Sen Kerry is a knucklehead:

""It is unfortunate that President Bush would want to invoke a false comparison of Vietnam to Iraq, but not surprising that he would oversimplify the differences and overlook the tragic similarities," said Kerry, who served in Vietnam. "If the president wants to heed the lessons of Vietnam, he should change course and change course now," he added. "  (Emphasis added).

Article

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'd like to ask a few questions.

1) Is an inherently unstable regime sitting on top of one of the largest exploited oil reserves in the world in our interest, or is it in our interest that a stable and responsible regime control those resources (don't laugh Saudi Arabia, you're next)?

2) Fine, Sen Reid, invading Iraq was a horrible mistake, but what the heck does that have to do with leaving the country to the al-Quds brigades, Wahabbi missionaries, AQI, assorted private militia, and assorted terrorist organizations?  (The concession in the first part of the sentence was merely for the sake of argument).

3) Did UBL, in his fatawah (unofficial, as he's not a scholar, he's not entitled to proclaim fatawah), use the U.S. retreat from Viet Nam as evidence of the U.S.'s weakness?  (Yes).  And if so, wouldn't it be a valid lesson to learn that retreat before an outnumbered, outgunned, outclassed enemy incapable of defeating you leads to a weakened position in world affairs? 

4) What the heck is Sen Reid smoking?

In Spain, this passes for news analysis.

Talk about pathetic.

Even if you concur with the conclusion, one cannot help but be struck by the complete lack of actual "analysis".  Torquemada makes a claim...and then nothing.  How about some premises leading up to the conclusion, with some arguments in support of your premises?

That is feeble.  It's like the letters to the editor of your local, low circulation newspapers from the usual cranks.  You know the ones: you see the name at the bottom of the letter and skip the letter--unless you'd like a laugh.

(The "analysis" isn't any better in Spanish, either).

Senator Warner, why is getting out of Iraq more important than securing our interests there?  Or do we not have interests there, in which case, ought we not just leave immediately?

Sen. Warner's (and others') insistence on teaching Iraqi politicians a lesson because they won't play ball with Congress' demands is idiocy.  No one wants us to remain in Iraq indefinitely, but we cannot permit a power vacuum to form--a vacuum that would be filled by the al-Quds brigade, Wahabbi missionaries, and assorted terrorist entities.  Because we cannot permit that vacuum to form, we are left with the unenviable position of remaining until the task is complete (a stable, responsible Iraq--of any political stripe).  If we must baby Iraqi politicians along, then we must.  They do not want us there any longer than necessary: I seriously doubt that they're slow walking progress to keep us in their country longer.

Threatening Iraqi politicians with abandoning them to the wolves, is at best an empty threat--they know we cannot morally or strategically carry it out--or it is an invitation for fence-sitting Iraqis to pick sides with the assumed victors: AQI, Iran, and private militias.

How about some responsibility from our alleged leaders?

Everyone and their dog has seen this by now, but it's still funny (and the bleeding hyperlink function on Townhall doesn't want to work).


An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.  ...

H/T Media Blog on NRO

Wow.  Those guys at AFP are geniuses.  They can't even be bothered to find spent rounds.  If those bullets hit her home during a raid, then they had to be thrown. 

I hope the ROE in Iraq don't call for the throwing, rather than firing, of ammunition.

During the course of my job the other day I spoke to an individual (actually, I speak to lots of individuals, but this particular one evinced a revealing attitude).  Many individuals I come into contact with during the course of my day assign me politics they agree with, and for the most part, I merely smile and nod--the discussion of politics in my job is inappropriate.

This particular individual commented on a statement made by Vice President Cheney in 1995 or so, wherein the V.P. enumerated the reasons why we ought not invade Iraq and remove Saddam.  I haven't bothered to check youtube or whatever for the comments.

Why?

Because they are irrelevant.  They would only be controlling and demonstrate that the V.P. has a tenuous connection to reality if, and only if, circumstances were exactly the same in 2003 as they were in 1995.

This is a perfect demonstration of the 9/10 mindset (actually, I'd place it pre-embassy bombings, when AQ first demonstrated its ability to strike multiple targets simultaneously, thereby demonstrating UBL's ability to carry out his threats on the U.S.).  It assumes either that circumstances don't matter, or are not relevant.

