About Me

Name: mgraves
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

An analogy that makes less sense on paper than I thought it would...

Several years ago we had an ice storm that knocked out power to the house for several days.  It was a cold early March and when I woke up it was 40 degrees in the house.
 
We started the 5k generator up and got the heater running.  And the stove.  And the television.  And the washer and dryer...and microwave and et cetera.  The only thing that we could not start was the water heater.  It took too much power.  We could run the water heater, or everything else (we rotated so there was hot water).
 
The social safety net is like that.  We can do the foreign aid, strong military, aggressive and self-assertive foreign policy, and law and order, or we can have a social safety net.
 
Look at France, or Canada, or Iceland, or any country with a strong social safety net.  They have anemic militaries--and are dependent on the U.S. for their protection (with the notable exception of the United Kingdom).  Consider their foreign policies--look at the European reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia--these are countries unable to assert themselves in their own interests.  Russia has conducted energy blackmail against Europe and Europe can but cower.  France suffers regular riots (from unemployed--mostly--Muslim immigrants).   Russian agents murder Russian ex-pats on British soil with impunity.  Film-makers are filleted in broad daylight in Amsterdam.
 
The U.S. is attempting to balance the stove, television, and washer/dryer against the water heater and is coming up with lukewarm water (witness the collectivists' call for more no matter how far the Congress goes) and a heater that leaves our breath condensing in the air (ridiculous hand-wringing over the use of the military--it is in our interests, or it is not: make the case), a washer that won't agitate (diplomacy consisting of begging our adversaries to change), a stove that leaves the turkey frozen (illegals over-running the borders, and SEIU and ACORN thugs intimidating voters, encouraging criminal activity, and inhibiting free enterprise), and a television that only gets the French speaking channel--and horribly static-y to boot (promising money we don't have to help third world nations combat "climate change").
 
Other nations had a choice--the U.S. would defend them. 
 
We do not. 
 
If we decide we want the water heater on, there is no one left to defend us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politics by other means

The purpose of the U.S. military is to advance and defend the interests of the United States.  Current discussions in Washington seem to indicate that the purpose of the U.S. military is as some grand social experiment.  Or, perhaps run out the clock on the "bad guys".

Current discussions regarding the deployment of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan never seem to get around to the question of what our national interests are in those regions of the world, and how we may best advance our interests there.  It is, rather, about training up indigenous security forces, or ensuring a more non-corrupt local governance, or how we may best leave the locals to themselves.

These are idiot questions, most often asked by idiots. 

The relevant question is: What is our national interest? 

Secondly: How may we best achieve that interest?

Different people may come to different conclusions that I, but that does not negate the need to ask these questions.  Such differences would actually lead to the necessary debate, rather than to the D.C. approved debate.  Washington politicians--as the time-serving hacks they are--ask the wrong questions to best suit their own political self-interest.

Anyone who discusses issues of war and peace without reference to these questions is without credibility and should justly be ignored.

And voted out of office.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Screed

I'm finding it uncommonly difficult to come up with anything for the blog these days.

Greens are self-parodying, i.e. carbon dioxide is now a danger to our health.  CO2 is producing by virtually every member of the animal kingdom; humans, as I understand it, produce a negligible amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere (and that when 99%+ of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen). 

Of course, the ability to regulate CO2 is the ability to regulate every facet of our lives.  Everything we do produces CO2 (even in death our bodies produce CO2 as we decay), therefore, the government, in the name of protecting us from ourselves, may regulate everything we do.  Everything from procreation, to recreation, to that semi-conscious state that people achieve listening to the mind-blowing stupidity of our politicians (i.e. Sen Kennedy babbles about low wages--being paid like dirt--means that those who draw such salaries lack human dignity and are, in effect, "dirt") is open to regulation when CO2 is a threat to humanity (to say nothing of a natural by-product of humanity).

Beyond lunacy.

