perfidy

In a recent post (permalinks are hosed-- thanks, blogger!), Bad Thoughts took the Bush camp to task continuing to "rattle sabers" at North Korea. Daniel Drezner agrees this is a baaaad idea. For that matter, so do I. The Bush Administration's policy on North Korea has been oddly unfocussed, given Bush's general tendency to assert his will and [Patrick Stewart voice:ON] Make It So[OFF].

I've seen several sources hailing a new report by the State Department that indicates a marked decline in terror attacks in 2002.

Good news, right?

Well, would be. Except, as Calpundit observes, the worldwide decline is actually due to a huge decline in the number of Colombian oil pipeline bombings, nothing else. Seriously. There's a graph, you can check it out yourself. In fact, Middle-East-based terror attacks stayed steady, and Asian attacks rose.

So what does this mean? Hell if I know, but I can be sure of two things: this report tells us exactly nothing about how safe we are relative to one year ago; and the President will be making early campaign hay with this out the wazoo.

Side note: our President looked good on the aircraft carrier. As campaign appearances go, it can't be beat. Nevertheless, pretty don't make me agree with his policies. I hope he gets stomped like a narc at a biker rally in '04, unless Kerry is the candidate. Then I hope they both get stomped. A paradox!

An old baseball joke: A manager says his team needs just two more players to become a pennant contender. But, he says, "The players are Ruth and Gehrig."

Iraq needs only four people to achieve post-Saddam success. Unfortunately they are George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall.

Now that is a pessimistic conservative take on the possibilities in Iraq.

John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla committed acts, they didn't just say stuff, and their actions certainly open the door to a possible treason charge. It's up to the prosecutors and Grand Jury whether or not they want to charge them with treason.

It can be very difficult, though, to determine when treason is an appropriate charge. The first step is an act. Then there's intent. Was the act intended to overthrow the state or give aid and comfort to enemies in time of war? It's something that has to be taken on a case by case basis. In my view, the actions of Timothy McVeigh fall under treason because they were designed to overthrow the United States government.

A treason charge is not to be administered lightly. At most, I can say that Padilla and Lindh could maybe be charged with treason on the basis of actions, and Lindh could fall under the aid and comfort category, but I don't know enough about either to say for certain.

This is a good article. Mackubin Thomas Owens teaches at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

Mike, Johno: Shut the hell up you stupid wankers! I'm right and you're going to hell!

As Mike sort of was pointing out, I was describing Ad Hominem discourse on the left with the welfare thingie. I could have included examples of the right doing this in regards to the Drug War, but instead just described how stupid the policy was.

Coulter is, indeed, a meatsack for advocating the murder of 3000 Muslims (now she might say Mohammedans). One of the things that I thought while watching the war on TV was this: our moral superiority was evident in the way that Iraqi forces planned their actions. They put civilians near military targets because they knew that we would not intentionally cause the deaths of innocents. They marched women and children in front of them, because they counted on our restraint. They could depend on our sense of jus in bello and attempted to use it against us. Happily, it availed them not. Despite the claims of some, the world is aware that we are not a loose cannon, cowboy nation - that we attempt to deal fairly and justly even with our enemies.

I agree with Mike (and the courts) that speaking is not treason. But what do you think about Taliban Johnny and Jose Padilla? These two are accused of doing more than protest. They, so to speak, had Saddam on their living room futon. If they are guilty, I think they should hang from the neck until dead, dead, dead.

Mickey Kaus has some insight, and a leaked memo, about the Iraqi National Museum thingy we've been yammering about. According to the Kaus-linked WaPo article, the museum was apparently #2 on the list of sites for the military to protect during and after the fighting-- the currently-intact Iraqi Oil Ministry was dead last on the list. Kaus:

I don't see why it gets the U.S. off the hook if the looting was an "inside job." You can protect against inside jobs too, by preventing things from leaving the building -- like priceless statues that take ten men to lift. The issue isn't who did the stealing, but whether or not we screwed up and failed to do what we could. To the extent that our forces were taking fire from the museum and unable to safely protect it, we obviously didn't screw up. To the extent our forces didn't even know for several days that there was a museum there to protect (but did know there was a bank), or to the extent they decided to protect water storage facilities and other infrastructure rather than art work, it was a screw-up. Islamic terrorists twenty years from now won't be wooing recruits with the story of how the evil Americans smashed a water storage facility. They will be telling them about how the Americans burned ancient copies of the Koran and destroyed the heritage of the Arab world. ...

