Wow.  Does the world ever need Sarkozy to win election in France (hyperbole, yes).

Royal condemns the "unrestrained reign of 'mad capitalism'".  If France is suffering under "unrestrained capitalism", the U.S. must be a Randian paradise.  The U.S. is not; ergo Royal is also guilty of hyperbole.  The difference being she seeks the leadership of an ancient nation, whereas I merely make smartass remarks from the comfort of my home.

Royal claims the status of victimhood and blames big business and the media for hindering her campaign.

It's good to see the American culture continues to spread.  I just wish the culture of victimhood weren't the part of American culture spreading.

Russia continues to turn back the clock to the bad old days of Stalin, show trials, and fear of foreigners.

Putin nationalizes industries to aggrandize his power.  He imprisons those who oppose him (if they're lucky).  He is alleged to be behind the murder of a former KGB agent and a newspaper reporter, to identify two.  Russia continues to hold natural gas over the heads of European governments.  Russia assists Iran in constructing nuclear power plants and attempts to influence the internal politics of former Soviet Republics.

I have no idea what President Bush saw when he looked into Putin's eyes, but he may want to see an eye doctor about his "diagnosis" of Putin's soul.

This latest criminal oddity of Putin's regime involves the jailing of Russians for having an unsanctioned tea party with foreigners.  And people say that Americans are xenophobic.

Senator Lieberman is one of the most articulate and passionate defenders of the war/battle in Iraq.  He is also one of roughly three politicians in D.C. still defending the battle.  NRO has the good senator's speech of 5 Feb 2007. 

"...
This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.
..."

One does not demonstrate resolution by passing a meaningless "resolution".  This resolution does not even intend to accomplish anything: it's non-binding.  No wonder so many people actually have any kind of regard for the UN: they have no idea what a dictionary is.

"...
We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.
..."

It is long past time to start thinking in terms of a time beyond 2008.  We cannot continue to demonstrate weakness in the face of our enemies.  The short-sightedness of our elected representatives is matched only by the short-sightedness of the American people.

I'd recommend reading Sen. Lieberman's entire statement (linked above).

Palestinians caught in the civil war enjoyed a brief respite, as leaders of the warring parties met in Saudi Arabia.

Nevermind.  Leaders of each of the Palestinian political parties had a meeting in Mecca.

Apparently the incompetent government is starving for lack of shakedown money...sorry, foreign aid.

Lovely.  Chavez parrots the same leftist b.s. as algore. 

Can't these people have an original thought?

What is international law?

Ooh.  Let's wade into the "immigration" debate.

I count 80 different visa types, of which six are temporary worker visas.  H2-A is a temporary agricultural worker visa.  H2-B is a temporary worker, skilled and unskilled, visa.

I ask you, why do we need another temporary worker permit? 

"Comprehensive immigration reform" is the same short-sighted idiocy that we have come to expect from our elected "leaders": have a problem?  Pass another law.

Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that there are jobs that Americans won't do, and that immigrants are needed to fill those jobs.  Does it necessarily follow that we should permit persons from Mexico to immigrate to the United States without real restrictions?

No.  By permitting the young, innovative, and hardest working people of Mexico to immigrate to the United States, we condemn Mexico to permanent instability, underachievement, and corruption.  

Mexico remains reliant on money sent back to family members back home, which breeds a culture of dependency.  Dependency is exploited by drug dealers and other blackmarketeers.  A blackmarket economy breeds corruption. 

A population that is moving is unstable.  Mexico already has stability issues amongst its southern states.  Mexico is a young country, with a median age of 25.  Youth breeds instability.

The drain of ingenuity prevents Mexico from exploiting its natural resources.

By allowing and encouraging Mexico to export its citizens to the United States, the U.S. guarantees an unstable southern neighbor.  This instability can be exploited by demagogues such as Chavez or Ahmadinejad and their respective ilks.

We have until Jan2009 to annihilate the insurgency. If we do not accomplish this by then, the next President and Congress will remove American troops from Iraq, regardless of the party of the next President. Politicians are more concerned with their short-term re-election prospects, than they are with the safety and security of the citizens of the United States of America. There are notable exceptions, Sen. Lieberman, for example, but, by and large, our elected leaders are more concerned with maintaining power, than they are with serving their constituents (the Senate's attempt to force Sen. Coburn to stop practicing medicine demonstrates that they don't want other politicians to serve their constituents, either).

