Who can you trust?

In my last post I acknowleged the crimes committed by uniformed military personnel of the U.S.A. and I urged the military to do right...for lots of reasons. One of my reasons was that I do not wish to give "ammunition" to those who would use their position of influence to undermine the will of the people of the U.S.

What was unnecessary to say was that they need no help.

Angered as I am by the political left in this country, I understand that they may - perhaps - have a principled position.

What is less easy to understand is the media who have abandoned all pretense of objectivity and have taken sides. Regrettably, most have chosen the side of the Islamo-Fascists that we are fighting. Fox has stayed on the side of the U.S., which puts them in the elite company of Ed Murrow and Ernie Pyle...but, none of them can be called objective.

Now, however it is that principled people ultimately decide on government policy and whatever the merits of various interpretations made by those whose job it is to infer from facts presented them...

What is utterly unacceptable, completely reprehensible and wholly unforgiveable are machinations undertaken by organizations - which reverently claim impartiality - to advance a political agenda.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International are two such arrant hypocrites.

These organizations which, heretofore, exerted a positive influence in the world have now, apparently become political players in the world of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). NGOs seek to promote their individual agendas by influencing the policies of governments through political action at the grass-roots, national and international levels.

The situations are thus:

1. Amnesty International recently described our detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a Gulag.

Amnesty International has always claimed that they are utterly impartial. And, in the past has gone to (what then appeared as merely) silly lengths to criticize the U.S. at the same time that they criticized, say, North Korea or the Soviet Union. Now, however, their moral equivalence is no longer something that can easily be explained away. It is patently absurd - to the point of prevarication - to equate the Gulag system of the USSR to the administration of Guantanamo. Even the Washington Post...surely no friend to this President or his policies was irritated enough to say, "...we draw the line at the use of the word "gulag" or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin's Soviet Union."

2. The International Committee of the Red Cross has decided to weigh in against the United States' prosecution of the war on terror by using their justly earned reputation for impartiality and good works as a bully pulpit from which they have unfairly attacked the U.S.

The case of the Int'l Committee of the Red Cross is the much sadder of the two because they have had such a superb history of helping without taking sides. Theirs is the greater and more hurtful betrayal of principles. The two most egregious examples of the politicization of the ICRC are these:

A. The Red Cross has always maintained confidentiality regarding information gleaned during their visits to POW facilities, recognizing that publicising problems could be considered taking sides. It would seem that policy has been ended.
Reports critical of our "detainee" policies have regularly been leaked to the press in an attempt to embarrass the U.S. Worse, these leaks have been "spun" to maximize embarrassment.

B. ICRC maintains that the prisoners we have taken in the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns are entitled to the exact same rights and privileges as would, say, a German soldier captured in 1944. (Actually, that's incorrect. In 2005, the ICRC insists that they receive treatment consistent with a protocol that is NOT part of the Geneva Conventions and by which the U.S. has never agreed to abide.)

The differences between many of those in our custody now and a German corporal of WW2 are so stark as to not even require enumeration. However, let's examine two. 1. The "detainees" at Guantanamo regularly mixed with civilians and wore no uniform at the time of their capture. 2. They regularly targeted civilians and other non-combatants. These two facts alone - by the terms of the Geneva Conventions preclude their classification as POWs. But the ICRC doesn't want to hear that. Because, in an astounding act of moral equivalence, the ICRC insists that terrorists or members of any "national liberation movement" deserve all the protections afforded a POW. This assertion is based on a protocol not found in the Geneva Conventions or affirmed by the U.S. or any major governments. Thus, the entire idea of "unlawful combatants" - indeed, even the idea of proscribing behaviors by combatants, is now discarded by the ICRC. Apparently, the ICRC doesn't care if combatants dress as - and mix with - civilians. So to, they must not care that by combatants doing this, increased civilian casualties are assured. Somehow, I don't think the leaders of the ICRC were thinking of this when they cavalierly let it be known to the media that the U.S. wasn't upholding "agreed upon" standards of treatment. In sum, they are insisting that someone like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (may Allah send him to us soon) deserves the same treatment as a uniformed Iraqi soldier who surrendered.

