perfidy

Mike, you're right about Iraq and the British - but there were German troops in Vichy-run Syria, just not in significant enough numbers to affect the war in North Africa. A great fear of the allies was that the Germans would move East and take the Mosul oilfields. The Baath party was founded by Michel Aflaq, who was influenced by the Nazis. While the Ba'ath party was anti-colonialist, it was also Arab nationalist, and socialist. 

Yes, Syria still rules most of Lebanon. While the risk of more terrorist attacks may increase in the short term, bringing democracy and freedom to the middle east would dramatically decrease the risk of attacks in the long term. I don't believe we will need to invade Iran, because I think the large democracy movement there - with perhaps some aid and encouragement, will handle the job nicely. The people of Iran hate the mullahs, and its only a matter of time. 

As for Syria, it is a much more entrenched totalitarian state - much like the similar Ba'athist state that existed up 'til recently in Iraq. There is no organized resistance or opposition in Syria that we could negotiate with. BTW, we did make the Germans and the Japanese into democrats at the point of a gun. I think that the fact that Saudi Arabia is not on our list is merely a tactical move, until we have another secure base from which to operate, and another large, secure source of oil. They will appear on the list, the sooner the better. 

(I used Mohammedan because I was tired of writing Islam and Muslim. Poetic license. They can call me a white trash cracker in retaliation if they wish.) 

How free are the Germans with our planes and tanks in their country? I never suggested that we attack every repressive government in the world. But the fact that we don't attack that one is not a reason we can't attack this one. And, although given the current world situation, it might not be wise to attack our god friends the British; we're 1-1 against them so far. Everyone else on your list is open season as far as I'm concerned. Castro just sentenced another 75 journalists and dissidents to quarter century prison terms. Fucker. Who decides what is an oppressive regime? It's fairly obvious, unless your head is so full of ethical relativism that you can't tell the difference between a nation like, say Finland, and another like Cuba. 

Also, most slippery slopes aren't terribly slippery, at least in this country. It's the one thing that gives me hope in regards to the whole Patriot Act thingie. 

I did generalize about the left for the sake of brevity. But are you saying that there have been no communists since Engels died? Because every time someone who thought they were communist got power, millions of people died. The Black Book of Communism lays this out rather starkly. The central feature of every leftist regime is the total unconcern for the rights and lives of its citizens. No one has freedom, and those who argue become dead. 

Even among the socialists forced to work in societies like ours where there are inconvenient things like the Bill of Rights, the goal is regulation. Every liberal policy seems to center around restricting my freedom to act. Or at least taxing me so much that I can't afford to do anything. You cannot maintain liberty when you are restricting people's liberty - even when its for their own good. The regulatory state is just a watered down version of the ideas that led to five year plans, forced collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine. You suggest (hopefully jokingly) that we forbid capitalism to get a space program. But of course, we'd have to get everyone to do it. That scheme is more ambitious than my cunning little plan to take out a few odious fuckwit dictators. But yet, that is the communist world revolution. I can make many practical arguments for keeping capitalism around for a while longer. It has produced the economy of the United States, where even the poor live better than kings in almost any other country. Capitalism made that possible. But the key reason that I support Free Markets is that they are, well, Free. People choose - what they want to buy, and others choose to take risks forming companies that they think will supply consumer needs. 

The socialist economies of Europe are (slowly) going down the shitter, while despite war, terrorist attack, and cyclical downturn ours is still performing better. Because we are freer than they are.

Because I haven't commented on anyone else's posts for far too long, here are some thoughts, replies and comments on youse guys posts over the last couple weeks. 

To Mike's counterpoint to Mark Steyn: 

No one suggests that we should be giddy simply because civilian casualties are light. But, we should be happy that we can remove an evil dictator at so light a cost to his victims. Every death is a tragedy, but it is good that there are so few of them. Also, there is proof that there is a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq. Al Quaida operatives were given refuge in Iraq, and we have found (and destroyed) several large terror training camps. Also, the fact that the Baathists are secular and the Al Quaida fundamentalist is no barrier to their cooperation. Remember, Saddam's government has paid 35 million dollars to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank, many of whom were members of the very fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad. It is, after all, an old Islamic proverb, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Although it is too early to tell at this point, it doesn't look like we are radicalizing the Iraqi citizenry, who seem quite glad to have us there, and Saddam gone. 

