Conservative Donnybrook

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.

With respect to the establishment of a military, our constitution provides that Congress has the authority to levy taxes to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

The president is imbued with the authority to implement military strategy in his role as commander-in-chief of the military by Article II, Section 1 of the constitution.

Clearly, the raising and equipping of a military force is authorized by the constitution. What the constitution does not say is how that military is to be used. In the debates that led to the adoption of our constitution, issues surrounding the raising of armies and navies were hotly contested. Generally the debating parties fell into one of two camps: the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.

The Federalist position on the military was mainly represented by Alexander Hamilton’s writings. In Federalist 23, Hamilton argued that the federal government should be imbued with an unlimited authority to raise armies and navies “for the common defence.” Nonetheless, it was clear from his writings that the military’s role was defensive, that the military should be powerful enough to address any contingency in order to deter aggression from other quarters. Hamilton saw the American people as essentially a commercial people rather than an imperial or martial people. In Federalist 34, he stated:

But if we mean to be a commercial people, it must form a part of our policy, to be able one day to defend that commerce. The support of a navy, and of naval wars must baffle all the efforts of political arithmetic admitting that we ought to try the novel and absurd experiment in politics, of tying up the hands of Government from offensive war, founded upon reasons of state: Yet, certainly we ought not to disable it from guarding the community against the ambition or enmity of other Nations.

Clearly, the idea of engaging in offensive wars was an absurd notion to Hamilton, who believed that the military’s role should be to protect our nation’s commerce from attack. Continue Reading »

Obama is wavering. That doens’t say much about him as a leader, but it is a good sign. He swept into office on rhetoric that Afghanistan was the “good war.” General McChrystal is aksing for an additional 40,000 (or 60,000 depending on who you ask) troops to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. That, by itself, is an admission that the war there is not going well. Indeed, it seems a “surge” is needed if we are to avoid “defeat.”

Nonetheless, it seems President Obama is wavering with respect to backing up his claim that Afghanistan is the good war. Lately he has been intimating that McChrystal is out of luck. Neocons are apoplectic about the prospect of abandoning any sort of surge strategy in Afghanistan. After all, they point out, the surge worked in Iraq. True enough. But what evidence is there that it will work in Afghanistan? Indeed, everyone needs to stop for a moment and examine what the goal in Afghanistan is.

We went there to depose the Taliban because they were harboring al Qaeda. That mission was accomplished. The Taliban no longer has a central role in Afghanistan. On the other hand, it seems that we are inadvertently propping them up monetarily, so they can fight us more effectively. Nonetheless, they no longer hold the reins of power. An American puppet government has been installed. But I always thought the real goal in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda and to kill Osama bin Laden. That goal has not been accomplished. Furthermore, it appears that the United States military, under the rules of engagement they are saddled with, is not up to that job. Osama is likely squirreled away somewhere in Pakistan where the Army and Marines cannot reach him. Indeed, to reach him, America would have to open a new front in this war – a prospect which is unlikely to occur.

Given the state of events, a withdrawal from Afghanistan following our rout of the Taliban eight years ago could be couched as a victory to ameliorate the bloodlust of the neocons. At the same time it may entice bin Laden to emerge from his hidey-hole where someone can take a Whack-a-Mole shot at him. Unless McChrystal proposes pursuing an illegal war over the border of Pakistan (ala Cambodia – which might net him a Nobel Peace Prize like that which Kissinger enjoyed after his advocacy of the bombing campaign in Cambodia), there is absolutely no prospect of bringing the mastermind of 9-11 to justice through military means. Or we can continue doing what we have been doing and hope that it nets different results.

With luck, Obama will decide that further prosecution of this “good” war is not in America’s interest and will bring the troops home. As a result, there may be some chance that someone will have a chance to take out bin Laden. But, none of this can happen if Obama caves to General McChrystal and continues the path we’ve been following. A new strategy is called for and hopefully, Obama’s gutlessness will accidentally provide it.

UPDATE: Hey, I know. Why don’t we set up a country where we know the terrorists will set up camps to plot against us? At least then we’ll know where the terrorists are. I propose we allow Afghanistan (which seems to be immune from stable government) to be that location.

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.