Or perhaps there is the current Administration's response to Iran (much like the last Administration's response in effect, if not in practice): drawing a line in the sand on the one hand, whilst groveling for friendship on the other.  Iran continues, unimpeded, to the bomb, while our politicians dither and act as though Iran is behaving irrationally.  The Iranian mullahs see no real negative consequences to pursuing nuclear weapons (the Russians, Chinese, and craven Europeans would never stand for negative consequences), while having very positive consequences: regional hegemony, the means to destroy Israel, nuclear blackmail regarding local human rights issues, etc.  They would be fools to not pursue nuclear weapons, especially when the actions of the last three Administrations vis a vis North Korea have provided a blueprint for the Iranians.

Again, perhaps there are the "human rights" warriors, who are more concerned with illusory rights--reproductive freedom, abortion, the right to wear a hijab/niqab/burqa, etc--while ignoring such rights as property rights, individual autonomy, or the right to be secure in one's person from the criminal acts of others.  Only a society in an advanced state of decay is able to waste time on fantasy problems, such as "global warming" or barbie not wearing a burka, rather than actual problems such as organ harvesting from political prisoners in the PRC, confiscatory governments--such as those in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or Russia--or societies that produce and celebrate such monsters as Zarqawi, bin Ladin, or Atta.

Actual real people suffer and die--of starvation, or unrest, or violence--because of Mugabe's policies and the PRC's thuggish, animalistic prison wardens, Russia's descent into fascist gangsterism, and in Castro's dungeons.  This is in opposition to the theoretical suffering of the chimera of "man-made global warming". 

The advanced state of societal decay we find ourselves in can only be remedied from the ground up.  Individuals--in free association with other individuals--must elect to stand against the slide to Gomorrah.  Such individuals must decide which elements of the culture are worth saving, and save them, and assimilate positive elements of incoming cultures, thereby absorbing more individuals into a free association with the culture.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tried as common criminals

The delusion that by treating KSM and his pals as common criminals, we are able to rob them and their actions of the political impact they've intended, seems to be the major excuse for trying KSM, etc in Federal District Court (that and the need to show that we're better than the terrorists... ?)
 
Perhaps if KSM etc had been immediately tried in criminal court--and their actions had not linearly lead to two wars--perhaps treating them as common criminals would have held some water.  As it is, however, common criminal acts do not lead to war.  Wars tend to imbue their precedents with "political-ness".
 
When the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, WWI did not have to result, but because it did, the Serb seperatist assassin could never have been viewed in any other light, than as a political assassin.  This, of course, leaves aside his motive, which was political in nature.
 
Likewise with KSM etc: their motive was political, an act of war against the "infidels".  To pretend otherwise, eight years after the fact, is delusional and counterproductive.
 
No good can come of trying these men in civilian court.  No good can come from pretending they are common criminals.
 
(If I understand the argument concerning the need to show that we're better than the terrorists correctly, then there is no need to answer it.  It is idiocy on its face.  KSM etc intentionally target civilians and seek to cause death and destruction, in order to achieve their ends.  The U.S. does not engage in the preceding.  KSM etc behead "infidels" for being "infidels".  The U.S. has procedural safeguard after procedural safeguard, to ensure just trials.  The moral equivalence that would place the U.S. on the same plane as AQ is logical malpractice.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Civilian Trials

The Obama Administration will be trying five captured terror subjects in a civilian court.

The five are: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

I have heard a respondent to a Fox News question regarding this saying that it is good because there is no way a New York jury would vote to acquit the five, regardless of the evidence thrown out.  This may in fact be true.  It is, however, irrelevant.  There will be no "jury nullification" in this trial because any competent defense attorney will request a bench trial. 

Criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial, under the 6th Amendment.  They may, however, waive this right.  A judge, in the furtherance of the law, should abide by the request for a bench trial.

As a matter of law, and under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I see no way that the five can be convicted in a criminal court.  Their confessions will be thrown out, as the five were not informed of right to counsel, and did not have counsel present during questioning--one need not even delve into the legal questions of interrogation techniques.  There is no chain of custody evidence for any evidence seized in Afghanistan.  The five were held for years without charge or a hearing.  No evidence  against them complies with the rules of evidence (hopefully, there is much evidence out there I'm not aware of and I'm wrong here).  The five will either be denied the opportunity to cross-examine those holding evidence against them, or the legal circus that will ensue regarding their testimony will take years to arrange.

