Category Archives: War and Peace

Joe Biden at Rotary

South Carolina, Joe Biden really, really wants you to help him get to the White House. I’ll write about this more later in the week, but for now I’ll refer you to this video clip I shot with my PDA (meaning it’s even lower quality than MOST of my videos) at the Columbia Rotary Club.

The clip begins right after he left the rostrum and waded into the crowd to answer a one-word question: "Immigration?" Note the passion, the waving arms, the populist posturing, the peripatetic delivery. Joe Biden has always loved to talk, but this Elmer Gantryesque performance went far beyond his routine style.

Most of his speech was about Iraq, by the way. And it went over well. This Rotary Club never goes past its 2 p.m. ending time, but he had the audience still sitting politely listening — some of them truly rapt — past 2:30.

It was quite a performance. You may think politicians act like this all the time, because of stuff you  see on TV and in the movies. But I have never, in real life, seen a national candidate get this intense seeking S.C. votes two years before the election.

Never give up column

Flagsiraq

We can’t cut and run from
our public schools (or Iraq, either)

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THE CRITICS SEE themselves as realists, and can’t imagine why those of us who believe we must continue to slog on refuse to see things as they are.
    The whole thing is futile, they say, and it would be madness to keep sacrificing billions of dollars, much less all those fine young people, on our stubborn hubris.
    Don’t we know that “those people” will never embrace the opportunity we’ve sacrificed so much in order to give them? Chalk it up to DNA, or simply growing up in horrific poverty and having never known any other way. Either way, we’re wasting our time.
Karenpost
    Look at the generations — the centuries — of culture and tragic history that we’re presuming to overturn.
    It would be better, they say, to begin a phased withdrawal.
    The more sensible among us over in the “never say die” camp — those of us who believe we would be sacrificing our society’s future to cut and run — agree that mistakes were made. But rather than put it in such passive, Reaganesque terms, we know whom to blame. We are appalled at the “stay the course” fanatics who dig in their heels against new tactics.
    We want new approaches — but in the pursuit of success, not surrender. The odds are long, we know. Progress is slow, and sometimes — such as in recent weeks — it doesn’t look like progress at all. We see how it could look to some as though our best efforts have led to nothing but ruined lives and wasted money.
    To keep going takes determination, resolve, and a practically Churchillian refusal to give up.
    Of course, we’re talking about public education in South Carolina. Oh, you thought this was about the war in Iraq? Fine, because it is. I see both struggles in the same terms:

It’s not optional. South Carolina has no choice but to provide the opportunity for a good education to all of its young people. We know we can do education well; just look at the public schools in our affluent suburbs. More relevantly, look at how successful Richland 2 is at educating even the disadvantaged. We must duplicate that kind of success throughout the state, particularly in the most stubborn pockets of resistance — the poor, rural areas.
    Invading Iraq was optional. We once had the choice of other ways and other places to insert the lever of change in the Mideast (our strategic objective; 9/11 taught us that our old strategy of promoting stability in the region was suicidal). But we didn’t, and now the choices are success, or handing a titanic victory to Islamist terrorists, tribalists and totalitarian thugs. Success is going to be extremely difficult to achieve at this point, but failure is unthinkable.
    The I-95 corridor is South Carolina’s Sunni Triangle. We have to figure out how to succeed there, or we fail.

If we don’t do it, no one will. No one’s going to help in Iraq; that much has been made quite clear over the last three years. Certainly not the feckless Europeans. Even the Brits are just barely hanging in there with us, thanks to the courage and vision of Tony Blair. The only other entities with a motivation to stabilize any portion of Iraq are people we would not want to see doing so — Iran’s mullahs, or the Ba’athists in both Iraq and Syria.
    Universal education can only be achieved by pooling our resources as a society and doing it, inSoldieriraq
spite of the odds and the cost. The fantasy that the private sector would create wonderful schools in communities that can’t even attract a McDonald’s is dangerously delusional. The amazing thing is that this approach is espoused by people who insist they believe in markets, when market forces are precisely why those areas have fallen so far behind. The state has to do the job — the market lacks the motive.
    The appointment of a new secretary of defense may not get the job done, but it’s a very encouraging sign. So is the election of a state superintendent of education committed to real reform.

We can win, but it’s going to take a long, long time. We’re talking about a generational (at least) struggle here, both in Iraq and S.C. public schools. Anyone who expects us to either win quickly or pull out simply doesn’t understand either the odds or the consequences of failure.

