Newsflash: Krauthammer Finally Sees the Light

There are only a few columnists that I would label "must-read," and one of the them is Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer is clear-thinking, judicious, reasoned and passionate about the issues of the day. It pleases me to no end to see him join the growing ranks of conservatives who have realized the truth about the fool's errand this fool of a President has sent us on in Iraq.

Krauthammer writes today in the Washington Post and National Review Online:

We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil. Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes — not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 — that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.

In short, as I've been arguing for two years now, there has never been any evidence--none whatsoever--that the Arab Muslims of Iraq were somehow "different" or immune from the same civilization-wide pathologies of the Islamic Revival that is sweeping that entire world from Malaysia to Morocco.

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: depose Saddam and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

The first was relatively easy. But Iraq’s first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.

The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects, or militia leaders.

That much should have been obvious from the first month, but our political culture has prevented us from viewing the scene dispassionately. At the point it became clear that the "Iraqis" were going to break down into tribal groups we should have packed our bags and left. Instead, we've been wasting billions of dollars down the rathole and actually financing the insurgency that is killing our sons and daughters.

(Don't believe me? Check out today's interview in the Financial Times with Iraq's deputy prime minister if you are able. It makes stunning reading.)

Krauthammer continues:

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the ”realists” imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the last several decades. But the problem here is Iraq’s particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Saddam’s totalitarianism.

What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance.

Well, it's too much to ask a man to give up all his hopeful illusions at one time, so it's understandable that Krauthammer would find the locus of Islamic failure in the legacy of Saddam instead of where it rightly belongs, i.e. with Islam itself. Why else would the same pathologies arise in lands where no one has even heard of Saddam Hussein? But, we must take our victories where they come. Even if Krauthammer is coming to the right conclusion for partly the wrong reasons, he is still right in the basics.

Last month, American soldiers captured a Mahdi Army death-squad leader in Baghdad — only to be forced to turn him loose on order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two weeks ago, we were ordered, again by Maliki, to take down the barricades we had established around Sadr City in search of another notorious death-squad leader and a missing American soldier.

This is no way to conduct a war. The Maliki government is a failure. It is beholden to a coalition dominated by two Shiite religious parties, each armed and ambitious, at odds with each other and with the ultimate aim of a stable, modern, democratic regime.

Read that again:

This is no way to conduct a war.

Welcome to the team, Krauthammer. Glad you could make it.

How To Spot an Angry Judge

There aren't many bright spots in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but there are some. Take Judge O'Scannlain for example. If I were making judicial appointments, he would be on the Supreme Court so fast his head would be spinning. Another bright spot is Judge Alex Kozinski. His opinions are almost always a pleasure to read and exemplars of clear thinking.

When you've read as many opinions as I have, you begin to get a feel for the mood of the judge about his opinion. Sometimes, believe it or not, the mood is light-hearted, like Scalia's opinion in a product defect case brought against BMW that had the justice wondering if dwarves applied the pristine coat of paint to each gleaming, new BMW sedan in a hidden cave deep in the Alps. Other times the mood is sombre, especially when the facts are horrific. Then there are the dry ones that are written deliberately so because something about the case is extemely emotional, like Carhart.

Then there are those special cases where the judge is angry. Not just mad, mind you, but angry. These are rare, but when you read one you really know it.

Having said that, you're probably thinking that such opinions are shot through with heated language, denunciations of the offending side and other such common expressions of anger. No, it's worse than that.

Which is worse? Having your dad cuss you out or having your mom just quietly say how much you've disappointed her?

Right. Now you're getting the picture.

