Do Unto Others...

I was catching up on my reading tonight and came across this in a recent issue of National Review:

Muntazer al-Zaidi is the Iraqi journalist who earned his place in the headlines by being rude to George W. Bush and chucking shoes at him. He did almost a year in prison for this, and ever since he's been trying to start a charity on behalf of "victims of the U.S. occupation in Iraq." Paris was the obvious place in which to bolster his militant reputation by holding a press conference. A kerfuffle followed when someone present stood up and in Iraqi Arabic defended U.S. policy, accused al-Zaidi of aiding and abetting dictatorship, and gave him a taste of his own medicine by throwing a shoe at him. It was al-Zaidi's turn to duck, and he didn't like it one bit, complaining that "the occupier and his lackeys" would stop at nothing to get him. Hustled out, the avenging shoe thrower took the precaution of giving his name only as "Khayat," but he had already proved that one Iraqi at least is able to spot the difference between freedom and tyranny, and is not afraid to say so.

Habeas Corpus (Part Two)

In my last post, I began describing potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumedine v. Bush. This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held on foreign soil are guaranteed habeas corpus rights. These same rights are denied to military service members and illegal immigrants. Today, I wish to illustrate two more problems with this decision, or unintended consequences and I wish to offer my humble solutions to fix this decision.

I spent some time in my last post talking about the precedent of the Supreme Court. Previous courts have held that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to enemy combatants captured in a time of war. This court has disregarded precedent of previous Supreme Courts, and its own decision in 2006. If the court is willing to throw out precedent, does this open the way to a Roe v. Wade challenge? The only reason most people give to leave that decision alone is because it has become law of the land, and is now legal precedent. The Supreme Court has shown it is willing to ignore precedent and Roe v. Wade defenders should be worried.

This decision also infringes on the constitutional separation of powers. Our system is designed to give the other branches of government the ability to reign in a branch that abuses its powers. The President created a system for dealing with enemy combatants, the Supreme Court said that system was wrong and needed to be fixed with the help of Congress. The President worked with Congress and Congress passed laws on how prisoners would have their cases reviewed at Guantanamo. The two branches of government elected by the people worked together to find a solution. This doesn’t sound like the rouge actions of one branch. The Supreme Court has decided that it can rule the other branches of government wrong. Five un-elected justices decided they could determine war time policy better than the elected representatives of the people.

How do we fix this? Believe it or not, there are a number of ways. Here are my solutions, from band aid fix to serious fix. The more deliberate the solution, the harder it would be. My first solution is the easiest to do. Congress can now pass laws that detail how court proceedings for foreign combatants are to be carried out. For example, Congress could say that in cases involving enemy combatants, the combatant has no right to review classified information or to interview the soldiers that captured them.

Secondly, Congress could legislate what court (or courts) might have jurisdiction over trials involving enemy combatants challenging their designation. If only one or two courts had jurisdiction, only a handful of judges would need to be trained on dealing with military cases in time of war. Perhaps Congress would decide that these cases can only be tried by FISA courts.

Finally, and my personal favorite, Congress has the ability to change the number of Supreme Court justices. The U. S. Constitution does not spell out the size of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices now, we have had ten in the past, and the original court was set up with six. Congress could pass the Judicial Reconciliation Act of 2008 (named by me) and double the size of the court. 18 justices cuts the amount of power any one judge wields in half. This would be tough to do (it would literally require an act of congress) but would send a clear message to the court, and would reign in some of the more “activist” members.

Like Roe v. Wade, in the court has imposed its own views of how the law should be written, and not how it actually is written. The Supreme Courts job isn’t to create new rights. The Supreme Court is to rule on standing laws. The Supreme Court failed last week. I hope Congress and the President can clean up the courts mess.

Habeas Corpus (Part One)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held at the U. S. base at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their status in Federal court. The 5 – 4 decision has been hotly debated. The decision of Boumedine v. Bush grants writ of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in a time of war. These combatants are not U. S. citizens and most have never set foot in the United States. The decision also ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional. This is largely being reported as a defeat for President Bush. I believe it is much more ominous than that, and you might not realize why.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this decision is no different. In order to understand the future problems with this decision, we need to examine its past. After 9/11, the Justice Department believed the Supreme Court would stand by precedent and not apply constitutional rights to enemy combatants held outside the United States in a time of war. Turns out, the Supreme Court isn’t really worried about precedent. Remeber this, we're going to revisit it later.

In the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals set up by President Bush were not in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. However, the court also ruled that if the President wanted to proceed with trials in Guantanamo Bay, the President should get Congress to pass laws with direction for how the cases are going to be handled. This is exactly what Congress did.

As John Yoo wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “[u]ntil Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U. S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.” He goes on to say:

In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U. S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S.

What does this decision mean? Being a fan of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", I thought I would speculate on some of the possible outcomes of this decision. One outcome I have heard debated in a number of sources is: What do U. S. forces do with people captured on the battlefield? Many believe the U. S. Military is now going to have to collect evidence, and mirandize enemy combatants. Imagine this, a soldier is fighting for his life, bullets are flying, and he see’s someone come around the corner with a Soviet RPG. Does he have to read this person their Miranda rights before deciding to fire or not?

