Why the losses?

I think Andrew J. Bacevich (professor of history and international relations at Boston University) hits the nail on the head in The Islamic Way of War.

Bacevich writes: Muslims have stopped fighting on Western terms—and have started winning:

What are we to make of this? How is it that the seemingly weak and primitive are able to frustrate modern armies only recently viewed as all but invincible? What do the parallel tribulations—and embarrassments—of the United States and Israel have to tell us about war and politics in the 21st century? In short, what’s going on here?

The answer to that question is dismayingly simple: the sun has set on the age of unquestioned Western military dominance. Bluntly, the East has solved the riddle of the Western Way of War. In Baghdad and in Anbar Province as at various points on Israel’s troubled perimeter, the message is clear: methods that once could be counted on to deliver swift decision no longer work.

Defeatist? Well, maybe Hannity would say so but it's a point-of-view rarely discussed in the media. Is it possible that we'll be fighting endless wars of attrition against an enemy who cannot (and will not) be beat?

It's likely if we don't get at those "root causes" that we're never allowed to mention.

A terrible coincidence

On the very day (August 25th) that I blogged that Cpl. Stephen Bixler was Connecticut's most recent fatal casualty in Iraq († May 2006), Marine Cpl. Jordan C. Pierson of Milford was KIA in Anbar Province.

Cpl. Pierson (pictured at left, below)...



...was 21 year old.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Putting a face on it

"Stay the course" sounds appealing in the abstract because, let's face it, nobody likes a quitter and most people desperately want their country to succeed. But when you get behind the political rhetoric and focus on the human toll of Bush's Iraq policy, the slogans seem barren and not a little repulsive. I'm a big fan of critical analysis (at least in others) and I tend to eschew emotional arguments but I don't think you can examine a war policy from a completely detached position.

This young man, who doesn't even look old enough to shave, is Marine Cpl. Stephen Bixler. He is, sadly, Connecticut's most recent casualty of the Iraq war. He was killed May 4, 2006 while on foot patrol in the province of Fallujah.

The Hartford Courant wrote: "Bixler leaves behind his parents, Richard and Linda; a twin sister, Sandra; and dozens of people who knew him as intelligent and athletic, and as a quiet but strong leader, whether it was in the Boy Scouts or on the high school cross-country team."

The only reason I'm writing about this is because I saw a Chris Matthews interview with Van Taylor, an Iraq war veteran who is running for Congress in the district that includes Mr. Bush's Crawford ranch. He's a Republican and he favors "seeing Iraq through" to victory.

He supports the president, he supports the continuation of the war and, despite being a Congressional candidate, he cannot tell us why we invaded Iraq:

MATTHEWS: So why did we attack Iraq then? Why did we attack Iraq then?

TAYLOR: Regardless of why we may have started fighting, and I served as a marine ...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking the question, why did we attack Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq?

TAYLOR: That‘s not the question that we need answered.

MATTHEWS: It‘s mine.

TAYLOR: It‘s what do we do now?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What‘s wrong with me asking the question? We are in a war.

Pearl Harbor started World War II.

TAYLOR: That‘s a question you can ask ...

MATTHEWS: What start it? Why did we go into Iraq?

TAYLOR: That is a question you can ask historians, but today we need to send people to Washington who understand the war on terror. There is not a single member of the United States Congress that has served in the war on terror, and there are only two dozen combat veterans. I will be the very first. We need to send people like me in Washington. [Full transcript here]

In three months we will have been in Iraq as long as we were in WWII and the supporters of this war still can't tell us why we're there. (During Vietnam -- before this blogger's living memory --- they couldn't tell us how we'd get out, but at least they told us why we were there!)

As Election Day approaches, Americans -- foremost among them people like the Bixler family -- have an absolute right to have that question answered.

American Exceptionalism

Is a subject that fascinates me.

In political debates I've always ascribed Evangelical views of America as the "New Zion" to a warped, if exclusive, interpretation of exceptionalism. (America as promised land; favored by God, etc.) In any case, I've always thought of it as a philosophy with religious -- or, at least, quasi-religious -- overtones.

Enter Scott McLemee at Inside Higher Education and my position is found to be lacking. (I really hate when that happens...)

In The Global Exception, McLamee touches on the right-wing religious brand of American Exceptionalism, but he also writes of the liberal, or left-wing, component:

The other form of American exceptionalism has a more left-wing genealogy. It emerged from debates over the peculiarities of the United States compared to other highly industrialized nation-states — especially the lack of a labor party or a mass-based socialist movement of the kind that became standard elsewhere in the world.

