A Response to the Usual

My post below on the war-crime-du-jour that is the White Phosphorus controversy bought me a lengthy rebuttal from True Sisyphus ("TS"). I appreciate TS's time and willingness to engage in debate. As I've said many, many times, part of my reasoning in starting this site was to provide a forum for people to debate in the comments field and that I hoped persons of both the right and left would take up that challenge. It is in that spirit that I offer this commentary on TS's post. (Note: unfortunately, TS got cut off at the end and did not continue his/her comments; this is why they end abruptly).

"New Sisyphus" (NS) is so consistent in his use of false statements, half truths, and spin that I sometimes wonder if he is not in fact Bill O'Reilly. This article is no exception.

I am, in fact, not Bill O'Reilly, much to my wife's displeasure. However, I am willing to host a Fox News program if so requested.

The articles to which NS refers do not say that the US "deliberately target[ed] civilians" in the attacks on Falluja. Instead, they say that there was "indiscriminate" use of white phosphorus (WP) and a modern version of napalm (Mark 77). The Pentagon admits to having used WP in an aerial mode, which by its very nature is indiscriminate. WP "is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes" (quoted from the National Safety Council, a congressionally chartered nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization). The fumes (smoke), it turns out, is the very reason why the US military used it in Falluja.

TS is right that the articles referenced do not specifically state that the US "deliberately target[ed] civilians" in the attacks on Falluja. However, the charge that US forces used incendiary ammunition indiscriminately in a civilian area is tantamount to the same thing. Anyone using such ammo indiscriminately must know, as a matter of course, that civilians will be harmed. Still, there is a distinction to be made here, and TS is correct on this point. While the tone of the articles is certainly suggestive of a certain disregard for Iraqi life in the minds of US troops, they do not say that the US was specifically targeting civilians for death. I suppose in these anti-American times one must be thankful for small favors.

I also have no qualms with TS's classification of WP as dangerous. Of course it is. As to its admitted use in Fallujah by the Pentagon, it is TS that is engaging in a half-truth. As we have learned from the U.S. Government's official explanation of the matter, US forces used WP in Fallujah both for illumination purposes (i.e. flares) and for smoke-laying purposes (i.e. to provide screening cover and to smoke out enemy fighters from entrenched positions). At no time, however, did US forces deploy any version of Napalm, as TS states. To quote from the statement: "no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah." Given the USG's extreme openness on this topic, and the fact that it has clarified its use of WP as late as yesterday, and given the absence of any proof to the contrary beyond that of mere allegations (some of which, as the USG points out, originally charged that the US used "napalm gas" until such time as they learned that such a thing does not and cannot exist, whereupon the charge was amended to read simply "napalm") TS's assertion does not have credibility.

NS excuses the use of WP as legitimate simply because the US never signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention Protocol III. The fact that most of the world's nations have signed on is of no consequence to him. This facile approach to international law would exclude Hitler, for example, for not having signed any treaty banning genocide. We must accept that a predominate acceptance of a principal in international law amongst the community of nations should be binding on others, just as our domestic laws do not require the agreement of each and every citizen to become enforceable.

First, the weapons control treaty in question here is the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, Protocol III ("CCW") and not, as TS states, the "Chemical Weapons Convention Protocol III." The distinction is important since WP's inclusion in the 1980 treaty clearly demonstrates that the world has always looked upon WP as a variant of conventional weapons and not, as TS and the left is charging, a chemical weapon.

Second, my point was not to excuse the US or any other power from the sanctions of international law merely because the US is not a signatory to CCW Protocol III. Obviously, Hitler was guilty of war crimes on the basis of international "common law" and the Allied Powers did not have to rely on a specific undertaking by Germany not to commit genocide before holding senior Nazis to account. Rather, my point was that the numerous references to WP as "banned" and "illegal" failed to take into account that they are neither under current recognized international law as it relates to the United States of America.

However, TS articulates another source of law. If there is a "predominate acceptance of a principal in international law amongst the community of nations," then that principal should be a binding article of international law. That is true insofar as there are broad categories of recognized activity that constitutes clear war crimes. It is from such consensus that the common law of war crimes has arisen. However, on a broad range of issues about which there is no such consensus, such as the use of WP, the matter was presented by the United Nations as a "take it or leave it" matter connected to the CCW. Why would there be an optional treaty that a power could refuse to sign if the point it sought to enforce was the subject of a solid international consensus? TS's approach simply makes no sense in this regard.

The "always out-of-touch" Independent (a UK newspaper) has consistently been more accurate in their reporting on Iraq than the mainstream media. They have pointed out from the start the inaccurate intelligence reports, misleading statements by White House officials, Halliburton corruption, etc., more consistently and earlier than US mainstream media (which conservatives like to claim is so liberal).

This is, of course, a matter of opinion, though I note that it is with the Independent's Middle Eastern correspondent that the verb "to fisk" was born and that the Pentagon has uncovered a whole lot more Halliburton corruption than the Independent ever did.

I would agree with NS's sarcastic comment that WWII vets who engaged in war crimes against Japanese or Germans be held accountable. If he has any specific information pertaining to such crimes I would encourage him to assist in bringing those criminals to justice.

Since my point was that almost every unit that fought in WWII used WP as a weapon (WP shells were standard issue to tank and artillery units, and were carried as mortar rounds by infantry units), TS's response can only mean that he/she considers all of our WWII era fighting men and women war criminals. (There's a nice Veteran's Day message). This obvious absurdity reveals the weakness of TS's position and that of the Left on this matter in general. The use of WP was not a war crime in WWII when it was used as a direct anti-personnel weapon and it is not a war crime now when it has been used for illumination and smoke-creation purposes.

