Conservative Donnybrook

Our secretary of state apparently doesn’t find her job challenging enough, because she’s gone and decided to create a big new diplomatic headache for the United States by dishing out some combative rhetoric (and much sanctimonious lecturing) on China’s Internet policy.

Now, it’s perfectly reasonable for Clinton to protest China’s hacking of American companies’ networks, using them to spy on Chinese users’ communications, and the theft of their intellectual property. But it’s another thing altogether to invoke cold-war rhetoric in an explicit call to undermine foreign governments:

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

While it’s unclear what this speech signifies beyond escalating rhetoric, it seems that Hillary is trying to enlist American companies to protest or undermine foreign governments’ Internet policies, á la Google’s stand in China. Continue Reading »

When I was a kid, I was one of the three or four biggest kids in my class up through about eighth or ninth grade. There were some who challenged me to fights simply because I was big. In a sense, I suppose, it was a test of their mettle. If they could beat one of the big kids’ asses, then they were tough. On the other hand, I was a bit of a sap. I always hated to see bigger kids pick on the weaker ones and defended the weaker ones. For that reason, I was involved in a fair number of fights (I spent a large proportion of my younger days in the principal’s office).

By the same token, I was drawn into a number of fights because some of my friends relied upon me to back them up when they started a fight. It was not uncommon for one of my friends to start a fight with a guy they knew they couldn’t beat because they knew I would come to the rescue. And, because they were my friends, I had no choice but to do so. As a consequence, I was involved in far more fights than I would otherwise have been. (And spent far more time in the principal’s office than I would otherwise have).

The United States is in a similar position. We have allies that pick fights with their neighbors, or at least refuse to make peace with their neighbors because they can depend on us to back them up. If the United States were to make clear that these friends were on their own, they would cease to make trouble and would be willing to make peace with those with whom they have beefs. Some fights are unavoidable but, by and large, most are not. Those that can be avoided ought to be and powerful nations ought to make clear that their wimpier neighbors and friends ought not to place them in a position to be drawn into them. This is the essence of what George Washington said when he said that we should avoid entangling alliances. Certainly, we should not hand out defense guarantees.

If the United States were to make clear that it was not going to fight for others, two things would happen. First, it would be drawn into far fewer fights. Second, its supposed friends would be far more likely to find an amicable resolution to its disputes and be far less likely to foment disputes with their adversaries. As a rule, those of our friends who are nuclear armed should be weaned from the teat first. They have less need of our support than any others. Other nations should be put on notice that the United States is not in the business of meeting their friends’ enemies behind the schoolhouse. We have enough enemies creeping across our own borders to worry about the problems of other nations.

About six weeks ago I wrote this post arguing that it is time to cut and run in Afghanistan. It was, one could probably predict, met with barely contained rage that I should insult our troops by daring to have the temerity to suggest that the military adventure in Afghanistan had run its course. Indeed, our boys did their part and deposed the Taliban and did it with alacrity and professionalism. They should be proud of their accomplishment. I was accused of being a shill for the left wing who “never has praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

According to my critics one would expect me to be far out of the mainstream.

But then, two weeks ago, George Will, writing in the Washington Post, wrote this. I wonder if he has crossed over to the dark side, cozied up to the anti-war left. Certainly, I think it would be a tough sell to paint George Will as some sort of slavering extremist. I may have anticipated the movement among those who are more conservative-minded, but it does appear that sentiment within conservative circles may be turning. And that should be a welcome thing.

Ordinarily, I would take a good deal of time to point out that many here at the site have repeatedly pointed out the nakedness of the emperor. I would rehash the times Patriot-Act statists in conservative wool have been called on their leftism, secularism, and big-government authoritarianism. I would also bewail the unmitigated gall of such a character having the chutzpah to call his critics allies of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Nancy Pelosi.  I would loudly and often decry the shameless and unguarded honesty of those who reduce their philosophy to “kill” to the exclusion of sound economic policy, the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of our country, and a host of other issues. Normally. Not this time. This time I’ll let the argument you presented dismantle itself and show the readership of this blog how one-note, indefensible, and breathtakingly destructive your side is.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

It is disappointing when one’s opponent in a debate resorts to exaggeration and generalization. My latest post seems to have enflamed passions and caused people to abandon any attempt at reasoned debate, instead they have resorted to name calling and gross generalizations.  The question on the table seems to be “Does America maintain an empire? And, if so, is it beneficial to America to be an imperial power?”