Others believe our forces will simply not capture terrorist on the battlefield. They argue it will be more effective to simply kill the bad-guys where they find them. I don’t think this is very accurate. Our soldiers are warriors and have behaved honorably in combat. I believe it is much more likely that they will simply turn any captured enemy combatants over to the police and secret police of the country they are in. If we capture an Iranian officer in Iraq, we turn him over to the Iraqi Army and ask to sit in on the interrogation. If this happens, does the combatant receive better treatment in Iraq than he would have received in G’itmo?

What if we capture Osama bin Laden? Sen. Obama has said he believes that the terrorist should stand trial. For those of you old enough to remember the O.J. trials, imagine a similar fiasco with the mastermind of 9/11 at its center. Do you believe the bin Laden fortune and the money of the clerics in Saudi Arabia can afford a good attorney? Democrats and Liberals are always big on our international image. Imagine how we look if Osama is found not guilty in one of our own courts. Perhaps he could even stand trial in a court in New York.

I will leave you with that mental picture until tomorrow. Come back tomorrow for a few more problems with this decision, and my humble recommendations for how to fix it.

Book Review: Moment of Truth in Iraq

Michael Yon is perhaps the most respected reporter in Iraq. He is a former Green Beret so he knows what it is to be a soldier, and knows how soldiers think. He has also been embedded with troops in Iraq more than any other reporter, so he also knows what it is like to be a journalist in a war zone. Anyone who wants an honest and accurate assessment of the War in Iraq must read his book Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope

Michael Yon has become famous for his blog posts and dispatches from the front lines of Iraq. In this book, he draws on some of his dispatches and photos and adds to it a comparison of how Iraq looked when he first embedded with troops versus his most recent "deployment". Far from being a cheerleader for the Bush administration, Mr. Yon points out many of our errors in the early phases of the war. He notes that if Al-Queda had made more of a few of our mistakes, we would have had no chance to win the war. Mr. Yon doesn't subscribe to the view of today's left wing either. He points out that we have come far, and are winning the war now. It isn't won, but it can be.

Michael Yon is obviously a fan of today's soldier. However, he doesn't allow that to cloud his judgment. He notes the failures and successes of our troops, their commanders, and their Iraqi counterparts. Anyone reading this book with a preconceived notion of how the Iraq war has gone is likely to have their beliefs called into question. I was no exception. As much as I believe we went to war for very valid reasons, and that we have tried to do our best, I cannot escape the fact that we have made great mistakes in Iraq. Anyone who doesn't question their views on Iraq after reading this book hasn't really paid attention to the book.

At some time in the future, the War in Iraq will be taught in history classes. We are at the point where we can make that story a success or a failure, the choice is ours. Whatever we decide, future generations will start their study of the war with Moment of Truth in Iraq.

Turkey Guilty (100 years ago)!

The Democratic leadership in the House is trying its best to disrupt our supply lines to Iraq and to alienate our largest Muslim alley in the Middle East. Why you may ask? They are doing it under the cover of addressing atrocities that are almost 100 years old.

In the early 1900’s Turkey (and much of the Middle East) was part of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to and during World War I, there was a systematic attempt to exterminate Christian Armenians by the Muslim government. Depending on the source, estimates range from 300,000 to 2 million Armenians brutally killed during this time period. Many scholars seem to take 1.5 million as the agreed upon figure. Many consider this genocide second only to the Holocaust. From 1919 to 1920, there were a series of military tribunals that sentenced many of the leaders responsible for the atrocities against the Armenians to death. Most of these sentences were reached while the defendant was in hiding and unreachable.

Currently Democrats, with some Republican help, have been trying to pass a resolution in the House condemning this activity and labeling it “Genocide”. The current government in Turkey has acknowledged that crimes were committed, but has refused to label it as genocide. Their arguments seem to be regarding the precise definition of “genocide”. Speaker Pelosi is trying to bring a House resolution to the floor for a full vote that would condemn Turkey for something that happened almost 100 years ago. Turkey has found this insulting and has recalled its’ ambassador to the United States.

While I agree that the genocide of the Armenians was terrible, and is something we should study to learn from, I question the motives behind the Democrats who want to bring this to the floor. Condoleezza Rice and eight other former Secretaries of State have sent a letter to the House asking for members to vote against this resolution. The Bush administration believes that Turkey may have two reactions to a condemnation by us, their ally. These reactions are in addition to the Democrats insulting our largest Muslim alley if the resolution were to pass. First, Turkey may begin sending troops into the Kurdish area of Iraq. The Bush administration has been actively working with Turkey to keep them from entering into Iraq. If Turkey were to send troops into Northern Iraq, it could hurt the success we have had in that area.