We can’t quit. South Carolina has too many problems — we are at the bottom of too many rankings — to give up on educating our people so that they can attract, get and hold good jobs.
    In this profoundly dangerous post-Cold War world, history’s most powerful and essential republic cannot be weakened by another Vietnam. After three years of horrific mistakes, President Bush has now done two things worthy of praise: He dumped Donald Rumsfeld, and he went to Vietnam (finally) and drew this distinction between the two conflicts: “We’ll succeed,” he said, “unless we quit.” Iraq isn’t Vietnam, but there’s a sure-fire way to change that fact: Give up.
    We could pull out of Vietnam in the middle of the Cold War, and the Russians still knew we had all those nukes pointed at them. So the world didn’t fall apart, even though our nation’s ability to affect world events atrophied for many years.
    Today, too many forces of chaos, from al-Qaida to totalitarians with nukes, are poised to fill any vacuum we leave behind.
    So we can’t quit — either here or over there.

Rexpost

Robert Gates column

Gates1

The return of the professional

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
“AMID TAWDRINESS, he stands for honor, duty and decency,” another author once wrote of John le Carre’s fictional hero George Smiley.
    George was the master Cold Warrior brought back in from retirement to save British intelligence from the liars, self-dealers, ideologues, social climbers and traitors who had turned it inside out. He did so quietly, humbly and competently. Then he went his way, with little gratitude from the system.
    With Robert Gates’ nomination to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, old George seemsGates3
to have come back in from the cold yet again, although in different form.
    Mr. Gates is a Smileyesque professional. He was the only Director of Central Intelligence ever to have come up through the ranks. He had spent two decades in the Agency, from 1969 through 1989, with a several-year hiatus at the National Security Council. He received the National Security Medal, the Presidential Citizens Medal, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal (twice) and the Distinguished Intelligence Medal (three times).
    I trust professionals, particularly those who have devoted themselves to national service. Not in every case, of course — there are idiots and scoundrels in every walk of life — but if all other things are equal, give me the pro from Dover over someone’s golf buddy every time.
    Perhaps that’s why I sometimes lower my standards from the le Carre level to enjoy a Tom Clancy novel. Jack Ryan moves in a world peopled by competent, heroically dedicated public servants. Most wear uniforms — soldiers, sailors, Marines, cops — but others are costumed in the conservative suits of the FBI, CIA or Secret Service. The ones you have to watch out for are the politicians; they always have agendas that have little to do with protecting the country or the rule of law.
Rumsfeld
    This has a ring of truth to me. I grew up in the Navy and have spent my adult life dealing with a broad variety of people from cops to lawyers to FBI agents to politicians to private business types. I know a lot of fine politicos and private-sector executives, but as a percentage, I’ll more quickly trust the honor of public-service professionals.
    Of course, they often don’t trust me — at least not at first — and I don’t blame them. The press spends too much time with publicans and sinners, and absorbs too many of their values. As a group, for instance, we tend to love it when a special prosecutor is appointed. That means fireworks, and fireworks are news.
    Call me a heretic, but I’ve always wondered why we don’t just let the professional investigators do their jobs. Do we really think the FBI — not the political appointees at the top, but the career agents who do the work — can’t investigate corruption? Sure, a politician can try to get such a civil servant fired or transferred to garbage detail, but such overt efforts to subvert the system tend to get noticed, a la Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”
    Mr. Gates has had his own run-ins with politicians and special counsel. He withdrew from consideration to become Ronald Reagan’s CIA director in 1987 because he had been senior enough for the Iran-Contra affair to have cast its shadow over him. He was under formal investigation in that connection when he was nominated again under George H.W. Bush. No one ever pinned any wrongdoing on him, and he was confirmed by the Senate.
    This time, the Democrats who are likely to line the gauntlet he must again run to confirmationGates2
were generally supportive of his nomination. Of course, look at the act he’d be following. Mr. Gates is described as a soft-spoken, yet tough-minded, “pragmatist and realist,” an antithesis to the civilian ideologues who have been running the war.
    In Thursday’s news reports, the Gates nomination was treated as another sign of “the ascendancy of the team that served the president’s father.” There’s truth — and reassurance, for pragmatists — in that. He has for the past several months served as one of the “Wise Men” reviewing and critiquing the conduct of the Iraq War, along with former Secretary of State James Baker. That makes him particularly, if not uniquely, well prepared to run the war more successfully.
    Of course, he’s not a Defense professional. But the Pentagon might be an exception to my general preference. In that particular case, the real professionals — the uniformed leaders, the warriors —spend their careers trying to stay out of the Pentagon. I worry about the ones who do otherwise. Beyond that, it’s probably best that Defense not be headed by a general or admiral, to preserve the principle of civilian oversight. But it would be nice if they had a boss who would listen to them.
    Given those conditions, who would be better than a pragmatic national security professional who possesses mastery of the entire spectrum of intelligence gathering and analysis, and has been studying in depth what has gone wrong in Iraq? He just needs to help the president pick a direction. The generals and admirals will know how to get the job done from that point.
    They’re professionals, too.