Let us consider changes concerning Iraq after 1995:
Saddam's son in law defected and detailed hidden elements of Saddam's WMD programs (1995);

Saddam booted out the weapons inspectors (1998);

AQ issued two declarations of war against the U.S. (1995 and 1998);

Saddam sponsored an aborted terrorist attack on RFE/RL in Prague;

President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government;

Saddam's and UBL's alleged ties to a pharmaceuticals plant in Khartoum were used to justify lobbing cruise missiles at the site after the East Africa embassy bombings (1998--1998 was kind of a watershed year);

Abdul Yasin, one of the original WTC bombers, lived in Baghdad, allegedly under arrest since 1993 (how many prisoners of Saddam could have survived 10 years imprisonment?) and was used as a bargaining chip in an attempt to force the U.S. to lift sanctions;

Additionally, the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, Saddam continued to subsidize terrorism in Israel, Saddam continued to have his anti-aircraft batteries fire at US and UK aircraft patrolling the "No-Fly" Zones, and more than 3,000 civilians were murdered 09/11/2001, among other changes of circumstance.

In sum, being unable to comprehend a difference in the circumstances justifying the invasion of Iraq in 1995 and those in 2003 (or 1998, for that matter), is either willful ignorance or it is the blind ignoring of all contrary data. 

The intellectually challenged are not always easy to deal with.  The intentionally obtuse and intentionally ignorant are downright irritating.  One believes that if one merely points out the obvious, then perhaps a person might see.  When one is confronting the willfully obtuse, one is fighting a losing battle because such people are impervious to reason, already having redefined commonly understood reality to fit their preconceived notions.

Lewrockwell.com, (I don't know why I follow links there: one is confronted with some of the poorest reasoning this side of kindergarten) has an article  which calls the Continental Army terrorists, and alleges that the U.S. is guilty of violating its own laws against terrorism.

This is facile and ignorant on its face.  Terrorists are not legitimate state actors.  The Continental Army was the uniformed military of a duly constituted Nation-State.  Granted, the U.S. was not recognized, initially (many countries do not recognize Israel or Taiwan, but that doesn't make them "non-countries"), but the U.S. had filed a list of grievances with the monarch and formally declared it independence.  The Continental Army was trained and uniformed (even, if poorly on both counts).  The Continental Army followed the recognized rules of war of the time.

Colonial militia used guerrilla tactics, including the targeting of officers and intimidation of those loyal to the crown.  One may make a serious argument that the militia engaged in acts of terrorism, but to call General Washington a terrorist is the height of willfull ignorance. 

I've covered this before, but will briefly do so again.  I'm a big fan of Martha Crenshaw's dichotomy.  Guerrillas use legitimate military tactics, attack legitimate military targets, and have a chance of success.  Guerrillas may use terrorist tactics, on occasion, but for the most part stay within the lines.  Terrorists may, on occasion, use guerrilla tactics, but they use terrorist tactics as a first resort.

Colonial militia would be better characterized as a guerrilla army.  They engaged in acts of terrorism, such as intimidation, but predominantly engaged in defense and targeted legitimate targets, using unorthodox, but otherwise honorable tactics.

As to the second canard, that the U.S. is currently engaging in acts, which would violate U.S. laws against terrorism, one can find no actual examples in the article.  One, apparently, needs to be an initiate into the church of over-reaction.

I believe a first tenet of this church requires a total and complete misunderstanding of the Constitution:
>One does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning things done in public, i.e. checking a book out at a library (government entity...hello?) or buying a book at a book store.

>One does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning information transmitted to or through third parties.  The only reason the phone company does not record phone calls and publish them is that it would be bad business practice.

>The U.S. Constitution does not govern the behavior of other countries.  If Jordan is willing to use physical coercion, including torture, to interrogate detained persons, the U.S. Constitution does not restrain them in any way.  Whether or not the U.S. ought to engage in sending suspects to such nations (I cannot for the life of me remember the term for that) is a matter of debate, but it is not, on its face un-Constitutional.

A second tenet seems to revolve around the fiction of "international law".  I've covered this before, but will do so again briefly.  Law requires a coercive authority empowered to enforce that law, or the penalties for violating that law.  Absent such a coercive force, law is not law.  It is a powerless ideal, at best.

The author, who shall remain nameless (as well as brainless, but I can't do anything about that), misquotes the definition of terrorism.  As everyone knows, the government cannot define anything in only one sentence (that's the actual definition). 