This trial/series of trials is an abomination.  Under civilian law, the five should be able to file habeus corpus petitions and secure their release post-haste.  The evidence just was not gathered in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is is terrorism?

There is a discussion, on The Corner (at NRO) as to whether or not Nidal Hasan committed an act of terrorism. 

The relevant jurisdiction is the United States Code (USC) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The UCMJ does not have a statute related to terrorism.  The USC has three potentially relevant Titles (excluding Titles related to specific types of terrorism, i.e. Agro-terrorism): Title 6 (Domestic Security), Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), and Title 22 (Foreign Relations and Intercourse).

Title 6 describes terrorism as:
(A) The term “act of terrorism” means any act that the Secretary determines meets the requirements under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are further defined and specified by the Secretary. (B) Requirements.— An act meets the requirements of this subparagraph if the act—
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and
(iii) uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States.

Title 18 describes domestic terrorism as:
the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Title 22 discusses the State Department's reporting requirements concerning terrorism, and according to the State Department web site defines terrorism as:
Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
  • The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
  • The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
  • The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

/*/ For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.


Legally speaking, non-combatant targets are not necessary for an act of murder to be an act of terrorism.  It is the motive which sets apart terrorism from other crimes, under the law.  A previous essay What is terrorism? discusses terrorism in terms of what it is not, especially guerrilla warfare.  Guerrilla warfare my be distinguished from terrorism by three methods, according to terrorism expert Martha Crenshaw:
1) Guerrilla warfare uses legitimate military tactics;
2) Guerrilla warfare strikes legitimate military targets; and
3) Guerrilla warfare has a chance of success.
Even if the military personnel at Ft Hood were legitimate targets, gunning them down while they stand in line is not a legitimate military target.  I prefer not to re-hash my discussion of terrorism, so I will be lazy and direct anyone with additional questions to the linked post.

In conclusion, Nidal Hasan committed an act of terrorism.  If the United States were fighting a country, then Hasan would have committed an act of sabotage/espionage/treason/act of war, but because the U.S. is engaged against a non-symmetrical enemy, Hasan could not, legally speaking, renounce his citizenship and declare his allegiance to a foreign enemy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Afghanistan choices

Afghanistan continues to heat up--the weather and terrain conspiring with the Taliban and AQ terrorists to kill coalition soldiers and demoralize civilian populations back home.  As this happens, the Obama administration considers Gen McCrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops, without which, the war will be lost, according to the General.
 
At this point in the time, the administration has three basic options--whatever he chooses will be a type of one of these options.
 
Firstly, he can give up.  He can pull back U.S. forces and request NATO and Australia do the same.  This option will limit U.S. and coalition military casualties.  It will, however, encourage a bloodbath as the Taliban re-asserts control over the country and cities and brings to heal anyone foolish to count on Western resolve.  This option will also result in the migration of insurgents from Afghanistan to Iraq, which would severely inhibit any gains made there in the last two years.  This option will also allow for the explosion of poppy growth and heroin funded extremism.  Further, U.S. and allied nations will witness increased civilian deaths as AQ is able to go from defense of Afghanistan/Stone Age fundamentalism to Oplan Bojinka type plots against the U.S. and her allies.
 
Secondly, President Obama can choose to continue to muddle through on the current course.  Additions of troops less than what General McCrystal is asking for fall into this category also.  Under such a course, the Taliban would continue to consolidate gains and intimidate the population into believing that the West is the weak horse in the fight.  The population will make accomodations to the Taliban--after all, they just want to get on with their lives.  U.S. and coalition forces would continue to face increasing casualties and increased pressure from politicians and civilians back home to revert to Option One.
 