Rummy

Thursday election roundup column

Sanfordmandate

Mandates: From Sanford
to Pelosi to Lieberman

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR


A
NYBODY WHO thinks there was any one theme, message or lesson from Tuesday’s elections has a few more thinks coming. Let’s start with these:


The Sanford Mandate.
Gov. Mark Sanford’s victory statement Tuesday night was the best speech I’ve ever heard him give. I’m hoping to hear more of the same. He talked about a mandate, but with a tone of humility. He said it was a mandate for “change,” and I think he was right. What he did not mention was the plan to privatize public education, and with good reason, given the results in certain other races across the state. That still leaves us with government restructuring, and if the governor pushes as hard on that in the next four years as he has said he would, I’ll be cheering him every step of the way.


Real education reform.
Despite her long head start as the governor’s anointed “choice” standard-bearer, despite all those tens of thousands in campaign cash from out-of-state ideologues, despite having that crucial “R” after her name, Karen Floyd was slightly trailing Jim Rex in the superintendent of education race. It could still go either way. Does that mean the voters sent an uncertain message as to whether they want education reform? Absolutely not. The wisest course for the winner of this race, the governor and lawmakers would be to embrace the common-sense reforms that both of these candidates talked about, such as merit pay for teachers.


Bill Cotty survives.
They tried to do him in in the GOP primary. When that didn’t work, they tried to take him down in the general by running an independent candidate to split the Republican vote. They flooded his state House district with one slick mailing after another, accusing him of everything they could think of short of having WMD. But the most obvious House Republican opponent to private school vouchers and tax credits withstood everything they could throw at him, and prevailed. And consider this: His Democratic opponent, Anton Gunn, was just as strongly against their agenda as Mr. Cotty was. That means that in spite of all that out-of-state money and effort, 87 percent of the voters utterly rejected their agenda. The people of District 79 love and appreciate their public schools. And they are far from alone.


Eckstrom’s vindication.
So how does a guy who calls himself a fiscal watchdog (which is just what a comptroller ought to be), then takes a long family vacation in a state vehicle on a state gas card, then dares to run for re-election as a fiscal watchdog again manage to win? Here’s how: He got voters to believe his whining that he was being picked on, that the criticism of his Minnesota road trip was just the pettiest kind of political nit-picking. Well, it wasn’t. He broke faith with the voters, he never thought it was wrong, and now that he’s gotten away with it, he seems less likely than ever to learn anything from the incident.


The national picture.
Everyone says the Democrats’ congressional victories are about Iraq — but what does that mean? Those of us who have backed the war from the start have demanded changes in the way the war has been prosecuted since early on. We’ve been demanding, for instance, that the president dump Donald Rumsfeld. (Mr. Bush got that message right away — three years late, but he got it.)
    After all that talk about the war, I’ve yet to hear specifically what Democrats think the voters want them to do. I heard Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha on the radio Wednesday morning. Pretty nonspecific. They want “change.” Nobody’s saying pull the troops out. The party’s most agitated wing will be flapping for that, but wiser heads know better: If that was what the people wanted, Ned Lamont would have won in Connecticut.
    I think the country was rejecting the bitter partisanship of the last few years, of which the president and Speaker Dennis Hastert are prime examples. Voters want people who will work across ideological lines to the betterment of the country, both at home and abroad. They reject the Ned Lamonts on the left and the Rick Santorums on the right. They want common sense, not MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh.
    Who were the Democrats who won? Pro-life candidate Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Fiscal moderate John Spratt right here in South Carolina. The extremists need to take heed, or prepare to lose the House again in the next election — or the one after.


Joementum!
Yes! I practically shouted it out during the live election-night broadcast on S.C. ETV. Joe Lieberman did it! He showed that the right man with the right ideas (including the will to win in Iraq, take note) doesn’t need a political party to win high office.
    This is a start. All the U.S. Senate needs now is 50 more like him. Then you’ll see me jumping up and down the way the Democrats are doing nationally, and (most) Republicans are doing in South Carolina. Why? Because for the first time ever, my party will have its chance. I promise you here and now, given that opportunity, we will not let the American people down.

Joewins4

Yes! Now let’s go win this war…

Wonderful news on the day after the election — Donald Rumsfeld is gone! A couple or three years late, but it’s done.

Does this mean that the president is ready to stop his stubborn stance of "I’m never wrong" and "personal loyalty trumps the national interest?"