Damn straight. Of course, choosing between defending drinking water for civilians and defending priceless art is a Hobson's choice, but once again, that's only part of an explanation, and not any kind of excuse. 

Kaus also has some thought-provoking stuff about winning the war/losing the peace. Me likey! 
 

If there would have been a civil war regardless of whether or not Ireland was partitioned, why do you blame Churchill for making things worse? Certainly, the British record in Ireland is abominable - they treated every other colony, even the ones composed of the most primitive cultures, better than they did the Irish. In fact, it seemed that they were trying to make the Irish into a primitive colony so that they could justify treating it so badly. I would think that you would hate Cromwell more.

Another side note: Top Five Unlikely Military Geniuses:

It is interesting to note that almost all of Americas' good generals, and most generals in general, come from the south. True, Patton was from California, but his family raised him like he was from Virginia. He was steeped in that "War of Northern Aggression" ethos. Sherman, btw, was from Ohio. Some honorable mentions for the top five list: Francis Marion, MacArthur, and some Admirals - David Farragut, Raymond Spruance, Bull Halsey, and Chet Nimitz.

Also, a good one from Hanson.

"You know, if you paw through the reams of resolutions put forth by the UN, I'm sure you'll find one that outlaws special jails for children, too. I'm no longer interested in reading the arguments of people who regard a war that empties the children's jails as a greater evil than the jails themselves. And I don't share their horror for the word "illegal," particularly in the context of international law. Is the worst thing about modern-day slavery its illegality? Or the fact that it's slavery?" 

The man has a real talent for the hammer-nail-hitting thingie. Read the whole article, its a good 'un. 
 

The Atlantic Monthly has posted Bernard Lewis' article from the most recent issue. I read it on dead tree, and now you can read it on line.

Via "Bootsy," loyal reader #00004, comes this article which advances our competing theories about the looting of the Baghdad Museum. Thesis: it was an inside job, planned for years by an international cartel. According to the article, US Central Command reportedly are still unaware of any organized looting. In other news, Oliver North is a patriot, and Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Some have advanced the theory that the Army looked the other way while short-term strategically valuable allies of necessity (former Ba'ath leaders, etc.) ransacked the Museum. By my sophistic use of the word "some" plus the passive voice, I intend to signal that I can't find any reason either to confirm or disavow this theory, but I thought I'd hoist the petard skywards nonetheless.

John Derbyshire of the National Review has some interesting points on the ultimate fate of the artifacts that were looted from the museum in Baghdad. The gist of his argument is that those who stole the Sumerian thingies were in all likelihood museum employees, and will in all likelihhod sell the loot to western collectors, who will eventually die and leave the stuff to a museum in their will. This is a reassuring thought - the artifacts will be dispersed rather than destroyed. It won't be like the burning of the Library, or the Cultural Revolution in China.

Apparently, the French government had to beg the US to allow Chirac to have his 20 minute "business-like" conversation with Bush. Instead of enhancing their world status, France's behavior over the last several months has gotten them ostracized. They are frozen out in Washington and London, and soon, TotalFinaElf will be completely out of Iraq. Frankly, it couldn't happen to a better country.

At least, now that we have eliminated the prior regime, Iraqis now can have different opinions without being shot.

Apparently, some Iraqis are giving U.S. forces the thumbs up in the Middle Eastern cultural context, figuratively speaking. This story from the NYT describes protests against the current U.S. occupation. It also discusses Shi'ite demands for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

Huh. I recall saying many times in the past that the U.S. could open the door to just such a state. It's still unlikely, but nothing is impossible. Moreover, it seems that Iraqi opinion is quite divided on the American campaign and occupation. Some in favor, some against, some just trying to stay alive. Go figure. Some Americans protested the war, some supported it, most probably didn't care since war coverage didn't interrupt March Madness coverage, or their favorite sitcom, or what have you.