The author, in addition to pronouncing Gen Washington a terrorist, seems to imagine that demonstrators can be considered terrorists, under U.S. law.  This is stupid.  I'd like to see this guy honestly argue that anti-abortion demonstrators (to be distinguished from those few who shoot doctors, for any willfully ignorant who've managed to read this far) are attempting to intimidate the government into changing its policies vis a vis abortion, or intimidate or coerce a population.

If this knucklehead were capable of reading he might learn something.

I suppose I ought to cut this guy some slack.  Apparently he's a high school student. 

No, wait...re-reading the article, he appears to be a high school teacher.

It may be axiomatic, but one cannot convince those who will not listen.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Saddam's Iraq held missiles which exceeded the maximum allowable distance. He also held the ability to rapidly restart his WMD programs.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Saddam consistently obstructed the inspectors. Saddam's insistence on keeping his "palaces" off-limits made the task of the inspectors impossible. His insistence on advance warning permitted him to move banned materiel before inspectors could arrive.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Regime change in Iraq was the official position of the U.S. government.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Without the blood and treasure of the U.S. and U.K. Iraqi Kurds and Shi'a would have suffered constant reprisals--like those visited on them after the U.S. encouraged and then abandoned an uprising. The U.S. was already on a war footing vis a vis Iraq.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Saddam was executed for one of his heinous crimes.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

The firing on U.S. aircraft is undeniable. U.S. aircraft would not have been necessary if Saddam hadn't been a butcher.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Zarqawi was in Iraq. Abbas, the murderer of Leon Klinghoffer and member of Black September, was also in Iraq. Same with Yasin, one of the bombers of the WTC in 1993. Both men were allegedly under house arrest, but they were given free rein. Abu Nidal was based out of Baghdad for the second time in his bloody career. Nidal, however, committed suicide by shooting himself in the back, several times, with a rifle, at his apartment in Baghdad. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism going back decades.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

See State Department Annual Reports for a listing of Saddam's Iraq's support and sponsorship of terrorism, acts of terrorism, and terrorist organizations. This includes subsidizing suicide bombings in Israel.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Since 1979 radical Islam has been waging a war of terrorism against the West and the U.S. This includes the kidnapping of Americans and the act of war by seizing American territory. This includes kidnappings in Beirut; the Achille Lauro; the WTC bombing of 1993; bombings of barracks in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia; the U.S.S. Cole; the embassy bombings in 1998; et cetera. The murder of 3,000 civilians brought this reality to the forefront of everyone. It was no longer something that could be ignored. It could not be kept out of the headlines by lobbing a few cruise missiles at training camps.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whether or not Saddam would have been willing to deliver WMD to terrorists is, likely, a matter of debate, but Saddam's prior use of WMD, his co-operation with terrorist groups, made the nexus untenable, from an American security point of view, especially as the U.S. was currently running no-fly zones, which restricted Saddam's authority.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

The preceding four paragraphs dealt with the legal justification for the invasion.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Russia is not merely becoming closer to the PRC, but also selling nuclear technology to Iran, selling arms to Chavez, using energy blackmail to exert control over former Soviet Republics, and the EU. Russia, under Putin, is increasingly regressing to complete criminal autocracy—if they haven’t reached that point already.

Russia is likely more dangerous now, than it was under the communists—not saying, of course, that the collapse of communism was bad—merely that former Sovietologists and Cold Warriors will increasingly be finding their skill sets in demand.

The length of time, combined with the entrenched power structure of the USSR made Soviet behavior predictable, if not rational. They’d foment unrest in the Third World, sponsor tin pot dictators, oppose the US/UK at the UN, rattle some sabers, and be completely economically dependent on US aid.

Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, is behaving as the Islamic Republic of Iran did in the early days of the Revolution—expropriating foreign property and business interests, using criminal protective rackets to control “free enterprise”, etc. Putin’s Russia is also catering/courting tin pot dictators—such as Kim, Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Chavez—but Putin’s Russia is not yet reliant on Western Aid for its survival because of the price of oil.

Putin’s Russia will become progressively more bellicose as its Western built infrastructure begins to deteriorate under the weight of corruption and incompetence. Putin’s Russia, like Iran, will have to import refined products because the kleptocracy will not be able to encourage the initiative required to maintain such capabilities. Until then, however, Putin’s Russia will live high on the hog—much like Chavez’s Venezuela—buying friends and influence far outweighing its military or economic might.