I have posited that America is maintaining an empire – a claim that is refuted by Doughboy who prefers the term “peacekeeping.”  By using the word empire, instead of a more misleading term, I have been labeled a “guy who care[s] about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left”; that I am a cult member of Ron Paul’s; that I am a xenophobe who lacks understanding of the “global nature of the present times”; that I maintain a “leftwing site” that “never [has] any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

As to the last several specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. These do not reflect Bill’s constant praise for our soldiers. As for praising our Republican leaders, I would direct Doughboy’s attention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here where I have praised Republicans. Just recently I wrote this praising the very idea of America and I would note that virtually everything I write is suffused with an abiding love and respect for our constitutional way of life. So, as for Doughboy’s criticisms of the website, I think we can safely view them as hyperbole and emotional reaction unrelated to actual facts. I admit that I do criticize Republicans and even conservatives. As I have written before, the more vigorous the debate on the issues, the better. A strong debate tends to cull weaker ideas that cannot be justified. In that sense, debate among conservatives is healthy. When conservatives cease debate about their plank, that is a sign of unhealthy group-think that will inevitably lead to trouble.

As for the primary question, whether America is an empire, I point to our continual military presence in far-flung provinces as evidence of empire. Doughboy responds that these are for the purpose of peacekeeping, although one wonders if Germany still remains at risk of descending into chaos but for the presence of our soldiers there. Wouldn’t America be safer if its allies maintained strong militaries instead of abdicating their responsibility to defend themselves to the United States? Think of it this way. If you were a criminal looking for victims and you saw a huge, tough guy walking around with a bunch of four-year-olds in his gang, you would instantly recognize that in order to take control of the gang, you would simply have to take out the huge, tough guy – the rest would fall into your orbit from a lack of any real options. However, if you approached a gang where the huge, tough guy were accompanied by a fair number of sizable companions, you may find yourself less likely to consider them as a potential target. I invite Doughboy to consider which model the situation in Europe is more like. The fact is, our presence there excuses them from providing for themselves. Their refusal to accept responsibility for themselves, in turn, places the United States at greater risk, not lesser. A strong allied Europe would be a boon to the United States, but that will never happen as long we maintain our protective umbrella over our European provinces.

Oh, I’m sure referencing “our European provinces” is likely to draw fire, but if one nation cannot defend itself and relies on another, the stark reality is that the nation that holds the strings of life or death over the other actually holds the nation. It has been rendered a dependent state and cannot in any meaningful way be regarded as sovereign as long as such a condition persists. America was once in that position; it was then a colony of Great Britain, a holding of the crown. I will readily admit that America is bad at maintaining an empire. For instance, it is customary to force the colony to pull its own weight by remitting taxes or tribute to the emperor. Instead, we foot the bill for the entire world’s security.

Doughboy maintains that we are safer because we have troops scattered all over the world. He maintains that we benefit economically from this arrangement and that the world is more secure as a result. I have asked him to make his case. I am persuadable, I will listen to cogent argument. I will not listen to a harangue about how I have turned the website into a CNN.com chatroom by making myself into a leftist, who harbors a secret love for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Set me straight, Doughboy. I welcome the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.

President Obama has threatened to respond to nuclear proliferationwith a stern finger wagging.  That’s right, on Friday the Obama administration said it is prepared to confront ships near North Korea which it believes to be carrying contraband.  However, in no event will the United States Navy attempt to forcibly board the suspected contraband ships nor will it blockade or force a diversion of the ship’s course.  Instead, Obama will wag his finger and point: a time tested nuclear deterrent.