Secondly, and I think the real reason Democrats are behind this measure, Turkey may stop allowing our military to use their airspace and country as a supply route for our troops in Iraq. The Pentagon is already working on logistics in the event that happens. We currently have major supplies (including new, more heavily armed transports) coming to our troops through Turkey. If that supply route is disrupted, it wouldn’t be good for our soldiers, and for our war effort.

I can’t imagine a reason that House Democrats are pushing this issue at this time, other than to intentionally hurt our war effort. Many Republicans and Democrats have decided to vote against this issue after hearing about the repercussions. However, Speaker Pelosi and House Leader Steny Hoyer still intend to have a full vote on the measure by the end of the year. If the Democratic Leadership of the House is so committed to having this vote, are they also committed to doing whatever they can to hurt our war effort in Iraq? Do they really despise the President so much they would sacrifice our soldiers, and our nation, to simply spite the President?

The Iraqi Parliament takes a Vacation

In a recent editorial, Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Journal – Constitution, argues that since the Iraqi parliament is taking a month vacation, it is time to pull our troops out. Her column spends no time discussing any of the military or political strategies that might argue for or against a withdrawal from Iraq. She argues that the very fact that the parliament is vacationing doesn’t really matter. In her opinion, since, “[s]ome block of Shites or Summies is always stalking out,” we shouldn’t expect the Iraqi parliament to get anything accomplished anyway. If our troops can fight in 130 degree weather, then the Iraqis can hold parliament in session. If the parliament won’t convene, then we should go.

Mrs. Tucker isn’t alone in her opinion. I am sure there are many people who would agree with her. I also believe the Iraqi parliament should be doing everything they can to provide for the security of their country. The parliament probably has plenty of work to keep them busy. However, if the democracy that is forming in Iraq is going to work, then the Iraqi voters need to hold the parliament to task. I don’t believe we should threaten our ally. It is in our best interest to have a democratic Iraq. That democracy is going to make decisions we aren’t going to like, and threatening to withdraw our help isn’t the knee jerk reaction we should be looking for.

My criticism of Mrs. Tucker is that she doesn’t acknowledge what might happen if we pull out. While I agree that the parliament should probably be criticized for taking a month off, I disagree with her lack of concern for what the aftermath of a United States troop withdrawal might look like. When the U.S. left Vietnam, millions died in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and in the surrounding waters. No one is arguing that anything less might happen if we leave Iraq.

Mrs. Tucker also fails to consider an additional key point in this discussion. If the parliament of a fledgling democracy like Iraq is going to take pointers on behavior and what is expected of them, where might they look? What lessons would they take from the behavior that our own congress has shown over the last seven months? If the Iraqi parliament has studied the political theatrics of the U.S. House and Senate, we should be thankful all they are doing is taking a month off.

And finally, is there any chance we can convince our congress to take a month off?

Democratic Leadership betting against America?

There seems to be more and more people who believe the surge in Iraq is working. On Monday, I wrote how the New York Times and Newt Gingrich are both saying we need to stay the course. I have written numerous times on here about the cost of America leaving our allies in Iraq on their own.

Since Monday, there are more and more articles appearing on the web discussing both the New York Times comments on the Iraq war, and the reaction by Democrats. Before I question the motives of some of the Democrats, I want to point out that I don’t believe all Democrats, and certainly not all Democratic voters think like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, et al. For example, the House Majority Whip, James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) says that success in Iraq is a real problem for the Democrats. The more good news out of Iraq, the less likely the “Blue Dog Caucus” of Democrats are to vote to leave Iraq. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs are both willing to wait on the September report from Petraeus, Pelosi and Reid won’t be able to get the votes to require our troops to leave Iraq. Hence the “real big problem” as Rep Clyburn put it.

There have also been many comments and articles on the Junior Representative from Kansas and her comments. While the House Armed Services Committee was being briefed by General Jack Keane, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D- Kansas) walked out of the briefing distressed. When she returned, she said, “There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things -- after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened too.” Rep. Boyda went on to say, “Those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here’s the reality of the problem.” What did General Keane say that upset her so much? While noting that there are still problems in Iraq, the General was explaining some of the success we are currently having in Iraq. How can the United States succeeding in Iraq be so offensive?

The New York Times did a poll recently to gauge the American support for the war in Iraq. When they found that people who supported the United States going to war in Iraq had risen from 35 percent to 42 percent, they were confused and bewildered, and immediately redid the poll. The problem is that the second version of the poll showed the same result: American support for the war in Iraq is increasing, not decreasing.

And finally, for those of you keeping score at home, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) is also supporting the surge. In addition to being a Democrat, Rep. Ellison is also the only Muslim in Congress. The AP quotes him recently as saying, “The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership.”

While we are a long way from leaving Iraq, there is a lot of good news coming out of Iraq. Many believe the surge is working. However, the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to hear it. While Boyda is a junior member, it is not that hard to imagine Reid, Pelosi, or Murtha trying to follow her example at the next military briefing they get. The Democratic leadership is actively pulling against any success by the American military in Iraq. Many politicians before them have tried to bet against America with their political careers. What happened to those politicians? They find themselves on the ash heap of history. Pelosi, Reid, and the rest better learn to support the country they claim to represent, or start brushing off those resumes.