As the casualty rate begins to mount in Afghanistan, it is time to assess our progress and determine whether any good can come from our continued military presence there. On September 20, 2001, President Bush gave an ultimatum to Taliban leaders in Afghanistan to dismantle terrorist camps in that country and to hand over members of al-Qa’eda through an address to a joint session of Congress. After those demands were met with silence, America went to war in Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, President Bush announced to America that he had ordered the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom. Its goals, as expressed by the president in that address and the earlier address to Congress were to detroy the terror camps operating in Afghanistan, capture al-Qu’eda’s leaders, and to put an end to terrorist activities within Afghanistan.

These goals have been met, to a greater or lesser degree. There are no terror camps operating within Afghanistan. Many of al-Qu’eda’s leaders have been captured or killed. The Taliban, who harbored and protected al-Qu’eda was deposed and scattered to the winds. As for terrorist activities within Afghanistan, it is difficult to separate insurgency from terror and it is unclear to what extent attacks would continue in the country if America were to withdraw its troops. Certainly there will be a fight in Afghanistan to fill the vaccuum that America’s departure would create, but that violence is more properly called civil war than terror.

Nonetheless, the great prize has not been accomplished in Afghanistan – the capture or destruction of al-Qu’eda’s leader, Osama bin Laden. After nearly eight years of constant occupation of the country, bin Laden remains at large and is sufficiently safe to issue occasional messages tweaking America for its inability to reach him. This is likely to continue for as long as thousands of American troops remain in Afghanistan. The very fact that the military is in every nook and cranny of Afghani life, means that bin Laden and his protectors will keep their heads down and do what has been so successful for nearly a decade. Clearly, after a decade of futility, a military operation has been shown to be ineffective in rooting out bin Laden.

The natives, as they say, are getting restless it seems. Violence is on the increase in Afghanistan and the Coalition is losing troops at a rate higher than at any time in recent memory. At the same time, the Aghan government seems to be losing stability rather than consolidating its hold on the country. Indeed, it would seem that the Afghani people are chafing under the continued occupation of their land by foreigners. As the Soviets learned in the eighties, Afghanistan can be a tough nut to crack. Meanwhile, al-Qu’eda has relocated to the mountains of Pakistan (everyone seems to think) where they have enjoyed relative safety from American or Pakistani forces.

If the military were to leave Afghanistan and the pressure to keep bin Laden hidden were lessened, he might be enticed to relax his guard. Surely, over the course of the last eight years, the CIA has not been sitting on its hands. One would hope that they have developed sources in Afghanistan that might prove more able to penetrate the defenses around bin Laden when those defenses slacken in his eagerness to reassert himself in new terror endeavors. The military angle has played out; it is time to try something a little more circumspect. In the process, we just might save our young soldiers from spilling more blood in an operation that, while enduring, has done little to promote freedom and has little prospect of doing so or of  capturing the mastermind of September 11th.

In short, it is time to cut and run. Let the chips fall where they may in Afghanistan and hope that Osama bin Laden pokes his head out of whatever spider hole he has been sheltering in for the better part of the decade. And, when he does, let us hope we have a man on the scene who can settle accounts that have long been overdue.

There has been a behind-the-scenes debate going on among some of the authors of Conservative Donnybrook in the past few days and weeks. The question that has been posed is why should we spend so much time debating the minutiae of conservatism when the real enemies are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their statist cronies? Certainly, there is nothing wrong with taking shots at those persons mentioned. They richly deserve it. But the premise of this website has always been to explore the nature of conservatism. What are its boundaries? Are there orthodoxies and heterodoxies, dogmas to which every conservative must accede? Personally, I believe that this is a worthy question for exploration and have even found myself being persuaded at times by arguments made by my fellow contributors as to basic foundational beliefs on which I judge our society or exercise my franchise. To that end, the contributions of our writers and commentors are invaluable (even – or maybe especially – when I argue with them).

Jack Hunter, over at Taki’s Magazine, recently wrote a review of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by radio talk show host, Mark Levin. I recently read the book on the glowing recommedation of one of my friends and had intended to write my own review. In retrospect, I do not believe that I could add anything to Mr. Hunter’s review or that I would add anything different. Anyone who has listened to Mark Levin’s radio program will immediately note a significant difference in tone in his writing. He is far more reasonable and evenhanded in his manifesto and there is much that is valuable in his presentation. I, however, had exactly the same reaction as Mr. Hunter when it came to Levin’s treatment of “national security” and “foreign policy.” To me, after such an excellent exposition of conservative (dare I say it?) orthodoxy, Levin turns conservatism on its head with his celebration of American interventionist foreign policy.