It would seem so. And that would be the best news of all. This sends a signal to the country, to the troops, to our erstwhile allies, and most importantly to the enemy, that the United States is ready to get serious, finally.

At least, I hope and pray so.

What does it all mean?

So what does it mean that the Democrats took the U.S. House and may yet take the Senate?

Everyone says it was about Iraq — but what does that mean? Those of us who have backed the war from the start have demanded changes in the way the war has been prosecuted since early on. We’ve been demanding Rumsfeld’s head, more troops, better diplomacy with allies, etc.

Democrats ran against Iraq. But now that they won, what’s the message? So far, none. I heard Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha on the radio this morning. Pretty nonspecific. They want change. Nobody’s saying pull the troops out. They know better. The party’s most agitated branch will be screaming for that, but there’s no mandate for that. If there were, Ned Lamont would have won.

Personally, I think the country was rejecting the bitter partisanship of the last few years, of which the president and Dennis Hastert are prime examples. They want people who will work across ideological lines to the betterment of the country, both at home and abroad. They rejected the Ned Lamonts on the left and the Rick Santorums on the right. They want common sense, not MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh.

But that’s what I think. What do y’all think?

Hanging Saddam

What do you think when you hear the news that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death? Do you:

  • Fear the violent reaction to come from Sunnis?
  • Volunteer to bring the rope?
  • Think hanging’s too good for him?
  • Think capital punishment is always wrong?Saddamverdict

Here’s the way things like this strike me: I believe capital punishment is wrong, but I also believe
violence can be justified under many circumstances — in the defense of innocents, for instance. Also, he certainly fits in the "if anybody deserves it…" category. Of course, he can’t hurt anybody in prison, as long as he’s held securely enough. But as long as he lives, especially with his defiant attitude, he offers hope to his ex-followers for a restoration to power and privilege (particularly with so many Americans crying for a pullout). And if he’s dead, he’s a martyr to the Ba’ath cause. But is there anyone else those thugs can rally around with the "appeal" he has to them?

In other words, I find it hard to reach a conclusion. What do y’all think?

John Kerry’s second adolescence

Kerrygaffe

Not being overly fond of all the partisan tit-for-tat that seems to stir so many earnest hearts in the Blogosphere, I’ll first admit that I have not sought out much information about John Kerry’s gaffe.

Of course, you absorb a certain amount without trying. I know what he said, I know what he said he meant to say (which was every bit as revealing of character as what he said), I heard that he said he wouldn’t apologize, and then he did apologize — sort of.

Nothing new in any of that. It just reminded me, in case I had forgotten, why we couldn’t bring ourselves to endorse the senator for president in 2004, even though we disagreed with about 90 percent of what President Bush was doing. (Of all the Democratic candidates who had come in to speak with our editorial board, Sen. Kerry was the least engaging and the most off-putting. Take your pick — Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley Braun, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and any others I can’t think of at the moment — all were more favorably impressive than he.)

But in what little I have absorbed on the subject, one thing has been missing. If someone else has said it, please point me to it.

The thing that struck me immediately at the very first report — before I knew how the GOP was hyping it or anything else; I’m talking about the moment I first heard the words he spoke to those students — I thought he was having a Vietnam flashback. Not to his days in combat, but to the much longer period when he was denigrating his own service and that of others.

Young John Kerry’s peers — to the extent that he would have acknowledged having any — thought of soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam pretty much the way Mr. Kerry spoke of today’s soldiers last week.

Yes, he took a commission in the Navy and went over as an officer and a gentleman and did his part, and God bless him for that. But based upon his actions afterward, I don’t think the preppie mindset toward the average grunt ever went away.

Anyway, that’s what flashed through my mind.

Kerryyoung

It’s a joke; he meant to say ‘Bush’

Poor politicians. When they say something horrible about our troops, they are reviled. When icons of the press say even worse things, it’s just a blip, if that.

Check out what Seymour Hersh said in a speech in Montreal. In case you missed it, he essentially said the "baby-killers" that so many Americans fled to Montreal to avoid becoming were nothing compared to the homicidal maniacs we send to Iraq: "(T)here has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

This was brought to my attention by the WSJ’s OpinionJournal. The link said, "Maybe It’s Just a Botched Joke."