Gingrich and the New York Times

Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday): Why do you think that some Democrats want to start pulling out troops even before General Petraeus gets a chance to issue his progress report in September?

Newt Gingrich: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American Defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

--Parital transcript from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on July 29, 2007

Viewed from Iraq, where we spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

--Excerpt from A War We Just Might Win from the New York Times, July 30, 2007

[Emphasis mine]

The New York Times and Newt are agreeing on at least one point, we are making significant progress in Iraq. For an icon of the conservative movement, and a bastion of the liberal left to agree either means there is a coming apocalypse, or we should sit up and take note. Where McCain was laughed at for saying he could stroll through parts of Baghdad without body armor a few weeks ago, the New York Times now makes the same claim. Could it be that the United States is winning in Iraq?

The New York Times tempered their enthusiasm, with this cautious note,"… there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." But it is still optimism. Optimism seems to be something many of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate seem to lack. And consider what it means that a liberal newspaper is discussing the surge working in Iraq.

Newt is correct in describing the bloodbath that will happen if we leave Iraq. I have written on this site before about the dire consequences of pulling out of Iraq. There is no military force on the planet that can defeat the United States Military. Our enemies know that they can only win by turning public opinion in the United States against our military, by turning us against ourselves. The Democrats seem to have fallen for this tactic. However, if the New York Times can change its opinion, then it is time for Reid, Obama, Clinton, and the rest to reexamine their stance on the war. Will they be puppets to the ultra left wing of their party, or will they put aside their partisan differences and do what's right for the country.

Feminism vs. Muslim Women?

I have often wondered why some of the most vocal critics of America’s involvement in Iraq are some of those who would have the most to loose under Sharia law. Where would the ACLU, Moveon.org, and assorted gay rights groups be if they were forced to live under Sharia Law. I don’t understand why some of these groups don’t make a common cause with those fighting for the same rights in Iraq and the Middle East.

For example, under Muslim law, women have very few rights. While most citizens in the Middle East have very little influence over their government, many women are in even worse shape. How often have we seen articles in the news about honor killings? How many female genital mutilations are performed in the Middle East without the consent of the girl being exposed to this barbaric practice? How many girls are sentenced to prison because they were raped?

I recently read an article in the Weekly Standard from May of 2007 by Christina Hoff Sommers that ask some of these same questions. She asks why there aren’t more demonstrations here in the United States to help women in Muslim countries. Ms. Sommers points out, “[d]uring the 1980’s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.” Ms. Sommers argues that while the, “…condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age...” too many feminist groups today are focused on attacking the United States and not on examining the condition of women outside of the U.S.

I did a random sampling of feminist groups in the United States to see if Ms. Sommers was being fair in her characterization of these groups. Very few of the websites I visited talked at all about women outside the United States. In a domestic violence study on the Center for the Advancement of Women, the group mentions talking to what it considers a diverse group: non-minority, African-American, Asian, Latina, adult and teenage women. Since the study does bring up religion, I was surprised there was no mention of Muslim women.

A more prominent group, The National Organization for Women (NOW), list as their top priorities: Abortion Rights / Reproductive Issues, Violence against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity / Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights, and Economic Justice. “Global Feminism” appears as bullet point five under “Other Important Issues”. You will be happy to know that at number four in this same category is “Fighting the Right”. Under “Global Feminism” the most recent article is dated October of 2006. I did a quick search on Google for “honor killings” and found articles on CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, and other sources much more recent than that.

However, not being active in any of these organizations, maybe I was missing something. Going back to the homepage for NOW, I looked to see what the most pressing issues facing today’s women are. The first article was “Breaking News: Cleavage on Display”. This insightful bit of reporting was referring to Hilary Clinton’s “brazen step” to wear a low neckline. Here is the link to the story if you think I am making this up. And this was the headline as of the writing of this article.

There are feminist movements active in the Middle East. Occasionally American feminist will try to help these movements only to be attacked by organizations such as NOW. In her article, Ms. Sommers points out that these movements are gaining some momentum, and that they don’t like what they see in their American counterparts. A 1998 book quoted in the article said that some Iraqi women’s advocates don’t like what they see as trying to divide men from women, and separating women from their family.

In her article, Mrs. Sommers points out, “A reviewer of Irshad Manji’s manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, ‘This could be Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.’ Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream.” American Feminist should take a step back from the political parties and look at their own ideals. If women’s issues, and especially all women’s issues, are what their organizations are about, how can they not support an effort to provide women in the Middle East with a stable democracy to live in? Are feminist in these groups so against the Republican party and George Bush that they would want the women of the Middle East to live in conditions they would never, ever, dream of here in the U.S.?