When a judge is mad, the language is sparse, but you cannot fail to recognize it. Take Judge Kozinski's recent opinion in Frunz v. City of Tacoma for example. First, the judge sets for the facts:

The facts are remarkable. Plaintiff, Susan Frunz, and her two guests were in Frunz's home in Tacoma, Washington, when police surrounded the house, broke down the back door and entered. The police had no warrant and had not announced their presence. Frunz first became aware of them when an officer accosted her in the kitchen and pointed his gun, bringing the barrel within two inches of her forehead. The police ordered or slammed the occupants to the floor and cuffed their hands behind their backs—Frunz for about an hour, until she proved to their satisfaction that she owned the house, at which time they said "never mind" and left.

The City of Tacoma had not done well at trial:

Frunz sued Alred, Morris and Stril under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming constitutional violations for unlawful entry and search of her home, and for use of excessive force by Alred. The jury found against all defendants on all counts, and awarded $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in punitive damages. The officers appeal, claiming the verdict is not supported by the evidence and that they are, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity.

After quickly disposing of the City's appeal, the Judge gets down to business:

We have found no authority even remotely supporting the notion that officers confronted with the situation here were entitled to ignore the constitutional requirement of a warrant and probable cause, or to conduct themselves as the jury must have found they did once they were inside the house. No reasonable lawyer would have advised the defendants otherwise.

In short, we must ask: Why is this case here? There may have been some justification for going to trial because there were disputed questions of fact about how the officers behaved during the course of the intrusion into Frunz's house. But a jury made up of seven members of the community heard the evidence and unanimously ruled in Frunz's favor. By not only finding defendants liable, but also imposing punitive damages, the jury determined that the officers acted in reckless or malicious disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Only the most misguided optimism would cause defendants, and those who are paying for their defense, to appeal the verdict under these circumstances. Surely, the citizens of Tacoma would not want to be treated in their own homes the way the jury found officers Stril, Morris and Alred treated Frunz and her guests. A prompt payment of the verdict, accompanied by a letter of apology from the city fathers and mothers, might have been a more appropriate response to the jury’s collective wisdom.

Okay, here it comes. It's subtle, but this is how you know the judge isn't just mystified or disappointed or sad. It's at the very end, in a footnote, and believe me, you don't see this every day:

Defendants and their counsel shall show cause within 14 days why they should not be assessed double costs and attorney's fees for filing a frivolous appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 38.

A Letter to VDH

After seeing VDH's post in the Corner today, I drafted him the following email. I haven't a clue whether or not I will get a response (though the good professor has been kind enough to reply to me in the past) and will post it here if I do.

I don't post this here as a pompous "open letter" or to demand an answer, but merely to note yet again that I think the anti-Jihadi coalition is taking the wrong lesson out of Election Day.

Simply put: a nation wherein 57% of the people are ready to go to war against Iran is not a war-weary nation. The American people are not anti-war, or even anti-War on Terror. What they are is anti-war-without-end-for-the-benefit-of-Muslim-Arabs-who-likely-as-not-are-in-fact-the-enemy-anyway.

Professor -

I admire your work very much, and have found your voice a steady one in uncertain times, but it seems to me there is a possibility about the American public's aversion to the war in Iraq that you are not addressing.

Opposition to the war is a given. Even in late 2002/early 2003, there was a solid 25% of the American people who were against the war. Presumably, these 25% represent the pacifists, the anti-American Americans, the conspiracy theorists, in other words, the hard Left/hard Right opposition. Over time, that percentage number in opposition has risen to about 60% or thereabouts.

There are really only two possibilities regarding the additional 35%: 1) they have heard the arguments of the "hardcore" 25% and now agree with them, or 2) their reasons for opposition are different in significant ways from the "hardcore" 25%.

Most of the arguments I've been seeing from you and at NRO seem to assume that number 1 is the only possibility. The argument is usually along the lines of "incessant jihadi propaganda, a media savvy enemy, and the domestic bias of the MSM have led to widespread demoralization in the American public, leading them to drop their support for the war." Looking at the numbers, this is highly improbable. The same electorate that just kicked Bush and the Republicans in the teeth gave that same team an overwhelming mandate in 2004, and the MSM and the jihadis were just as bad then. Unless one's argument is that the American people can take 3 years of bad news, but at 5 years they will bail in very, very high numbers, it just doesn't wash.