Iraq will then descend into chaos and become what Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Iran will supply and ensure that radical Shi'a, such as al-Sadr, will be the ones standing on the top of the heap, at the end of the day. The Sunni community will forced into becoming totally insular, assuming that they aren't killed or exiled. That insularity will provide fertile ground for Wahhabis, Salafists, and other radical Sunni groups. Further, the resulting power vacuum will prove a welcome situation for terrorists

Ethnic cleansing is likely. We are already seeing it against Chaldeans, Assyrian Christians, and other minority religious and ethnic groups. Iraq will end up Balkanized.

The humanitarian crisis predicted to result from the invasion will be realized in our departure. The ethnic cleansing and sectarian strife will lead many thousands to flee. Many of those will wind up in Jordan, which will destabilize one of the few Arab states that recognizes Israel, and has done more good than harm, in the present conflict.

There is one notable difference, between Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan: Iraq is much closer to major transportation routes. To get to training in Afghanistan, one needed to catch a connecting flight to Peshawar, or another Pakistani border town and cross into Afghanistan. The border crossing will remain constant, as I cannot see major airlines taking a chance on Baghdad International Airport, under the present conditions.

The flight to Riyadh or Kuwait City will prove much easier, however. A Kuwait or Saudi stamp on one’s passport is not the same major red flag that a Pakistani one is. There is industry in the Near East that makes flights there less conspicuous.

The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. The government installed by the Soviets fell in 1992. The resulting power vacuum was exploited by Pakistan’s ISI, who subsidized and supported the Taliban militia, who had consolidated control over most of Afghanistan by 1996, although few nations recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government.  The logistics and training locations used in the war against the Soviets were put to use to reform the Muslim world and strike at the West.  Similar logistical and training capabilities are present in Iraq.     

Just as Pakistan exploited the power vacuum to set up an ideologically aligned government to establish a modicum of stability, Iran and Saudi Arabia will work to set up ideologically aligned governments in Iraq.

Within a decade of our departure from Iraq, we can expect another mass casualty event on American soil. We would end up looking at Afghanistan fall 2001 again, only this time in Iraq. All we would be doing [with a withdrawal from Iraq] is kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with. Of course, that is what Washington does best: from Social Security reform to reforming the tax code: why do anything about a polarizing issue that may lose you votes when you can merely leave the ticking bomb for someone else to defuse (or get blown up by).

And now for something completely different.

This is something a wee bit off of what I typically write about, but whichever.

I've a bit of a pet peeve: the notion that police officers should shoot to wound. 

I've got to simmer down a wee, to be, at least, nominally coherant.

A firearm is deadly force.  A law enforcement officer can only draw a firearm if he/she believes that deadly force may be required.  If a law enforcement officer fires to wound, that officer has demonstrated that deadly force was not required.  If deadly force was not required, then the firearm should not have been drawn and fired.

An officer who shoots to wound, and admits so, will find himself flat broke, out of a job, and in jail.  If deadly force was not required and an officer uses deadly force, that officer has committed an aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder.  That officer will be liable in tort and can be subject to criminal sanctions, depending on the prosecuter.

And now watch, as I seemlessly transition away from my pet peeve to something of substance: the two Border Patrol agents who were recently sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for being overzealous in doing their job, and shooting a fleeing drug dealer in the arse.

They shot at a fleeing criminal: not good, but 11 or 12 years in prison?  B.S. 

Should they have lost their jobs?  Debateable.  I'd say yes, but I'd be willing to entertain arguments in opposition.

A prison term is excessive and may have a chilling effect on border patrol agents.  Border Patrol agents, as law enforcement officers have to be willing to use deadly force, should it be required.  Punishing a mistake to this degree may make Border Patrol agents less willing to use such force.  That potential delay may mean the difference between life and death, for the agents or others. 

The drug dealer was granted immunity to testify against the agents.  Who presents a greater threat to the health and safety of the American people?

That's what I thought.

The brilliant Bridget Johnson of NRO and GOPVixen and the Los Angelos Daily News has come up with an "Iraq for Dummies" as a quick reference guide to rebutting those anti-war arguments of your reflexively anti-war associates, friends, and family.