Again on WCM: 

De Genova's comments were reprehensible, indeed. And kudos to Foner for actually calling him on it. But the whole thing made me think - this is an anti-war movement, but not a peace movement. They are against American involvement, but willing to countenance the brutality of the Saddam's regime. There was a German resistance movement in WWII, but could it have liberated the German people from Hitler's regime without outside help? Mike is certainly right that comments like those piss people off. Wishing for the deaths of Americans certainly makes his anti war stance seem rather less credible, as well. 

But is nothing served by death, anywhere? Are not some things worthy of sacrifice? Freedom is certainly worth sacrifice. Nothing of value is without cost. We have to always be deeply aware of the cost, and remember who paid. Freedom is one of those things. Many have and will continue to give cynical motives for our war in Iraq, but the real benefit will be to the Iraqis, who free of Saddam might be able to live ordinary lives, in liberty. 

To Johnny, on increasing dovishness: 

How do you feel now, now that we have found chemical weapons and terror training camps? And remember, Bush has been talking about regime change for over a year - regime change was only ever the means to eliminate the threat of terror, and WMD. 

To Johnny, on the "as in not funny" nature of the press: 

The media is a collection of old women, who flutter and shriek at the slightest change in temperature, conditions, or movement. So of course they would rave about the justthatbuilding bomb, and then the MOAB. And rave about blinding advances, then twenty minutes later cry "quagmire." Also, the reason you're gotten no firm news is because the military pulled the biggest snow job in military history. The embeds are like headlights to the media deer. Immediacy, vivid images, and "you're right there" reporting consume the media's attention, while the army is able to move whole divisions without anyone in the media noticing. Suckers - gotta hand to the military for cleverness on that one. 

To Johnny, on the media polls: 

Reminds me of a something that happened during a political discussion with our friend Burton. We was advocating some risky liberal scheme, one that would give decision making powers from the general citizenry and vest it in some government agency. His basic justification was, "75% of people are idiots." I argued with his plan, and Burton got the idea that I disagreed with assessment of the intelligence of the American populace. A day later, I was complaining to Mike about Washington drivers, and he expressed surprise - "Well, you disagreed with my 75% - why complain now?" I said, "Mike, if anything, I think the percentage is higher, but they still have the right to be stupid however they want. That's what liberty means." Hardesty's corollary to Voltaire's observation: the true test of someone's commitment to liberty is how stupid or offensive someone has to be before you want to start regulating their behavior. 

From everything I'm hearing, Patriot II is gonna be a nightmare. But then, I'm still complaining about RICO statutes and civil forfeiture. 

To Johnny on AA: 

The United States, as a whole, should never be color blind. The U.S. government, and the law, should. The only way to end discrimination is to well, end discrimination. The quote you added hits it right on the head - these are cultural and moral issues, not legal ones. Therefore, stop the legal wrangling so that we can deal with these issues where they should be dealt with. 

Patriot II needs to be killed dead. Here's something the liberals could actually be useful on - rather than waving puppetheads and smelling funny in public. Republicans are often too willing to sacrifice freedom for security in this realm. Economically, of course, it's the other way around. 

This is where limited government should really, really come into play. What part of the constitution, and I'd like an exact quote, does this bill get its authorization from? 

To Johnny on Forests and Trees: 

I would argue that the military plan we used did take the political goal into account. However, just like the military plan, you can't publish the political plan in advance, for fear of rendering it useless. n.b. I think this classifies as a world class cakewalk. 

To Mike on Patriot II: 

Like many conservatives (as opposed to mere Republicans) I worry a lot about civil liberties. I think the Drug War has been a civil liberties disaster. The erosion of our constitutional rights has been scary. This threatens further erosions. Like Franklin said, those who trade liberty for security will soon have neither. I would like to have our representatives see that it is our freedom and liberty that is the best defense against these threats (at least internally - the U.S. Army and Navy are better for overseas.) Perhaps the best example was the passengers on flight 93. While I might be safe under this administration, as time goes on, we would all be targets. How long would I last if Gore became president? We could have adjoining cells. 

To Johnny on RIAA: 

I think it falls into the same category as Patriot II. 

I have to pee. More later.

Here are a few thoughts on the Bucketman's most recent post. A horrific regime is on the ropes, not extinguished. The destruction of that regime is certainly in the offing, but the war is long from over. The issue is, what will follow that regime? Given Johno's attention to the Afghanistan situation, the United States should take care that they do not forget about or abandon or Iraq as it did with Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the new Iraqi government is better or worse.