Any out of work Cold Warriors may want to prep their résumés for the next Administration.

This is why it is so dangerous for our Congress to be so intent on an American defeat. A defeated America will be strategically weakened and will be unable to influence bad actors to behave. It is bad enough that we’ve given Kim what is effectively a free pass. It is bad enough that we outsource our diplomacy vis a vis Iran to the toothless and ineffectual EU. It is bad enough that we look to Iran and Syria as responsible actors. We cannot continue to compound our self-imposed limitations by being blind to “grave and gathering threat(s)”.

President Bush identified Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil”. Iraq has been dealt with (or rather, is being dealt with). North Korea has “agreed” to shut down its nuclear reactor, unfortunately while leaving North Korea in possession of its nuclear material and nuclear weapons. Nothing, apparently, is to be done about North Korea’s ballistic missile program.

Iran, apparently, is our “ally” in confronting the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. What, with their alleged interest in “stability” in Iraq, Iran is permitted to kidnap US citizens at will, smuggle arms to “Iraqi” insurgents, and deploy their “diplomats” to assist and train “Iraqi” insurgents.

It’s time we considered a harsh word concerning Iran, North Korea, and Russia. North Korea is a criminal enterprise disguised as a Nation-State. Russia is another criminal enterprise disguised as a Nation-State. Iran is a seventh century tyranny.

Ignoring our enemies does not appear to be working.

Russia is expelling four British diplomats and is going to cease co-operating with London in the war on terror.

Considering Russia, under Putin, has engaged in assassination of Russian ex-pats critical of Putin, living in Britain, Russia has precious little standing  to complain of anything Britain's diplomats may have done, this is best described as chutzpah.

The circumstances were brought about by Russia's refusal to extradite a suspect in the murder of Litvinenko, according to the Reuters story.

That's the start of a sign that caught my eye as I was driving down St Germaine in St Cloud, MN the other day.  The sign is on the west wall of the old brick building, so I had to drive around to the front to see the name of the business.

I drove past the front and saw the name of the business: MN Halal and Grocery.

St Cloud is in, perhaps, the most conservative Congressional District of Minnesota, but St Cloud is a college town: not exactly a hotbed of conservatism.

What did the rest of the sign say?

Get U.S. out of the UN.

I just thought it was classic and expressed my sentiments exactly.  There's absolutely no point in this post.

I was always under the impression that former President James Carter was merely a terrible President, and, later, senility made him an apologist for some of the most vicious tyrants of the last 30 years.  I was wrong.  President Carter has a long and disgusting history as an appeaser of tyrants.

I, thankfully, missed the Carter Administration, but, unfortunately, the rest of the world wasn't quite so lucky.

President Carter threw the Shah under the bus.  Mugabe, however, President Carter (and his administration) helped gain power.

An article in the Weekly Standard from several weeks ago (I was away and now I'm trying to catch up on The Weekly Standard and NR) discusses how tyranny came to Zimbabwe. 

After Zimbabwe achieved its independence from the British Crown in 1965, it did not begin to transition to majority rule until the late 1970s.  Prime Minister Ian Smith vehemently opposed the idea of majority rule, but, eventually did bow to the winds of change.

After rejecting a Callaghan-Carter plan which would have incorporated Mugabe's rebels into the army, Smith and moderate Zimbabwean black leaders came up with an "internal settlement", with a transitional government formed of those moderate leaders.  The settlement reserved 28 seats in the 100 seat parliament for whites.  Future prime minister Muzorewa while disappointed in the plan, stated that it provided "the machinery for dismantling the structure and practices of colonialism and racism and of minority rule."  

Muzorewa, an American educated minister, was elected in 1979.  

President Carter, and other elements of the international left, condemned the elections as a fraud, because all parties were not represented (this would include Mugabe's ZANU, which refused to participate, on the grounds that participation would hinder Mugabe's ascension to absolute power).  African dictators condemned the result also.

The U.S. Congress sought to repeal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe-Rhodesia), but the administration did not hold the elections to be free and fair because the Soviet and Chinese trained ZANU and ZAPF did not participate.

The guerrilla war continued unabated.  Muzorewa was unable to secure recognition from any government for his government and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was crushed under sanctions.  Zimbabwe was isolated internationally (see, it can be done, but apparently not for dangerous regimes, i.e. Iran).