Finally, NS mentions that the US under FDR executed "enemy combatants" (a term not used in connection with those cases and without meaning in international law but rather invented by the Bushies to avoid compliance with the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory). This reference is meant to suggest that FDR was more extreme in his treatment of "enemy combatants" than is the current administration. By his own admission, however, these men were charged and tried by a military tribunal. The detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere have not been charged with any crime, have in most cases been denied any form of due process, and are commonly denied any legal representation or contact with family. The administration claims the authority to hold them indefinitely under these circumstances. While Bush supporters defends these acts by saying that the detainees are terrorists,

I hardly know where to begin with here, TS's arguments are so wrong. I often find it helpful when in this situation merely to take it line-by-line.

1) The term "enemy combatants" was used by FDR , was used in connection with those cases, even in connection with US citizens, and has concrete meaning under international law as it was understood in WWII and now. To argue, as TS does, that Bush "invented" the concept and his power to hold such people out of whole cloth is to ignore the entire constitutional law history of the debate. To quote from the Supreme Court's opinion in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942):

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

In short, FDR labeled the Nazi saboteurs of Ex Parte Quirin enemy unlawful combatants, had them tried before a military tribunal and executed, all in accordance with recognized international law. (Note: over time the more archaic sounding "enemy belligerent" merged with the concept of "unlawful combatant" to become today's designation of "enemy combatant"). This concept was upheld again by the US Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld when it held that:

The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again.

* * *

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,"; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

This fact has been litigated and re-litigated over and over again by legal scholars who share TS's mistaken outlook. To date, the courts have unanimously found that far from "inventing" a category and "making-up" non-existent powers, the President has been properly discharging his duties. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Padilla v. Hanft on September 9th of this year:

The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.

2) Since FDR executed the enemy combatants instead of merely holding them as prisoners as Bush is doing, it is self-evident that FDR treated them "more harshly" than the current administration.

3) TS then turns his sights to the Geneva Convention, repeating the same tired mantra that the U.S. is somehow in violation of it. No such violation has ever been found by a court during the numerous challenges to its conduct the Bush Administration has been subjected to. The Geneva Convention's protections extend only to organized soldiers, who fight in uniform and report to a central authority. (Soldiers, in other words). The only thing the Bush Administration has done with regard to the Geneva Convention is to state the obvious: it's protections apply to regular soldiers of the Iraqi Army, but do not apply to the Taliban (except in certain limited cases) or al-Qaeda.

4) TS then makes the common error of the Left when he states that while FDR tried his enemy combatants, the people at Gitmo have never been tried, do not have due process rights, etc. The root of this error is failure to distinguish the two types of captivity an enemy combatant may be subjected to. First, as the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Hamdi (see quotes above) an unlawful combatant can be held under the President's inherent war fighting powers, as authorized by Congress, until hostilities end. This type of detention is designed merely to prevent the enemy fighter from re-joining the fight. The innovation in Hamdi was that the Court directed the Executive Branch to hold a hearing to determine that the person so held was properly detained. This hearing is strictly perfunctory, and should not be confused (as it always is) with a military tribunal adjudicating a crime.

The second type of detention (and punishment) is for an alleged war crime. This would be tried before a different type of military tribunal, which would then hand down a sentence, confirmed by the President acting as commander-in-chief.

I realize that this is confusing. God knows there are a number of good law professors who can't get their minds around it (usually those who accuse the President of being dumb, ironically). Perhaps a good example would illustrate.

Example A: Ahmed is a Taliban supporter who has taken up arms against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He is given a rifle, some basic training and then forms up to fight with a small group of Taliban fighters. Over time, he becomes a leader, leading his own small band in fights against US forces. One night, Ahmed's unit is surrounded by US Army forces and most of Ahmed's men are killed. Ahmed and eight other Taliban fighters are captured. US Army intelligence quickly learns that Ahmed was the leader of the band and that he represents both an above-average threat and that he may have valuable intelligence. Ahmed is sent to Gitmo.

-- Ahmed is an enemy, unlawful combatant. The terms of the Geneva Convention do not apply.
-- Under the Hamdi decision, the President has the authority to hold Ahmed at Gitmo until hostilities between the Taliban and US forces cease in Afghanistan.
-- Under the Hamdi decision, a tribunal of some kind (the Court did not specify its exact make-up, though it strongly suggested that a military tribunal would suffice) must hear evidence of Ahmed's capture sufficient to lead to a conclusion that he was an enemy combatant and not, say, a farmer who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is an Executive Branch hearing, not a trial.

Example B: During questioning at Gitmo, Ahmed boasts that it was he who beheaded three schoolgirls in a remote Afghan village for the crime of attending school and not being properly attired. The US brings war crime charges against Ahmed specifically for these killings. He is tried for the war crime before a military tribunal, sentenced and executed.

As you can see, the US can hold Ahmed just as effectively under Example A as it can under Example B, except that were hostilities to cease Ahmed would have to be released. Since the US is not in the mood to execute these guys, we by and large have been sticking with Example A, though some of the first trials under Example B are coming up.

5) This is why the detainees at Gitmo have not been charged with a crime or received the due process rights such suspects are given: they are not being criminally held. They are being held as prisoners in connection with the President's authority to fight this war, an authority that has been scrutinized again and again by the courts and found to have been properly executed. On this point especially, TS is simply misinformed and wrong.

