Recently in War Category

Regular readers know that Rev. Donald Sensing is one of my favorite bloggers. Today he struck gold twice in my opinion with these thoughts:

1) What has NATO done for us?

[A commenter explains the basics: "The purpose of NATO is and was to 'keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.']

...question for NATO's countries: if you will not have enough children to preserve your country, why should the US make up your deficit?"

2) And then in the side bar, I read this timely Halloween thought from Vanderleun:
"It seems strange that a day for the contemplation of mortality has been turned into a carnival of corruption in this country..."

I've just finished reading a very good new book Ethical Realism. What I liked about it is that it shows a sensible way forward for both Republicans and Democrats in dealing together with the challenge raised to our way of life by folks like Osama Bin Laden.

The key insight of the book is that the challenge before us now is very much like the challenge that faced a previous generation of our leaders in dealing with the challenge of Communism. The authors of this book (one liberal and one conservative) suggest that a similar approach is what we need today in dealing with our current philosophical opponents. (I'm trying very hard not to use any code words here to describe them, so as not to drive either liberal or conservative readers into tuning out the book's message before understanding it.) On reflection, I think they are correct, and the post-World War II approach is our best way forward now.

To those who think the solution is to go it alone, us against the World, standing up for a pure American vision, the authors suggest that would have been like Churchill refusing to work with Russia against Hitler in 1939, which they assert would have resulted in England losing World War II in 1940. Much though we'd prefer not to ally with imperfect countries and leaders, the truth is, we are all imperfect, and must choose among various shades of grey rather than only between black and white ethically. This theme of humility is important. No matter how wonderful and generous we consider our nation, it is imperfect, just as each of us individually is imperfect. Our founders knew that, which is why they were so careful to set up checks and balances to limit the actions of our government, knowing it too would be imperfect.

A second great insight from the past was WHY we had a containment strategy against Russia beginning in the late 1940s - because it was already apparent that our relatively free system would eventually do better than the centralized Russian system, as indeed it eventually did. The only logical alternative would have been to follow fighting Germany and Japan by fighting Russia, and even if we'd won, how would we have then ruled such a large part of the world? More likely (especially once both sides had nuclear weapons) such a war would have ended with only losers. This insight has current application as we consider our current challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan - can any sensible person today advocate also picking a fight with Iran?

And to those fond of saying the U.S. is the worst nation in history, these authors would suggest "Get a grip!" Anyone who truly thinks that knows little or nothing of world history. The mere fact that one can have such an opinion yet still live and work here should be proof enough that ours is not the worst of all possible nations. Fashionable though it may be to pretend all cultures are equal in value, in the end some ideas and some behaviors are better than others, and ethics consists of making difficult choices between better and worse, not in some ideal world that never was, but in this clearly-imperfect world.

One of the great insights of the late 1940s, recently re-realized in our own day, is that it is not in our national iinterest to just let failed nations rot. Such swamps serve as breeding grounds for all sorts of dangers. Rather, it is in our interest to help citizens of all nations find a way forward toward a better life. Americans are a generous people, quick to help others in need. That is one of our best traits, and may in the end be more important in helping us survive this new century in peace than all our armed forces and advanced technology.

Finally, the authors usefully remind us that like it or not, and no matter who is elected President next year, we will be at this effort for a generation or more, making it foolish to proceed in a way acceptable to only a minority among us. Rather, we need an approach most Americans can support for such a long effort.

Update: I'm also just finishing the book World War IV, by Norman Podhoretz. It is mostly a history of how the war has gone thus far, starting back in the 70's when no one yet considered it a real war. Its most helpful feature is clear proof of mistakes by all of our Presidents and leading politicians of all parties ever since, except that He's a bit too kind to our current President. I find myself thinking two things:
1) Speaking clearly about this war is similar to when a therapist realizes what's wrong with a mental patient, but has to help the patient figure it out on his or her own rather than just handing them the answer, or else the patient will reject the truth and replace their current problem with an even less-well-adapted one. For that reason, titles like World War IV may be too direct to win majority support within our country today, even if factually accurate as the term is defined by the author.
2) Unlike Ethical Realism, this author doesn't seem to have a workable solution in mind, at least not one likely to gain bi-partisan support within my lifetime.

Update2: I received another interesting post this morning, of a grandfatherly talk on this issue just given by Newt Gingrich, of all people. Well worth a read here, no matter what you used to think of Gingrich. (Newt is a good historian too, but also seems to have this bi-partisan thing somewhat figured out -- he spent a lot of the past year dialogging about current issues with a friendly Democrat.)

Looks like today's my day for linking. This post from Powerline quotes a speech by President Bush today that just plain makes a whole ton of sense:
"I was very optimistic at the end of '05 when 12 million Iraqis went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn't all that long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted. I wasn't surprised, but I was pleased -- let me put it to you that way. I wasn't surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions is that I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that freedom belongs to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from an Almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. And therefore, I wasn't surprised when people, when given the chance, said, I want to be free. I was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers and killers to vote.

And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital, to send more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so that an alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that would be running the operation -- in this case, the main man is a man named General David Petraeus -- a smart, capable man, who gives me his candid advice. His advice, Mr. President, is we must change the mission to provide security for the people in the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar Province, in order for the progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made. That's why we've done what we've done."

From everything I've been able to read by folks actually on the scene (as opposed to the pervasive lies of mass media), our Surge in Iraq is working amazingly well. And that is causing panic among Democrats desperate to lose this war in time for the 2008 elections. It's also causing panic among still-suicidal Republicans who foolishly think voters would reward them for bailing without even waiting 60 more days as previously agreed before assessing the Surge.