A new set of negotiations was held in London, this time with the guerrillas participating.  A new round of elections was held, and Mugabe used strongarm tactics to secure victory.

President Carter declared victory also and lifted sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Mugabe's 27 plus years of tyranny began, with the complicity of President Carter.

What is the difference between the Shah of Iran and Mugabe?  Mugabe made his intentions of only abiding by the election if he won known.  Mugabe's strongarm tactics were obvious for all to see.

The Shah supported Israel, and was likely Israel's strongest ally in the history of the Israeli republic, the U.S. included.  He could also be considered a "right-wing" tyrant.  Mugabe, on the other hand, while not the Soviet or Chinese agent he was feared to be, was and is definitely a "left-wing" tyrant.

President Carter will apparently excuse any excess if committed by a leftist--Chavez, Castro, Kim, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, et cetera.

President Carter apparently does not understand that the ends do not justify the means. 

Pinochet and Franco were successful tyrants.  They established stable nations with vibrant economies and, either provided the means for their democratic succession (Franco) or stepped down after an election.  This does not, however, excuse their tyranny. 

Kim, Mugabe, Castro, etc are aggressively unsuccessful tyrants, leaving behind a trail of starvation, failed stated controlled economies and brutal oppression.  This does not make their tyranny more blameworthy; it merely exacerbates the human cost of their tyranny.

It's okay with President Carter, though, because they're leftists.

If there is a more reprehensible man than President Carter, I don't know who it is (there is no greater evil than that which is committed for a good cause).

Is there any more morally and intellectually bankrupt position, than to be anti-war?

it is akin to being anti-mean to others.  It is meaningless.  

People don't like war.  As Gen Sherman said, "It is a good thing that war is hell, or we might grow fond of it".  War is a terrible thing.  It destroys people's lives.  Shatters families.  Crushes economies.

On the other hand, an unjust peace has the same consequences.  An unjust peace destroys lives and families.  Creates a climate of fear.  Makes war and other unpleasant occurrences significantly more likely.  Either dooms an economy or artificially builds up an unsustainable economy (USSR).

Those who prefer an unjust peace to a just war are unfathomable to me.  A just war may sow the seeds of a just peace.  At a minimum, a war, just or not, shatters the illusion of "peace" that exists in an unjust peace.

Peace is not the mere absence of war.  My idea of peace, no doubt, owes much to the Anglo-Saxon perspective I have absorbed living in the United States, but a just peace must rely upon the rule of law and the voluntary, peaceful transition of authority, non-arbitrary justice, and respect for property rights.  There are, likely, other elements required for a just peace, but I'm shooting from the lip here after reading a particularly noxious website description.  (Writing without thinking ahead--likely not the greatest idea).

Earlier this week I engaged in an e-mail debate with the commenter known as parryisle (I'm really slow--I only recently got the reference).

We discussed the war in Iraq, and needless to say, we stake out opposite sides of the issue.  The debate was civil, and though neither of us convinced the other--this isn't the sort of thing that one is going to change their mind about b/c of a few e-mails--we were able to civilly state our positions.

Parryisle gave me permission to post his original e-mail and my response--he said, perhaps it would lead some of those "spectators" adamantly in favor of the war in Iraq to step out of the stands.

Here goes (less identifying information):

Subject: Let's Give A Cheer and One Cheer More For The Draft Dodgers Who Send Others To Fight Their Wars.
>Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:48:48 GMT
>
>I am not impressed when reading that our military supports Bush's War. The recent re-enlistments of soldiers in Iraq was exploited by Fox News without commenting that our forces disproportionately consist of the nation's economic under-class and the generous bonuses offered were the primary motivation not that the loved fighting in a war which those that sent them to would never send themselves of their family members. When I was serving the draft existed and Libertarians complained it was this that kept the wages of service personnel at levels of peonage. One the socialistic/communistic structure of the the services kept life bearable since food, clothing, shelter and health care were provided to members and their families. And, of course, as in communism you followed orders and kept your mouth shut never complaining about inept leadership or unfavorable conditions. Rather than today receiving the re-up bonus up to $40,000 at the time it amounted to about 39 cents a day for four years. When a family member died it was par for the course that the entire post or base would be asked for contributions since few members bothered to keep either an adequate bank account or a life insurance policy. We had five kids killed in driving accident and we were all surprised that the services did not pay to get the victims back to the stateside cities. What surprised me most about this era was the GIs were envied by foreign troops, especially in Britain, because our forces received far more money than they did. Maybe "envied" does not truly define the real truth which was they hated the GIs because of their money and goodies to win over the local ladies. But these rantings do not address the crucial issue which is "why are not the Rich and Famous motivated to join these wars they love and support? Has anyone at Fox News ever served or wore an American uniform? If so, please tell us who!! I know during World War 2 we did resent the 4fs and others who were not serving though our news media followed Hollywood's lead if these people claimed homosexual preferences by not identifying them.