The Consensus Truth

This week's reading of the Financial Times has been fascinating. Part of the reason I subscribe to that newspaper is to get not only a European view of what is going on in the world, but also to gain an overall sense of what the major themes arising in Europe out of those events are. This is the strength of newspapers; while one can access the content online, it is only by seeing the layout and the relative importance given to varying stories can one begin to understand the world view that is giving its understanding of what is going on through the medium of facts and opinion.

By the end of this week, I can conclusively say that for the European, the following four assertions have hardened into a virtually unquestionable truth:

1) That the riots in France have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam;

2) That the riots in France are as bad as they are is a direct result of the fact that French Interior Minister Sarkozy referred to the rioters early on as "scum" who would be dealt with harshly;

3) That the rioters are all native born French and not immigrants (almost every story contains a mandatory reference to the rioters as "the sons and grandsons of immigrants to France from her former colonies brought in due to the severe labor shortage following the Second World War);

4) That the only proper response is massive government social spending on welfare, housing and job creation.

These assertions have not only hardened into the truth, they are increasingly presented as self-evident, obvious and fundamental. Opposing views are finding no outlet, as usual, in modern and democratic Europe, except, of course, for the Internet.

While I myself believe that the local political culture has more to do with the riots than Islam, to discount the effects of its rise as a militant victimology altogether as having absolutely nothing to do with the riots is ridiculous. While it may not be the prime motivation, the fact is that the vast majority of the "unemployed youths" who are rioting come from the Muslim community while their non-Muslim counter-parts remain more or less unmoved. The fact that any 5-second Google search can lead you to countless videos of rioters shouting "God is Great" while jumping up and down and pumping their fists is a fact that cannot be wished away.

However, an article in today's edition was atypical of the genre, in that it goes a long way to unintentionally reveal some of the truth behind the facade of denial. Entitled "Community looks for answers in a riot-torn district" and authored by Roula Khalaf, the article provides an in-depth look at the response to the riots by Socialist mayor Claude Pernes of Rosny-sous-Bois, described as "a town of 40,000 people scarred by the rioting that has swept through France." The article describes an extra-ordinary town meeting where the troubles were discussed by the community, including both white French people and French persons of immigrant backgrounds. The mayor, who the article reveals as a man obviously moved by the turnout and anguished over what has happened to his town, defends his record (public spending, public works, youth community centers, etc.) and in turn is accused of the same sort of discrimination that gave rise to the riots.

It's not until the reporter ventures outside at night, however, that things get really interesting. The reported is escorted outside by a Moroccan man who had rebuked the mayor for discrimination. He explains to Khalaf where the young me are likely to congregate, but that they will have to wait a bit tonight since "They're all watching the football match" of France versus Costa Rica on television. The Moroccan man is correct, and, on schedule, the young men appear. Khalaf reports:

They [the young men] were for the most part, dressed in jeans, tennis shoes and black rain jackets with large hoods. Happy to speak with reporters-and wanting above all to appear before cameras-they seemed obsessed with Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister who called the gangs "scum" and Wednesday threatened to expel foreigners involved in the violence.

"He has to resign, he has to resign, that's our demand," they shouted.

Lamine, a 19-year old school dropout who sometimes works as a pizza deliver boy, is the apparent leader. His family-his father married four times and has a total of 30 children-came from Senegal in 1980. The parking lot, he says, has become his refuge. "We're here, it's our territory, we watch," he said.

He admitted that he had been thrown out of school because of bad behaviour yet he insisted he should be offered better job opportunities. "I look for jobs but I'm discriminated against, someone with a French name is always favoured,' he said.

Some of the youth expressed real grievances of largely Muslim communities in France. Others, however, were cheeky, speaking of the riots as a game that, much to their surprise, had worked, provoking a political crisis.

"We tried to express ourselves differently but the only way to get attention and to get the cameras here is through rioting," said 20-year old Karim, a French-born man of Algerian origin.

The real enemy of these young men, aged between 15 and 21, was government authority. "You burn state property because you want to make the government pay. But the government also has to compensate citizens if private property is destroyed," said Karim.

The degeneration of communities caused by welfare spending and its effects on the young, particularly young men, are all on parade here. They are dressed in the international uniform of the urban disaffected. They revel in the power that their criminality can impose on a society they feel no part of. They understand almost instinctively who their enemy is (i.e. Sarkozy). They understand the power of the media and get excited when the cameras appear. They understand the grievance language they are to speak when given the opportunity. Even though they are in stark opposition to the government, they still expect the government "to pay" for any property that they destroy, the government being responsible, as we all know, for everything.

But look at the undercurrent of the dialogue here: Lamine was given an opportunity for education, his actions caused him to be expelled, which he freely (and probably proudly) admits. He has had a job, but obviously has no time for it. He comes from a family where notions of personal responsibility, especially for men, are non-existent. The problem here is one of indulgence and culture, too much of the former and not enough of the latter.

Increased spending is not going to reach the Lamines of the world, far from it. Only a movement dedicated to opening up opportunity while at the same time insisting on personal responsibility and accountability can provide a long-term solution. And, even then, the sad fact is that France has lost young men like Lamine and probably cannot reclaim them, though individual cases may defy the general rule.

However, official France has no time for such thinking. In a related article, Thierry Breton, the Finance Minister, states that:

"We have put a lot of money into the suburbs over the past 20 years, but obviously it wasn't enough."

Good thinking, Breton! More of the same, except more of it. The Left's fixation with funding levels above and beyond all things has been apparent for years, yet it never ceases to amaze me.