Lastly, President Obama can go all in and trust the man he picked to lead U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.  President Obama does not have a good track record on matters of war--ranging from no track record to opposing the surge in Iraq--and he might be advised to take advice from the SME (Subject Matter Expert) he chose.  In such a case, what will happen is less clear.  The surge of troops may enable the colonels to pursue a "clear and hold" strategy, thereby pushing back the Taliban and stabilizing the country.  Then, perhaps, (in reference to my previous post) the security necessary to build a civil society can be imposed.
 
As a post-script, I would like to address the flawed analogy of the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and the Taliban, which I have heard, on ocassion.  This fantasy involves the delusion that the Sunni rejectionists who became the Anbar Awakening and the SOI are sufficiently similar to the Taliban.  The Sunni rejectionists allied themselves with the foreign fighters and the terrorists as a means to get back to power.  The Taliban have accepted AQ, foreign fighters, and terrorists into their bosom, but the Taliban is the major enemy. 
 
Rather than adjunct to, or alongside of, the Taliban is the insurgency.  Peeling off disaffected Taliban is only possibly when the West has shown the will and capability to win.  Any dingleberries that fall into line will be of a negligible amount until the West has demonstrated this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Security Forces and security

Creating a civil society in Iraq is still a long ways off.  Much of the work left to be done, however, can, and must be done by the Iraqis themselves.  Iraqi Security Forces and civilians are far and away the targets of the "insurgents".  What remains to the coalition is to enable the conditions that will enable an educated, though historically "unfree", society to create a society that values the rule of law over the rule of force.

One of the major handicaps faced by the Iraqis is the creation of her security forces.  In much of the world, security forces (police and military) are of a different type than we find the United States.

When Sir Robert Peel organized the London Metropolitan Police in 1829 (London Metropolitan Police Act 1829)he was creating the model for policing that would take hold in the English-speaking world--and much of the western world.  While policing has been evolving--pockets of corruption have hampered the establishment of a professional image (1980's Miami PD, 1970's NYPD, and et cetera, to say nothing of Western Sheriffs and Marshalls)--for decades, much of the Western World enjoys professional police forces who are accountable to the laws that they enforce.  Internal Affairs departments prosecute investigations against police officers who offend against Police duties and responsibilities. 

In Iraq--and in much of the world--police have not been there to "serve and protect" the citizens, but rather to: (a) ensure the continuation of the regime; (b) line their own pockets and set themselves up for retirement; and (c) exercise power in their petty neighborhood dictatorships (which helps both "a" and "b").  In such circumstances, the citizens cannot trust the police because the police will either shake them down, or turn them in for alleged offenses.  The police are feared by all citizens, rather than by law-breakers. 

What follows from this is a "thin blue line" which is insulated from the concerns of citizens and citizens who prefer it that way.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussayn, had police who fit into this model.  Post-Saddam, Iraqi citizens could not trust the police because they had no reason to.  As Coalition Forces attempt to train Iraqi Security Forces, they must also train Iraqi citizens.  ISF must be trained to behave in a professional manner--to uphold the law, including enforcing it against themselves; to interact with citizens in a "serve and protect" manner; and to maintain high levels of training and competence.  Likewise, Iraqi citizens must be trained to trust ISF.  This can only be accomplished by ISF serving and protecting Iraqi citizens. 

ISF must be able to both learn to trust themselves and to serve and protect.  There must be internal controls to weed out bad ISF.  There must be a non-commissioned officer corps to both train the next generation of ISF, but also to guide the officer corps (NCOs being the backbone of security forces).

This--from what I have seen--is happening.  It is not, however, a fast process.  Habits learned by years of practice must be unlearned and new practices must be implemented.  A new ethos must be developed--it cannot be arbitrarily imposed from above or without--and creeds and oaths must be created and upheld.

If we are to abandon Iraq midstream, then we set up the Iraqi people for failure.  If we set them up for failure, then we create the environment necessary for a takeover by those who would re-implement the old order security forces model.  Such a model--witness the number of educated Saudis or Egyptians seeking to kill Americans--is detrimental to the security of the American people.