My response:

One of the morning guys of fox and friends weekend, Greg Kelly, was a USMC harrier pilot.

That, of course, is not relevant to whether or not the argument for or against is valid.  One's identity is irrelevant to the validity of an argument.  If it were, the present debate would be entirely non-sensical: Sen McCain is a supporter of the war, Rep Murtha is not.  My parents and roughly half of the troops I drill with support the war, while roughly half the troops do not.  That is a meaningless canard.

The relevant questions are:
--Was the war justified?
--Is continuing the war justified?

Firstly, as to whether or not the war was justified, the Congress listed 23 paragraphs detailing why the war was necessary and proper.  Some the the given reasons have proven incorrect, but the Congress--DNC and GOP alike--would not have put the paragraphs in if they did not believe them to be true.

This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the Congress was deceived, intentionally or no, by the Administration.  The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have failed to determine any such thing, but for the sake of argument, that could be the result of stonewalling by the Administration.

Even if the Congress were deceived on certain points, that would not, in any way, negate the points that were borne out.  Saddam's Iraq was on the State Department list of terrorist sponsoring nations for a quarter century.  Saddam subsidized terrorism in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.  Saddam daily violated the cease fire by firing on US and UK pilots patrolling the No Fly zones, put into effect in order to prevent a repeat of Saddam's slaughter after the first Gulf War where the US and the coalition abandoned the Shi'a and Kurds.  Saddam was circumventing the sanctions and enriching himself, at the expense of his people.  The virtually imminent collapse of the sanctions, as of Feb 2003, would have been compounded by Saddam's retention of the ability to rapidly restart his WMD programs.

Just war requires a legitimate actor, a legitimate cause, and a legitimate intention.  The US is a legitimate government.  Even if one argues that President Bush is illegitimate, it does not follow that his Administration is illegitimate.  Why is that?  B/c President was sworn in under the terms of the Constitution, in accordance with relevant local laws.

The intention to remove Saddam was no doubt legitimate and is connected to a legitimate cause, in light of his documented crimes against his people, the people of Iran, and the people of Kuwait, to say nothing of the people of Saudi Arabia or Israel.  Saddam was a brutal tyrant who murdered his citizens out of hand, sponsored the murder of Americans (RFE/RL in 1998 and Pres Bush in 1993), sheltered the murderers of Americans (Abu Nidal, Yasin, Abbas), and subsidized the murder of American allies.

One may question the wisdom of the democracy project, but one cannot deny that Saddam was a brutal tyrant whose rule was illegitimate.

Does it necessarily follow that force was required, under the circumstances?  No it does not necessarily follow.  I would argue, however, that due to the imminent collapse of the sanctions regime, the protracted air war that the U.S. was engaged in, which was an extension of the first Gulf War, and Saddam's support of terrorists, combined with the proactive stance that the U.S. had taken after 9/11 required the U.S. to strike at terrorist sponsoring nations.  Iraq was merely the most convenient (b/c U.S. troops were already present in the area) and easiest to make a case against b/c of the previous (and on-going) war.

Secondly, as to the legitimacy or necessariness of continuing the war, it is beyond doubt that negative repercussions would visit the Mid East, if the U.S. were to prematurely leave.  Do those negative repercussions outweigh the negative results of staying?

This is conjecture, as neither result can be gaged accurately, but certain reasonable assumptions may be made.

The continued presence of U.S. troops will continue to provide a recruiting tool for jihadists and Qutbites.  The continued presence of U.S. troops will continue to result in the deaths of brave American service members.  The U.S. military will continue to be stretched to the bending point--not all arrows are out of the quiver yet b/c Guardsmen and reservists can be mobilized for the duration of a conflict, plus six months--which will necessitate the enlarging of the military, especially the Army and USMC.  The U.S., should it remain, will continue to bear the bulk of the financial costs of the struggle.