The surest way for any politician to lose my vote in 2008 is by trying to cut and run from terrorists. Much as I respect Barack Obama, for example, he needs to grow a pair if he wants my vote next year against anyone other than another Clinton, Bush or Kennedy.

I have written before on the idea of a secure National ID here, here and here, and my opinion can be summed thusly: "I am strongly in favor of creating a secure national ID card, despite potential for misuse. My reason is that the current insecure SSN is already being misused - constantly."

In this discussion about how requiring a secure national ID may have doomed this week's attempt to revive a "comprehensive" (and if a 1,000 page bill with a 300 page amendment isn't comprehensive, what is?) immigration bill in the U.S. Senate, reference was made to this article against a national ID card written by Glenn Harlan Reynolds (the Instapundit) two months after 9/11.

I found the article interesting from a security and computer science perspective, because it tries to argue the impossibility of creating a secure ID for all Americans within a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost:
"There will be a lot of long lines, a lot of paper shuffled, a lot of computer files created and - no doubt - gotten wrong (credit reports are full of errors, and they have a financial incentive to get things right). But at the end of the day, the national identification card will be exactly as secure as a driver's license and birth certificate, which is to say, no better than what we have now."
...
"The transition to a National ID would be painfully difficult for those on the other side of the window, too. If 280 million people need National ID cards, who will process them? In this quantity, it won't be the folks who do security checks for the military and intelligence agencies.

They may not be perfect (can you say Aldrich Ames? Robert Hansson?), but they take weeks or months to clear people."
...
"Add to this the certainty that some people involved in processing the documents will be corrupt or corruptible (or even terrorist sympathizers) and even a successful transition to a National ID system would leave fake documents readily available."

Reynold's argument has a lot going for it. However, the same could be said about locks on houses. If anyone leaves their home unlocked and is robbed as a result, we now assign them some of the resulting blame for not taking basic precautions, even though a pre-teen can now defeat almost any home door lock with a simple technique I won't describe further.

So why is it good to deprive ourselves of even minimal security of identification when all agree at least minimal security is reasonable to expect in our homes?

I also think Reynolds may not be giving sufficient credit to the help computers offer this process by making it quick and easy to cross-check information.

For instance, our church child care program now uses a computer to sign kids in each Sunday. It includes a way to look folks up via a fingerprint scanner. Is it perfect? Definitely not! But without a doubt it is better than our previous system of just looking up names on a printed list and assuming whoever gave that name was in fact that person.

Could a fingerprint be faked? I expect so, although many of the known ways of doing so wouldn't work with our volunteer watching each attempt to log in.

Could the database be hacked? Definitely, although again, perhaps not easily. You'd have to know where do go and what to alter and how, all the while hoping nothing in the security of the system would notice.

So, if a child care program can build a reasonably-secure biometric database of families attending a church run by volunteers over the course of a few months, why must it be impossible for government to apply any of the same techniques to improve the currently-nonexistent "security" of the Social Security card?

The usual suspects are busy tonight drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from the recent school shooting in Virginia. Rather than pointing out how obviously ineffective declaring the Virginia Tech campus a gun-free zone was in preventing mass murder, they insanely ask for future victims to be required to be even more defenseless against the next criminal assailant.

What's really sad is that the State of Virginia, except for that campus, allows law-abiding citizens to be armed. Had that campus not insisted on being gun-free, it seems likely yesterday's mass murderer might have been stopped much sooner and with much less loss of innocent life.

What lunacy convinces folks to favor new laws that only inhibit the law-abiding from defending themselves and others, with no restraining effect at all on those willing to break the law?

Theoretically, police are an alternative defense, but in practice, by the time police can be called and arrive, the damage has often already been done.

Here in Chicago, it is already often illegal to have a gun, a taser, a knife of useful size, or even pepper spray for self defense, yet somehow rapes, robberies and murders continue.

By way of contrast, in places where citizens are allowed to be armed, everyone is somehow more polite in public settings, and such tragedies somehow occur less frequently.

According to several articles I noticed on Google News today, the world faces a grim future, much worse and much sooner than previously thought. If the articles were warning about resurgent militant islamists, I'd likely agree. But the actual dangers we face this year are nowhere on the radar of those articles, despite the recent kidnapping of 15 British soldiers from Iraqi waters by Iran. Rather, the dire warnings are about global warming, which may become a serious problem someday, but absolutely not before Iran could become a serious problem. What a bunch of ostriches!

Thank God our future is not ultimately in human hands! (Happy Easter!)

Gosh does this comment by General David Petraeus make sense!
"...the proven domination of the US on the battlefield will mean that almost all future threats will be asymmetrical. If the US expects to maintain its military superiority and therefore protect its national security, it will have to learn to defeat insurgencies. We will not learn that by running away, and a retreat in the face of such terrorists will only encourage more of them -- as the only way to defeat the United States, and by extension, the West."

The Draft - another form of slavery.
You'd think Charlie Rangel would understand.

Democrats drafted my generation to Viet Nam.
And now they want our children...

In 1992, Bill Clinton had a sign to remind him of what was important then "It's the Economy, Stupid!" This year, it is not the economy. If it were the economy this time, Republicans would win every election this Fall, because our economy is doing wonderfully, even though most of the mainstream media would rather eat a rivet than admit such a thing.

This time, "It's the War, Stupid!", a war likely to last as long as the Cold War, every bit as threatening to the freedom and prosperity we so often take for granted, and failure is not an option.