Could we, perhaps, absorb an attack here and an attack there, as we did during the 1990s?  We could, but those who die and those who are left behind must not be asked to absorb such things.  America has a Constitutional obligation to defend her borders and her citizens.  President Jefferson understood this when he sent American warships to the Barbary Coast.  President Monroe understood this when he promulgated the Monroe Doctrine (and President Roosevelt when he issued the Roosevelt corollary).  We can do no less.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nobel questions

Is it considered to be an honor to receive the same award as Yassir Arafat (thief, murderer, etc) and Kofi Annan (stood idly by while Tutsis, Bosnians, Kosovars, etc were murdered; allowed his son to be a thief; oil-for-food scandal)?

If one can be nominated for an award for a do-nothing partial senate career and twelve days in the WH, who does not qualify for the award?

Could not someone who stood up to tyranny better represent Alfred Nobel's vision (any number of Iranians, or Chinese or Cuban political prisoners, or perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi)?

Shouldn't someone with a sense of proportion be ashamed of receiving an award that one obviously has not earned?

The answers to all these questions can be found in the supreme narcissism of our commander in chief and his pathological need to be "loved".

One day it may become clear that kowtowing to such "luminaries" as Chavez, Ghadaffi, and Ahmadinejad is neither in the best interests of U.S. national security, nor the oppressed peoples of the world.  It is unlikely to become clear to our President, however, who can apparently only see the imaginary "progressive" world that he hopes to one day create by sheer force of his personality.

How about a song?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq a diversion?

I read a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) the other day.  In said letter, the author drops several logical fallacies which tend to indicate that the leftist "framing" of Iraq has become the dominant "reality".

Firstly, by removing Saddam and his Sunni dictatorship, the U.S. strengthened Shi'a Iran.  There are several problems with this, the first of which is the characterization of Saddam's dictatorship as "Sunni".  Saddam was a Ba'athist--a local variant of the political malignancy known as national socialism--not a Sunni.  Further, Saddam's antipathy to Iran was not based upon religious--or ideological--differences, but upon two historic rivals competing for regional dominance. 

Iranians are Persians and Iraqis are, predominantly, Arabs: different languages, different cultures, and very different histories.  The caliphs and local Islamic leaders competed against one another for regional dominance.  Before that, Persians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians succeeded each other as dominant empires.  After the First World War, the Arab world came under the control of European powers, while Persia remained aloof. 

Secondly, the author implies Saddam's Iraq was a useful bulwark against Iran's regional ambitions.  This completely ignores the 10 years of sanctions and military coercion put in place to keep Saddam from slaughtering his own citizens after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which placed America's energy supply in jeopardy.  Is this a fair trade?  An uncertain bulwark--which is just as likely to harm those it is intended to protect--in exchange for the time, treasure, blood, and toil necessary to keep that bulwark from exploding into an orgy of bloodletting (which would leave Iraq at the mercy of an ambitious Iran).

Thirdly, the author implies that the PRC would have been willing to back sanctions on Iran if only the U.S. had not invaded Iraq based upon erroneous intelligence.  This ignores the obvious fact that WMD were a minor (three to four paragraphs of a 23 paragraph case for war) part of the authorization of use of force.  It also assumes that the PRC would be willing to act in a way it has shown no indication of being willing to act in.  The PRC opposed sanctions against North Korea--before the invasion of Iraq.  What possible reason would the PRC have to agree to sanctions against Iran, when the PRC would not agree to meaningful sanctions against North Korea?

Fourthly, the author makes a backhanded comment that, "ironically, Israel is now at greater risk than at any time in its 61-year history", which does not make a great deal of sense.  Unless, of course, one is under the delusion that the "Israel Lobby" and (Jewish) Neoconservatives were behind the Iraq war.  This is a libel.  Neoconservatives backed the Iraq war and pitched it, and may have even been the driving force behind it, but to label all neoconservatives as Jewish, and therefore beholden to the "Israel Lobby" is childish idiocy.  The U.S. invaded Iraq for many reasons--all of which revolved around the perceived national interests of the United States.  If Israel is served by the actions of the United States, in her own interests, then that is likely because Israel is a liberal democracy with similar values and interests to the United States.