[snip]

In either version, the United States stands as a nation apart — somehow the product of forces cutting it off from the rest of the world’s history.

That last sentence is played out daily in Mr. Bush's foreign policy. Have a look at the article, it's a very good read.

Maybe it was the Cold War...

...I don't know but something managed to turn a free, proud people into a nation of cowering police bootlickers.

On Monday I was driving back from Rhode Island and as soon as I crossed the Connecticut line highway signs informed me that I would be fined for littering, fined for using a cell phone without a hands-free device, ticketed for driving without a seat belt, and arrested for speeding and/or drunk driving. Welcome to Connecticut, the "Land of Steady Habits".

Huge, electronic signs above the highway read, "Over the limit; under arrest!", and as I made way home -- listening to a rare Red Sox day game on the radio -- a public service announcement (opening with the sound of a jail cell door slamming)proudly announced that I'd experience that sound in person if I dared to well, I guess, have a drink with dinner some night.

I blame the Democrats, of course (in this state there's no one else TO blame)but, ultimately, it's the people who have gone soft. They've allowed government to assume the role of parent - confronting us constantly with "thou shalt nots" and "you're going to be in trouble if". Government has gone from nanny state to strict father; from overprotective mother to nagging wife.

I'm against drunk driving as much as the next guy but this is waaay over the top.(I went to Catholic school and the Sisters of Mercy weren't this bad!) They should have just put up a sign that read, "Welcome to East Berlin"

Ultimately, a tiny fraction of us drive drunk - just as a miniscule percentage of us murder, rape, rob, run over dogs for fun, etc. Why are a free people assaulted by government threats on their daily commutes? We all know that murder is illegal, but do we have to be reminded of it every twenty minutes?

I miss America...

The Party's Over

Ok, it's official, all that remains is tax policy. (Can Republicans even call this guy a "conservative" without smirking?)

Mr. Bush has abandoned "traditional conservative" stances on immigration, civil liberties, federal spending, limited government, non-intervention, tariffs and trade, and now, at long last, he's even pitching the pro-lifers overboard

President Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move

By John-Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, August 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For his pro-life supporter base, President George W. Bush stepped into one of the biggest political landmines of his Presidential career today with his approval of over the counter status for the abortion-causing morning after pill Plan B.

Rest easy, Fox Fans, it's entirely possible that White House advisers simply forgot to tell the president what he "believes" this morning. No doubt a timely memo from the RNC will clear it all up...

Moderate Joe II

Yesterday, I averaged out Joe Lieberman's liberal credentials by comparing "score cards" from four of the largest Democratic special interest groups. (See post here).

Just for the hell of it, I decided to check the American Conservative Union's lifetime ratings of several prominent Democratic Senators. Including those who are, doubtlessly, running for President in 2008 -- and those who have run in recent years. For the record, the ACU is the oldest Conservative lobbying group in America.

Lieberman (CT) - 17
Biden (DE) - 14
Nelson (FL) - 41
Bayh (IN) - 21
Reid (NV) - 20
Clinton (NY) - 9
Byrd (WV) - 30
Feingold (WI) - 12

So (Liberal) Joe is a 17/100 on the Conservative scale. (That's 3 points higher than Joe Biden; 8 higher than Hillary; and 3 points lower than Harry Reid)

And for the record, GOP whipping boy (and decorated war hero) Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania had a rating double that of Joe Lieberman's...

Define it...if you can

Kudos to the American Conservative magazine for bringing up a subject that's long overdue for serious discussion. In the August 28th issue the editors ask: "What is Left? What is Right? Does it Matter?"

1. Are the designations “liberal” and “conservative” still useful? Why or why not?

2. Does a binary Left/Right political spectrum describe the full range of ideological options? Is it still applicable?

The charge is taken up by thirty writers/thinkers/editorialists from across the political spectrum and the result is a fascinating collection of essays that may keep you reading well into the night.

Not suprisingly, Pat Buchanan penned my favorite line:

Most of us ... are not really ‘neo-’ anything. We are old church and old right, anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist, disbelievers in Pax Americana. We love the old republic, and when we hear phrases like ‘New World Order,’ we release the safety catches on our revolvers.

Good stuff, read it here.

Moderate Joe

Elsewhere on the web, I've been arguing with New England Republicans about Joe Lieberman's moderate credentials.

One gentleman suggested that compared to Kerry, Kennedy, and Reid, Lieberman is, indeed, a moderate. So I checked the numbers on leading liberal indicators and threw Connecticut's Senior Senator into the mix for comparison's sake.