Casualties, in terms of numbers, have been extremely light compared to other armed conflicts. But this is a little too intellectual for me. Iraqi civilians have died, such as the three people who died when American troops opened fire on their car. I don't know what happened to the little girl. These are two incidents, not high numbers of civilian casualties, but it doesn't matter so much to me. People have died. Buckethead has argued that occasionally good people must be blown up to serve a greater good. The removal of Hussein will only serve a greater good if it does not result in leadership that's even worse. It's a wait and see. But nevertheless, if I was the father of the little girl who was shot by Marines, I wouldn't give a damn about the greater good. Civilian deaths have not been many, but they have been there. People aren't statisitics, they're people. That's stating the obvious, but sometimes it goes unrecognized.

You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that eliminating regimes would be good for the United States in general, provided those regimes are followed by a government that isn't hostile to the United States. A democratic government in those countries could just as easily be hostile to the U.S. as the current regimes. Just look at France and Germany. A puppet state is unlikely, given the fact that so many countries would scream bloody murder if the administration tried to pull that one. You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that elimination of regimes would be good for the people who live there. But it depends on what follows. It could be good for them, it could be just as bad, it could be worse. We just have to wait and see. The U.S. looks like it's already dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll pay more attention to what happens in post-war Iraq. Like everything else, it remains to be seen.

After three weeks, we have seen the complete destruction of all major Iraqi army formations, low casualties amongst both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians, minimal collateral damage to civilian infrastructure, including especially the oil fields in both north and south, and, once assured that Saddam was truly history, celebrations in the streets by joyous Iraqi civilians.

The doomsayers who cried quagmire on day five of the war, and those who predicted a Stalingrad (ve vill not haff much fun in Stalingrad, no.) when we moved into Baghdad were proved dramatically wrong. This war has, as much as any conflict in history, gone almost exactly according to plan, and met even the most optimistic goals of the planners.

A horrific regime has been extinguished, and without having to go through the trouble of annihilating the nation it rules in the process. The military has been talking about a revolution in military affairs for over a decade now, and it appears that they may be right. The advent of information age weaponry is transforming the way that the United States wages war. Our capabilities are increasing, even in an era when we are spending less, proportionally, on our military than we did throughout the course of the Cold War.

While the precision weapons that we have deployed have received the lion's share of media attention, it is important to remember what has really changed. The 2000 pond bombs that we drop our essentially the same as a 2000 pound blockbuster used in WWII - a metal casing surrounding a large lump of high explosive. What is different is the guidance package. The GPS guidance system used in the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); or the laser guidance system that was first used back in the '91 war are the real change - the thing that allows us to thread a needle with a bomb dropped from 20,000 ft. We have even started using concrete bombs - "inert" bombs that, when dropped from fifty thousand feet will utterly destroy a tank while leaving everything around it untouched. (These and other weapons systems are described here, at the Federation of American Scientist's webpage.)

These guidance systems are a product of the advanced technologies that our nation produces with no thought for military applicability. The computer systems developed for the civilian world are being adopted by the military wholesale, and this is where the true revolution is occurring. It is the communications and networking technologies that are making our military so effective, and so lethal. These communications systems disseminate intelligence throughout the entire armed forces - allowing a sergeant in an armor unit to directly call on artillery in his own unit, bombs from Air Force or Naval fighters, and cruise missiles from Navy subs or destroyers. It allows the military to rapidly coordinate fire from all branches on one spot for maximum effect, or on a thousand points at once for maximum enemy confusion.

The army has installed the IVIS system on its armored vehicles. This Inter Vehicular Information System instantly transmits intelligence gained by one vehicle to every other vehicle in the unit. What one tank crew knows, every tank crew knows. Initial tests at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin showed that units equipped with this system were five times more lethal than units equipped exactly the same in every other respect. This is because of the coordination that the system allows. No time is wasted by commanders explaining the situation - every one has the picture, and has probably already begun taking the correct action before the commander even gives the order.

This coordination and flexibility is what makes our military so effective. And over the next few years, similar systems, such as the Landwarrior system, will give the same capabilities to individual infantryman. New communication and reconnaissance systems will only increase the trend that we have seen in Iraq. The United States, without even really trying, is widening the gap between our military and the armed forces of even the other industrialized nations.

I think that this growing disparity between the effective combat power of the United States and that of the rest of the world will lead to more interventions. We will do it not only because we can, but because we can do it easily. This will no doubt bother many. But how many of those bothered are bothered by the application of American military power abroad itself, or rather because of who sits in the Oval Office? Many who complain about the current war had no problem with Kosovo, Serbia, Haiti, and any number of other interventions launched by the previous administration. Personally, I have no problem with America using its power to advance its interests in general, but in general we have used our power to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. As long as we have an ethical basis for intervention, and the results of that intervention remain positive, I say keep going.