I really wanted to bash the Republicans this time, for betraying fiscal conservatives and those of us who fear big government. But fortunately for them, they are running against Democrats who are no longer the party of John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman or even of Joseph I. Lieberman.

Pretending we can abandon the War on Terror and just go home is unbelievably stupid, yet apparently that is the only plan acceptable to today's Democrats.

I wanted to explain the problems with such a "plan", but instead let's allow a Democrat to so do -- Orson Scott Card, whose books I've enjoyed for twenty years. Card explains it ever so much better than I could have, here
"There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.".

and

"Here's the story the Islamic puritans are telling: The West is full of terrible evils -- atheism, sexual filth of all kinds -- in defiance of God's will. So seductive are the wiles of Shaitan that many Muslims aspire to dress, act, and live like westerners. Only by turning to full enforcement of ancient Muslim law can Islam purify itself and resist the blandishments of the west. It's evil on one side, God on the other.

Instead, President Bush has offered something quite different. We don't want to turn you into mini-Americas, he says. We offer you, instead, democracy, in which you can choose for yourselves what parts of western culture to adopt. You will govern yourselves. It isn't a choice between wickedness and righteousness, it's a choice between freedom and oppression."

and

"How do the Islamicist tyrants answer the obvious success and growing appeal of Bush's democracy program?

Because even more than they fear terrorist bombs, the pro-democracy forces within Iraq and Afghanistan fear American withdrawal."

and

"There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.

We cannot win by going home. In a short time, "home" would become a very different place, as our own prosperity and safety steadily diminished. Isolationism is a dead end. If we lose our will to protect the things that support our own prosperity, then what can we expect but the end of that prosperity -- and of any vestige of safety, as well?

The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning and that the course President Bush is pursuing is, in fact, the wisest one."

and

"Meanwhile, we have this election. You have your vote. For the sake of our children's future -- and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future, too -- vote for no Congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war. And vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war."

Really, read the whole thing. And then vote.

A lot of the debate about Iraq in this country has been between folks who feel we have to finish well there, versus those determined to make it into another Viet Nam, lately complete with references to the Tet offensive, and wanting us to leave immediately or at least soon.

It does seem to be human nature to continue refighting the last war. Thus, it is not surprising for my generation, raised during the Viet Nam war, to see everything through those lenses, just as it describes every political crisis by adding "Gate" to the end of its name.

However, we were lied to by the media about Viet Nam at the time, and some have not learned anything useful about that war since. Contrary to what we were told by Walter Cronkite, we won the Tet Offensive, according to no less an authority than the opposing general, Giap. Only the media war was lost, and that sadly seems similar to today when CNN knowingly airs propaganda films produced by our enemies.

However satisfying it is to chant "Out of Iraq Now", it might first be well to remember the millions in Southeast Asia who died shortly after our departure. If you dislike the current level of violence in Iraq, imagine the consequences of a full-blown civil war there.

We are now ourselves "The Man", and can no longer just moan and groan about public policy, as though it were being made by others. Like it or not, Boomers are now adults.

So I don't want to hear how you didn't want us to go to Iraq and how you want us out now unless you are also willing to say it's OK if millions of our supporters there die as a result, and also OK if our enemies there follow and attack us here instead. It's obvious both those results would follow any immediate departure by U.S. forces from Iraq.

That out of the way, there is another problem with our current efforts in Iraq that needs to be squarely faced - scope creep. A common problem in IT projects is that a project started to do one thing somehow morphs mid-stream into a much larger project to do something else, becoming late and over-budget in the process. That is also happening in Iraq.

We went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and we have done so. We did not go there to turn Iraq into a modern democracy, but some now consider that the goal, impossible though it is.

We need to be in Iraq, to keep a close eye on its troublesome neighborhood. But we do not need to micromanage anything there. So long as Iraq's new government doesn't shelter terrorists or attack Americans, why is it any business of ours how they run their country?

Similarly, we need to deter violence against our forces by people who hide among civilians. That isn't hard to do; it's only hard to do so without also harming civilians. But as previously mentioned here, the easiest way to keep our opponents from hiding among civilians is to not let that affect our response to attacks. If, for example, a sniper shoots from a building, the hard and dangerous way to respond is by searching the building room by room. The easy and safe way to respond is by leveling the building. If that were to happen, the media would still moan about civilian casualties, but no longer about dead American soldiers. And afterwards, civilians in other buildings would take very personal offense to future snipers.

Similarly, if Iraqis want to split their country into three internal federal zones (one each for Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis), why is that any concern of ours, even if the result doesn't leave Sunnis with any oil? I find it very difficult to oppose fair consequences for the group responsible for all the suffering of the Saddam years, and the Kurds have already proven themselves quite capable of self-rule in their region.

In summary, there are two ways to fail in Iraq: one by cutting and running, and the other via scope creep. To achieve our objectives in going there we must avoid both.

The middlewife and I have been scheduled for almost a year now to go to Israel and Jordon on a study tour in September with our church. Sadly, the trip has just been cancelled. Doing so required a decision of the church elders, which is as high up as decision-making goes in our church. In other words, it was a tough decision.

Our own decision was easier - I've said all along that I'll still go "if Israel is still there" and if our leader still wants to go. At the moment, Israel is still there, but our leader will no longer be going, and therefore, we won't be either.

One of our beliefs is that our elders are given the spiritual gift of discernment, and all their decisions are unanimous, so I feel I'd have to be an idiot to think I know better than them on such a subject.