Here's what I found:

SENATOR	ADA***	NARAL	ACLU	PFAW	AVG
Lieberman	80%	75%	71%	85%	78%
Dodd	100%	75%	60%	77%	78%
Kerry	100%	100%	71%	85%	89%
Kennedy	95%	100%	86%	92%	93%
Reid	100%	100%	57%	77%	84%

So based on the latest available "score cards" from these bright red groups, Senator Dodd (who no Republican would EVER call a moderate) and Senator Lieberman were in a stone cold tie.

Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy were (respectively) 11 and 15 percentage points higher. (No suprise there.)

And Senator Reid -- the DEMOCRATIC LEADER in the United States Senate -- was a mere 6 points higher than good Ol' Joe. (When was the last time you heard any Republican call Senator Reid a moderate?)

When the desperate Bushies say they support Joe Lieberman because he's a "moderate" or an "Independent" thinker, they're lying. (Because he's neither). They support him because he supports George Bush's war. (And, no doubt, his future war plans in Iran and Syria, as well.)

For the sake of consistency, when Senator Dodd runs for re-election, I would expect the RNC to refuse to endorse his GOP rival. After all, by current Republican standards, Senator Dodd is a moderate...
____________

***ADA - Americans for Democratic Action (.pdf)
NARAL - National Abortion Rights Action League
ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
PFAW - People for the American Way (.pdf)

The funniest 14 seconds in animation history

This material may be objectionable to some viewers so..., aww screw 'em!

The Essential Questions

James Wilson, my favorite Libertarian blogger, has an excellent article posted at the Partial Observer this week.

In True Believers, he asks the supporters of "endless war" twenty-five questions that would almost certainly expose the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of the War Party - if any of them were courageous enough to answer the questions honestly.

Here's a sampling:

• 1. You suggest that many critics of Israel, and of U.S. aid to Israel are anti-Semites. But which is more prevalent, anti-Semitism in the anti-war crowd, or anti-French and anti-Arab bigotry in the pro-war crowd?



• 3. How is bombing non-combatants from above via the Air Force not its own form of "terrorism?" Why do uniforms and greater fire power make one side morally superior?



• 4. Why are non-combatant victims of American or Israeli bombs at least partly to blame for the policies of their government, but American and Israeli civilians are always innocent?



• 5. You claim that extremist Muslims hate us for our freedoms, and want to impose Muslim law on us. Do you not hate Muslim cultures just as much? Aren't you just as determined to overthrow their societies to impose your own values on them? Even if not, wouldn't Muslims have a right to perceive this to be true? How do you know that terrorism is a form of aggression, instead of resistance?



• 7. If we are morally justified in "preemptive war" to destroy countries that may threaten our interests several years from now, wouldn't those countries be militarily justified in launching preemptive attacks on us?



• 10. If the United States suffered under persistent bombing and occupation by foreign troops, would you rule out terrorism against the occupiers? Against the aggressor nation's homeland?



• 20. If your family was massacred by foreign soldiers, or killed by bombs from above, would your reaction be, "Ah, collateral damage. What can you do? No hard feelings."

Go here to read the rest.

Would you buy a used car from this man?

While Hannity, Kemp, Limbaugh, and even RNC Chair Ken Mehlman lament Joe Lieberman's loss in last week's primary, the "Conservative" choice and the much adored "Moral Voice of the United States Senate" is revealed as a liberal, a sore loser, and well, quite frankly, a liar.

They could have titled it "Putting the "lie" in Lieberman", or "Say it ain't so, Joe" (I'm big on Baseball references) but, alas, The National Catholic Register has significantly more class than I do. Here's their lead editorial from the August 18th issue The Tragedy of Joe Lieberman:

When he first ran for the Senate, Lieberman had heavy Catholic support. He met with Hartford Archbishop John Whealon in 1988 and handed the archbishop a pro-life pledge.

Father Thomas Berry, who worked for Archbishop Whealon, is quoted in the Washington Times saying Lieberman “expressed himself against abortion, all suicide and euthanasia. His position on that definitely was well received by the archbishop and priests.”

It’s no wonder Catholics were shocked when the senator not only voted again and again in full support of abortion, but even went so far as to protect partial-birth abortion. That’s the procedure in which a doctor punctures the skull of a child who is being born. The doctor removes the child’s brain, then completes what has become a still-birth. [Emphasis mine]

Ok, he never met a tax he didn't love, he revels in spending the public largesse almost as much as the modern GOP does, he's pro-abortion, and he welches on a public promise to the (now deceased) Archbishop of Hartford in a cynical vote grabbing maneuver... But, hey, he loves the war! And given the chance, he'd vote to invade Syria and Iran (And Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan...) Well, ok, you get the point.