Stan greets Johnny as he marches home

Journalists being a cynical lot, a colleague passed this on to me with this comment: "hmmm … there must be an election coming up …
and Spears’ opponent must be complaining about how he snubs the troops …"
{BC-SC—Guard Return,0248}
{Sanford, Spears, and
sheriff’s deputies to welcome SC Guard unit} home
   LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) —
Gov. Mark Sanford, Adjutant General Stan Spears and sheriff’s deputies from
Lexington and Saluda counties plan to gather Friday to celebrate the return of
120 members of a South Carolina National Guard unit from Iraq.
   The combat
support engineers of the 122nd Engineer Company based in Saluda are scheduled to
return after spending several days demobilizing at Fort Stewart, Ga., said Col.
Pete Brooks, spokesman for the South Carolina National Guard.
   Sanford is
greeting the unit because he met with Guard members during a visit to Iraq in
June, his spokesman Joel Sawyer said.
   The last time Sanford came out to
greet a unit was in May 2003, when he took part in the South Carolina Air
National Guard’s 169th Fighter Wing return to McEntire Joint National Guard
Base, Sawyer said.
   The Saluda-based soldiers worked to clear improvised
explosive devices — one of the most dangerous jobs in the Iraqi
deployments.
   Lexington County Sheriff James Metts said his deputies and
deputies from Saluda County will provide an escort at 10 a.m. Friday for the
buses of returning soldiers.
   "We all owe a debt of gratitude to the brave
men and women who are serving our nation and defending America’s interests in
the Middle East," Metts said in a statement.
   Metts said he hoped people
will line up along U.S. 1 through downtown Lexington and U.S. 378 to the Saluda
County line to show their support for the soldiers.

Message from Baghdad

Caldwell

Sorry to have been neglecting you — busy schedule, nasty cold, living in the nonvirtual world and all that. Bloody nuisance.

Anyway, I’m going through my work e-mail from home (something I’ve just gained the ability to do), and I received this op-ed submission. I thought it would give y’all something to discuss until I post again. At the latest, that will be tomorrow’s column. It’s about the Confederate flag. A bit of a talker, that, so tune in.

Sorry about the faux British locutions; I’ve been rereading a LeCarre novel while nursing the cold. Can’t be helped, you see.

Here’s the cover note from the op-ed submission. Discuss away:

Dear Editor,
The spokesman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, Maj. Gen.
William B. Caldwell, IV., would like to submit the below OPED for publication
in your paper.
I request response with an indication of your intent to use
this week’s piece and an indication of your interest in receiving OPEDs
in the future.

Very respectfully,
Douglas Powell
Maj
, U.S. Marine Corps
Public Affairs Officer
Multi National Force-Iraq, Baghdad

Go ahead and read it. It’s OK. It says right at the top that it’s declassified.

Cleaning my desk II: Al Franken gets one right

The September 18 edition of TIME magazine (cover: "Does God Want You to be Rich?"), there’s a brief interview with Al Franken. Here’s the best one:

Do you consider yourself a conservative on any issues?
… I’m probably a conservative when it comes to foreign policy. I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you’re sure of what you’re doing and you’re working with allies.

Absolutely — that indeed is a conservative position. My support of the war is something that I list among my own liberal positions (I have a bunch of them, and a bunch of conservative ones, and some that just don’t fit on the spectrum). Liberals historically have been optimistic people who believe that it’s not only possible, but imperative — particularly if you possess great power — to go out and make the world better. Conservatives are isolationist, and turn up their noses at building nations.

Vietnam just skewed the whole thing so it doesn’t make sense any more. But if you go back to JFK and beyond, you find interventionists galore, with the right embracing "America First."

Some quick attaboys

Leadership

Sorry to have been absent so much of the week. I’ve been tied up in marathon meetings — I’m about to go into another all-day one (administrative ones, related to the newspaper’s budget and such) — and have had to spend breaks and evenings racing to do the basic tasks involved in getting the editorial pages out.

But until I can get freed up a little, here are a couple of quick items for my dear readers to cogitate over and discuss in my absence. I’d like to offer thanks and congratulations to:

  1. Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and John Warner for having won an apparent victory in favor of the American Way. Sure, they didn’t get every thing, but that’s the way compromise works. And they seem to have held their ground as to the principles that mattered most. Thanks to them, the rule of law is finally being established with regard to the treatment of prisoners, and the legislative branch is a little closer to playing its proper role in the War on Terror.
  2. Sen. Tommy Moore, for having acted with uncharacteristic boldness to make a couple of000moore_3 important points: First, that candidates for governor should not ally themselves with political
    actions intended to hurt the state’s economy. Second, that the inconsistent and ineffective NAACP boycott accomplishes nothing at all for South Carolina. I would add that it accomplishes nothing but the opposite of its stated purpose. It puts a solution on the Confederate "battle flag" farther away, not closer. And make no mistake. The only solution is to put dead relics of our most tragic past in museums or bronze monuments, not to fly them as though they were alive and had positive relevance to who we are as a people today.