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (ugh), said “There’s reason to believe they (North Korea) may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this.”  Hmm, more irresponsibily that the Obama administration?  Rice said the administration was “very pleased” with the sanctions. She called the new resolution, which was supported by China and Russia, an “unprecedented” position by the Security Council.  Right, unprecedented because Russia and China did not veto new sanctions.

Rice also said Obama’s wagging finger should scare the Hell out of Iran.  “I imagine that they have been following this closely.”  She said Iran will observe that “the response from the international community has been very clear, very firm and very meaningful.”  Oh, indeed.

UPDATE:

It appears the United States Navy has encountered its first suspect ship!  Start wagging, Mr. Obama.  I am sure the NoKos wont threaten Hawaii…AGAIN.  Looks like we might have to santion North Korea.  God, I am sure they aren’t ready for that!

The day after Barack Obama won the presidential election, I was speaking with my wife about the probable course he would chart.  She, like many Americans, expressed hope that we would navigate our nation away from foreign wars and would bring all of our troops home.  I did not (and do not) believe that he would do such a thing.  I agreed that he would continue with Bush’s plan to withdrawal troops from Iraq.  I then made a prediction that by summer the United States Navy would be involved in a series of attacks against pirate strongholds on the seas and in Somalia.  She disagreed.  Now, just 80 days in to his first term, Obama is faced with a problem of piracy.

After kid-napping the captain of the Alabama, the pirates now seem to be angling to meet up with their comrades as to set sail for the Somalian coast.  While trapped in a life boat, the pirates called for a flotilla of ships previously hijacked by other Somalia pirates to come to their aide.  It appears that they will do so.  Anticipating further detention or worse, Captain Phillips attempted an escape on Friday only to be recaptured.  Meanwhile, U.S. warships watch while FBI agents negotiate with his captors.

What shall Obama order?  Assuming more pirate ships arrive on the scene, will he allow the Navy to destroy the vessels?  Will he allow the pirates to whisk away Phillips to the relative safety of the Somalian coast?  Will he fold like a stagnant sail and pay the pirates for the safe return of the captain?  Will he allow the pirates to escape if they first surrender their captive?

I am no longer so sure of the prediction I so boldly made months ago.  After Obama allowed North Korea to launch a missile towards the United States with virtually no repercussions, I have serious doubts that he has the fortitude to take this threat head on.  And yet failure to act decisively on this situation could spell doom for the historic deterrent effect the United States military.   This is a great opportunity for the president.  He could take on the pirates by sending a volley of missiles down on known pirate hideouts.  He could raid and destroy the numerous captured vessels held by pirates.  He could do a lot of things but he probably wont.  And if he does not take aggressive action now, it will become clear to enemy and ally alike that the President of the United States is a weakling and not seriously concerned about protecting American interests at home or abroad.

UPDATE:

Mr. Phillips is free thanks to the U.S. Navy Seals! It turns out Obama has something like a backbone after all!

And Bloomber News is now confirming my earlier suspicions.

Don’t look south, but things are getting a little parlous on the border. It seems that the two major drug cartels in Mexico have been talking about calling a truce and joining forces. Their combined numbers are apparently in the range of 100,000 foot soldiers. Meanwhile, the Mexican Army itself boasts around 130,000 men under arms. Federal Mexican forces have been streaming into the border town of Cuidad Juarez in order to quell an upsurge of violence in that region. In the past year, more than 7,000 people have been killed in the conflict that rages just South of the United States. To place that in context, over the entire course the War in Iraq since March 19, 2003 (which has been labeled by foes on both the Right and Left as an unwinnable quagmire) the United States has lost 4,254 persons; 3422 of those were killed in combat. In terms of numbers killed, the conflict on our border is ten times as hot as the conflict in Iraq has been.

The fact that the Mexican armed forces are on a numerical parity with the drug cartels should be a cause for grave concern in Washington, but it is unclear what, if anything, the current administration proposes to do to protect its citizens living near the border. Mexico is now counted as one of the top three threats to America’s national security along with Pakistan and Iran. Presumably that means we will send envoys to the cartels and try to make them like us by giving them things, saying nice things about them, and ignoring the fact that they have a tendency to leave headless corpses in their wakes in a style redolent of al Qaeda.