Let Joe run as an Independent if he so chooses, but can we at least stop with all the "moral courage" nonsense? The guy's no better than any other self-serving politician. In fact, by cloaking himself in a a false morality by parading his faith -- and using the faith of others -- he's probably a helluva lot worse...
_________

Update: I regret not quoting their closing line. It's a wonderfully crafted verbal bitch slap: "Joe, we both believe in the God who said “Thou shalt not kill.” Let’s make common cause, together, in Him. He always keeps his promises."

Or maybe not

So much for the increased security at British and American airports:

BOSTON (Reuters) - A woman panicking from claustrophobia forced a Washington-bound flight from London to make an emergency landing in Boston on Thursday, sparking a major security alert.

Police and other officials said there was no apparent terrorist threat, but the incident set off a major security response a week after British authorities said they had foiled a plot to blow up planes from London to the United States.

But here's the kicker:

"Her carry-on bags subsequently were searched and matches were found in the bag as well as a gelatin-like substance [ed: later determined to be hand cream] but those items were not deemed to have any terrorist connection or pose a threat to the aircraft," Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told a news conference. [Empasis mine]

Ok, so with all the ballyhoo about increased security -- especially relating to carry-on items -- how the hell did MATCHES and "a gelatin like substance" make it past British security?!

"Right you are now, love, just a tin of accelerant and a box of ignitables. You're good to board. Safe trip!"

The rules (as amended)

While it was previsouly forbidden for American politicians, pundits, journalists, or private citizens to criticize Israel, Israeli foreign and military policy, or the Israeli government - the rules have now been officially modified.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 12:10 PM (EDT), narco-terrorist paymaster, Rush Limbaugh, decreed: "The current Israeli Prime Minister is a disaster!"

Had anyone said -- relative to his Palestinian policy -- "Ariel Sharon is a disaster!", he would have been labeled an anti-Semite before the final syllable had passed his lips.

Therefore, the rules have been amended.

It's now perfectly permissable to criticize Israel if you sense moderation, or realism in the conduct of their foreign and military policy. If you discern that the Israeli Government is not behaving in a craven, blood-thirsty, and disproportianate manner then, by all means, have at them without fear of being smeared as a racist who wants Jews "pushed into the sea".

That is all.

der Konservatives

When I first started blogging I was obsessed with the decidedly non-conservative nature of the modern, self-described "conservative Republican". (Or, as a friend of mine humorously noted, "Neocons are neither.")

The GOP has always suffered from a political "multiple personality disorder". There were the big government, national security state brown shirts and the small government, civil libertarians who just wanted government out of their lives and, even, out of business. I was in the latter group at a time when there was still room for us in the Republican Party. Those days are long gone.

Llewellyn (Lew) Rockwell, a Libertarian thinker of the highest order, has summed up the new Republican philosophy very well in a recent article in the American Conservative:

If there are conservatives who believe in true liberty today, they were called liberals in earlier times. And any socialists today who call themselves liberals have simply stolen the term and converted it to mean its opposite.

The reality is that today there are ever fewer conservatives alive who believe in true liberty as the old school believed in it. They have been ideologically compromised beyond repair. They have been so seduced by the Bush administration that they have become champions of an egregious war, ghastly bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and utterly unprincipled on the question of government growth.

Granted, the corruption of conservatism dates way back—to the Reagan administration, to the Nixon administration, and even to the advent of the Cold War, when conservatives signed on to become cheerleaders of the national security state.

But it’s never been as bad as it is today. They sometimes invoke the names of genuinely radical thinkers such as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. But their real heroes are talk-radio blabsters, television entertainers, and sexpot pundit quipsters. They have little intellectual curiosity at all.

In many ways, today’s conservatives are party men and women not unlike those we saw in totalitarian countries, people who spout the line and slay the enemy without a thought as to the principles involved. Yes, they hate the Left. But only because the Left is the “other.”

The money line there is: "They have little intellectual curiosity at all" Some of them may be literate enough to take their cues from National Review or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal but, let's face it, most of them get their marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and [fill-in-the-blank].

White House staffers tell the president what to think; talking points go out to the pundits; the pundits hold forth for the benefit of the great unwashed.