The guide is located at NRO.
 
Enjoy.

Iraq isn't the only nation bringing former dictators to justice.

Former (Marxist) dictator Mengistu, presently living in safety in Zimbabwe (one of only two persons living in such safety in Zimbabwe), was tried in absentia for his crimes against the Ethiopian people.  These crimes included the typical communist response of murdering students and educated persons in an event known as the Red Terror (i.e. PRC, Viet Nam, et cetera).  Thousands more await trials for participating in the Red Terror.

Meanwhile, our friend Bob Mugabe shelters Mengistu.  Ten'll get you 20 Mengistu never faces actual judgment.  Of course, maybe some day both Bob and Mengistu will face justice. 

How much does war cost? posted at The 14 points of fascism raises the opportunity to address complex and difficult questions. It is awfully difficult, I understand, to take the guy seriously, considering his nom de plume and blog name, but bear with me (and him—I think I went to college with this guy—or someone who held the exact same beliefs).  The following incorporates, to a large degree, the comment I left at the original post.

That the cost of the war ought to be irrelevant provided the war is:
a) Just; and
b) in our national interests.

A Just war, according to Grotius, requires that the war be launched for a just reason, to achieve a just end, by an entity that has the authority to wage war. That the war be fought justly further requires proportionality, and discrimination in the choosing of targets.

The United States is an entity, conceived of by Grotius, as one authorized to wage war. The end sought by the United States was deposing Saddam, and establishing a responsible regime: sounds just to me, considering Saddam's myriad flaws. The reasons the U.S. chose to wage war, as enumerated in the Use of Force Authorization passed by Congress, were not merely limited to Saddam's alleged WMD programs, or to Saddam's ties to terrorism, but also encompassed the moral necessity to protect the people of Iraq from Saddam, and the U.S.'s desire to remove a destabilizing influence from a region of the world vital to American economic interests. The multitude of reasons elucidated by Congress, and signed by President Bush, adds up to a Just reason.

The U.S. has been scrupulous in avoiding civilian deaths, to the point of putting American lives at risk. The U.S. avoids assaults on cultural, religious, or medical sites, even if those sites are used by the terrorists, rejectionists, or militias. While there have been instances where American soldiers have behaved illegally, those troops were/are being held accountable. It is reasonable to believe that the new Congress will exercise its oversight responsibilities to determine whether or not the transgressions go any farther up the chain.

And (b) Did/does the war/battle in Iraq advance the national interests?

At its genesis, the war in Iraq merely brought into the open the low level war that had been waged for a decade, in terms of anti-aircraft fire at US/UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The resources that the U.S. was committing to Iraq, with no end in sight, were unsustainable, in light of the Administration's determination to take the battle to the terrorists, and the regimes that supported them. Saddam had previously used WMD, was in violation of the ceasefire agreement that left him in power, and was corrupting the process designed to ensure that his people had access to food and medicine. As you point out, they weren't receiving the "for Food" in the "Oil for Food" scam. Secondly, Saddam sheltered terrorists (Yasin, Abbas, Nidal, etc), sponsored terrorism (attempted assassination of former President Bush and attempted assault on RFE/RL), and subsidized terrorism in the Palestinian territories. As such, he was a valid target in a "war on terrorism". When combined with the resources already committed to Iraq, it made sense that Iraq would be the next target in a "Global War on Terrorism". Iraq may have not been the next logical target, speaking strictly in terms of strategy, but in terms of logistics, and strategy taken out of the vacuum, Iraq was a logical next step. NATO allies were willing to assist in Afghanistan, and stalwart allies such as UK and Australia, combined with new military allies such as Poland and Japan, were willing to assist in Iraq.

To continue in a parallel vein, is our continued presence in Iraq in the national interest? Considering that UBL used US retreat from Viet Nam and Somalia, etc as reasons for his belief that the US was a paper tiger, retreat from Iraq now, would be yet more validation of his belief. That validation would be taken up by other entities, not ideologically linked to UBL, as evidence that the US can be attacked with impunity.