If we were truly treating the "detainees" in a manner consistent with that of a Gulag - or if yelling at detainees somehow constituted torture, then they might have an argument. But as it is, no reasonable person will long entertain this notion and neither did our military. The maintenance of this position by the ICRC demonstrates an obtuseness that is literally incredible. Again, a reasonable man is shortly forced to conclude that in this matter, clearly, the leaders of the ICRC have abandoned their principles in their burning desire to orchestrate and then focus the world's opprobrium on the United States.

So, what do you do?

Amnesty Int'l never got any of my money because of their equivocations. But now that they have plainly taken rank with those trying to kill me, I consider them enemies.

As for the ICRC, I will urge my legislators to pull all funding from them. If they want to play politics, let 'em do it on someone else's dime.

Let's all continue to give to the American Red Cross, though.

While not everyone who is not with us is against us, it begins to look that way.

Who are we?

Reliable reports (from our own military) out of Iraq & Afghanistan show that a "surprising" number of enemy combatants have been...murdered by our personnel. Murdered?
Yes, that is the right word. Of the 108 deaths which have to date occurred during captivity, 27 were categorized as one form or another of felonious homicide. Some people have been killed during interrogations or "softening up" exercises prior to interrogations. Others have been shot and killed after having surrendered to our troops.

What can a patriotic American say about this?

War is an unnatural state for man - and he often responds in an unnatural way...indeed to stay alive, he often must.

Additionally, we are fighting an enemy who daily uses mind bendingly cruel and brutal practices in contravention of every rule by which "civilized" nations practice warfare.

Furthermore, there can be no doubt that we are fighting this war with one hand behind our back - and the other more often filled with conciliatory platitudes than weaponry.

We are faced not only by irregular forces who think nothing of using women and children as shields - but by our own Main Stream Media, who in their hubris, have decided that our military is more of a threat to peace than Saddam, Osama or Kim Jong Il.

Against all this our military continues to persevere and - alongside a staggeringly brave group of Iraqis - is slowly creating a modern nation-state.

Therefore, after reading of the latest outrage by fundamentalist and fascist insurgents, my first response to this - gut level and testosterone laiden - is: Great! That's 108 less assholes to deal with.

Or, after reading about a civilian aid worker being beheaded, my humor level is pretty close to that of Abbot Arnaud-Amaury, who in 1209 at the sacking of Beziers, famously said, "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (Kill them all! God will know his own.)

Well, I certainly feel better after having said that.

BUT

Then I remember that an integral part of what we are trying to do in Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed the Middle East in general is convince the people there that what we represent is BETTER than that which they have and is certainly an improvement over that which our enemies offer. We are trying to demonstrate that an economically successful, secular, democratic republic can still have the moral determination necessary to do right and see it through. It's been said repeatedly - and I can add little to the argument that:

If we sink to the level of our enemies we don't have that moral strength which we claim.

It undercuts our arguments. Further, it hands ammunition to the cowards and defeatists who claim we can't win and should never have tried. I hate the idea of strengthening the arguments of those who assert that we should get out immediately and put our collective head back in the sand.

The U.S. and its allies have already lit the fuse on a democratic revolution. The desire for self-determination has manifested itself in places and among people that our academic and policy elites have long said were incapable of it. Recent events have inspired hope in many who previously dared not permit themselves that luxury. Were this revolution to succeed, the Middle East could rapidly go from security threat to economic threat. Given my choice of threats, I'd take economic any day.

With all that we stand to gain:

1. We must not let our enemies be right about us.

2. We must not aid the media in its attempts to weaken popular resolve at home.

3. We must not permit homegrown, internal enemies of freedom any even remotely valid argument that equates us with the Fascists we're currently fighting every day in Iraq & Afghanistan.

If we sink to the level of our enemies we will have conceded that they may be right and we will have dealt our own cause a grievous wound.

As great a cause as it is, there is no cause great enough to justify a revocation of the rule of law. Those who attempt such a justification immediately doom their own cause.