In the end, Mayor Pernes comes into contact with our small group of rioters. Khalaf continues:

Suddenly, the young men heard that Mr. Pernes, the mayor, was touring the town. They rushed out of the parking lot to speak to him. Some of them tried to be polite but asked, in a firm tone, how he planned to respond to their demands.

Others were impertinent. "I won't speak with you," one of the younger kids told the mayor. Why, asked Mr. Pernes. "I just don't like you. I just don't like the way you look," was the answer.

* * *

He [the mayor] answered the more serious questions, acknowledging, for example, that it was a challenge for blacks from the poor suburbs to find jobs. But his overall message to the band was that the riots would make employers even more reluctant to hire young people like them.

"If it is already difficult to find jobs, it's going to be even more difficult now," he said.

Don't be so gloomy with that common sense there, M. Pernes! Surely there is some action French officials can take to repeal reality and force these young people into jobs they don't want from employers who don't want to hire them. That's a sure recipe for success.

White Phosphorus

For those of you not yet tired of the sorry parade of lies directed at U.S. forces abroad (you know, we torture, we deliberately target civilians, we have death squads that target journalists, we routinely rape Muslim women, etc.), the always out-of-touch Independent in Britain has been running a series claiming that the U.S. used "chemical weapons" in the Battle of Falujah in the form of white phonphorus shells.

Two things stand out about this charge.

First, the U.S. Government, which has conducted itself with honor to date in the prosecution of this war, has posted a detailed refutation of the charges, including a look at their origin. Read it yourself (you can find it here) and you'll see why the charges just don't stick.

Second, assuming for the sake of argument that the charge is true, White Phosphorus ammo and flares have never been considered "chemical weapons" by the main treaties banning them. In fact, the only arms control treaty that specifically mentions WP is the 1980 Convention on Chemical Weapons, Protocol III, to which the U.S. is NOT a signatory.

Our forces used WP in combat against both the Nazis and the Japanese militarists. For the sake of constancy, I expect every good liberal or leftist parroting the latest "war crimes" line to denounce as illegal World War II and call for the immediate investigation of U.S. war crimes committed against German and Japanese civilians by U.S. and Allied soldiers, sailors, and Marines still alive.

After all, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, is there? Go get that criminal Roosevelt Administration, liberals!

And, hey, while you're at it, FDR also declared U.S. citizens "enemy combatants," except he didn't just have them held indefinitely.

He had them shot.


UPDATE: A friend writes to remind me that after the military tribunal for which the Ex Parte Quirin Nazi saboteurs were tried, President Roosevelt sentenced the enemy combatants, including the one who was a native-born U.S. citizen--to death by the electric chair. So, technically, Roosevelt had them fried and not shot.

I stand corrected.

The Republican Meltdown Continues

How does the Washington Republican leadership respond to a solid drubbing on election day, losing two important governor's races and losing every single initiative proposed by California's Republican governor?

Why, by backing down on ANWR oil drilling, of course.

In case there was any doubt, this sad episode has revealed the utter and complete bankruptcy of the Republican Party at this time. Despite receiving overwhelming mandates in both the executive and the legislative branch, the Republicans have refused to assume either the mantle of leadership or the mind-set of a majority. Instead, slavishly devoted to the Beltway political culture, they have been scraping and bowing, smiling and backing down, made worse by the fact that they have been doing this while being accused by the Democrats and the MSM of the most vile, untrue and radical conspiracy theories this writer has ever seen advanced from the mouth's of one of our two great parties' leaders.

From Senator Frist to Speaker Hastert to President Bush to Senator Specter to the almost laughable Representative DeLay, the Republican Party is being led by foolish, politically-challenged, seemingly reluctant conservatives that are either unwilling or unable to make a decent argument or mount a serious campaign.

While the Democrats will be the main beneficiaries of this nonsense, it won't be bacause of any brilliant work on their part, save for a willingness to look into the camera and spout the most objectionable idiocy imaginable. In the meantime, more and more rank-and-file Republican voters are beginning to wonder why they bothered putting this crew into power in the first place.

The tide is turning the Democrat's way and, what is worse, our own leadership has been the force behind the turn.

Signs That There May Not Be a God After All, Number 64 in an Occassional Series

From the website of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

1998 Inductees, The Eagles:

Inductees: Don Felder (guitar; born 9/21/47), Glenn Frey (born 11/6/48; guitar, vocals), Don Henley (drums, vocals; born 7/22/47), Bernie Leadon (guitar, mandolin, banjo; born 7/19/47), Randy Meisner (bass, vocals; born 3/8/47), Timothy B. Schmit (bass, vocals; born 10/30/47), Joe Walsh (guitar, vocals; born 11/20/47)

2002 Inductees, The Ramones:

Inductees: Dee Dee Ramone (bass, vocals; born September 18, 1952, died, June 5, 2002), Joey Ramone (vocals; born May 19, 1952, died April 15, 2001), Johnny Ramone (guitar; born October 8, 1951, died September 15, 2004), Marky Ramone (drums; born July 15, 1956), Tommy Ramone (drums; born January 29, 1952).

Let me see if I have this right. Members of a tired hippy band that evokes homicidal rage, all alive. Members of the greatest American punk band of all time, mostly all dead.

You make the call.

Xmas Elections for Canucks

Well, you knew this was going to happen sooner rather than later: the New Democratic Party of Canada has withdrawn its confidence measures support from the minority Liberal government, pledging to vote with the Bloc and the Conservatives "at the earliest opportunity" to bring down the government of PMPM. (That's "Prime Minister Paul Martin, for all you Canadian politics neophytes.)

Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, however is not jumping the gun just yet: he is reported to have responded to the NDP announcement by noting that the NDP may be trying to force concessions out of the Liberal government and not really be interested in bringing it down.

Given the NDP's less-than-stellar track record in this regard, Mr. Harper's suspicion is well-founded. But my trusty Canuck sources tell me that the NDP is serious and that the life span of this Parliament is now measured in weeks.

Once more into the breach, dear friends. May it be a Merry Xmas for Harper and the Conservatives.

Sympathy For the French Rioters?

Ralph Peters of the New York Post has ruffled a few feathers on the Right this morning with an op-ed piece entitled "France's Intifada" that argues passionately that the rioters' anger is a just demonstration of rage directed at a fundamentally racist country. The piece ends with Peters arguing that "every American who believes in racial equality and human dignity should sympathize with the rioters, not with the effete bigots on the Seine." The idea that one of our premiere opinion writers on the American Right could be supporting what is obviously a jihadi-influenced uprising is not as strange as one might believe at first glance. In fact, Peters' essay reveals a little-noticed but fundamental feature of America's political culture that the current Administration would be wise to pay attention to, as it provides the key to securing Democratic, liberal and progressive support for the wider War on Terror.

As a university student in Paris in the late 1980's, I lived in an international dorm called the Cite Universitaire in Paris' 14th Arrondissement. The Cite is a wonderful place, with many nations having their own dorm buildings (Japan House, German House, U.S. House, etc.) on a beautiful campus, centered on common buildings that contain a cafeteria, a cafe, a bookstore, a theatre and a post office. As students, we took all our main meals at the cafeteria, though, truth be told, we often went to the cafe instead since the food was generally a little bit better (Croque-Monsieur anyone?). It was there that I had the most interaction with other students, both French (the Cite also houses a lot of French students from the provinces) and other Europeans, not to mention the occassional African or Latin American.

I mention this because one of the effects of this exposure was that I found myself after a short amount of time being the guy other people would come to if they wanted to discuss America or America's foreign policy. Most of the people who approached me did so in the manner of someone seeking out a strange being, for here was a creature who could actually explain why Ronald Reagan, an obvious buffoon (times really never change, do they?), had won the Presidency with such overwhelming support. It was, in fact, a bit touching to find people steeped in a reflexive anti-Americanism seeking out discussion and debate, enriching both parties in the process. I have always thought the experience the very essence of what international education should be all about.

After a while, I recoginzed the duality of the French students' thoughts on race. To them, America was and is a fundamentally racist country, a place where American Blacks are endlessly downtrodden, oppressed and in desperate need of Gallic solidarity. This was a given, impervious to discussion or reason. Yet, at the same time, under questioning by me, they would slowly answer my questions, quickly coming to grips with what I was getting at: "No, we don't have any non-white deputies in the National Assembly....No, you're right, we've never had an Arab-Frenchman or and African-Frenchman achieve flag rank in our military......Yes, it must be admitted, we have never had a non-white minister of state......Okay, I see your point, one never sees a black or brown skinned fireman or police officer here in Paris.....and, yes, of course, our business leaders are uniformily white."

It was through the course of these discussions that I would relent and admit that the U.S. has always had a problem with race, but counter that it was one we were confronting and dealing with, while the French have always blithely assumed that everyone is French and would like to be French if they weren't. A racism that is unconscious and the product of republican ideology is still racism.

So, when Peters argues, as he did this morning, that "[t]here is no Western country more profoundly racist than France," he is on to something important. In this morning's Financial Times, a French official is quoted as claiming that for "bureaucratic reasons" firemen for the Paris area are all recruited in the low-minority southwest of France (Pyrenees-Atlantique), which, naturally, is a good French explanation for how it is that an enormous city with a large minority population has not one Arab or African fireman.

This is not the racism of Bull Connor, but, rather, the subtle racism of the Fifth Republic, where, somehow, someway, the rules--dispassionately taking no notice of race or ethnicity--always manage to ensure that France-in-power remains 100% French and 100% white.

In our political culture, this result would be unacceptible on a number of levels, not the least of which would be the moral unacceptibility of such an outcome that stands in stark contrast to the American way. When Peters writes that "[t]here's nothing resembling equal-opportunity programs or affirmative action" in France he is not advocating those particular remedies as such but, rather, noting as I did in Paris so long ago that while we have our problems we are addressing it in a wide variety of ways, while the French are not.

The result--though some of us would like to achieve it via a color-blind and inclusive meitocracy while others want to achieve it via government dictated "positive" discrimination--is that at no time in American history have minorities been better intregrated into mainstream American society.

For while Hurricane Katrina has revealed that we still have a problem when it comes to a segment (that is, a part, not the whole) of the native-born African-American population, as well as the Native American population, the fact is that both groups are declining in relative numbers as compared to more recently-arrived immigrants who are doing spectacularly well,including non-native born Blacks (both African and Caribbean), Hispanics, Indians and Koreans and, yes, Muslim Arabs. (Non-Muslim Arabs have always done well here, not least because of their appreciation for a land where one's religion does not set in stone one's relation to one's neighbor). While it is a particular East Coast, and thus European, error to view the state of American race relations as a matter of Black and White, we here in the West have always known that "minority" isn't just another way of saying "Black."

On the contrary, growing up in Southern California, especially now, is proof against such past-their-prime generalities, as well as against knowing what being a "minority" even means. (Sidenote: You'd be surprised how many non-Californians assume that the struggle against affirmative action in University of California admissions was an argument in Black and White and not, as it actually began, an inter-minority fight that largely pitted recently-arrived Asians against Blacks).