Further, retreat from Iraq would be many things: a humanitarian disaster (even more than our continued presence), and a power vacuum to be exploited by Iran, radical Shi'a, Wahabbis, and other terrorist entities to produce a training ground of far greater logistical significance than Afghanistan ever was (Iraq is much closer to major airline routes, etc), among other things.

This latter point, concerning Iraq's logistical significance should not be underestimated.  Afghanistan was a backwater nation, lacking major contact with the outside world.  Afghanistan lacked major airlines or major airports.  Afghanistan is not close to nations or cities that have such contact either.  Iraq, on the other hand, is significantly closer to Europe, and its transportation.  To get to Europe, it is merely a hop and a skip to get to Riyahd, Qatar, or Beruit, and their airlines.  A NATO ally is also adjacent to Iraq.

In sum, I believe that the war is Just, is being waged in a Just manner, was in the national interest to launch, and is in the national interest to continue. Ergo, the cost has no real relevance, in my opinion.

Andrew McCarthy discusses the stability canard on NRO today.  This is the notion that Iraq is worse off today, than it was under Saddam.

The complaint is that the U.S. led invasion has destabilized the region, and thrown Iraq into turmoil.

1) In Saddam's first 12 years he had invaded four countries (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel).
2) Saddam was kept from invading other nations by onerous sanctions, sanctions that only harmed the populace.
3) Saddam had to be penned in by no-fly zones to keep from annihilating the Kurds in the north, or the Shi'a to the south.  Saddam was in a low level war with the U.K. and U.S., through his constant attacks on the planes patrolling the no-fly zones.
4) Saddam subsidized terrorism in Israel, hosted terrorists such as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Yasin, and sponsored terrorism, such as the attempted assasination of former President Bush, or the attempted assault on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

This hardly adds up to a stable country.  This does not take into account Saddam's training of terrorists, such as the Fedayeen, Saddam's repression of potential adversaries, such as the father of Moqtada al-Sadr, or the draining of the marshes in which the "Marsh Arabs" lived.

Saddam was a brutal tyrant whose regime was founded on blood, never a stable foundation.  Saddam was actively corrupting political leaders, businesses, and UN bureaucrats (assuming they weren't corrupt already), also not a formula for stability.

Iraq was what Natan Sharansky has called a Fear Society.  A Fear Society is fundamentally unstable because it relies on maintaining the bulk of society in a state of fear.  This was accomplished in Saddam's Iraq by punishing family members of "alleged" adversaries, and employing a vast network of informers: no one could tell who was an informer, so it was impossible to organize resistance.  A network of secret police and their informers serve to create a climate where one cannot trust anyone. 

Worst case scenario: the U.S.-led invasion set the explosive charges on a collapsing building.  (There is an extended metaphore here, but I'm not up to it).

Rice urges revival of "Roadmap". 

I've got an idea.  When Israel has a responsible party with whom to negotiate, then, and only then, does Israel begin negotiations. 

The good people of the Palestinian territories have elected, successively, two terrorist organizations to head their "government". 

They've made their bed.  Let them sleep in it.

I would be ever so much more sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians if so many of them weren't insistent upon slaughtering women and children.  As it is now, I find it impossible to take them or their cause seriously.

Maybe that's just me.

And the good Mr. Abbas has rejected any idea of temporary borders.  Because, don't you know  (pronounced doon'cha'knoow), that demanding and not receiving a loaf is so much better than a half loaf.  If they were to receive the loaf, or even half, they'd have to go about the business of being responsible and setting up a functional society.  It pays ever so much better to be a permanent revolutionary.  All you have to do is spout meaningless slogans, send children to their deaths, and then decry the fact that your opponent insists on existing: and like magic, other irresponsible parties, with too much money and a desire to be revolutionaries themselves, send money for the cause, where you can then take a carrying fee.  End result, nothing of substance is achieved, and you manage to shake down idiots and have other idiots hero worship you.  It is quite the racket.

David Frum links to a story about the loony "Australian" Sheik, who has previously compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat.

Among other things, he has now (from that haven of freedoms: Egypt) called the English "the most dishonest and unjust people".  Interesting in that nations colonized by the English have the lowest levels of government corruption.  Check out the graph at Transparency International:



Notice which countries are the most transparent (i.e. least corrupt).  High numbers are good; low numbers are bad.