The old wisdom used to be that Democrats took the nation to war and Republicans brought us home. Today, as Mr. Hunter points out, such mainstream expositors of conservatism (or at least what the public is told is conservatism) as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin now routinely decry any position as liberal which questions whether America should send troops to a foreign land. No more do Republicans stand for the idea of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.” Of course, we still have a big stick – the biggest stick going by far (there’s something especially satisfying as a male to write those words and know they are true). However, we have long since given up the idea of speaking softly. We, as a nation, are in EVERYBODY’S business, telling them how they should live, govern, trade, lend money, etc. Today, we speak non-stop, like a drunken idiot who believes he is the life of the party, waving our stick menacingly around the party. Meanwhile, some of our fellow party-goers have been grumbling about calling the cops and having us removed from the party, but lamenting the fact that the cops cannot handle us.

The wisdom about the political parties was true as recently as the Nixon administration and somehow in little more than three decades what was once the liberal statist position has become the mainstream conservative position. I’ve spoken about the ratchet effect elsewhere; here is a rather striking example. To some extent, I think some of the explanation for how this has happened can be found in the rise in popularity of talk radio and the hosts who hold forth on that medium. For the most part, I believe, they and their listeners are largely orthodox conservatives who believe in small government in most realms except in foreign policy. When, as Mr. Hunter points out, most modern-day conservatives have received the entirety of their political education from talking heads on the radio, but have not read Kirk or Burke or Hayek, it is understandable how they could arrive at the screwy conclusion that there is something conservative about intervening in every conflict in every hell-hole that erupts around the world. Nonetheless, one can only conclude that most of these people have not made the effort to fit that position into the larger structure that conservatism as a worldview provides. The two positions are entirely unreconcilable.

The belief that government should be fashioned so as to be as unobtrusive as possible to the individual and executed at the lowest possible level, but also believing that the nation’s role is to project its power into every corner of the globe creates a cognitive dissonance that is unsettling to a systematizer like me, who wants everything to maintain a certain internal consistency and harmony. How does it support small, local government to tax people to the tune of more than $1 billion to wage a war in Iraq against a nation that had not attacked us, posed no threat to attack us, and had only the most tenuous of relationships with those who had attacked us (namely, a common religion)? Yet, many propose to continue our intervention in neighboring Iran. I can imagine Bill and Doughboy pulling their keyboards closer to respond that Iran has attacked us. They have, after all, undoubtedly caused many of the casualties we have suffered in Iraq. But, that begs the question. If our troops had not been in Iraq, what harm would (or could) Iran have caused the United States? If we were to remove those troops and bring them home, would Iran still pose a threat to the United States? Wouldn’t it be prudent at this juncture to save our money, our blood, and our capacity for self-defense by leaving the region and focusing on our own borders? We have won the war in Iraq it is said. Great! Let us enjoy the fruits of that victory and withdraw the victor. But, we must ask ourselves: Are we safer for having waged that war? Has our victory secured American security? If not, one must ask himself why not or he will commit the same errors again as is being urged.

I propose that resolving this question – how the idea of small, local government comports with global interventionism – may be more important to the future of this country than is exposing Barack Obama’s agenda. It is only if we can save the soul of conservatism that there can be any resistance to the creeping fascism of statist policies like President Obama’s.

I received an email from a buddy of mine this morning and did not immediately respond. My buddy describes himself as a “9/11″ conservative. Though he always leaned right on most issues, brainwashed by the media and just out of college (also brainwashed), he voted for Al Gore in 2000. (He now despises Gore) On 9-11, he woke up, realizing which party took the terror threat seriously and acknowledged George W Bush was the right man to be the first post 9/11 president. Following is the exchange between him and me:

Doughboy writes:

“Obama celebrates Iraqi sovereignty”

George W. Bush will be a top 12 president. Many of you owe him, and those of us who stood by our country the past few years, a big apology. We won the War in Iraq. Time to admit it. Just like Mr. Obama finally did last night.

He was wrong on the war every step of the way. But here was one of those rare occurrences where, as the US president, he comes to grips with facts, and for PR purposes, praises our nation rather than bashes it. Thank you Dick Cheney, George W Bush, John McCain, David Petreaus.