Lastly, the author makes the bald claim that the U.S. has been unable to devote sufficient resources to Afghanistan because of the diversion in Iraq.  If this is the case, why, when Iraq was drawn down, was there not a corresponding rise in resources dedicated to Afghanistan?  Or, why are the "troop savings" of Iraq currently, not immediately reinvested in Afghanistan?

This last claim by the author is a libel against the U.S. military.  The U.S. military has hundreds of thousands of troops not in Iraq or Afghanistan.  If there were a resource deficit--rather than a tactical or strategic deficit--then soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and their equipment could be deployed to meet the task.

In conclusion, Saddam's Iraq was not a bulwark against an aggressive Iran, in any sense.  The PRC has not and will not act contrary to its own perceived interests, which include the exploitation of dictatorial regimes to acquire natural resources.  Finally, the U.S. has not diverted resources--the light footprint in Afghanistan was a tactical choice--from Afghanistan to Iraq.  The resources could have been produced had the strategy called for them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The end of American Exceptionalism

And American Exceptionalism ended: not with the bang of a nuclear attack, or in a hail of gunfire of a coup d'état, or under the effects of a debilitating pandemic, but, rather, with an infantile cry for more government services.
 
Mark Steyn has been known to discuss how single payer health care so skews the relationship between the citizen and the state that future elections will be about the left promising more services and the "right" promising to deliver existing services in a more efficient manner.  The problem is that we've already reached that point (i.e. Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, and even partial privatization of Social Security).  There was no Waterloo or turning point.
 
It can not even be placed for certain on a timeline: was it FDR's New Deal, or perhaps earlier, with TR's progressivism?  Could it have been the Warren Court, or LBJ's Great Society?  Maybe Medicare or Social Security?  Perhaps the 16th or 17th Amendments?
 
Whenever it was, American Exceptionalism, based upon the unique combination of rugged individualism and Toqueville's "associations", has surrendered to a typical combination of infantile collectivism and childish narcissism found in emotionally immature and "secure" Western nations.
 
America is about the "individual", no longer individuals.  Rather than viewing Americans as individuals, the political class views Americans as individual members of groups.  Seeing America as a nation of individuals made Americans reliant on themselves and their social networks and families.  America about the "individual" merely means that America has groups of people that must be catered to as individuals so as to be able to fully self-actualize (whatever that means).
 
America has been reduced to the point where jobs producing, protecting, and maintaining have given way before an onslaught of political catering, organizing, and "rights" agitating.  Those who produce, protect, and maintain now do so in ways that are approved by the political class.  Instead of doing so within the law, these are now expected to do so within the framework of countless regulations (read: laws created and enacted by the executive).
 
The political class in America views its duties as encompassing those traditionally held by States (in Police powers), churches (social sanctions and moral education), families (education and caring for the elderly), unions (protecting workers), and business (creating jobs and growing and distributing wealth).  The over-arching state intrudes in every aspect of our lives (for example, limitations on greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide--produced every time we breathe--which is effectively a lever to population control, which enters our bedrooms).
 
The over-arching state seeks to protect us from ourselves, our decisions, and the difficulties that come with life.  The over-arching state regulates what we can eat.  The over-arching state regulates what marriage is (a definition that has been, for most of human civilization, in the hands of religion and the family.  The over-arching state says where we may send our children for school and what they may be taught there.  The over-arching state "delivers" us from the consequences of our decisions, creating a nation of moral and psychological infants.
 
The over-arching state creates a society unwilling to face difficulties.  And a society unwilling to face difficulties as challenges, but, instead viewing them as "unfair", is a society which has no self-confidence.  For all the emphasis on "self-esteem" in schools, children are not actually placed in an environment where self-esteem can be developed.  Self-esteem does not develop where it is nurtured, it develops where it is earned.
 
Such a nation cannot long survive in the face of "adult" nations.  At a time of Russian imperialism (for all the talk of American imperialism, it must be noted that America is the only "empire" in the history of the world that allows conquered nations to write their own laws, govern themselves, and expects no taxes or revenues from the conquered nations), North Korean insanity, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, Venezuela's center of a collectivist latin power bloc, and the myriad other foreign policy concerns, America cannot afford to demonstrate childishness.  An America able to assert itself in its own interests, alas, no longer exists.
 