Back to meetings…

Pots take kettles to task

So for a moment there I thought, "Wow! Jim Clyburn is criticizing his fellow Democrats, whose caucus he chairs!"

But then I read the release more closely. Apparently, the Democrats have done nothing but support all that our nation is trying to achieve in the War on Terror, and the Republicans have been sowing despair and discontent. Well, shame on them.

September 13, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY
WASHINGTON, DC — House Democratic Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn today delivered the following speech on the House floor:
    “Five years after 9/11, we have still failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.  We have not destroyed al Qaeda. A new Pentagon report shows that the situation in Iraq is worsening, with the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis climbing to highest average per week since the war began. Nearly 2,700 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq; over 20,000 have been wounded.  U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $300 billion for the Iraq war.
    “Yet we are spending four hours on the House floor debating a partisan resolution about one of the most tragic days in American history.  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to divide the country.  Slogans and partisanship will not bring us victory.  ‘Stay the course,’ ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ are not strategic military strategies.
    “Five years after 9/11 we must be clear, the war in Iraq has distracted us from finding Osama bin Laden, dismantling al Qaeda and fighting the war on terrorism.  We must put the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis so we can focus on our primary goal, winning the war on terrorism.  We must also end the stonewalling and pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
    “But the Republican Leadership is fighting the wrong battle.  They announced yesterday, a war against Democrats on security.  Mr. Speaker, our nation is engaged in a war against a real and brutal enemy who finds pleasure in taking innocent life and who works every day to undermine the freedom and democracy we hold dear.  I suggest the Republican Leadership focus its energy on fighting that enemy, not their fellow Americans. 
    “As this nation faces the greatest challenge of our generation, defeating terrorism, our leaders must preach strength and unity, not partisanship and divisiveness.”
                            -30-

Heads up, Lindsey!

Andrew Sullivan reports some disturbing news — particularly if you happen to be Lindsey Graham:

Next week, I’m informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full
unveiling of Karl Rove’s fall election strategy. He’s intending to line up 9/11
families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the
perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial
traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the
families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for
military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies.
This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it’s brutally exploitative of 9/11;
it’s pure partisanship; and it’s designed to enable an untrammeled executive.
Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose
and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that
this administration’s first priority is not a humane and effective
counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at
any price, you just got it.

Unity column

Towers12
When will we unite
to win this fight?

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
WHEN OUR board discussed what to say upon the fifth anniversary of the devastating terror attacks on American soil, I had to be talked into taking the approach we did: Examining what we have done and failed to do in response, right here at home.
    For me, the domestic situation is more depressing than conditions in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s a matter of expectations.
    When we sent our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew we were beginning a long and costly endeavor that, even with solid support among the U.S. electorate, would take longer than the time we’ve given it so far. While much that has happened over there has dismayed and even horrified me, little has surprised me.
    But the reaction over here has been a bitter disappointment, made more painful because I had hoped so ardently for something so much better.
    In late October 2001, I wrote:
    “On Sept. 11, amid all the horror, I started seeing and hearing things that gave me a new hope. I felt like the American spirit was maybe, just maybe, awakening from a long and fitful slumber. I knew that defeating this new evil that faced our country would be an all-consuming task that would leave us little energy for the petty bickering that had come to dominate public life. And I believed we would most certainly defeat it. We would rise to the occasion, and in the end we — and the world as a whole — would be better.”
    I haven’t had the opportunity to go to Iraq, and I don’t know how well I could assess the overall situation if I did — a battle looks different to each individual in it. I don’t trust the accounts of the Cassandras and Pollyannas who would have us either despair or pretend everything is all right. The voices I seek are those that speak of what we need to do to achieve success, starting from where we are right now.
    Such voices are all too rare, although sometimes they pipe up in unexpected places. I was pleased last week to see veteran scribe Joe Galloway, who up to now has done little but carp and criticize over the war effort, use his contacts among military leaders to pull together advice on how to win. The same day I read that, I read a column by Newt Gingrich — the very embodiment of pointless partisan infighting — that honestly analyzed grave mistakes made by leaders of his own party, and prescribed stern remedies.
    The best part of that piece was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present… . As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves.”
    We must indeed think in new ways, but we don’t. And no one among us is blameless.
    Most congressional Republicans give little more than lip service to winning the war. They devote themselves to tax cuts, while at the same time spending at levels previously unimagined. They, along with the president, have not acted as though they acknowledge the crucial connection between the war on terror and our insanely self-destructive energy habits. The president himself has left little hope for leadership — the kind all can follow — until his replacement takes office in 2009.
    The Democrats, rather than acting like a principled opposition and proposing the kinds of sacrifices that would be necessary to free us from foreign oil despots, have chosen instead to demagogue over gasoline prices (which obviously aren’t yet high enough to persuade us to conserve). In the first months and years after 9/11, they seemed stunned into having no ideas to present whatsoever. Now they seem energized by what they tout as our failures in battle, almost as if they welcome such outcomes.
    But you have to understand: The priority for Democrats as a party is not winning the war — it’s winning control of Congress in November.
    The priority of Republicans in general isn’t winning the war, either: It’s stopping the Democrats.
    I wouldn’t give two cents to affect the outcome of that pointless struggle either way. If I could, I’d get rid of most of them and start over, stocking the Congress with people whose priority is asserting and defending the values and interests we hold in common.
    The sin of the rest of us is letting the parties get away with it, while our best and bravest spill their blood on behalf of a people who have done too little to demonstrate that we deserve it.
    Five years ago, for a brief time, we were better than we are today. When will we “disenthrall ourselves,” and this time for good?