To drive the point home, the cover of The Weekly Standard with Ms. Sommers article shows three women who are coverd except for their face and their hands. The center woman has some hair showing on the top of her head. The caption for this cover is "Government agents in Tehran warn a woman about her clothing and hair during a crackdown to enforce the regime's dress code, April 22, 2007." Is this really the environment that NOW wants women living in?

What Happens if We Leave Iraq?

There is a growing political argument to leave Iraq. Some Republicans have jumped ship to ask the President for a new course. The Senate exercised more political theatrics last night by staying up all night to debate calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. In the end, the bill failed. I think we have all seen a lot of debate on whether or not we should be in Iraq. But what would happen if we left?

As the war in Iraq has been fought, many have drawn comparisons with the U.S. war in Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military was winning on the ground. However, the political war was being lost. Much like then, our enemies in Iraq know that while they can’t beat our military, they can use our media to defeat our political will. There have been 3,600 military deaths in Iraq to date. For a “bloody civil war” that is a relatively low body count. The deaths in Iraq are nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.

At the end of Vietnam, when our politicians voted to cut off all funding to our allies, there was an incredible blood bath. The North Vietnamese swept into South Vietnam and brutally killed and tortured untold numbers. The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 2 million people in Cambodia. This was done in the name of giving the people of that region peace. Is this the peace we want for Iraq?

I think we should all take a step back and try to imagine a world where the President has given in to the demands of the Democratic Party and pulled out of Iraq. If we were to leave, Al-Queda and Iran would quickly carve up the pieces of Iraq they wanted like a Thanksgiving feast. Turkey would probably move in to grab the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iraqis would try to resist all of this. There would be violence in Iraq unlike anything we have seen there to date. Very likely, this violence would spread into the surrounding areas as well.

And in case you’re thinking, “That is tragic, but at least American soldiers won’t be trapped there anymore.” They wouldn’t be in Iraq, but they would still be in Afghanistan. What would that suddenly look like? Our enemies would draw their own comparisons. If they look back at our history, at Vietnam, at Beirut, at Somalia, and now at Iraq, what lesson would they learn? They would quickly learn that Osama bin Laden is right; if you hit the United States hard enough, it will walk away. If they study their history, what do you think they would do in Afghanistan? And how long before those same politicians who are now saying that we need to focus on Afghanistan decide that the death toll in Afghanistan is now too much?

People can argue on what the best course of action is in Iraq. Do we ignore the short term political gain for a possible long term gain with a stable Iraq? Do we stand by an ally and help to repair our image or do we live up to the “Paper Tiger” label? Do we decide that our military doesn’t know what it’s doing and 3,600 deaths is simply too many in war? And exactly what should we tell our allies that are now going to suffer violence we can only begin to imagine?

The Evil we face in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett have both talked about a story from Michael Yon's blog over the last couple of days. On Mr. Yon's blog, he lists a few other news sources that have run with the story. I was unable to find any of the big named media groups (except Fox News) on his list. This story needs to be reported and repeated until every American can repeat it word for word. Here is the part everyone is talking about:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

We are currently engaged in a war with enemies who are as evil as anything we have ever faced. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all cut from the same cloth that made the Nazis and S. S. of World War II. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are kindred spirits cut from the same cloth. Democrats and some Republicans have been playing at being at war. It is time for America to realize exactly what it is up against.

This morning the New York Daily News ran an editorial by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Hillary Clinton. The editorial is a great example of 9/10 thinking. I think it says a lot about a Presidential Candidate when she writes and editorial demanding we withdrawal from Iraq when there are atrocities like the one above being committed by our enemies. It says a lot about Mrs. Clinton that she would write an op-ed piece and share the byline with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Mrs. Clinton and every Presidential candidate should proclaim that the United States will not allow this type of evil to attack Democracies.

This morning, after repeating the story of these families, Bill Bennett said that we must stay in Iraq even if we lose ten times as many soldiers as we have lost. I agree. We must commit this country to winning Iraq as if our own continuation depended on it. Democracies must protect other Democracies. As Dr. Bennett said, we cannot allow people like this to occupy the same planet as we do. Democracies must also protect mankind from the kind of evil that would commit this evil against another person. If the full plight of the Jewish people had been known during WW II, no one would have argued to withdraw from the War. How can we as sane people discuss withdrawing from this one, knowing what Al-Queda is likely to do when we leave?

Why we should stay in Iraq

For the past few weeks, the news from Iraq has taken a back seat. The papers have been taken with covering Paris Hilton, Scooter Libby, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. Now that those stories seem to have played out, the press and many politicians are back on the attack with Iraq. Unfortunately, they are on the wrong side.

The United States is actively involved in a war that should be easy to support. We have liberated a country from an evil tyrant. We are fighting terrorist who would like any opportunity to kill us. We are fighting a proxy war against Iran. In case you have spent too much time following Paris Hilton, Iran is the country doing everything in it’s power to get a nuclear weapon to use against either a) Israel, b) Europe, c) the United States, or d) any and all of the above.