At the height of its power, the Soviet Union didn't "do" propaganda half as well as these people "do" it. At least the Russians had to deal with a population that retained a modest portion of their critical thinking skills.

The lies proliferate and they're swallowed whole:

• "The president is keeping us safe."


• "The root cause of Islamic terrorism is a hatred of the Bill of Rights and open societies."


• "Hezbollah -- not al Quaida -- is a the world's most dangerous terror organization." (Condi Rice actually said that!!)

And the biggest lie of all: "We can defeat Islamic extremism with bombs."

Those damned "soft on terror " Democrats...

...could teach George Bush a lesson or two:

Bush staff wanted bomb-detection cash moved

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

[snip]

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. "It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years," he said.

[snip]

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said. [Emphasis mine]

Ok, so how do the Republifascists spin this to make it seem like John Murtha's fault?

It makes you think...

The next time you think that life couldn't get any worse because the morning line at Starbuck's is too long, remember this poor Boston family:

The devoted older brother of a dying Dorchester teen fulfilled a promise to join his little brother on his journey into eternal life when he died Tuesday in a motorcycle accident just hours before a brain tumor claimed his kin.

William Davulis, 26, the eldest of 10 children, was on his way to say goodbye to his younger brother, Dominic, 17, when he lost control of his motorcycle at the intersection of East First and O streets in South Boston at about 4:35 p.m.

“William wasn’t expecting to see God. He was expecting to see his dying brother,” said the brothers’ mother Terina, who hasn’t slept since she bid adieu to her older son at the city morgue only to return to Dominic’s bedside and hold his hand until he died at 12:50 yesterday morning. [Article]

When I read something like this I feel like a damned fool for complaining about...well, just about anything.

How do you stand on Iraq, m'boy?

I've spent my "online time" these past few days questioning a few "Republican" bloggers on their support for Joe Lieberman. It suprised me (but it shouldn't have) that so-called "Conservatives" are trying to bulid that ol' Joementum to get Lieberman back into the United States Senate.

Lieberman is not a conservative. But, then again, neither are most Republican bloggers..

Pat Buchanan, as ever, makes the point:

[..] Rhapsodizes editor William Kristol, "Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Guiliani-Lieberman ... ?"

In short, The Weekly Standard wishes to see, on a Republican ticket and a heartbeat away from the presidency, a proud liberal Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay rights, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, gun control, higher taxes on the top 2 percent, distribution of condoms in public schools and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

What does Joe oppose? School prayer, the American Legion's flag amendment, Sam Alito, drilling in the ANWAR and any phase-out of death taxes.

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in The Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.

Such is the state of conservatism, 2006.

To the neocons and their useful idiots in the Republican party (including the Republican Blogosphere) Iraq is the sole test. Your position on that misbegotten war determines your loyalty as an American and your standing in the party.

It is a sure sign of a looming Republican crack-up.

To hell with al Quaida, bomb Syria!

The Bushies are rushing in to capitalize on the UK's discovery of an alleged al Quaida plot to blow up British and American airliners, and I'm left scratching my head...

Is this a victory in the so-called War on Terror, or is it one more stark reminder that while al Quaida plotted and planned to attack us, Mr. Bush had us irretrievably bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire?

Five years after September 11th bin Laden remains at large. While the neocon press and pundits say, "no worries", it can't be doubted that his continued liberty is an enormous symbolic victory for the "terrorissss" and a rallying point for "those who would do us harm".

As recently as last night , RNC Chair, Ken Mehlman, was describing Iraq as, "the central front in the war on terror."

This is the type of logic that you have to adopt to be a "good Republican" these days:

• It's no problem at all that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of September 11th and the motivating force behind today's events remains at large.



• Iraq (a nation that never attacked us and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11) is "the central front in the war on terror".

You know, even if Iraq were the central front in the War on Terror (TM), it's not as if the administration were doing a bang-up job there either!

It makes my head hurt... A lot...

Sydney Blumenthal nails it

Here's part of his Lieberman post-mortem:

Aug. 09, 2006 | Joe Lieberman's fall from grace appears straightforward. In Connecticut, where George W. Bush and his war are intensely disliked, Lieberman stationed himself as the president's defender. But Lieberman's precipitous descent from nomination as vice president to rejection by his home state partisans is also something of a mystery.

Lieberman was once the most attractive and promising Democrat in his state, his grasp of political realities subtle and sinuous. But he became scornful of disagreement, parading himself as a moral paragon to whom voters should be privileged to pay deference. The elevation of his sanctimony was accompanied by the loss of his political sense.

And here's the rest: Joe's fall from grace