From discussions about why one might still make such a trip in time of war, we realized that there is still a good reason to make such a trip, but we lack the needed time before departure to make the needed changes in the purpose of the trip from study to service.

If we went anyway now, we would be a burden on Israel, which hardly needs another burden at the moment. Perhaps another day we can be there to help.

It's hard not to see this as another victory for the haters of this world. The non-refundable fees for this cancelled trip will add up to about $30K for our group, and that's all money that, had we known, could have been spent in other ways to help people more.

Worse, because we are not going, the people in Israel and Jordan who would have provided us services along the way won't see any of the money they expected, not only from our one tour, but from most tours that would be there if war were not. For just our group, that loss is at least $165K.

Still worse, all involved who know much about the area and its troubles agree that conditions for travel there are very unlikely to be better in a few months or another year.

This feels to me much more like Spain or Czechoslovakia in the mid 1930s than it does to another local "intifada." Speaking plainly, we seem to be at the start of something bigger than our current war on terror, rather than nearing its end. Sadly, now, as in 1938, there are many fools eager to cut and run, as though doing so wouldn't just make matters worse later, as became obvious last time in 1939.

Although I was anti-war in the Viet Nam years, I am very aware that over a million people died in Southeast Asia after we abandoned that war, and vowed not to again let such a decision of mine ignore its victims.

That has immediate relevance now, as sectarian violence threatens all we have accomplished to date in Iraq. If I were either a "cut and run" dove or a "to h*** with them" hawk, before abandoning Iraq, I'd have to be willing to allow another million or more persons God loves to die because I left.

Today's isolationists really ought to ponder on how many more people died in the 1940s, than might have died if World War II had started in 1938 rather than 1939. Being opposed to warfare as a solution to problems is fine with me, but please be intelligent about it and think through the consequences of getting your way.

A moral dilemna of resisting terrorists is that they do their very best to surround themselves with "innocent" civilians. That amounts to a win-win situation for the terrorists. If their attacks succeed, great for them. If our counter-attacks succeed, their fighting among civilians ensures there will be lots of dead "innocents" for their remaining supporters to show as "proof" we are no better than them, even when we make every effort to avoid injuring civilians while terrorists often prefer to attack civilians due to their being less defended than armed forces.

In this, our media are willing propagandists, happy to show dramatic photos and videos, and weirdly comfortable with the idea of expecting ethical behavior from the civilized while forgiving even the most heinous attrocities committed by terrorists who claim to be the underdog and/or non-Western.

Even so, choosing not to resist terrorists does no favors to civilians. Where terrorists gain power, civilian freedom disappears, especially for groups even civilized societies have only recently chosen to defend, such as women, ethnic and religious (or irreligious) minorities, and gays.

I've seen no credible evidence that terrorists can be permanently appeased even by surrender. Our current enemies have made it clear they cannot be appeased by anything less than complete world domination. If they win, millions, and perhaps even billions of innocents will die.

In the short run, it might be possible to save a few civilian lives by not attacking terrorists who hide among civilians. But long term, doing so only ensures terrorists surround themselves with even more civilians. For that reason, we may paradoxically save the most civilian lives on all sides by making it clear to terrorists that they will be targeted utterly without regard to civilians among whom they hide.

Similarly, in the short run, it may be possible to save a few lives by ransoming kidnap victims, but in the long run doing so only ensures more persons will be kidnapped.

I agree with Billy Graham, who long ago made it clear his family was never to pay a ransom for him if kidnapped. Like Billy, I am not worried about my fate beyond this life, and would not want to continue it at the expense of other future victims.

An excellent Wizbang article The Fate of Hostages covers similar ground today:
"The belief that seems to be at the core of Israel's decisions is this: one does not make concessions to hostage-takers. The principles that law enforcement apply do not hold when expanded beyond an individual or small group; when the hostage-takers are part of a very large organization numbering possibly in the tens of thousands, with several other groups in ideological agreement, concessions become precedents.

The way Israel seems to see it is that if they demonstrate that they will not be deterred by Hezbollah hiding behind the innocent, and in fact it is a losing tactic (it ties Hezbollah to a fixed position, and limits their ability to hide or flee), they will stop doing it. In the long run, they think, it will save more lives than it will cost."

Update:
Black Five writes similarly on the virtues of killing children:
"It is our love of these innocents that endangers them. If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger."

"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence. If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance."

One of the perks of the hotel at which I stayed last week was the daily New York Times. For me, however, it was also a moral dilemna. I have long refused to do anything to help that paper financially, ever since I became convinced they were anti-American. Recently, my distaste for the Times has grown exponentially, as they increasingly appear to be knowingly committing treason.

From now on, I will refuse to read the Times, even when available without charge. It isn't that I disagree with them politically (though I often do); rather it is that they appear to be intentionally publishing information likely to cost innocent lives.

Being married to a former librarian, I've been long trained in the extreme importance of freedom of speech. Nothing riles up a librarian like someone trying to ban a book. For example, see this Borders Books ad from this week in defense of banned books and authors. Hence my huge surprise at how quickly and easily enemies in the war on terrorism have convinced so many here and abroad, aparently now also including Borders Books, that freedom of speech cannot be defended if it offends current or potential enemies in that war.

The latest collapsing battlefront in that war is Borders Books, which is choosing not to carry Free Inquiry (one of their usual April-May magazines) for fear of what might happen when it becomes known that the issue contains 4 Danish cartoons.
"Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.
“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday."

Cox & Forkum respond with another cartoon.