Today, on Memorial Day, I want to think that those, living and dead, who for over 200 years have maintained their faith in America - as an idea worth believing in and fighting for - can remain proud of the efforts of their fellow citizen soldiers.

The good news is that our military appears to be taking appropriate and serious action to punish those who have perpetrated these crimes.

My faith - in our cause and in that for which we continue to stand - is not shaken; although it is assaulted almost daily.

And while the direction from which some of these assaults come is as baffling as it is disheartening, I believe that the idea of America that I keep in my heart also remains unsullied in the hearts of the VAST majority of those who today wear the uniform of our armed forces.

Make no mistake: The "Rule of Law" is the greatest thing we have to offer the world. Let all peoples see that we hold no one above it. If they see that, then nothing Al Jazeera, CNN or Newsweek can do will deter them from standing up for themselves. They will rally to their own defense and our job will be all but done.

May God rest and take unto Him all those who have died to keep alive the idea of America.

And may God save our Republic.

The Great War

Whereas today is Memorial Day, I thought I would explain how history is with us always. The efforts of those who fight live on long after they have gone to their rest.

I learned history (mostly) from people who - in their youth learned it from people who - were bored by it. Thus, their teaching of it was uninspired and their boredom and dislike of the subject came through far more than did the subject they were teaching.

It took a couple of history professors at the Pennsylvania State University in the late 80's to show me how history is with us every day and is therefore as interesting as any current event.

To wit:

With all the recent hoopla over the end of the Second World War as well as the ongoing bickering about our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and the anti-American sentiment of the Middle East I was struck by the fact that all of these things
are linked inextricably to the First World War - and in large measure were caused by it. Thus, the legacy of WWI is very much still with us - every day.

World War Two:

No PhD in history is required to see how Hitler's rise is due in large part to the treatment of Germany after the end of the war. Germany was humiliated and economically crushed by the Allies - largely France (surprised?). It is no wonder then that when a man claiming to be able to raise Germany back to the status of a world power came on the scene, he was accepted immediately and given the keys to the Reichstag. Japan's rise to militarism certainly got a boost from watching Europeans bleed themselves white, leaving a newly emergent Japan few challengers.

Afghanistan:

After WW2, the Soviets (whose leaders came to power in the vacuum created by the collapse of Imperial Russia following its disastrous showing in WWI), while suffering grievously, were left standing; and because of the threat the USSR posed to a prostrate Europe the cold war ensued.

Afghanistan was a poster-child for the cold war. Invaded in 1979 by the Soviets, it had been a long-standing pawn in the East-West struggle. During the 1980's the U.S. armed and trained many Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets left, we largely forgot about Afghanistan. We, therefore, bear some responsibility for the emergence of the Taliban.

Iraq:

"Iraq" was cobbled together from the regional remnants of the Ottoman Empire after it was defeated in WWI. Created by diplomats (like W.S. Churchill) who were more interested in maintaining Imperial influence than a stable state, an antagonistic minority, the Sunnis, were installed as rulers and kept their collective boot on the throat of the majority Shiites until - under the Sunni Saddam Hussein - Iraq posed an unknown - and therefore unacceptable - risk to the security of the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11.

Islamic Anti-Americanism:

The September 11, 2001 atrocity - which is emblematic of the anti-Americanism of the Middle East - is an indirect consequence of World War One.

First, with the demise of the Ottoman Turks as rulers of the region in 1918, tribal and religious factions created states such as Saudi Arabia. Unstable creations, they were frequently held together only by repressive regimes and a nationalistic, xenophobic form of Islam.

Second, the Imperial powers reneged on promises of self-determination after WWI...and the U.S. is seen as the inheritor of the "Imperial" mantle from the Europeans.

Third, following WW2, the Middle Eastern States were used as pawns in the Cold War. Autocratic leaders and their repressive regimes were winked at - so long as they stayed in the West's camp.

Finally, the seeming preference for Israel over Islamic countries convinced many in the region that the U.S. was an enemy.

In summary, it is no exageration to say that World War One is not a matter of "history" in the academic sense, but is a matter of current events. In fact, the conflicts that spread out from its root causes are still being fought today - almost ninety-one years on.

U.S.E.?