Towers7

Meanwhile, out in the real world

Wright_smith_good_to_go72                Wright & Smith — Good to Go

While the rest of us sit around arguing about the war on terror — or worse, ignoring it altogether as we Pci_80lbs_ruck_plus_iba_lbe_m4_kevlar_an_1dive into our own navels and gripe about our taxes or such — others are fighting it. Or getting ready to.

Rep. James Smith of Columbia was a JAG officer in the National Guard with the rank of captain, but he didn’t think that was doing enough. So a couple of years back, he started agitating for a transfer to the infantry. His entreaties were rebuffed. He bucked it up to Washington before someone told him fine, you can do that — as long as you give up your commission and start over as an enlisted man.

He took the dare, underwent basic, and eventually went to officer school on the way to regaining his former rank.Sleep_weapons_cleaning72 He has spent this summer undergoing specialized, intense infantry training for officers at Fort Benning. He graduates today. His unit is scheduled to go to Afghanistan in a few months.

In celebration, he sent a few folks pictures from his training course. I’m proud to share them with you. I’m even prouder to know James. He’s what I want to be when I grow up.

Here they are:

Waitin_for_sun_to_go_down_before_mission

Waiting for the sun to go down before mission.

Our_ride_to_the_fight72Ch53_lift_off72Smith_de_la_garza72Waitin_on_pizza_at_laaf72

What year do YOU think it is?

Following on that last post, it might be useful to read the piece that ran alongside Mr. Soros’ screed in the WSJ today. I like it because it seems a reasonable attempt to help folks realize — as I believe the Soros and Will pieces did — how meaningless "left" and "right" are in dealing with the world as it is today.

Personally, I’m not sure whether I’m a 1942ist or a 1938ist, but I worry that the author may be right about 1914.

As I did on the last post, I’m adding an addendum after it was brought to my attention that folks had trouble reading the WSJ pieces. The one to which I refer here was by Ross Douthat, an associate editor at Atlantic Monthly. Here is the start of it:

Foreign-policy debates are usually easy to follow: Liberals battle
conservatives, realists feud with idealists, doves vie with hawks. But
well into the second Bush term, traditional categories are in a state
of collapse. On issue after issue, the Republicans and Democrats are
divided against themselves, and every pundit seems determined to play
George Kennan and found an intellectual party of one. We suffer from a
surfeit of baffling labels — "progressive realism," "realistic
Wilsonianism," "progressive internationalism," "democratic globalism"
— that require a scorecard to keep straight. But perhaps there’s a
simpler way. For the moment at least, where you line up on any
foreign-policy question has less to do with whether you’re Republican
or Democrat, isolationist or internationalist — and more to do with
what year you think it is.

And here are the years to which he refers:

  • 1942 — "To the 1942ist, Iraq is Europe and the Pacific rolled into one, Saddam
    and Zarqawi are the Hitlers and Tojos of our era, suicide-bombers are
    the equivalent of kamikazes — and George Bush is Churchill, or maybe
    Truman. The most prominent exponent of 1942ism is Mr. Bush himself."
  • 1938 — "Iran’s march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler’s 1930s
    brinkmanship. While most ’38ists still support the decision to invade
    Iraq, they increasingly see that struggle as the prelude to a broader
    regional conflict, and worry that we’re engaged in Munich-esque
    appeasement. This camp’s leading spokesmen include Michael Ledeen, Bill
    Kristol and Newt Gingrich."
  • 1948 — "Most of the liberal ex-’42ists have joined up with the "1948ists," who
    share the ’42ist and ’38ist view of the war on terror as a major
    generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in
    terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style
    pre-emption. 1948ism is a broad church: It includes politicians who
    still technically support the Iraq war (but not really), pundits who
    opposed it from the beginning, chastened liberal hawks like Peter
    Beinart and chastened neocons like Francis Fukuyama."
  • 1972 — "’72ism has few mainstream politicians behind it, but a great many
    Americans, and it holds that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and
    that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing
    Cambodia…. ’72ism is the
    worldview of Michael Moore, the makers of "Syriana," and the editors of
    the Nation — and its power is growing."
  • 1919 — "For ’19ists, Mr. Bush is Woodrow Wilson, a feckless idealist bent on
    sacrificing U.S. interests and global stability on the altar of
    messianic liberalism. 1919ism was marginal three years ago, confined to
    figures like Pat Buchanan who (like the ’72ists) saw Zionist
    fingerprints all over U.S. foreign policy. But of late, many
    traditional conservatives have migrated in this direction, including
    William F. Buckley and George Will."