Good day,
Doughboy

As I mentioned, I did not immediately respond – partly out of concern for alienating my new friend, but also because I am not comfortable in the position in which I now find myself. Many of our readers will discern a change in my stance, as I have written previously about my support for the War on Terror. In my defense, I will simply say that anyone who is honestly seeking the truth and approaches a debate with that level of honesty will find, from time to time, that his mind is changed. I have drifted over time to the position in which I now find myself. The exchange was as follows:

Doughboy writes:

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.

When I was but a wee lad, growing up in the greater Chicagoland area, my younger brother and I fought. A lot. My mother was at her wits end trying to find some way to keep us from fighting. She begged, pleaded, cajoled, punished, yelled, ranted, raved, and bribed us to stop fighting. She even attempted to talk reason to us. Nothing worked. One day, my step-father conceived what he thought was a brilliant idea. Let them fight it out. He went out and purchased a couple pairs of boxing gloves and agreed to referree our bouts. I immediately warmed to the idea. I’m pretty sure my brother was less enthused. Our bouts always ended with my brother running upstairs crying to our mother, while I (abetted by my step-father) taunted him for being such a baby.

After only a few such attempts by my step-father to broker a peace between my brother and me, my mother stepped in to put a halt to the experiment. Her next idea was to make us talk to a child psychologist. I’m sad to report that none of these attempts ever worked. However, in the back of my head, I always thought the boxing idea was the only one that ever stood a chance of success if it had been given more time to work. When aggression breaks out between two parties who both feel they are in the right, the only outcome that will end the hostilities is for one or the other to be utterly humiliated and made to realize his powerlessness over the other. My mom never understood this. And the kiddie shrink sure as hell never got that.

It is with this background in mind that I saw this latest story of yet another doomed attempt to broker a peace in the Middle East. It seems Egypt and France are stepping between the belligerents in Gaza to attempt to bring “peace.” To be sure, this may succeed in staving off armed conflict for a period. But, there is a distinct difference between the lack of hostilities and peace. As long as residents near the Gaza Strip fear that Hamas is going to open up a barrage of their homes and schools (or vice versa), there is no true peace. The populations will live in mutual fear and antipathy to one another, always waiting for the next round to begin.

While it may seem callous, the rest of the world should probably back off and let the two sides fight it out until one side or the other sues for peace. It is only after one side or the other is humiliated and finds they have no choice but to capitulate that any gestures of magnanimity have any hope of working. Quite simply stated, neither side is ready to quit. Neither side has thrown in the towel. Both sides harbor animosity toward the other. They need to slug it out and see if, once exhausted, they can find a way to live together with one team knowing that the other can spank them.

As advertised, the inevitable has occurred: Obama has conceded victory in Iraq.

In essence, Obama has declared the war in Iraq all but over. “There is security progress,” he said during yesterday’s news conference in Amman, Jordan. “Now we need a political solution.” While a diminished U.S. force under his presidency would continue to protect U.S. personnel, target terrorists and provide training, he said, it would be up to Baghdad to consolidate the victory by “setting up a government that is working for the people.”

Obama’s insistence on bringing the troops home within 16 months necessitated his finding that Iraq was stable during his visit. He can now argue that a continued American presence in Iraq would be counterproductive, which might even be true to a point. However, he misses the point that his telegraphing of the American troop drawdown brings with it the risk that whatever insurgency may still exist will simply wait us out. Plus, it is quite possible that so rigid a redeployment will leave the Iraqi military in a position where we are committed to leave before they are truly ready to assume the role that Obama would thrust upon them. A more flexible approach, with a general commitment to turn over the security of Iraq to Iraqis, as McCain suggests, would be a much safer route and would allow for the inevitable screwballs that war tends to serve up.

The only question was whether anyone would connect his late consession with his prior opposition to the strategy which brought us to this point. (Ramirez nailed it!) It is nice that Obama can rely on the fruits of the sound strategy of President Bush and General Petraeus. Had it been up to Obama, our troops would have left Iraq with their tails between their legs, smarting from defeat in an “unwinnable war.” The forces of radical jihad would have enjoyed a large feather in their caps after chasing the Great Satan out of the Fertile Crescent. Emboldened, they would have exploited that situation to recruit even more terrorists who would take the fight to the Americans. And this world would be more dangerous than it is.