When boiled down to its basics, there really should be very little reason to oppose the war in Iraq. However, some have lost focus on why we are there, while others believe we have no right to be there. This second group doesn’t care what happens in Iraq. They want us out and they want us out now. For more information on this group, do a Google search for “Sheehan threatens Pelosi”.

The real dirty secret is that the plan we are executing in Iraq is starting to work. We still have a long way to go. In the words of David Kilcullen, “…this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.” Mr. Kilcullen would know. According to The Weekly Standard, he is a former Australian officer and an expert on counterinsurgency warfare. He is also finishing a tour of duty in Iraq. All of this puts him in a much better position to characterize what is happening in Iraq than many on the hill. Kilcullen also points out that we are now trying to clear “human terrain” and not physical terrain. The effort is now focused on marginalizing Al-Queda and extremist militias.

Natan Sharansky writes today, “People of goodwill can certainly disagree over how to handle Iraq, but human rights should be a part of any responsible calculus.” We have promised our help to an ally in Iraq. To withdraw now after relatively minor losses would be a terrible thing to do. Mr. Sharansky argues that if we leave now, we should be prepared for a much larger blood bath in both Iraq and the surrounding area. If we leave now, we should expect Iran to become the dominant force in the Middle East. Staying in Iraq, even for a long time, is in our best national interests and is the right thing to do.

Mr. Gore....in his own words.

This clip comes from Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to his show today when he discussed this clip. It is from Al Gore on the campaign trail when he and Clinton were running for their first term. If you have read this blog, you can probably guess my feelings towards Mr. Gore. Even if you don’t agree with me, or Rush for that matter, you should listen to the Mr. Gore in his own words.

As Rush said, this leads us with some very “inconvenient” conclusions. Was Mr. Gore being less than honest with the American Public? Did he change his mind when the next Bush came along and did what he and Clinton didn’t do? Should we remember this clip when we watch “An Inconvenient Truth”?

Megga Dittos to Rush for getting this out.

Protect your Enemies and Attack your Friends?

With the new funding bill being discussed for Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats are claiming a win. Many Democrats and Republicans have called for benchmarks and timetables for Iraq. The theory seems to be that if we only threaten the Iraqi government, things might go the way we want.

The current threat is if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain benchmarks, it jeopardizes reconstruction assistance. While the President has the option to wave these restrictions, the intent of this bill shouldn’t be glossed over. If signed into law, the US would tell Iraq that the Iraqi government must meet certain benchmarks, or the US will stop funding reconstruction projects in Iraq. I think it is imperative that we continue to fight in Iraq without a surrender date. However, what are we really saying to our allies with these benchmarks?

Many Democrats are constantly demanding we negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding Iraq. The Democrats look at Iran, look at its continued involvement in Iraq and its continued UN violations and decide that Iran is a country they can trust. Just today, the IAEA released a report saying Iran continues to violate UN resolutions. The IAEA says it can not assure the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. If only we would negotiate with the leaders of Iran, they would help us in Iraq. How many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have discussed having a conference in the Middle East to discuss Iraq with Syria and Iran? The Democrats would have us believe we can trust Iran.

However, when the Democrats turn their eyes on Iraq, they insist on benchmarks with teeth. If the Iraqi government can’t pass laws and meet benchmarks by a date set by politicians in DC, then we should stop funding reconstruction efforts in Iraq, or we should withdraw our troops and leave Iraq to the wolves. Let’s not forget that after 200+ years of experience with Democracy here in the US, we still miss the ball. Look at how long it takes our congress to pass laws. However the DNC would have the Iraqi government held to a higher standard.

It seems to me these roles should be reversed. If Iraq is our ally, we should be working with them to get their nation rebuilt. We should protect them from enemies who would assassinate her leaders and enslave her people while raping the nation of its natural resources. Surely the United States can be called on to protect its allies?

If the Democrats insist on passing benchmarks, then let’s look at an Iranian resolution. If the Iranian government can’t prove to the world that it is pursuing a purely peaceful nuclear program in the next 60 days, then we will cut off all economic ties and aid to Iran. I would not advocate using ground forces in Iran, but I read we have three carrier groups near Iran right now. If Iran continues to kill US soldiers in Iraq, then perhaps it is time to see how effectively our military can bomb one country while fighting a war in another one.

The Democrats have taken the saying of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer to a new and corrupted level. The Democrats seem to be saying, “Protect your enemies while attacking your friends.”

The Two Faces of Harry

On Thursday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed to the world the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

For an elected official to declare to the world that the United States has lost a military conflict it is actively engaged in is irresponsible and shameful. There are no words to describe the aide this gives our enemies and the pain it causes our soldiers. However, one of the people who disputed the “war is lost” statement by the Senate Majority Leader is the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid.

This weekend, Senator Reid said, “…no one wants us to succeed more in Iraq than Democrats.” I will be the first to admit that I view myself as a conservative, and that I believe the Democrats look at the world through the wrong lens. However, I have trouble reconciling the two statements the Senator made in the span of a few days. Either the Senator has no idea what he thinks about the War in Iraq, he doesn’t care about Iraq and is only looking for political points, or the Senator has succumb to a mental disorder of some sort and needs immediate medical attention. Regardless of the true problem, one thing is certain: Senator Reid must resign his position as Senate Majority Leader, and should resign from the Senate.