It has been nice (although suicidal) that the United States heretofore has been able to maintain a largely open and unguarded border with Mexico, but it is abundantly clear that those days have passed. With 230,000 armed soldiers likely to be engaged in open war on our border shortly, it behooves Obama to tend to his southern border with a large military presence. If not only to protect against an overspill of the conflict which looms, but also to protect against the wave of refugees that is likely to use the opportunity to make the border run that, for whatever reason, they have been putting off. The one good thing that might have come from the United States’ complete financial meltdown is that the U.S. might have looked a little less attractive to potential skulkers across our borders. However, with the upsurge in violence and political instability across the Rio Grande, that silver lining is tarnishing fast.

Perhaps Obama, Pelosi and Reid should rethink their plans to gut the military budget as it appears the military may be needed in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

On the way home from work this evening, I tuned into Neal Boortz’s radio program (funny no one else seems to be reporting this) and a caller asked Neal if he’d heard that six different state legislatures had proposed resolutions declaring their understanding that the federal government is limited by the Tenth Amendment. I have found one such resolution under consideration in New Hampshire: House Concurrent Resolution 6. The full text is as follows:

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Continue Reading »

On President Bush’s last full day in office, he finally addressed the injustice that had been done to Border Patrol agents, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos by commuting their sentences. While short of a full pardon, the president commuted the sentences of the agents so that they will be freed on March 20, 2008. The two were convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler who had entered the country illegally to sell marijuana and had been previously convicted of drug smuggling in the past.

It is unfortunate that, since 2005 when they were originally convicted, these men have had to serve prison sentences for defending this country from the scourge of illegals trafficking in drugs. The president should have acted sooner to redress the wrongs done to these two men. Indeed, he should have granted them full pardons. Nonetheless, I give him credit for finally doing the right thing and freeing Compean and Ramos.

The topic of the Civil War and some of the issues surrounding that conflict have arisen on this website on a couple different occasions, but I don’t believe we’ve ever hashed out whether the states possess the right to secede.

I think it can be surmised from my earlier argument (the breach of contract discussion) that I believe that state’s do possess the right to secede. It is inherent in the nature of contract that, the parties may withdraw from the compact upon a showing of breach or by mutual consent. The text of the Declaration of Independence argues strongly in favor of the idea that states possess the right to withdraw from their voluntary compacts with the federal government.

Of course, my argument was that the South did not have cause to withdraw and that it was, in fact, the South that breached its obligations under the contract. However, had the federal government breached, I believe a state would be jusitified in unilaterally declaring rescission as the remedy.  Loss of an election in itself would not provide cause. But, as we have seen from the Declaration and subsequent Revolution, if one party to the contract fundamentally changes the terms, that can provide cause. The lesson, of course, is that it is incumbent upon the national government to act with restraint and within the confines of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union. Acting beyond the sanction of the Constitution would provide a state with a claim of breach and would provide cause for separation.

Some might argue that the moment for restraint has long passed and that the contract on which this Union is premised has been irredeemibly breached. I think there is still an opportunity for reform so long as the parties remain in parity. But, that only makes the call for reform all the more urgent. I have argued that it appears that the necessary reform can only come from the formation of a third party. Neither of the current major parties appear to have the ability to exercise restraint, to honor individual freedom, or to respect the sovereignty of the states.

Russian “President” Dimitri Medvedev has agreed to assist South American lunatic, Hugo Chavez with the development of a nuclear program.  This act of insanity in the backyard of America is unacceptable.  Any action taken by Russia in furtherance of a Venezuelan nuclear program must be regarded as a provocative act.  Full and immediate sanctions must be imposed against both nations should this direct threat to both the northern and southern continet materialize.  The shipment of personnel and/or materials to the South American nation by Russian or other sources must be intercepted and refused entry.