But it gets worse. LittleGreenFootballs reports tonight that a Borders employee has been told it is official corporate policy that the Quran must be displayed only on the top shelf of book racks, rather than wherever it happens to fall in alphabetical listings.
"I was shifting rows of books in our religion section and it happened to be that all of our Koran books (a section on its own) ended up on the bottom shelf. The next day I was informed by my General Manager that it is Borders policy as a whole (not my particular store) that due to complaints in the past from Muslim customers, we are not allowed to put our copies of the Koran on any shelf other than the top."

One useful suggestion is that whatever money we might otherwise have spent at Borders during April might now be better spent elsewhere. And one excellent choice for where else might be as a donation to those who have defended freedom of speech and are now facing unfair consequences as a result. The Alberta Human Rights Commission, for example, has inexplicably filed suit against the Western Standard for publishing the Danish cartoons. (Details on contributing to the Western Standard defense fund are here.)

I particularly loved PowerLine reader David Bosserman's plan:
"I’ve sent the following to our friends at the Western Standard, with a copy to Borders, and I encourage your readers to do the same: "Sirs: I am sending you the money I might otherwise have spent at Borders Books, because they are cowards and you are not.""

Update: Instapundit reports the Hartford Courant is on this too:
"If you care about freedom of expression, don't buy books from Borders or Waldenbooks," writes conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan on his blog. "And if you want to draw a lesson from the entire episode, it's obvious: violence against free writers and artists gets results. We have all but invited more."
(It's nice to be able to agree with Andrew Sullivan about something again.)

Note: I wrote, but forgot to publish this a year ago. Sadly, it remains timely, so I've posted it today.

How do you negotiate with someone who only wants you dead, especially when they are willing to die too?

Suicide bombings in recent years prove some Islamist terrorists are willing to die along with their victims, although Islamist leaders seem as fond of life as the rest of us.

As for negotiations, in the Islamist view our only choice is surrender or death.

Islamists have ben successfully appeased, but not for long.

Fortunately, there is a third alternative -- victory.

For all the fear and trouble unleashed by a terrorist attack such as that of 3/11 in Spain, terrorists have not enjoyed long-term success. It is a style of fighting chosen by the weak. And in the end, it usually fails.

Appeasement, on the other hand, always fails eventually.

So in the famous words of Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, "This isn't the time to go all wobbly."

Power Line published an excellent essay on casualties in times of war and peace. Its key point: American soldiers are safer at war in Iraq than they were in previous peacetime years.

"...between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one."

You'd never know that from reading, watching or listening to mainstream media in the U.S. For that matter, I didn't know it until now even from blogs.

"For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.

The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism."

One of those folks who happily write whenever anything happens anywhere that can be somehow spun so as to make America, its efforts, and particularly our current administration look bad proudly offered these turds today:

Decorated Marine Accused Of Opening Fire On Noisy Crowd

and

Iraq veteran arrested in killing

In my opinion, both are stories of sorrow, illustrating the troubles even the best soldiers have re-integrating into ordinary society after a war, rather than an occasion for gloating as though the sender were Tokyo Rose.

How stupid do you have to be to root for the other side in a war whose other side hopes to kill all who share your views?

WizBang has a great new idea on how to fight terrorism. Up to now, the main options discussed have been a judicial approach that addresses root causes, and a military approach. Of those two, it's fairly obvious (at least to me) that the military approach of the Bush years worked better than the judicial approach of the Clinton years.

Now WizBang suggests a third way -- a medical approach:
"In medicine, when one has a crisis, one deals with the symptoms first, then you go looking for the "root cause." For example, when a patient is not breathing, you get them breathing again, THEN you start worrying about why they stopped. The first priority is always on short-term survival, THEN long-term concerns. That's why most medical professionals consider "the operation was a success, but the patient died" a truly obscene joke.

Once we've stopped the bleeding, then we can look for the ulcer. But diagnosing and treating the ulcer won't do any good for a corpse."

According to this article, al-Qaeda is prepared to nuke 2 of 9 American cities with large Jewish populations on either August 6 (anniversary of the original Hiroshima) or September 11. I've written about this possibility (and possible citizen responses) before here.

It seems to me that although many in al-Qaeda are willing to see Allah today if necessary as a result of attacking America, not all of their top leaders are, and definitely not all of the "Axis of Evil" leaders who quietly support and protect them. Therefore, the doctrine of deterrence still applies, so long as we make it clear to those among our declared and undeclared opponents that the moment such an event happens will also be their own last moment.

Personally, I have a problem with threatening to respond to a small nuclear weapon with several large ones. Since such threats remain an essential part of our national defense, it's good that I am not the President.

Taking it a step farther, the Middlewife and I have plans to be near downtown Chicago for a church event important to us that morning, and intend to keep that appointment even if it kills us. After all, no one lives forever, and neither of us considers this life all there is, nor fears what awaits beyond.

Even so, for whoever is the President on such a day, immediate retaliation against "those who are not for us" is likely to be demanded by nearly all surviving Americans, even if that might result in even more deadly attacks against us. Multiculturalism will most likely officially die that day, possibly accompanied by millions or even billions of humans, unless God feels otherwise.

Even preparing a target list for retaliatory missiles is complicated by the presence of terrorists and their supporters in countries officially on our side in the War on Terror, and the presence of millions of innocent victims who bear us no ill will even in nations officially on the other side in this war.

If peace-loving Muslims would like to avoid being deported or herded into camps or possibly even nuked directly or in retaliation on such a day, now would be a really good time to begin vocally opposing those they know to be planning such disasters, and turning such folks in to the police. They (non-violent Muslims) are, after all, al-Qaeda's primary target, ahead of both us and Israel.