This belief in racial equality and individual liberty, as opposed to the tenents of multi-culturalism, is a deeply rooted American value, one that is shared by large portions of both the left and right in America. France's practices in this regard are a direct affront to those values, which is why a good conservative like Peters can look at the rioting and feel some sympathy for the devil.

The Slow, Relentless March to Irrelevance

The MSM has a problem. It's all your fault, you right-wing Blog-reading nutjob! They were paragons of professionalism, high prients of objectivity, dispassionate dispensers of news, and now look at them.

Look at them and laugh.



Average weekday circulation of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. [The percentage changes are from the comparable year-ago period.]

1. USA Today, 2,296,335, down 0.59 percent

2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,083,660, down 1.10 percent

3. The New York Times, 1,126,190, up 0.46 percent

4. Los Angeles Times, 843,432, down 3.79 percent

5. New York Daily News, 688,584, down 3.70 percent

6. The Washington Post, 678,779, down 4.09 percent

7. New York Post, 662,681, down 1.74 percent

8. Chicago Tribune, 586,122, down 2.47 percent

9. Houston Chronicle, 521,419, down 6.01 percent

10. The Boston Globe, 414,225, down 8.25 percent

11. The Arizona Republic, 411,043, down 0.54 percent

12. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 400,092, up 0.01 percent

13. San Francisco Chronicle, 391,681, down 16.4 percent

14. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 374,528, down 0.26 percent

15. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 362,426, down 8.73 percent

16. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 357,679, down 3.16 percent

17. Detroit Free Press, 341,248, down 2.18 percent

18. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 339,055, down 4.46 percent

19. The Oregonian, Portland, 333,515, down 1.24 percent

20. The San Diego Union-Tribune, 314,279, down 6.24 percent

Font Problems

We are working out the glitches in the font that have caused some problems below. Please be patient!

The Bush Doctrine: An Assessment

As usual, the good folks at Commentary Magazine have done us an invaluable favor in publishing yet another excellent issue this month, the bulk of which is available online without a subscription. The lead article this month is a Symposium, asking leading intellectuals to comment broadly on the Bush Doctrine, its application to date, its failures, and its future. The responses from 36 writers, professors and analysts are almost all compelling and noteworthy, though one wishes that more on the left were sought out.

Of all the responses that leapt out at me, though, the one that I want to discuss at some length is that of Aaron L. Friedberg, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and formerly Vice President Cheney’s national security advisor. Friedberg is interesting not only because he was an Administration insider responsible for policy creation during the time when the Bush Doctrine came into being, but also because he has long been connected with the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, which had been calling for the ouster of the Ba’athist regime in Baghdad since at least 1997.

Thus, Friedman’s views reflect not only those of the Administration he was once a part of, but also of that strata of Washington-based intellectuals who have exerted influence over the great policy decisions of the Administration. What follows are Friedman’s comments, paragraph by paragraph, along with my comments and observations. (You can, of course, read the entire Friedman piece as a whole at the Commentary Magazine link provided above).

Since 9/11, the “Bush Doctrine” label has been applied to various aspects of administration policy, from the President’s initial “with us or against us” warning to state sponsors of terrorism, to his declared willingness to act preemptively (and, if need be, unilaterally) to head off the danger of covert WMD attack, to his assertion that final victory in the global war on terror depends on the spread of liberty across the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world. I will focus on this final usage, which is likely to prove the most lasting.

This is frankly startling, especially to those of us who took the President at his word when he announced the Bush Doctrine. It seemed at the time, when the President spoke to Congress in the aftermath of the 9.11 attacks, that the President was ready, willing and able to declare war on those regimes which were sponsoring both international terrorism and those who harbored such terrorists. Now, Friedman tells us that this assertion was merely the first “usage” of the term; in other words, it was pointless rhetoric, discarded at the first opportunity for “clarification.” My understanding of the Bush Doctrine was that we would no longer make a distinction between those who actively supported terror and those who harbored terrorists and that both would henceforth be treated by the U.S. as hostile regimes. Now, we are told, it merely means we hope the Middle East becomes a happier place, given time.

The difference between the two concepts could not be greater and can best be summarized in the relative stance of the United States in each: in the first the United States is pro-active, labeling states as “friendly” and “hostile” and taking action appropriate to each individual case; in the second, the U.S. is reduced to a “reactive” stance in which how we are doing is measured solely by what Mohammed and his wife think about politics, democracy, the role of religion in the state, etc. It seems fairly blindingly obvious to me that we can hope to “win” in the first sense, while the second gives the very definition of “winning” over to those who, either through active terrorism or inactive support of terrorism, will never give their consent to a U.S. victory. In short, the rhetorical change has ensured U.S. defeat by defining victory in a manner that makes it next to impossible to achieve.

Is a campaign aimed at the political transformation of the “broader Middle East” essential to the defeat of terrorism? If so, how can it be carried forward to a successful conclusion at an acceptable cost? The first of these questions is easier to answer than the second.

The first may be easier to answer, but the answer itself is by no means readily apparent. If nothing short of the wholesale political transformation of the Middle East can defeat terrorism, then we may as well pack it in and learn to live with Kerry’s “nuisance.”

While I agree that this is a solution, it is a solution in the same sense that a solution to the problem of domestic politics in the United States is to convert all Democrat blue states over to red-state Republicanism.

That could happen, but it really isn’t in the cards, is it? And if the task of turning New England into a bastion of red state America daunts you, imagine the task of turning a part of the world steeped in tribalism, authoritarianism and an anti-liberal religious ferocity into a democracy.

