricting freedom of action (and because, by their words they are making America appear weaker than it is) they are making a major terrorist attack more likely. I wouldn’t want to be Michael Moore any day, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be him the day after a nuclear bomb destroyed New York City. After all, if things get worse, who do you seriously expect the American people to turn to? Do you think that, with a million dead in our streets, the people would turn to Dennis Kucinich and long for the establishment of a Department of Peace? Hardly. They will turn to those people who have been advocating stronger measures all along, who have understood the nature of the threat. And whomever they will choose will reign under the wide shadow of Michael Moore’s lifeless body swinging from the nearest lamp post.

Oh, you might respond to that by saying, “but there are million people dedicated to peace in America and they will all resist you.” That may be so. But there are also a million and one lamp posts and telephone polls in America and I imagine that, should the need ever arise, they will be put to a most excellent use.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
The Abu Ghraib Nonsense
Various commentators, including many normally sensible ones, have their hearts all aflutter over the alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad. The “torture” of Iraqi prisoners is front page news in the international press, where any story which can be used to defame the United States is jumped upon with alacrity. This is also, when you really think about it, something which ought to be a complete non-story. Prisoners of war are occasionally abused by their captors? Who knew! This is another Jenin “massacre”, a little bit of minor misconduct made into a huge deal by both the enemies of the West and subversives here and home. These controversies are allowed to brew because of a proliferation of weak sisters among the defenders of the West who feel a constant need to ingratiate themselves with our domestic enemies by finding the slightest excuse to denounce the people whose side they are ostensibly on.

Before we go on, I should summarize and accusations and make clear the full extent of what went on so you can see just what a joke this really is. In grand total, the “mistreatment” consisted of forcing these prisoners to pose for “humiliating” pictures and standing one of our enemies up on a box, wired up with electrodes, and telling him that he’d be electrocuted if he fell off (and, of course, the electrodes were not even attached). In short, these supposed “atrocities” (which leading some on the left to compare the prison to a Nazi death camp) are no worse than a particularly extreme hazing session by a high school football team. It’s all very unpleasant in the sense that it’s a little gross and silly, but it’s hardly anything for a calm or sensible person to get worked up over.

Those comparing this to anything Saddam’s men did (“first Saddam tortured there and now the Americans do” seems to be a common line) aren’t thinking about this rationally. No one is dead. No one even appears to have been physically harmed. A few Iraqi prisoners (individuals who are, I am quite certain, not exactly angels) suffered a little minor abuse which, in all probability, occurred as a reprisal for their own misbehaviour.

All that being said, let’s get this straight: the actions of the soldiers in question are still deserving of punishment because the release of this information is capable of causing so much damage in the propaganda war. Whether or not their actions in and of themselves are a big deal (and I don’t really think they are) they deserve to be punished because of the PR damage they’ve caused. However, the real criminals here aren’t those soldiers: it’s CBS (who first reported this and revealed the pictures) and whoever gave CBS access to this information. Censorship has traditionally existed in wartime for a reason and this is something that most definitely should have been censored and covered-up. A more patriotic news organization would have buried this news to avoid the potential damage caused by the revelations.

There’s only one word for the actions taken by CBS and 60 Minutes II in releasing and publicizing this information (which, I might add, hit the Arab and European press only after they were reported on the air): treasonous. If, as some suggest, the inflated Arab reports and pictures of these atrocities do inflame the terrorists, CBS will have as much blood on its hands as the soldiers in question.

What should have happened here is this: the accused soldiers should have been very quietly sent packing after being told that, should any of this leak, they would all face very severe criminal charges. Then any evidence related to these incidents should have been destroyed and any rumours of them dismissed as enemy propaganda. Wartime is not the time for airing of dirty laundry.

Of course, it’s notably silly for people to act as though this is the first time that anything like this has ever happened in wartime. Prisoners were mistreated (by American soldiers) in Vietnam, in Korea, in both world wars, in the Civil War: in fact, I’m pretty much certain that there has never been a major war in the history of the world where prisoners have not been mistreated- it would have been foolish to expect this war to be an exception.

To those who are angry because (in their minds) this prevents the US from being angry at those who mistreat American prisoners, I have two things to point out. First: What percentages of Americans taken by our enemies in this war have ever been seen alive again? Second: why can’t we be still be angry when the enemy mistreats Americans? It is self-evident to me that the life of a single American is worth that of a hundred million terrorists. Different standards apply in dealing with the lives of Islamists and Americans. The life of the Islamist is forfeit the moment they pledge allegiance to their awful cause. The only reason I can think of not to summarily execute any Moslem terrorist captured by our forces is public relations. If it were up to me each and every single Islamist who falls into our hands would be hanged the before sunset the next days, just as pirates once were. Americans in the Second World War were perfectly capable of killing Japanese prisoners one day and being outraged at the (admittedly horrible) treatment of American POW’s by the Japanese the next. Cognitive dissonance is necessary in wartime. In war it’s ok for us to kill as many of the enemy as is necessary, useful, or convenient. It is a mortal sin for the enemy to kill a single American. That’s wartime morality: the lives of our enemies have less value than those of American insects.

Of course, the real problem in Iraq is one that no one wants to talk about: the weak will of a large body of the American people. Strength will carry the day in Iraq, not weakness and irresolution. However, the ability of the Bush Administration to act is restrained by subversives and traitors here at home who are deliberately undermining military and civilian morale. In an ideal war the proper response to the atrocity in Fallujah would have been to call in a few B-52’s to perform an “arc light” mission against the half-dozen city blocks which surrounded the area where the incident took place. However, nothing of the sort was possible because of the strength of the enemy within. The growing strength of the enemy within is what is strengthening the enemy without.

The real issue here isn’t a few “abused” Iraqi prisoners. The average grunt soldiers of the Iraqi army were released a long time ago. If these pictures were taken in December, the odds are high that the people pictured into the photos were resistors. Since I think all “insurgents” should be summarily executed, I don’t have any sympathy at all for a few who suffered a little minor “torture.”

This is a war, folks. Unpleasant stuff happens in war. That is simply a fact. No clean war has ever been fought and anyone seeking to wage one is foolish at best.