We can't bring peace, order and democracy to every nation on Earth. But for every one that we do, its that many millions more people who don't live in places where leaders personally feed dissidents into wood chippers feet first. This is a good thing to fight against. The nations that fall into this category are sadly numerous. But there is a subset of them that also pose a threat to us, personally. The top of that list is North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but I think that eliminating these regimes in the same manner that we eliminated Saddam's would be good for us, and good for the citizens of those nations.

Mike, your mother was a hamster, and your father... 

well, you know. 

The Boston Phoenix, a newspaper whose reporting is always cutting-edge but often gratingly shrill, writes this week about reconstruction in Afghanistan. Taking a glass-half-empty approach to the issue that some may scoff at, the Phoenix nevertheless argues convincingly that Bush is abandoning any serious efforts to rebuild the nation, and wonders whether Iraq will follow a similar pattern of Reconstruction. 

White House officials apparently forgot to request funds to rebuild the country they bombed to such hoopla shortly after the September 11 attacks. Congressional staffers who caught the slip eventually requested $300 million for reconstructing Afghanistan. It's a lot more than [the 73 cents [I left the house with this morning], but less than a scratch on the bumper of the president's $75 billion initial request to fund a new war in Iraq. . . .  

At present, however, the only things that seem to be enduring in Afghanistan are the chaos and violence that have afflicted that country over the last 34 years, which have seen an invasion by the Soviet Union, bitter internecine warfare, brutal unification under the repressive Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban, and a US military campaign to oust that regime. To wit:

• Far from achieving a stable environment for reconstruction and democratization, US troops and international peacekeepers have come under increasing attack by remnants of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and disgruntled warlords. Tribal unrest and power struggles between warlords who have not declared outright opposition to the US or the Afghan central government have undermined the formation of even a loose central governmental structure.
• Due to the continuing instability and violence, much of Afghanistan is considered "unsafe" for the United Nations (UN), the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC), and other non-governmental aid agencies. On March 29, the ICRC shut down all its field operations after the execution-style killing of one of its employees by Taliban fighters who ambushed an ICRC convoy.
• If instability is leading to the possible reformation of terrorist cells, it's also aiding in the resurgence of Afghanistan's drug trade. In March, Afghanistan's finance minister warned a donor conference in March that a lack of "predictable finance" would lead the country to backslide into a "narco-mafia state."
• The much-vaunted goals of democratization, particularly enhancing the role of women in Afghan society, are also suffering as a result of continued instability in areas outside the Afghan capital of Kabul  - the only city with a strong international presence. As a March report by the International Crisis Group on "Women and Reconstruction" bluntly noted: "A renewed and expanded international commitment to security is urgently needed if the limited gains women have made in Kabul are to be institutionalized and emulated in other Afghan cities." . . . .

In short, Afghanistan may be largely free of the Taliban's iron-fisted repression, but that doesn't mean the country is secure. Rather, Islamic fanaticism has made way for a more traditional patchwork of violent and competing regional fiefdoms. At best, international forces maintain uneasy oversight of the country; at worst, they are ready targets for Afghan warlords.... The piece finishes up with a summations of the "lessons of Afghanistan" and how the administration has and has not applied them in Iraq that I find less meaty, but the article as a whole is an interesting read nonetheless. 

So, to sum up: Afghanistan is now resuming its historical patterns, the efforts to institute a strong free national government notwithstanding, and Iraq could go down the same road if help is not given in the mid- to long-term. Many would argue that now that the Taliban is mostly gone, it's up to Afghanistan to rebuild their own country. Well sure. The US isn't the boss of Afghanistan. But rebuilding would be an easier task, though, if the US and other coalition nations were to provide monetary and advisory aid to the struggling nation, as well as help in rebuilding national infrastructures. Without this kind of lasting assistance, the likelihood of a stable Afghanistan-- the showpiece of the new style of American foreign relations-- is ever more remote. Same goes for Iraq. I'm very very glad Hussein's power has been broken and the Iraqi people freed from his egomaniacal brutality. Now for the hard part. 

A last note: I see in the Phoenix that Sonic Youth are playing with Wilco later this spring in Manchester. Woo hoo!!

The good news: Congress has approved the Amber Alert Bill package.

The bad news: The RAVE Act, the tapeworm in the Amber Alert Bill's system, passed as an amendment to said bill.

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

Johno, telling someone to stick it up their ass in Arabic is not to be done lightly. It is reserved for family members and people you are willing to fight to the death. That may be redundant. But still, those are definitely fighting words. I cut off your hands! You are infidel! Your sheep gives bad milk that makes foul-smelling cheese!