What else can be done? One idea is to start a Manhattan Project to eliminate our dependence on imported oil. So-called "anti-war" protestors, despite their utter lack of peacefulness, are correct that but for oil we might not have had some of our recent troubles. If oil were no longer needed, most of the Middle East could return to a simpler existence, neither bothering nor being bothered by anyone. Be sure to pause before buying that next Hummer folks. (And see this related post.)

The US had problems with suicide bombers once before (Kamikazes in WWII), and Wretched reminds us of the value of defence in depth, then and now.

"(Speculation alert) When faced with the suicide attack problem (Kamikazes) during the Second World War, US fleets adopted the concept of the layered defense around battlegroups, consisting of attacking enemy airfields, providing a radar picket on enemy lines of approach, creating a combat air patrol to intercept incoming Kamikazes and then presenting a succession of long, medium and short-range antiaircraft fire, before finally falling back on warship evasion, armor and damage control. Each component in the defense contributed its statistical share of the defense. The debate surrounding the prosecution of the war on terror can be conceptually split, though not very neatly, between those who advocate a layered defense with a forward-deployed component (coordination with 'friendly' Muslim countries, involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, etc), plus everything in between, and those who would rely primarily on terminal or close-in defenses (national IDs, CCTV cameras, border control, etc) in the homeland. A small percentage of policy advocates believe that a complete reliance on nearly passive close-in defenses ("support the troops, bring the boys home", build bridges to Muslim communities, etc) would be adequate to protect the public against terrorism. Over the coming years, the value of every aspect of the defense will be highlighted by different incidents. Some attacks will be stopped by an alert security guard, others will be pre-empted in a land so distant the public will never even know that the attacks were mounted. But they are all needed. If any lives were saved in London today, it probably means that a deep defense makes a difference."

Personally, I'll also continue praying for a hedge of protection for our nation, and discernment for our leaders.

One other thought: The only sermon I remember from my childhood was our pastor saying he wouldn't build a fallout shelter because he wasn't willing to kill his neighbors to keep them out. He was right; to the best of my ability, we'll survive such a day together. As President Lincoln once put it, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in."

Update: Donald Sensing also links to an article related to defense in depth by Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed.
”And if you want to catch a terrorist you do not man tube stations. Once you are in the station trying to catch the perpetrator, you have already lost the game. The most effective way to combat vermin is to strike at their breeding grounds and not under your sink.”

Update2: Here is another article from the same source.

Update3: It has been suggested that if anything big happens in the way of an attack here, one consequence might be to immediately solve the problem of Iran's pending nuclear capability, if not the entire problem represented by their current government. Here's an article from NBC offering current evidence that Iran's current leadership may indeed be, as some have suggested for years, heading the war on terror for the other side.

" Iran is shipping more powerful and sophisticated military-caliber bombs to Iraqi guerrillas for use against U.S.-led coalition forces, NBC News reported yesterday.
Citing U.S. military and intelligence officials, the network said U.S. soldiers intercepted a large shipment of high explosives last week, smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran.
"The officials say the shipment contained dozens of 'shaped charges' manufactured recently. Shaped charges are especially lethal because they're designed to concentrate and direct a more powerful blast into a small area," NBC reported.
"They'll go right through a very heavily armored vehicle like an M1-A1 tank from one side right out the other side," retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey told the network.
Military officials said insurgents in Iraq began using shaped charges to kill U.S. forces three months ago. Recent weeks have brought a spate of deadlier roadside-bomb attacks on U.S. forces.
In one attack earlier this week, 14 U.S. Marines were killed inside a 28-ton armored vehicle that would be immune from most improvised explosive devices, but vulnerable to shaped charges, which were developed by militaries worldwide specifically to pierce armor.
Intelligence officials believe the explosives were shipped into Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or the terrorist group Hezbollah, most likely with the consent of the Iranian government, NBC reported."

By comparison, the other two members of the "Axis of Evil" (Syria and North Korea) seem downright pleasant lately...

One obvious implication of North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons is that it changes nothing for the U.S. If any nation does have weapons, and ever tries to use them on us, oh well, we have more, and better. Even most crazy folks I've met aren't crazy enough to ensure their own immediate destruction.

Further, for all their talk of having missiles able to reach the U.S., thanks to "Star Wars", a potential attacker can't be sure such a launch would succeed. They can, however, be sure our retaliatory launches would arrive promptly and effectively, so again would have to be more than usually crazy to try it.

There is an obvious resulting problem for Japan and South Korea. Their choice now is to either get their own nukes, which both could do quickly if they had a mind to, or to so behave that they can continue to trust our promises to protect them.

South Korean students who wanted the U.S. soldiers out of their country and Japanese protestors who didn't want their troops in Iraq now need to decide how far away from the U.S. they truly want to stand.

In my opinion, our real problem with North Korea having nukes is that they might try to create an export market for such technology, either the actual weapons or the knowledge of how to make them.

I don't have a real solution, other than an old idea that the 5 original nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, G.B., France & China) could deter actual use of nuclear weapons by all quietly promising to immediately nuke any other country attempting to use such weapons. That might work as a deterrent, because it is unlikely any one country can buy off or deter all five of those countries simultaneously.

A further quiet threat may deter non-state actors, folks with weapons who are not themselves national governments -- if such a weapon is used, retaliation will be immediate against all the "usual suspect" nations, thereby giving those nations an incentive to keep a lid on "insurgents" within their sphere of influence.