I am not simply applying the same rule to the Democratic Senator as the Democrats would apply to any Republican in a similar position. There will be those who say, “You are only saying this because if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would want the Republican Senators head on a platter.” And perhaps my critics are correct about some small, subconscious part of my mind.

However, I say Senator Reid must resign because he has either decided a small political gain is worth more than a US victory in Iraq, or that the Senator needs to seek immediate medical attention. If it is the first reason, the people of Nevada deserve someone better than that representing them and the people of the United States deserve better than this kind of shameful conduct from a leader in the US Senate. If it is the second reason, my thoughts and prayers are with Harry Reid and his family during this difficult time.

Either way, Senator Reid no longer deserves the respect or trust of the people of the United States and must immediately resign.

The Real Problem in Iraq?

I am enjoying my time away with my family. However, sometimes, I need my political fix. During one such time, I found this article from The Art of Peace. David discusses a few points I have talked about in previous post. At the end, he says that he hopes I respond to this because a few of my original post are now deep in the archive. As fate would have it, his post is now in his archive as well. I thought that vacation time would be the perfect time to respond to his post.

I have stated a few times on my blog that the Democrats are bordering on treason with some of their rhetoric. I honestly feel that in their desire to defeat a President who can’t be re-elected, they would rather loose the war in Iraq than give any credit to President Bush. I cite the recent votes for Surrender by Democrats in both the House and Senate as evidence of their desire to beat Bush. David makes the argument on his site that if the country would be better off leaving Iraq, maybe it isn’t really treason but something closer to insight.

David points out that we will probably need to be in Iraq for many generations to come if we are going to truly do the job we have laid out that needs to be done. I agree with David. I believe under the right circumstances, we may be able to remove a large portion of our force from Iraq within the next two to three years. However, we will probably need some force in Iraq and the Middle East to help Iraq for the next ten to twenty years.

David says if Americans aren’t ready for that type of occupation, “…it is because George W. Bush continually told people things would be easier and quicker than they could reasonably have been expected to be.” I disagree with David. President Bush has stated time and time again that the War on Terror is going to be long and difficult. In some speeches he has said that this will be a war that the next President will have to fight as well. I believe the reason people want us out of Iraq and may not be prepared for what we have to do in Iraq is only partly the Democrats fault. The real problem is that we as Americans want results now. We aren’t patient, and we believe that any war should be wrapped up in a few months.

This attitude is more dangerous than anything the Democrats have done. We as Americans must either change our attitude or accept the fact that we are no longer a Superpower. A Superpower is only a superpower if it can project its power throughout the world. If we truly are a “Paper Tiger” as bin Laden has said, if we don’t have the attention span to go the distance for a democratic alley, then we have bigger problems as a nation than who our President is our which party is in power.

Senate Votes to Surrender 50- 48

The Senate voted yesterday to surrender the war if we still have troops in Iraq in March 2008. It was phrased as a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days with 100% of troops out of Iraq by March, 2008. If our forces leave the field without any consideration for how the war is going at the time, I can only interpret this as an Unconditional Surrender. I simply can’t see any way another nation would look at this and not view it as a failure in Iraq and a surrender by the United States.


Many of the Democrats have said they want this surrender date in the bill to send a message to the President. The Congress (both House and Senate) have spent a lot of time sending and phrasing messages to the President. These messages are viewed by a much wider audience than just the President. What do our troops thing about this? What about our enemies? What about our Allies?


The message the Democrats are sending to our troops is, “Regardless of what is happening in Iraq, we are going to remove you from the field.” The Democrats don’t care if we are winning in Iraq, and they don’t care if we can win in Iraq. They simply insist that we can’t fight any longer. They have decided that any war can only last “x” number of days, and we can only continue to engage if we take less than “x” number of casualties. It doesn’t matter what is happening, what the military leaders think, or what casualties our enemies are taking.


Our enemies must view this as a victory. The politicians behind the forces they are facing have said that if our enemies are still in Iraq in March of 2008, they can have Iraq. The Democrats have said we can fight until then, but after that, we just don’t have it in us. The last thing any general wants is to give his enemy hope. However, the Democrats are sending Al-Queda and Iran vast quantities of hope.


Finally, what does this message say to our Allies? Many Democrats criticize the Iraqi government for not quelling Sunni-Shia violence. Now we have told the democratically elected government of Iraq that they have until March to get things in order and then we are going to leave them to fight their enemies, and the enemies of Democracy. Iraq has had the first transparent and free elections in the Middle East in a long, long time. The Democrats have said, “We don’t really care what you do between now and March, but we are leaving in March.” They have decided Democracy in the Middle East simply isn’t worth protecting.