Our hemisphere must be protected from any further socialist influence.  This will require a serious and dedicated effort by the United States to improve the lot of each and every nation in the western hemisphere through economic and military assistance, the removal of archaic laws and unproductive and unequal business relationships.  An economic Monroe doctrine must be put in to place.  Our half of the world has vast resources and is uncommon in its limited amount of languages spoken.  What we need is a coalition, a partnership of the Americas.  One where capitalism, democracy and free trade are the norm.  One where Russian influence is not welcomed.

The United States Marine Corps celebrates its 233rd birthday today. It is meet that we who have enjoyed the blessings of security and freedom that their blood has purchased take a moment to honor their service.

From the first battles out of which our country emerged to take its separate and equal station among the nations of the world, the Marines have been first to fight. While the country may enjoy the status of separate and equal, as a fighting force, the world knows no equal to the valor, determination, and capabilities of the United States Marines.

That valor and determination was epitomized by the most recent Marine Medal of Honor recipient: Jason L. Dunham. Corporal Dunham’s Medal of Honor citation reads:

Rank and organization: Corporal, 4^th Platoon, Co. K, 3^rd Battalion, 7^th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1^st Marine Division (Reinforced),  U.S. Marine Corps.  Place and date: Karabilah, Iraq, 14 April 2004.  Entered service at: Scio, NY.  Born: 10 November 1981, Scio, New York.  Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4^th Platoon, Company K, 3^rd Battalion, 7^th Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, 1^st Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004, Corporal Dunham’s squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west.  Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander’s convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah.  As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire.  Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy.  Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons.  As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham.  Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade.  Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat.  Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast.  In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.  By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Men like Corporal Dunham and his brothers-in-arms in the Marine Corps make possible the unparalleled freedoms we enjoy as Americans. To the United States Marines, happy birthday and thank you for your faithful service.

UPDATE: Worth a read.

So, I am a little behind the times.  Sue me.

The U.S. Navy has reactivated it’s 4th fleet.  The original 4th fleet was created in 1943 and disbanded in 1950.  The fleet is charged with patrolling and humanitarian work in and around the Caribbean and South America.

This is most welcome news.  The U.S. is starting to wake up and see that our future is tied to that of our neighbors.  Reactivating the 4th fleet demonstrates U.S. strength while offering assistance to those most in need.  Good luck and God bless as your mission continues.
Even leftists such as Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega have witnessed the generosity of the U.S. Navy:  “There is a warship in Bilwi, but with medical aid. The ships from the U.S. are coming to help the people, and we have to sincerely express our gratitude.”

Meanwhile, the Russians have teamed up with Chavez to participate in war games in the Caribbean.  The Russian navy will, reportedly, send a battleship to the region.  Excuse me while I contain my laughter.  A battleship?  Really?  Navies still have those?   A large, un-protectable target hardly seems like a serious threat.  Maybe we should retaliate by sending Old IronSides on down to observe!

The District of Columbia still doesn’t get it. Even after Justice Scalia went to all the trouble to explain it to them. This is a bit of an elderly story (I didn’t see it until today), but I think it is still worthy of comment.

It seems that after winning a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, Dick Heller, Scalia opinion in hand, went to the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters to register his handgun. His application was rejected. Apparently, it seems, any gun which loads from the bottom is a machine gun (or closely related).

There are lots of people who know more about guns than I, but I have a fair amount of familiarity with the topic. In attempting to think of a semi-automatic pistol that does not load from the bottom, I have come up blank. Perhaps someone knows of a side-loading semi. In fact, it seems to me that the only firearms I know of which are side-loading are machine guns!

It would seem that Mr. Heller is looking at another round of litigation to challenge the application of the District’s licensure of handguns. It’s a shame that Scalia’s work fell on deaf ears. Perhaps in Heller II, he will use small words so that even the District City Council members will understand.

Today, Iran tested nine missiles, one of which reportedly has sufficient range to reach Israel. The United States of course, has rightly condemned the saber rattling of the Iranians. Meanwhile, the Iranians stoutest ally, Russia, has expressed some concerns over the prospect of an Iranian regime possessed of ballistic missiles.