A variant on such a threat has already been rumoured -- to nuke Mecca should there ever be another 9-11. Opinions vary on the effectiveness of such a threat. On the one hand, humans are endlessly creative. I'm sure Muslims could decide some other place is their new spiritual home after losing Mecca. They have, for instance, dramatically increased their opinion of the importance of Jerusalem to their faith in recent decades, since losing control of it in 1948.

On the other hand, Islam is all about submitting to the strength and power of their version of the "one true God." If Mecca were destroyed, would anyone still follow such a vision?

As a Christian, I would have a hard time making any of the above threats, and an even harder time making good on one if push came to shove. My trust is that the one true God who got us somehow safely through at least two very close calls in the '60s and '70s will continue to protect His creation until He decides "time's up."

It does, however, remind us all, to live each day as though it might be our last.

I've thought for over a year that the reason we invaded Iraq was much more involved than either that Saddam might be hiding weapons of mass destruction he might pass to terrorists or to rescue his long-suffering citizens.

To me the deeper reason was fairly obvious: after Afghanistan, to maintain the momentum of that victory, we needed to take a next step in our war on terror, rather than just respond to whatever Osama Bin Laden et al chose to do next. Given that need, what better step could we have taken than to solve our Iraqi problem?

By invading, we:
1 removed Saddam as a threat
2 established military presence in a strategic (for reasons of both geography and resources) location near potential adversaries.
3 forced our adversaries to fight us there now rather than in a time and place of their choosing.
4 planted a seed of democracy that, who knows, might someday amount to something.
5 inspired other nations in the area to better behavior (Libya and Pakistan, to mention two new friends)

Point 3 may not be clear: our opponents absolutely could not allow our attempt to plant democracy in Iraq to succeed, thereby forcing them to put all other plans on hold and fight us there now.

This has been dubbed the "flypaper strategy", and is working exceptionally well, as recently seen in Fallujah. The bad guys gather and take over an area to prevent democracy there, and once enough have gathered, they suddenly find themselves trapped and defeated.

OK, that's my opinion. But it's no longer only my opinion. You can read much the same here.

Update: Victor Davis Hanson's Postmodern War, includes this very relevant insight:
"Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.S. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. In contrast, the Grenada communists, Noriega, Milošević , and the Taliban were all defeated, and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism, we would do best to recall the realistic, if inelegant, words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the infamous Al Davis: 'Just win, baby.'"

Update2: Now that the election in Iraq has succeeded, it's time for real Democrats, defined as those who agree the party name implies advocacy of democracy, to get on board. Thomas Friedman puts it very well here:
"I think there is much to criticize about how the war in Iraq has been conducted, and the outcome is still uncertain. But those who suggest that the Iraqi election is just beanbag, and that all we are doing is making the war on terrorism worse as a result of Iraq, are speaking nonsense.

We have paid a huge price in Iraq. I want to get out as soon as we can. But trying to finish the job there, as long as we have real partners, is really important - and any party that says otherwise will become unimportant."

Many of us are familiar with derogatory terms used to describe folks of various opinions about war, but I learned a new one today. The term "Bird of Paradise" describes those who support war only under impossibly-ideal conditions.

Here are some of the good bits:
"If the United States chooses to cut and run in Iraq, then we are all but finished as a military power in the world. We have the best trained, best equipped, and highest-spirited troops in the entire world. But the soft underbelly of the military has always been the public's willingness to actually fight and prevail in a difficult struggle."

"Those who would urge the nation into a war, or vote the nation into war, without contemplating the possible difficulties and pain of the struggle are cowards-- and worse than cowards. A man who would send another man to his death for a cause he does not think is important is a villain. What else can one call it?"

Read the whole thing here.

There has been a fair amount of discussion at the University today about this link.

Here's the short version: "A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaeda not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future. These chilling allegations appear in "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11: What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You," by Paul L. Williams (Prometheus Books).

Williams claims that al-Qaeda has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simultaneously in U.S. cities."

The prof who initially posted it considers the book credible because a personal contact he trusts confirmed a few years ago that "44 suitcase nuclear devices from the Soviets were missing."

If so, it is possible some found their way to enemies.

It is also uncomfortably possible such a device could take down a nearby landmark.

Discussion at the University has been at a higher level than usual, focusing on such things as:
1 such an attack could leave Manhattan uninhabitable for a thousand years. Imagine the effect of several such blasts on our economy!

2 The goal of a simultaneous attack in multiple cities would be to destroy American power beyond ability to retaliate. As one prof commented "their first blow, as Machiavelli advised, has to kill the prince." That American forces would afterwards retain unimaginable retaliatory abilities might not be adequately considered by attackers.

3 Although civil defense is hopeless against nuclear Armageddon, it could help one survive a suitcase nuke. Immediately ducking under a desk the moment one noticed the explosion's flash might be sufficient to survive such a blast a mile or two off. Promptly leaving the area after the blast might avoid lethal fallout.

An obvious question is, if al-Queda has the weapons, why haven't they already used them? Perhaps because certain terrorist-friendly governments believe they too would suffer unendurable losses on such a day, ordered by whatever third undersecretary of the post office survived the events to become President.

But perhaps it's just a matter of waiting for a preset day and time, such as a third attack on Manhattan during this year's GOP convention.

Assuming this does NOT happen (and I dearly pray it does not!), a good question to ask of vice presidential candidates this year might be: "If you suddenly were President after nuclear blasts in several cities, what would you do?"