UPDATE: It seems that Obama was asked by the MSM whether, in retrospect, he would change his vote against the surge:

The freshman senator, who is currently in the middle of a worldwide public-relations campaign to make himself look more presidential, told ABC News’ Terry Moran that he still would have voted against the troop surge in Iraq even knowing what he knows today.

He is now starting to take a bit of heat for that position.

Israel has done something so foolish, so ridiculous, so mind bogglingly stupid that even their enemies were shocked. What has Olmert done, you ask, to provoke such harsh criticism? He, essentially, agreed to free terrorist-murders in exchange for the kidnapping and assasination of Israeli soldiers.

Now, before you recoil from my extremely provocative statement, stop and think about what has happened. Two years ago Hezbollah invaded Israel, kidnapped two soldiers and killed them. Israel, not knowing the soldiers had been murdered, fought a futile war with Hezbollah and lost. In the process, more than 1,350 civilians lost their lives on either side of the border. Hezbollah managed to keep hold of their catch, refuse Israeli entry into Lebanon and, in the process, win the war and throw the whole of Israeli security in doubt.

In response to the freeing of five living and dangerous terrorist-murders, a spokes-hole for Hamas’ prime minister said that the release “shows that the only successful way to free the prisoners is by kidnapping soldiers.” Now, Israel has a long history of this odd behavior. For many years they have freed terrorists in exchange for both living and dead captured Israeli soldiers. Never has this policy done a positive thing for the nation or its people. It certainly has not slowed the operations of Islamic terrorists.

What today’s folly has demonstrated is Israel’s lack of will to destroy the enemy. Losing the war two years ago was both an embarrassment and strategic blunder. But caving to terrorist demands simply to recover the remains of those who fought and fell is an affront to their families and their service. If this was to be the fate of Israel, then why did they fight Hezbollah in the first place? Make no mistake, the enemy is emboldened and ruthless. More destruction will flow from Olmert’s mistake.

So, is Olmert complicit in the death of two of his nation’s citizens? No, not these two. But a case sure can be made that his actions make him responsible for the next soldiers kidnapped and killed. And there are sure to be more to come.

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 Colombian military continued their string of stunning defeats of the FARC terrorist with the freeing of several hostages, including three Americans and French-Colombian Ingrid Bentancourt today.  This year alone top FARC leaders have been killed, over a thousand former terrorists have surrendered and secret documents have been seized.  FARC is dying out.

All of this comes as a direct result of the United States’ intervention in the South American nation.  Far from direct U.S. combat roles, American soldiers have trained, equipped and funded the Colombian military for years and results are finally beginning to show.  The impact has been so large that former FARC terrorist  Diego Canizares commented “If it keeps up like this, in two years the guerrillas will disappear completely.”  The series of victories could not have happened without U.S. intervention.  Terrorist attacks are down, funding for FARC is at an all time low and defeat seems imminent. 

President Alvaro Uribe has made the destruction of FARC a top priority.  So far he has achieved more than any of his predecessors over the past 44 years.  A fine job he has done.

This is just another example of the positive role the United States can play in our hemisphere.  I have said it before and I will say it again: the United States ought to spend more time and resources with our neighbors.  The United States of America is great, imagine what a free and democratic American hemisphere could be.  The time has come for an economic as well as military Monroe doctrine to take hold.

A recent advertising circular which was sent to Scottish homes has Muslim knickers in a bunch. Of course, that is nothing new – Muslims appear to be the most easily offended group of people on the planet, rioting over cartoons, for instance. Just wait until Rebel, the recruit-in-training, pokes his nose under some woman’s burka because she’s laden with high explosives – it will be accounted a religious hate crime and the fur will really fly then. If there were ever a reason to take a hard look at immigration policies in the United States, this might give one pause about whom we allow into this country.

I only wish I’d written this.

Apparently, there is a memorial in the works on the site of the Flight 93 crash from 9-11. Unfortunately, the designers have opted to pay tribute to Islam with a crescent-shaped memorial. Such a memorial would pervert the memories of those brave men and women who fought to save other innocent lives from the murderous intentions of the Islamic jihadists who hijacked flight 93.