In a completely unrelated story (or was it?), Russia has threatened the United States with the use of military force if the United States and the Czech Republic persist in their attempts to install a defensive missile defense system. I don’t know if this reaction strikes everyone as strange, but why, especially in light of the fact that the most radical of nations in the Middle East is developing a nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, would Russia take such a stance and risk war with the United States and its allies when Russia acknowledges the danger which an armed Iran presents.

The bottom line is that if there were any tendency to regard Russia in a hopeful light as a potential ally, that illusion has been shattered. Why does Russia begrudge Europe the means to defend itself from Islamic aggression? Perhaps Europe should reassess its relationship with Russia as well. If there must be a conflict with Russia, let it be over an issue like this where the rest of the world cannot fail to see that Russia is the aggressor, objecting to defensive measures which seek only to keep Europe safe from the likes of Russia’s southern puppet.

With the insane leadship of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel, the hastening of Armageddon and death to the West on a weekly basis, Europe would be derelict in its duty to protect its citizens if it failed to install whatever defensive measures it could lay its hands on. Russia be damned. The United States and Europe should call Russia’s bluff on this.

The Supreme Court has ruled that every American citizen in good standing has the right to keep and bear arms!  The court was split 5-4 thus proving that common sense is just barely common.

…for waiters, waitresses, bartenders and bar wenches.

As I was writing my latest post, I kept thinking about the American Civil War (War Between the States, if you insist) and the practice of parole. During the Civil War, prisoners of war were regularly paroled on the condition that they would not then take up arms in the war again. Of course, not every person who accepted parole acquitted himself with honor, but many did.

Today, American servicemen are prohibited from entering into parole agreements. The Code of Conduct for the Armed Services states, “I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.” In some ways this makes sense, and the refusal of special consideration from the enemy is the source of honor for American war heroes like John McCain.

The idea of parole is built on honor. Essentially, it is a gentleman’s agreement that “if I let you go, you’ll just go home and stop fighting.” Of course, the flipside is, “if you don’t agree, I can keep you in captivity until the cessation of hostilities or until this position is overrun and I can no longer keep you.”  Each side benefits as long as each side upholds his end of the bargain. It seems to me that when the United States is engaged in a war against a foe that possesses honor, American soldiers should be able to accept parole agreements and the United States military should be free to extend parole to enemy combatants.

Maybe I am simply fantasizing about a set of conditions that can never occur. Certainly, the idea of parole has been demonstrably repudiated by the likes of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi. And, clearly, our war with Islamic extremists (or probably any other religiously motivated enemy) would not qualify for this sort of treatment as we have already seen that they will not treat our soldiers with honor when they are captured. But it seems that parole might be an option with some enemies. On the other hand, there could be the feeling that those who are captured are showing a lack of brotherhood with their fellow countrymen by making deals with the enemy. I guess I’m just thinking out loud. Should soldiers be allowed to accept parole?

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a former detainee of the United States military who was once housed at our facility at Guantanamo Bay, was released to the custody of Kuwaiti authorities on November 3, 2005. He, along with four other codefendants, was tried in Kuwait:

The defendants pleaded innocent when the trial opened in March. Their lawyers argued there was no evidence to convict them and that Kuwaiti courts had no jurisdiction to try them because they had not done anything illegal in Kuwait.

Defence attorneys also said testimonies provided by the US could not be used in a Kuwaiti court because they did not have the signatures of the detainees or interrogators.

The Kuwaiti court found all five of the men innocent as charged and they were released.

On April 26, 2008, three suicide bombers detonated themselves in Mosul, Iraq killing nine innocents and injuring 31 others. Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of the terrorists in the attack.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International is calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the repatriation of the detainees there. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 enemy combatants are currently held at Gitmo. I don’t relish the idea of 500 radical terrorists making their ways to Mosul and Baghdad and Kirkuk. The potential death toll in killed bystanders is just too high.