Some may claim that President Bush's "adventurism" soured Americans on foreign policy assertiveness, but America had soured on the sacrifice required years earlier.  The over-arching state has cushioned out of America the ability to sacrifice years ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I don't...

Perhaps this is no longer topical, but I fear it will be.

I do not apologize for slavery.

I do not apologize for western imperialism.

I don't apologize for Jim Crow laws.

In fact, I don't apologize for anything that I am not responsible for.  It is the height of arrogance to presume to apologize for others.  It is even worse when those for whom you apologize are dead and gone, and you cannot even bother to put into context what it is you are apologizing for.

Yes, Europeans engaged in the heinous practice of slavery.  Slaves they purchased from other Africans.  Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery amongst the Turks.  Arab Africans continue the practice of selling captives into slavery.  Slavery is not a European failing.  It is a human failing.

Stronger nations invade and conquer other nations, and have done so since the beginning of civilization.  The Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Mongols, Turks, Franks, Normans, Zulus, etc.  This is not a last 500 years development.  This extends back to antiquity.  Further, every colonized "nation" has had a full generation or more to recover in freedom.  Instead, far too many "nations" have fallen into bickering or despotism.  At some point, those actually making the decisions need to be held responsible for their actions, instead of shifting the responsibility to dead white men.

Jim Crow is indeed a black eye on our nation's history. Jim Crow ended decades ago.  Now, the only political racism is that of gerry-mandering Congressional districts to guarantee a black or hispanic Congressman.  Economic racism?  Free enterprise; if someone wants to alienate potential customers, let him be stupid, as he won't be in business long.

In sum, our President does himself, the country, and his office a disservice when he wanders the globe apologizing for this, that, and the other.  He demonstrates both arrogance and ignorance (a dangerous combination) when he does so.

Perhaps he is under the delusion that the reason people don't "like" us, is that we haven't apologized.  If so, I recommend he return to kindergarten and do some growing up.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The retreating individual

If it is true, as I was taught growing up, that rugged individualism is what made this country great, then what is to be made of the creeping collectivism?

We are fast reaching the point where a "nanny state" is our strong protector, a bulwark against the results of our decisions, and the guarantor of our rights and happiness.  We have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.  Our rights are best protected by ourselves--to make the state our protector is to surrender our rights and autonomy to the State.  Dealing with the consequences of our decisions enables us to be fully human.

Firstly, only we can know what makes us happy; the State cannot know.  The State also cannot individually guarantee each of our happiness; we are left with a collective vision of happiness, one size fits all happiness.  Common sense tells us that this is madness.  We are individuals and cannot be satisfied by what satisfies everyone else.  We all have had different experiences, DNA, and nurture, and these all shape what we would seek in the pursuit of happiness.  The attempt to achieve some mean will allow no one's happiness (or even the pursuit thereof), and likely have the opposite consequence.

Secondly, to surrender the defense of our rights to the State--the very thing which is most likely to infringe upon our rights--is to invite the wolf to act as shepherd, or fox as guardian of the hen-house.  It is to sink into some sort of contented almost-humanity wherein we trust to the benevolence of the State and the perpetual prosperity of the producing class.  It is to trust to the good will and work ethic of others.  It is perpetual childhood--as the term "nanny state" implies.  It places, not only one's health and prosperity in the hands of others, but also one's potential for happiness.  Such a circumstance directly contradicts the "pursuit of happiness".

Thirdly, as touched on previously, when we are shielded from the negative results of our decisions, we are little more than children--not knowing right or wrong, but always being protected from inevitable consequences.  We sink to the point where our world is childproofed--every electrical outlet has covers and every drawer and cupboard is latched.  We cannot achieve our full potential if we cannot learn from our mistakes.  We cannot learn from our mistakes if we are shielded from the consequences of our mistakes.