These are known results, based upon what has happened thus far.

What will happen if the U.S. were to leave must be extrapolated based upon results from Somalia, Viet Nam, and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan may be the most relevant b/c there were multiple nations seeking to draw the new Afghanistan into their sphere of influence.  Communists continued, briefly to hold some power in Kabul.  The anarchy which resulted from the collapse of the central government and competing warlords influenced Pakistan to fund a militia--the Taliban--in an attempt to bring order to Afghanistan and make Afghanistan a client state of Pakistan (as well as provide a safety valve for the unemployed, religiously--Deobandi--trained young males).  The resulting civil war provided the lack of central authority necessary for terrorists to open training camps.

Retreating from Iraq would leave an opening for the Mullahs of Iran to exert their influence over radical Shi'a elements in Iraq.  The Sunnis would largely turn to our ostensible ally, Saudi Arabia, and her state religion, Wahhabism.  The resulting civil and ethnic strife would likely provide an ideal training ground for terrorists.  The fight itself would provide terrorists with the experience that the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets did.  The Kurds would struggle with extremist elements in their own ranks, which would likely lead to an invasion by Turkey, our NATO ally.

The retreat from Iraq would provide a recruiting poster similar to that provided by our retreat from Somalia.

The retreat from Iraq would cripple American ability to act in the Mid East, by showing the U.S. to be a paper tiger.

The retreat from Iraq would fatally damage our efforts to rein in the DPRK and Iranian nuclear programs, as our demonstrated weakness would make our "threats" appear empty.  Additionally, our allies in the Iranian and DPRK situations, would fold b/c of the failure of American will.

These are only likelihoods, and I for one, hope that we do not find out whether or not they would occur.

Now, to address your contention that the American military is made up, disproportionately, of the lower classes, experience tells me that this is false.  But anecdotal evidence is notoriously misleading and I would be a fool to trust it. 

"On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said."  (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18225)

This makes sense b/c military members are disproportionately drawn from rural areas, where military service is not just a way to pay for college, but also to get away from home.

Military members are also better educated than the average American.

The socialist canard does not hold up.

If you are aware of research indicating otherwise, please direct me to it.

Thank you for the time you've taken to respond.  I hope that I have been rational and coherent throughout.  I know that I have not changed your mind, but that really isn't the point.  We are both decided; the object is to convince those who, for some reason, are undecided.

The Interface has a post on his blog titled, The face of evil. This blog provides a link to a Michael Yon piece, concerning same.

I’d been wrestling with a way to argue the sanctity of non-combatants in a way that goes beyond merely, “you don’t kill non-combatants”, as this is not accepted by the vicious murderers who oppose the West. The AQ philosophy is that non-combatants participate in the decadence of the West and support the West’s “oppression” of Muslims through their tax dollars and acquiescence to their government’s policies.

The Interface’s brief commentary launched me into a bit of a thought. What follows is largely the comment I left for the Interface.

Even if one stipulates that terrorists are justified in being angry at the U.S., it does not follow that they are therefore justified in murdering non-combatants. The Qutbite and Arafat fiction that civilians contribute to the military through their taxes and by supporting their troops is logically and morally unsustainable. Even chaplains serving in the military, without arms, are considered off-limits.

An analogy, perhaps, is appropriate (anyone mildly familiar with Islamic jurisprudence will appreciate it, at any rate). I am a fan of the Minnesota Twins. I listen to their games on the radio. I attend games when I am able. I visit their website to look for news (vote Pat Neshek). I study their box scores and stats (although, having lived through the Twins teams of the ‘90s, I don’t live and die with their success, or more commonly, lack thereof).

The fact that I am a Twins fan does not entitle me to blame or credit for wins or losses. The fact that I am a fan of the Minnesota Twins does not entitle me to a share of the World Series pot (should they ever return to the World Series). I don't bat, or pitch, play defense, or run the bases (and considering what an idiot base-runner I was, they can be glad of that) for the Twins. The same logic can apply here.  The Israeli teacher, or any other civilian, may be a member of the reserves, but not under arms, and is not a contributing/combatant member of the military.

The non-combatant, even if part of the “system”, is not under arms, nor is he prepared to defend himself. One requires no sense of honor in order to kill another unawares. That is, of course, the problem.

This won’t convince anybody, but it does help me to put what I’d believed into perspective.