The French have voted against the E.U. Constitution. Why?

Many commentators believe it happened because the French people are afraid that Europe will become more like the United States of America.

But, wait...isn't that the whole idea of the E.U.? Don't they want to federate so that they can compete with us economically?

My $0.02 is this: The Europeans have never really understood those factors that made the U.S.A. an economic powerhouse - and therefore are incapable of setting up a pan-European government that will give them what they seek.

France, Germany, Russia...these countries could, individually, give the U.S. a good run, but don't.

The problem is that the Europeans still think that the size of the U.S. and the ability of its 50 states to sell without individual trade policies is what created our economic juggernaut. They are wrong. Or at least they used to be.

What created the force known as the U.S.A. was a dedication to the ideas of capitalism and limited government. Those are the factors which more than any other allowed the U.S. to become what it has. The Europeans don't believe those things and so - united or no - they could never catch us.

Today, though, it is the U.S. that is (to borrow a phrase from Robert Bork) slouching towards the same socialism that has hamstrung the economies of Europe.

So, in Brussels the question should now be: "Why try to be like them, when they are trying to be like us?"

If the advocates of Socialism are successful in remaking America, the Europeans will have very littel to fear from the United States economy.

As it is, the French have done the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Social Security - Part 2

I try very hard not to let my attitude towards the Democratic Party degenerate into mere Conspiracy Theory mongering. No matter how hard I try, though, the political left in this country always outdistances me and leaves me panting and heaving with bewildered outrage at their feckless policy prescriptions and their elitist treatment of proposals from the right. You would think that any group that has had as few new ideas in the last, oh, SEVENTY YEARS as the Democrats have had, would at least give a respectful hearing to such ideas. But you’d be wrong. No matter what the Republicans say, the Democratic response is to put their hands over their ears and yell, “La! La! La! I don’t hear you! You’re not saying anything! Nyaa! Nyaa! Nyaa!”

No serious person disputes the fact that - as is - our social security system is headed for insolvency.
No serious person disputes the fact that tax cuts engendered the economic boom of the 80’s and 90’s.
No serious person disputes that raising taxes has a strong DIS-incentive effect on workers and therefore an enervating effect upon the whole of the economy.

And yet…

Our friends the Democrats WILL NOT take any proposal seriously. In fact they now dispute that there even is a problem. Or, if there is a problem, they claim we don’t have to worry about it now.

Right here then is the point at which my conspiracy theory weakness overcomes me and I am forced to ask myself:

Do the Democrats want Social Security to reach the crisis stage - or even collapse - so that their solution (their ONLY solution…ever…to anything), namely, raising taxes, will be our only option?

And, knowing as they must, that by raising taxes precipitously they will cause huge problems for the economy; do they hope to then ride to the rescue - a la FDR - with a smorgasbord of socialist “solutions” to the problems of our failed capitalist economy?

Do they really want to cause a collapse of the economy so that they can implement a collectivist socio-economic model?

While I would like to think the adoption of such a strategy laughably unlikely, I'm not sure anymore. I can only hope that it is not the case. I fully realize the tenor of these questions and how I may sound. I would fain recant all of the above if the Democratic Party would do ONE of the following:

1. Admit Social Security is going to collapse without either a huge tax increase or a huge reduction in benefits…or both.

2. Announce that the goal of Social Security is to “Secure” the retirements of the elderly and that any plan that does that is worth investigating.

3. State unequivocally that people have the right to that which they have earned – and that the establishment of accounts that allow people to control a portion of that “savings” confiscated by the U.S. government every payday is a matter of basic fairness and a proper goal of any reform of Social Security.

4. Propose a true “lockbox” for Social Security. That is, see to it that the monies collected through mandatory withholding DO NOT go straight into the general fund, but get invested in treasury bills or some other government backed financial instrument that does not permit Congress to spend it all today while playing a shell game with the amount that is really owed down the line. (This goes for the GOP as well.)

As a fiscal conservative, I feel that the Republicans have failed me - but the Democrats are literally playing chicken with the economy of this country.

I cannot currently explain this behavior in reasonable, rational terms. Perhaps some of you can help me.