I believe the administration’s assessment of the Islamist threat is fundamentally correct. In al Qaeda and its affiliates, we confront an enemy who aims to inflict as much pain on us and our allies as possible, thereby dividing the West, forcing a retraction of American power, and clearing the way for the overthrow of local “apostate” regimes and their absorption into a transnational caliphate. Having concocted quasi-theological justifications for their actions, the terrorists put no limit on the numbers they are willing to kill to achieve their goals; all that stands in their way is, for the moment, an apparent lack of means.

Nothing objectionable here, save perhaps for the assertion that Al-Qaeda’s justifications are “quasi-theological.” On the contrary, the justifications advanced are spectacularly theological, as many a radical Muslim would happily explain to you (just prior to cutting your throat, of course). The humor here is watching Christian and Jewish American functionaries defend the honor of Islam against Muslim interpretations. If only for reasons of self-determination, I’m going with what the Muslims say about Islam and do in its name in order to come to judgment about it rather than relying on the latest “Islam Means Peace” speech from some official in Near Eastern Affairs.

The menace we face may not be “existential,” in the same sense as the cold-war threat from the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda cannot rain down tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on American cities. But, with a few well-placed dirty bombs or vials of anthrax, it could impose terrible human and financial costs and radically alter, perhaps for a generation or more, the character of our open society and the extent of our integration into the global economy. The passage of time since 9/11, and the absence thus far of a follow-on attack on American soil, have caused some observers to lose sight of these dangers and even to argue that they have been grossly exaggerated. I know of no one involved in the conduct of the war on terror who shares this sense of complacency.

A useful reminder of the scope of the threat, I think this summary walks the fine line between alarmism and a willingness to face stark reality. A lot does depend, however, on one’s definition of “existential.” Does the ability to destroy three large American cities qualify? One? Twenty?

I’m not sure, but I do know this: to those who are living in the targeted cities, the threat is existential enough to demand immediate government action.

The ideology that motivates the jihadists has now metastasized and spread, so that it finds adherents even in free societies. But it sprang to life first in the diverse despotisms of the broader Middle East, and these are the sources from which it still feeds and which continue, either deliberately or indirectly, to sustain it. Even if it were possible to wave a wand and transform these societies overnight into functioning liberal democracies, the jihadist movement would likely live on, at least for a time. But unless and until progress is made in this direction, it seems certain to survive, and to thrive. The absence of liberty fuels frustration and extremism by cutting off avenues for more moderate forms of political expression, reinforcing social and economic stagnation, and feeding a sense of collective weakness, shame, and rage.

Here is where I begin to part ways with the Administration’s view. While the absence of liberty has undoubtedly led to a growth in cultural pathologies in the Middle East, that fact alone does not explain the Islamist mindset any more than a mere reference to Germany’s lack of liberty in the late 30’s explains National Socialism. It is not clear to me that Western liberties would do anything to lessen the inherent dysfunction of the shame dynamic so common in Islamic, tribal cultures.
In fact, as is now helpfully on display in Paris, radicalized Islam is thriving in an environment where liberty is not only guaranteed, it is actively championed for on behalf of the larger Muslim community. The Left in France has done everything it can to extend liberty to the Muslims of France and, so far as we can determine, this hasn’t really changed the nature of the underlying Islamic culture.

The fact remains that if a people fervently believe that they know the truth and that those who do not agree with them must either convert or be slaughtered, the fact that these people live in a state of liberty granted to them by others will change nothing.

The other key elements of U.S. strategy—stronger homeland defenses and a relentless global offensive against Islamist terror networks—are necessary to keep the enemy off balance and reduce the risk of future attack; but they will not be sufficient, in themselves, to achieve a lasting peace. Jihadism cannot be defeated on the defensive, or even by cutting back its visible offshoots. It must be pulled up by the roots.

Again, I agree. It’s how those roots are to be pulled that is the issue. With German fascism and Japanese militarism, the roots were pulled by pounding the supporting population until they themselves agreed to give it up and not to have anything to do with those who advocated those ideas ever again. That, to my mind, is what pulling it up by the roots entails when one is facing fascist fanatics.
Obviously, the U.S. cannot go out and declare war against the entire Islamic world. Not only is that impractical, it would also be wrong. But the United States could, if it wished, do at a minimum the following, which I believe would be essential to winning the War on Terror:

1) It should institute conscription, radically enlarge the Armed Forces and put the U.S. economy on a war footing. It should make a special point to draft recent legal immigrants from Arabic and Farsi-speaking countries to ensure that U.S. forces have sufficient linguistic ability in the field;

2) It should declare war, in Congress, against the Islamic Republic, with the goal of handing over a conquered Iran to the U.N. or some other trans-national authority. It should play no role in reconstructing the county, except insofar as it should be made clear that any return of Islamic Fascism would invite a return engagement on the same terms;

3) It should declare war, in Congress, against the genocidal and Islamic fascist government of Sudan, and replace it with a provision government led by Sudanese Christians;

4) It should be conducting war against the following Islamic terrorist groups, no matter where located: Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, and Islamic Jihad. This should include direct military assaults on public displays of any those organizations, including military parades;

5) It should demand the cessation of anti-American propaganda and the funding of Wahabbi institutions abroad by Saudi Arabia, backed by the threat of force if not agreed to;

6) It should rally world support for its program by speaking out forcefully and persuasively (i.e. freed from the shackles of political correctness and modern political culture) about the anti-liberal, fascist nature of Islam armed. For example, the plight of women and children should never stopped being spoken of, the abuses of Shari’a should be widely disseminated and the actual practice of Islam in Iran and the Sudan should be the first, middle and last point of discussion whenever a U.S. official opens his or her mouth; and

7) It should use the U.N. as a platform to discuss the crimes and the threat posed by Islamic Fascism and little else.