It's not arrogant if you're right. But seriously, I'm not talking about taking down every comic opera great leader in the world, to bring salvation to mankind, and to generally immanentize the eschaton. Just the worst ones, and the ones who pose the greatest potential threat to me, personally, as a US citizen who works a block from the White House. (Threat and nastiness generally overlap a great deal.) If we can take out the leaders of these unhappy few, and bring some measure of sanity to the benighted populaces thereof, that's a clear win. The likelihood of any successor government being worse than Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, or Assad is, shall we say, slim.

There are over a hundred and seventy nations on our fair planet. Deranged totalitarian leaders have made some neighborhoods rather unlivable. Think of it as slum clearance, followed by a nice fat welfare check for the people of the neighborhood. (That's socialist, yay!) It's a short list: Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma (yeah, right Myanmar) and France. That's maybe four percent of the world's nations. The rest can stay as they are.

This report suggests that the looting of the Baghdad Museum was done by Ba'ath officials. A report on CNN this morning likewise confirmed that regular looters, not equipped with winches, dollies, etc, could never have moved the big pieces that are gone, suggesting it was a pro job.

Death is too good for them. Slow, painful, public, humiliating death is a little closer. The only appropriate punishment would be... ermmm... uhh... how about... got it!!! Forced attendance of every single performance by Celine Dion in Le Vegas! Yeah, that's the ticket!!

Please excuse me. I now read that Iraqis have looted the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad, destroying or stealing an estimated 170,000 artifacts.

Well, no biggie. It's only the cradle of Western Civilization.

I have a few cents to spend in the current discussions, but I must collect my thoughts. Just a quick note for Buckethead: pursuant to your posts this weekend, you seem to suggest two things: that it takes sacrifice on the part of a country to break the bonds of tyranny; and that the US is currently the force best equipped to decide when that sacrifice should come, and in what measure. Are you then in favor of a vigorously interventionist foreign policy? You do say as much, so yes, I'm stating the obvious, but are you suggesting that the US would be right to act as the arbiter of truth, freedom, and justice for the world? Notwithstanding our position as the oldest representative democracy on the planet (a 'good thing' (tm)), that seems like as policy it would be a leetle ambitous, not to mention arrogant.

[update]Here is another article about the looting of the Iraqi Museum. This makes me want to cry like a baby. Is it because my wife is an archivist and I'm a historian? When artifacts like these disappear, a little bit of humanity's ties to our past disappear as well. Without the past-- a real, living, accurate, sweaty, noble, ignoble past-- we are cut loose from who we are, and where we came from -- we become nothing more than what we can make up out of our experiences and memories. Sometimes that's a lot. Most of the time, it's wrongheaded, futile, and a little pathetic.

What do all tyrants do first? What is the best way to justify power? What was the entire thesis of "1980"? [update: clearly I meant "1984." See tomorrow's posts to learn the thesis of "1980".] It boils down to this: If you control history, you control people. If we lose the mystifying, cryptic, illuminating, quotidian artifacts of the past, no matter how recent, we have nothing to navigate the world by but hearsay and fairy tale. Sometimes that's all even our best histories amount to, but if the things of the past are gone, we don't stand a chance. Our looking-glass gets darker all the time, and every setback in the efforts to beat back the dark just makes me sad, tired, and discouraged. Dammit anyhow.

This story, from msnbc, talks of the terror camp in the north, and of its connection to Al Quaida. This story, from AP by way of the St. Petersburg Times, talks of the training camp found by the Marines south of Baghdad. This story, from the Herald, gives some background on the Iraqi regime's connections to terrorist groups, even the fundamentalist ones. There have been several reports of possible chemical weapons stores - none confirmed as yet. However, several commentators, including this one, believe that the military is holding off on confirming reports until they are absolutely sure. One thing to keep in mind is that for the last three weeks, the American and British forces have been focused on ass-whupin', not seeking out every hidden facility in a country the size of California. As we move into the next phases of the operation, we will see more reports as military personnel either discover or are tipped off to the presence of these sites. 

I think you're a leetle too hard on Fox News. The fact that they have a bias different from what you're used to does not mean that they are less accurate. I'd put them on par with other cable news, just with a different slant. 

[wik] The Ministry of Future Perfidy would like to inform you that all the links in this post are decades stale, and have been removed.