Perhaps the best thing about the current campus discussion is that no one has been foolish enough to suggest such an event would somehow still be all Bush's fault, or that electing Kerry would prevent it. Those who believe such foolishness have been mercifully and uncharacteristically silent in this discussion.

Update:
Time Magazine has a related story here. It suggests Al Queda is interested in Mexico as a route to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. It also reports "U.S. officials have begun to keep a closer eye on heavy-truck traffic across the border. The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. And another episode has some senior U.S. officials worried: the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction. Though the theft's connection to terrorism remains unclear, a senior U.S. law-enforcement official notes that crop dusters can be used to disperse toxic substances. The plane, stolen at night two weeks ago, has not been recovered."

Update2: Winds of Change lists 5 kits that might help one survive such an event. The "Get Home Kit" seems particularly appropriate.

Update3: Belmont Club looks thoroughly into the eventual results of such an event, and conludes "... a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column."

In case that wasn't clear, here's the underlying detail:
"Consider a case where Islamic terrorists obliterate a city, causing five times the deaths at Hiroshima and an American limited response.
Iteration Non-Islamic Losses Islamic Losses
1 - 5 x 10^5 -2 x 10^6
Total - 5 x 10^5 -2 x 10^6

The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset."

Update4:
A new article here reports August 6 is a preferred day for an "American Hiroshima" in one of the nine cities with the most jews, among them Chicago. According to the article, the weapons are already in the U.S.

Update5:
If the worst happens, and you've survived it and gotten home, here are instructions on how to survive fallout from a small blast and the resulting social disruption.

It is written to be read "just in time", but also points out ways to improve matters by thinking ahead, such as ordering a keychain geiger counter rated for continuous use for 10 years without changing the battery. (Much as I love gadgets, this is one I sincerely hope none of us will ever need.)

Update6: On the bright side, this authoritative article by Richard Miniter assures us rumors of suitcase nukes are thankfully no more than urban legend thus far.
"For now, suitcase-sized nuclear bombs remain in the realm of James Bond movies. Given the limitations of physics and engineering, no nation seems to have invested the time and money to make them. Both U.S. and the USSR built nuclear mines (as well as artillery shells), which were small but hardly portable--and all were dismantled by treaty by 2000. Alexander Lebed's claims and those of defector Stanislev Lunev were not based on direct observation. The one U.S. official who saw a small nuclear device said it was the size of three footlockers--hardly a suitcase. The desire to obliterate cities is portable--inside the heads of believers--while, thankfully, the nuclear devices to bring that about are not."

Update7: Donald Sensing, who has personal experience, concurs with this being an urban legend, and fills in a couple of details.

"The point that the piece’s writer, Richard Miniter, was probably trying to make is that even with eons-long half lives, when the warhead contains only a small amount of fissionable material, the design yield of the bomb will not be achieved after a suprisingly short time, not the “few months” Mr. Miniter speaks of by any means, but only a number of years. I know personally of US Army atomic artillery projectiles that were removed from war-reserve inventory for that very reason. Somewhat larger that presumed suitcase nukes, their nuclear material had decayed enough that they couldn’t be trusted to fiss as designed."

"ADMs didn’t come is “backpacks” but in hard cases similar to footlockers in shape, but somewhat larger. These weapons were originally designed, decades ago, to be employed by US Special Forces teams in eastern Europe if war against the Soviets ever came. The smallest SF team has 12 men. It didn’t take 12 men to carry and ADM, but one man sure couldn’t do it by a long shot. ADMs were heavy, not really man portable at all in the sense that a suitcase nuke would be presumed to be."

I was planning to blog today that our individual freedoms are the key thing about America that upsets Islamists, but Donald Sensing has already done so, far better than I would have. Here are a couple of his main points:

"Our present conflict with radicalized Islam is a war of ultimates... Al Qaeda certainly thinks so. An historical, basic tenet of Islam, not just radicalized Islam, is that all human affairs of any kind must be under religious control, mediated through Islamic law. The separation of religion and politics that the West took centuries to develop is mostly absent from Islam, the radical variety or not. Fortunately, most Islamic societies have honored this total integration only in the breach. But al Qaeda and company say that the rule of strict Islamic law is a non-negotiable goal.

This concept of submission is the matter of ultimate concern to Islam generally and is enormously amplified by radicalized Islamists such as Osama bin Laden and his allies. In their view, no sacrifice is too great to achieve that end, and no violence is unjustified."

and

"...our conflict with radicalized Islam is over whether Western Civilization shall prevail against the last vestige of medievalism; whether the rule of men who behead their prisoners, enslave their women and deny the rights of self-determination to their own people, shall kill us and displace us, to whom the individual and individual rights are sacred and whose laws require respect for freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and whose traditions preserve freedom from fear and cruelty."

What I still find amazing is that so many who daily seek greater freedom for various groups seem unable to object to a group opposed to all freedom.

How can any Gay person, for example, possibly support those whose solution for their condition would be to hurl them off buildings? How can any liberated woman support those whose goal is for women to again be controlled by men? How can those of any other (or no) faith support those who compell submission to one faith?

Would any American really give up over two hundred years of freedom just to win the next election?

Praying for our nation...

Rick Heller of Centerfield thinks we need a new approach in the war on terrorism, and suggests "Perhaps a version of the serenity prayer is in order

God give us the serenity to tolerate bad guys who do not threaten us;
Give us courage to defeat the terrorists who intend us harm;
And wisdom to know the difference."

(The original Serenity Prayer, possibly written by Reinhold Neibuhr during World War II is:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.")