Oh, come on. I couldn't possibly take that personally.

As to the question of thumbs-up intended as "Ayyy!" or "Up your ass," a friend of mine has advanced a third possiblity. It could be both. Iraqis might be giving American troops a thumbs-up, knowing full well what it means in American culture, while simultaneously covering their own tizuk. Should Iraqis face a return of Hussein's regime in some way, even if for a brief period, they can say that they did not celebrate American advances, but rather told the Americans to stick it up their asses.

On a very serious note, CNN has thus far reported alarming increases in the number of civilians wounded or killed by American troops, fearful of suicide attacks. In one incident, American troops manning a checkpoint shouted at a driver, in English, to move his vehicle in a different direction. When the driver was unable to follow commands in a language he didn't understand, the troops opened fire on a vehicle, a very contained space, for several minutes. All three occupants of the vehicle were killed, and the initial report was that they had no weapons. Troops claimed that they saw muzzle flashes.

In another CNN report, a little girl, found by a reporter who risked being shot himself, and a woman were seriously wounded by American Marines. The little girl sustained a severe head wound. A Marine medic treated the girl, but only after the reporter brought her to them. When Marines demanded that the cameras be turned off, the reporters pointed out that they had wounded the girl. The reporters were then permitted to film.

Finally, CNN has also reported that no so-called weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. We've had a few posts about just wars. I think just wars must have clear goals, not hidden agendas. Given the protean nature of reasons for war as advertised by the administration (1: Weapons of mass destruction 2: 11 September 2001 3: Liberate Iraq from Hussein), there has been no clear statement from the administration about exactly why this war is being fought. The administration does not have to divulge war plans or information that compromises the position of the military. But it could at least be straight with us as to why this is happening.

Aziz Poonawalla has a great post up about the war that also references Howard Dean* (thanks also to Instapundit for the pointer). From the post:

The images we all saw on television worldwide yesterday will be in our world history books as one of the defining moments of the 21st century. Alongside those of 9-11, yin and yang. I was and still am opposed to war on Iraq - not the idea of war per se, but like Howard Dean, by the route to which we justified and pursued war. But winning the war was never in doubt and my heart is is full of satisfaction at seeing the statues of Saddam fall at last.
I am however quite disappointed by the attitude of many who oppose the war - who seem to have a grudging attitude towards the liberation. IRAQ IS FREE. Regardless of your politics, your principles, your attitudes - this must be the shared event that we all celebrate.

I can't agree more. Read the whole post.

A side note. You know, yesterday I saw maybe the single most iconic moment I've ever seen happen, live, on TV. CNN was showing their standard montage of Iraqis dancing, Iraqis looting government buildings for office chairs and lamps, Iraqis beating pictures of Hussein with their shoes, and so forth. Once, just once, a five-second clip played of a grinning gentleman holding an American flag with a giant golden picture of Rocky Balboa emblazoned across the middle.

The Balboa Doctrine of foreign policy. Perfect. I love it.

* Dean's my big favorite for President in '04. He's not perfect, but he seems to be a thoughtful, honest, and principled Vermont Liberal. A VERMONT Liberal. They are different from Berkeley Liberals.

Because it's considered uncouth to have a post containing the word "douchebags" at the top of one's web log thingy, here's another post.

Windy City Mike, from what I understand it's a tough call whether Iraqis are saying "yay America!" or "up your ass" with their thumbs-up gesture. Surely many if not most Iraqis, especially in the cities, have come in contact with the Fonzie virus over the last couple decades, if only second-hand. Therefore, they must be aware that "thumbs up" means "ayyyy, Chachi!" outside the Arab world. I would direct you to our big empire/hegemony thread of a few weeks ago for supporting arguments.

On balance, many pundit-types believe it's likely that many Iraqis making the thumbs-up really are on the "Go, America!" side of the semiotic fence, but I'd like to think that Iraqis appreciate the delicious ambiguity.

"Yay America! Up your ass!"

For some reason my inner eight-year-old is really running wild today. Please excuse me with all the poopie and douchebag blather. Just think. You only read it here. Goodwife Two-Cents gets this behavior from me every single day. There's only one of her in the world!

Life sucks, rain is just God peeing on me, and the sun will give me skin cancer.

Yet, this site, The Rock And Roll Hall of Douchebags, which I found via Ted Barlow, makes me feel one hundred percent better. Thanks, Ted!!

Visit the site, click through, read the captions, and marvel at all the douchebags!!

So many douchebags! Hope none of my old band pics are in there!