In sum, the inevitable results of the creeping collectivism is a society unable to defend itself against those stronger than itself (i.e. "when the Cruels meet the Clevers, there won't be the ghost of a fight"--C.S. Lewis "The Pilgrim's Regress").  A society unable to defend itself (think French aristocracy circa 1790) will not last long.  The creeping collectivism will be the death of America and of the West, unless it can be checked. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Nature of Rights

When one depends upon the federal government to guard "rights" that properly belong to state, local, social, or individual authority, one does not protect one's rights.  One surrenders them to the federal government.  An entity powerful enough to guarantee "rights" is powerful enough to take them away.  They are, then, no longer rights, but mere privileges granted by our benevolent overlord.

Take, for example, the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Now, because the right of the people to bear arms is mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over the "right".  As such, the government has passed laws restricting that right.  Laws that might even seem reasonable, such as bans on assault rifles or artillery pieces. 

One might say that the founders could not envision such weapons, otherwise they would not have written the second amendment so broadly.  If one were to say that, however, one would be wrong.  The founders were able to envision progress and they wrote that into this brilliant document: Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows the amendment process in order to update the document when it becomes out of date.

Ergo, restrictions on the second amendment demonstrate that the right to bear arms is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats who so broadly influence our lives.

Consider, as another example, the "right to privacy".  It appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution because the founders did not create a government entity capable of invading the citizens' privacy.  Such intrusions were for state or local governments.  Ergo, the founders did not include such a right, and it was, therefore, a right. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court discovered a right to privacy (hidden amongst the emanations from penumbra), privacy became a federal concern.  Now, our right to privacy is contingent upon the good will of Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

Any affirmatively granted right is not a right, but a privilege granted by one in authority.  The U.S. Constitution is not, primarily, a listing of rights, but rather a technical document describing the functioning of a new system of government.  Certain founders who were opposed to any listing of rights understood that such a list could unnecessarily limit those rights held by the people.  Further, any listing of rights gives the federal government jurisdiction over those rights, to adjudicate them as it will.

In the current context, one can hear certain groups or politicians talking about the "right to a job" or the "right to health-care".  What does this actually mean?

If the federal government is suddenly the guarantor of a "right to a job", then the federal government has authority to determine who works where, for how long, for what pay, et cetera.  It is no longer a right that individuals guarantee themselves through hard work, determination, and perseverance, but rather, a privilege granted by an authority.

Likewise, the "right to health-care" becomes a benevolent gift granted by our overlord and may be dispensed as he wills.  Treatment can be denied out of spite, boredom, or for any reason at all, let alone when the federal government so badly runs the system that it runs out of money.

We place ourselves at the mercy of bureaucrats, interest groups, and politicians when we allow our inalienable rights to be "guaranteed" by the federal government.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sen Kennedy

The brilliant Mark Steyn has delivered the perfect obituary for Sen Edward Kennedy.

Sen Kennedy--the liberal lion of the Senate--publicly certain of his rectitude and moral superiority to the end of his life, is dead.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

His politics--reflexive redistributionist collectivism--were heinous enough.  His contributions to public discourse, i.e. the back alley abortion speech; and his legislative contributions, i.e. No Child Left Behind, did much to advance his political agenda.  Perhaps one can respect his single minded devotion to his redistributionist collectivism, but one must condemn the politics themselves.

Mark Steyn perfectly sums up the modern Liberal credo: "If a towering giant cares so much about humanity in general, why get hung up on his carelessness with humans in particular?"  The modern Liberal seems to care more about humanity, i.e. global warming, social justice, "human rights", than he does about the individuals who must live under the laws and regulations promulgated to protect and guard a largely imaginary "humanity".

Humans have ever been singular and individual.  The collectivist impulse denies this, in order to achieve a heaven on earth.  It is unfortunate, however, that what leads to a theoretical "heaven on earth" so badly harms individuals.

Rest in peace Mary Jo Kopechne.

As far as Sen Kennedy, I find myself having very unChristian thoughts imagining what Dante would have had in store for Sen Kennedy's purification in purgatory.
Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789102829Next »