There is a design meeting scheduled for August 2 in Somerset which is going to be protested. Conservatives are not much for protesting, that is certain, but this is a worthy cause. These designers should be made to revere the honor and memory of those who fought to save innocent life, not those who sought death and destruction in the first place. If you are in the neighborhood or have thousands of dollars to afford the gasoline to get there, Conservative Donnybrook encourages one and all to protest this abomination.

h/t Nice Deb

I originally thought to call this post the “threat of anti-nationalism” which may be closer to the truth. I have recently read a pair of essays which have launched my thinking in a certain direction. On top of that come two stories out of Europe which only confirm everything written in those two essays.

The first essay was written by Victor Davis Hanson and concerns the value of cultural memory. In that essay, Hanson argues that in ignorance of the events and circumstances which made America great we risk the likelihood that we, as a people, will attribute to ourselves the greatness of America. In reality, we stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before us and provided the heritage which we now enjoy. To some extent this is what I was writing about in my previous post in attributing the great freedoms which we still enjoy to the efforts of our American servicemen and women. To be sure, they are one branch of our freedoms. It may also be attributed to the statesmen who fashioned a constitution under which our freedoms are (theoretically) secured (but which are slowly being eroded under the guise of a living constitution).

The other essay, which also made its way into my latest post, was written by Andrew McCarthy and made the case that our fight is against Islamic jihad. Or rather, the Islamic jihad has targeted America and we fail to respond only at risk to our existence.

Two articles from the Brussels Journal underscore these two essays and bring those themes into stark light. It turns out Europe is already struggling with these issues and perhaps even finds itself attempting to recover. That is, if they have enough self-awareness to struggle at all.

In the first article, a Christian in Algeria has been arrested for carrying Bibles in her handbag. The prosecutor in her case asked for three years imprisonment for such an offense. To the credit of France and the United States, we have voiced concern over the treatment of this woman in her efforts to practice her religion. Nonetheless, the spokeswoman for France locates the authority for any sort of clemency in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights – a weak appeal if ever there was one. Many of our commentors point to our posts as being beholden to a faith in the deity of the State, but it is stories like these which reveal the sure difference between our stances and that of dyed in the wool Statists. This story is alarming not least of which is because France’s spokeswoman implies that if the population of Christians in Algeria were greater than one percent, they might pose a threat to the dominant religion (Islam) and therefore the offense of carrying Bibles might be rightly punishable. Meanwhile, France itself continues to shed any pretense at Christianity and moves steadily toward a future of sharia rule.

The second article involves our closest ally, which is committing suicide. Apparently, it is an act of racism to display the flag of England in England. Indeed, according to authorities it might offend immigrants. It is clear that England has lost any sense of cultural memory and the forces of multiculturalism are selling the country out. While England itself loses it identity, its colonies – Wales, Ireland and Scotland – are beginning to secure representation in Parliament. It is indeed fortuitous that the American colony parted ways in 1776 as the British Empire is contemplating self-immolation on the pyre of European Union, with its reckless multiculturalism.

On the bright side, America is not so far down the road as our European counterparts and there is hopefully time left to stem the tide. It is incumbent upon Americans to recognize the danger that unlimited immigration poses to this country. As France and England lose its cultural identity (and really, France? which is so fierce about protecting Frenchness?), the United States should learn from their demise and secure against it. We need to understand that there is great risk in importing large numbers of Muslims who seek to be ruled according to Koran. As McCarthy writes, Islam is not a religion of peace and jihad is not an internal struggle. Ibn Warraq, one of Islam’s greatest scholars and expositors states it quite succinctly:

Jihad is jihad…. There is no such thing as commerce, industry and science in jihad. This is calling things . . . other than by [their] own name. If God . . . says, “Do jihad,” it means do jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades and with the missile. This is jihad. Jihad against God’s enemies for God’s cause and his word.

Let us not be duped into thinking otherwise. America would benefit from paying attention to her heritage and finding value in it. Its heritage, its history, and its habits have made America the greatest nation on earth. Those values are now under attack and there are precious few who rise to defend them. Our children no longer have a sense of history from which to respond. It is up to those of us whose education still retained some rudiment of the American tradition to stand up and say, “No more.” We should not tolerate the dismantling of our inheritance. It is to those whose institutional memory still encompasses the great patriots who told King George that his abuses of our liberties would not stand and then acted upon that statement to stand fast in the face of the multicultural hordes who would sell our inheritance for a pittance.

Liberty is a fragile thing, which Europe demonstrates is too easily squandered. Let us take note of Europe’s demise and guard against such an eventuality here.