So what is going on here? In my view, my Jacksonian, lower-middle-class, ears-to-the-ground view, is that many of the "new" 35% are not opposed to war in general or even the War on Terror, but they are opposed to *this* particular war on the grounds that it is not being fought properly.

Forget all the articles about incompetence, failed plans to "win the peace" and all the rest of it. Americans don't care about that and never will; nor do they care about Iraqi schools or share the President's obsession with some foreign people's craving for "democracy". What they cared about was the war they were sold on, i.e. that the United States was taking the gloves off and from this point forward would wage war against international terrorist organizations and the governments that sponsor them.

Had Bush waged that war, the support would have held. Given how badly Bush has strayed from the "Bush" Doctrine, I'm frankly surprised that the support for him didn't wane earlier. In fact, given the "Islam means peace, the Saudis are our friends, and we must respect women of cover" rhetoric coming out of the White House, tied to the fact that our military obviously is fighting with one hand behind its back, it's *amazing* Bush's support held out as long as it did.

Last year, the LA Times ran a poll that found 57% of the American people in favor of war with *IRAN*. What we are seeing is the President's failure, not the American people's.

No, the American people are not tired of war. They are tired of this war and see no reason why their sons and daughters should be set in the middle of warring Stone Age tribes to no obvious American benefit. In short, they care about the American people, first and foremost and don't give a damn about the Iraqis, who have demonstrated clearly that they do not intend to seize the opportunity given to them and to continue the time-honored Muslim slaughter.

If any power over-reads too much into an Iraqi withdrawal, they will be surprised that not only will Americans continue to defend their nation and their interest, they will be shocked to find that Americans *enjoy* the prospect of doing so.

The Archbishop of York

It figures that the last British bishop in the Church of England would turn out to be a Ugandan. But what a relief to hear him speak so! Listening to this man set forth very British, very calm, very measured and very strong views reminds me of how long it has been now that this type of common sense, the type that used to typify the British, has been heard from a member of the British elite.

The Archbishop, on Islam in Britain:

When asked whether it was right for Muslim women in Britain to wear the full veil in every aspect of their lives he replied: "Muslim scholars would say three things. First, does it conform to norms of decency? Secondly, does it render you more secure? And thirdly, what kind of Islam are you projecting by wearing it?

"I think in the British context it renders you less secure because you stick out and it brings you unwelcome attention. On the first question, I don't think it does conform.

"You know, when I visit Orthodox synagogues I never take a cross. When I go into Muslim mosques I take it off. When I go into a Sikh temple I cover my head. And I can't simply say, 'Take me as I am, whether you like it or not'.

I think the thing is in British society you can wear what you want, but you can't expect British society to be reconfigured around you. No minority can expect to impose this on the public or civic life."

On the British Broadcasting Company:

"We get more knocks. They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims," he said. "We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' It is not within our nature."

On British culture, morals and confidence:

Perhaps his strongest criticism was reserved for those who rejected the country’s Christian heritage. The Archbishop, who had trained as a lawyer in Uganda before fleeing Idi Amin's rule in 1974, said: "When I was in Uganda, everything that was British was the best. If you went to a shop to buy a ruler, you looked for one that said 'Made in Britain'. But now this country disbelieves itself in an amazing way.

"It almost dislikes its own culture. It doesn't realise that the arts, music, buildings have grown out of a strong Christian tradition. John Betjeman would be shocked that the nation is not interested in helping preserve these things."

He claimed in an interview with today's Daily Mail that the urban liberal elite were to blame. "They see themselves as holding the flag for Britain and that Britain is definitely secular and atheist. I want them to have their say, but not to lord it over the rest of us."

Sigh. If only the Archbishop of Canterbury was British and/or Christian.

Imagine that.