Should the Islamic world be faced with a confident, stern opponent willing to use force, it would be only a matter of time before the Islamic masses as a whole would give up the struggle and, indeed, do our policing for us.

I understand that these proscriptions sound extreme, and I must admit I’ve come to them only reluctantly. It has everything to do with judgment: if one believes, as I do, that nothing short of full-scale war will deter the growth of Islamic Fascism, then the rest follows as a matter of course.

It’s impossible, it’s never going to happen, and all those other things you may well now be thinking, but the cold fact is that a day is not too far off when some President of the United States is going to be presented with the possibility of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic that has as an official, publicly-stated goal the destruction of the United States of America.

We are a liberal people, but reality is what it is and at the end of the day, I have to believe we’ll vote for us when it comes down to “us vs. them.”

There are alternatives to a strategy that has transformation as its ultimate goal. If pressed, most liberal critics of the Bush Doctrine would say they agree with its ends but differ over means (more “soft” power and less “hard,” more multilateralism and less unilateralism). While the differences are in some respects overstated, there is a serious debate to be had here and a consensus to be hammered out, though controversies over Iraq have made this all but impossible for the moment.

Whatever the merits of the plan I outline above may be, the fact is that it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Political calculations are no less important in figuring out what to do than practical ones, even if I think the course of action is crystal clear. After all, who really would have been in favor of total war against Germany in 1938? I’m not at all sure that even knowing what we know now we would change that fact of history had we the power to do so. So, what is to be done?
True consensus cannot be hammered out on this issue until there is agreement about the scope of the threat. So long as a significant portion of the American people, and an overwhelming proportion of their Western cousins, believe that the threat is not grave, there cannot be such an agreement.

Prudent leadership, therefore, should be Rooseveltian at this time. Marshall our strength, do what we can to arm our allies, and prepare the ground for the time when the enemy shows himself.

It would benefit Bush and his successors greatly at this time if the U.S. were to back off, quietly making the Churchill arguments and gaining support here and there until the time comes.

More distinct are the options offered by advocates of what can only be called a policy of appeasement, on the one hand, and the self-described “realists,” on the other. The first group asserts that by leaving Iraq, cutting support for Israel, and perhaps withdrawing altogether from the Middle East, we may be able eventually to deprive the jihadists of their base of support. Despite the evident moral and strategic bankruptcy of these arguments, they have begun to gain ground recently in academic circles, where books “bravely” questioning our ties to Israel and “proving” that suicide terrorists are motivated solely by a desire to free their homes from occupation are currently the rage. Fortunately, such ideas seem unlikely for now to exert much influence on practical policy.

I mostly agree with this, though it must be said that U.S. standing is higher in those Islamic nations that we have had next to nothing to do with than with dependencies like Egypt. (I also wonder sometimes if perhaps the U.S. shouldn’t impose a Caliphate as a means of immunizing future Muslims from the fanciful image of an Islamic paradise they apparently have.)

It is the “realists” who most stand to gain if American policy in Iraq comes to be seen as a costly failure. Such an outcome would be taken as proof that the pursuit of liberalization in the broader Middle East is a fool’s errand and that, instead of criticizing “friendly” local regimes and pressuring them to reform, we should be content to make common cause in wiping out the jihadists. What is needed, in this view, is a more effective and if need be a more ruthless version of the policy that existed before 9/11. The fact that this approach has already proved its ineffectiveness may not lessen its appeal, at least for a while.

“Realism” as defined here is a problem, but, whatever ones hopes and wishes, when one finds oneself arguing against “Reality,” one has a problem. The fact is that unless the Iraqi people show a marked improvement over the next year in self-governance and self-protection, the U.S. should announce that it has done what it could and leave.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be backed into a corner where if, and only if, we gain approval ratings for Bush in Baghdad that he can’t achieve in Baltimore, we have succeeded in Iraq.

The Ba’athist threat is gone. We’ve given decent people a chance to prevail. I don’t think there is much more that can be asked of the American people if the stark reality remains that Iraqis aren’t interested in joining the modern world. When your biggest “ally” refuses to even speak with you because you’re an infidel dog...well, we have better things to do.

In the long run, and whatever happens in Iraq, some variant of the Bush Doctrine will remain an essential part of overall U.S. strategy for defeating Islamist terrorism. The questions facing this administration as it enters its final quarter are more practical than theoretical. How to tailor the right mix of pressures and inducements to move “friendly” regimes toward meaningful reforms, and how to deal with openly hostile holdouts? How to minimize the inevitable risks of transition (the “one man, one vote, one time” problem)? How to institutionalize the “forward strategy of freedom” within the U.S. government and the Western alliance? And how to ensure continuing domestic political support for a goal that is both necessary and just?

Good questions all, and all well beyond the capabilities of this Administration, whatever its other virtues. For a moment, it seemed as if this President was going to rise to the challenge, but it is beyond clear that he lacks the ability and the vision to move us forward.

Whatever it’s virtues, the fact remains that Bush and his Doctrine do not command the domestic and international support the U.S. needs to both wage and win the War on Terror. Which makes the lack of an effective opposition party even more keenly felt.

And, come to think of it, quite an opening for a Democrat with judgment and a sense of history.....