Finally, he suggested that all of them may be missing the scariest possibility of all — that this is 1914:

A few voices have spoken up of late for the most disquieting
possibility of all. This possibility lacks heroes and villains
(Bush/Wilson, Ahmadinejad/Hitler) and obvious lessons (impeach Bush,
stay the course in Iraq). But as our crisis deepens, it’s worth
considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us,
whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that
nobody saw coming.

For my part, I think it’s 2006. But what do I know?

Soros, Will: Georges of a feather

Folks who think in simplistic terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" would probably be surprised to see George Soros and George Will essentially the same ideas on the same day.

I would not. Nor would Norman Podhoretz, to whose comments I referred over the weekend. It’s quite natural that a true conservative would take the John Kerry approach to dealing with terrorism. As I’ve said
since we went in in March 2003 (and as The New Republic said at about the same time), what we are engaged in in Iraq is a classically liberal enterprise.

Nor is it surprising that Mr. Soros would embrace the conservative position of treating acts of terrorism as separate, distinct crimes rather than as parts of a larger struggle called the "war on terror." Putative liberals have approached the world this way ever since Vietnam.

Anyway, read the pieces and enjoy the irony.

Tim has pointed out that he was unable to read the WSJ pieces. Sorry; I thought that since I was getting them through OpinionJournal they would be accessible, but I see now that they were not among the free material.

To at least give you the gist of the Soros piece and explain why it reminded me of Will, here is an excerpt:

(T)he war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial
conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown,
al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror
increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence
agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are
still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing
attacks like the one foiled in England.

Podhoretz on foreign policy

There was a very interesting piece based on an interview with Norman Podhoretz on the WSJ’s editorial page today.

It was particularly interesting — and disturbing — for me because he is considered a sort of seminal neoconservative. "Disturbing" because I agreed with almost everything he said. When you hate agreeing across the board with any ideological label the way I do, this sort of thing can make you very uncomfortable.

I take comfort from the fact that the piece was confined to neocon thinking on foreign policy. That there is an overlap in that area should probably not be disturbing or surprising. I’ve said many times that my view of America’s role in the world is pretty much that of pre-Vietnam liberals, and it should be expected that my views would jibe with the neocons in this area because they were pre-Vietnam liberals — at least, the old ones like Podhoretz were.

Of course, nowadays "neocon" is most often defined more or less entirely in terms of a certain stance on foreign policy, and indeed it largely grew out of its fathers’ dispute with liberalism in that area during the ’60s. I still don’t like the label, though, because I first heard of it in connection with Reaganomics, and I disagreed with that stuff most vehemently. That’s the trouble with all modern political labels. I agree strongly with the "conservatives" on abortion and I agree strongly with "liberals" on public education. So I guess it’s OK to agree strongly with the "neocons" on muscular interventionism. Or so I tell myself.

Anyway, back to this piece. I said I agree with almost all of it. My blood sort of runs cold when he seems to be advocating torture. But then I wonder: Am I being hypocritical about this? While I embrace the McCain-Graham approach of pulling us away from the use of coercion on prisoners, I wonder if I take that position just to make myself feel righteous.

Guilty be told, on a certain level I hope that the Brits are doing what they can to extract information from the bomb plotters they’ve arrested so that they might quickly capture the ones they haven’t arrested, before they manage to carry out some plan B. I ask myself, which is worse — a would-be mass murderer getting slapped around a little, or a 747 with 400-plus people on it blowing up? And I think I know the answer.

But ultimately, I think McCain and company are right — if we’re going to win this war that Mr. Podhoretz calls World War IV, we have to tie our own hands to a great extent. Otherwise, it’s sort of hard to be champions of the liberal democracy we hope to foster in hostile soil. So on that point, I think the Podhoretz approach is not only chilling, but strategically wrong.