If Al-Queda released a press statement saying they were going to withdraw from Iraq if America was still fighting in March, how would we view that? Would we see it as a sign of things going in our favor? Would that message be enough to give the Democrats the will to push on with the surge? Would we see it as a sign that Bin Laden was simply trying to send a message to his cell leaders, and we shouldn’t read anything into it? What message are the Democrats really sending? No one believes the Democrats agree with the President on anything right now. As I view the House and the Senate debate surrender, I wonder which the Democrats think is worse: George Bush succeeding in Iraq, or a loss by America’s military?

House Democrats Try to Bribe Their Members

The House passed a bill yesterday giving the President the emergency funds he needed for the war in Iraq. The bill, HR 1591, is entitled The US Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq Accountability Act 2007. The bill comes with more strings than the most complicated puppet.

Some conservative Democrats have been against placing arbitrary time tables on the war. In order to get them to vote with the rest of the Democratic Party, this bill was loaded with many, many pork barrel spending projects. I leave it to the reader to distinguish between a “pork barrel project” and an open bribe for a vote. Some of the pork in this bill shows up as follows (remember, this bill is for troop readiness, veteran’s health, and Iraq accountability):

• $25 Million for Spinach

• $20 Million for US Farmland damaged by freezing temperatures.

• $283 Million to continue funding the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

• $24 Million for the 2007 crop of peanuts

• $5 Million to offset losses from last years health advisory regarding imported fish

• $60.4 Million to go to the operations, research, & facilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service
  

• $100 Million for Citrus Crop relief from Hurricane Katrina and Rita

In all, there were around $20 Billion in pork projects added to the bill in order to buy conservative Democrat’s votes. These conservative Democrats have been against setting a timetable for Iraq. Now, they have put there reservations aside in order to bring pork projects back to their districts.

There will be supporters of the Democratic Party that will paint this as a step in the right direction. They will say that the Democrats are correct and that we have already lost in Iraq, or we are in the middle of a civil war we can’t hope to win. There is an excellent article today in the Weekly Standard looking at the arguments the Democrats have laid out for why we should get out of Iraq. The main arguments the Democrats have put forth just don’t hold water.

If the American people as a whole thought we should get out of Iraq, Congress would be able to simply cut funding to the war. Instead, they are forced to add $20 Billion in pork to get conservative Democrats to agree to timetables around the war. The President accused the Democrats of “Political theatrics”. When the Congress puts $20 Billion into a bill that the President has vowed to veto, and probably won’t survive intact in the Senate, I am afraid the President is correct. House Democrats have decided to stage a tragedy, and they are using money the troops need as a simple prop in their play.

Into the Belly of the Beast

David Scott, Democratic Representative from Georgia, had a town hall meeting this past Saturday. Representative Scott is also my representative in Congress. I have called my representative before, and decided to attend the Town Hall meeting.

I went to the meeting with a few ideas in my head of what I might face. I expected a very high percentage of Democrats at the meeting, and I wasn’t disappointed in that regards. I also expected a lot of talk about Iraq and President Bush. I was wrong in that regard.

The meeting was very heavily Democratic in its turn out. The Representative spent a few minutes welcoming everyone to the meeting and then opened the floor for questions. I grouped the number of questions into a few very broad categories below:

Topic	Number of Questions
Healthcare	4
Taxes	4
Iraq	4
Iran	2
Illegal Immigration	2
Others	11

The eleven questions on “other” topics were so diverse I couldn’t group them into any unifying topic. The number of questions is also not directly related to the amount of time spent on each topic. The Representative spent the vast majority of his time talking about the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) and Illegal Immigration. There was actually only a little time spent on the war in Iraq. About half the people present were for the war, and half were against the war.

Representative Scott is a supporter of the Fair Tax Act. He stated he is working on getting the bill a hearing in Congress so that some of the fine points of the bill could be worked out. Mr. Scott believes that our tax system is incredibly flawed and must be replaced. As I said, most of the people at this meeting were Democrats, but a lot of them were talking about the Fair Tax Act as well. A lot of the questions would end with something along the lines of, “…and I am also a supporter of the Fair Tax.” At one point Rep. Scott stopped the discussion and said that he can’t do a town hall meeting without talking about the Fair Tax Act.

Mr. Scott also wants to control Illegal Immigration by immediately moving 25,000 troops to the borders. Once the borders are secure he would next go after businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

I would encourage anyone reading this article to get in touch with your representative regardless of their political party. While you may not agree with your elected official, they are still there to represent you. The one thing I took from this meeting is that many of my neighbors feel the same way I do, even with a Democratic Representative.

Iraq the Model

I wanted to drop a quick note in here about a new blog I stumbled across. I saw an article from a site called Iraq the Model on Real Clear Politics. This blog is run by two brothers from Baghdad. In addition to numerous articles, the site contains many links to other Iraqi and Middle Eastern blogs. I have found the blog very interesting because it contains well thought out articles written about Iraq from the Iraqi point of view. Anyone interested in how the Iraqi’s view what is happening in Iraq, or want an unfiltered opinion of what is really happening in Iraq should check out Iraq the Model.