Go To The Main Site For More Content on Other Topics!
"Now, it's time for the happy recap." - Bob Murphy

War 2004 Archives

December 31, 2004
BLOG: Turning Over A New Leaf

As I've done in the past, I'm creating brand-new categories for the new year. You'll now go to Baseball 2005 for new baseball entries, Politics 2005 for new politics entries, War 2005 for new war entries, and Law 2005 for new law entries (the Law category hadn't needed an overhaul last year). I'll shortly be updating the link to baseball-only posts at the top of the page as well to send you to Baseball 2005.

Happy New Year!

Posted by Baseball Crank at 5:18 PM | Baseball 2004 • | Baseball 2005 • | Blog 2002-05 • | Law 2002-04 • | Law 2005 • | Politics 2004 • | Politics 2005 • | War 2004 • | War 2005 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 21, 2004
WAR: Dispatches

* Today, another terrible and cowardly attack in Iraq claimed the lives of more good men and women. Recent news from the Middle East has recently been a mix of hopeful signs (see here, here and here) and desperate violence. I think that the former is a major incentive to the latter, an unfortunate dynamic that we’re going to struggle with for the foreseeable future.

* Indonesia’s second trial of one of the founders of al Qaeda’s Southeast Asian partner, Jemaah Islamiyah, is under way.

* David Adesnik dissents from the view of David Ignatius that the U.S. should engage in covert operations to influence the Iraqi election (as Iran is almost certainly doing).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:26 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 19, 2004
WAR: Spanning the Globe, 12/19/04

* Orin Kerr looks at some sloppy reporting of a recent survey about “civil liberties” and Muslim-Americans. (Via The Corner).

* A new RAND study has some good suggestions for winning the ideological component of the War on Terror.

* I’m no expert on military logistics, but Powerline has a link to an Army press conference that puts the armor issue in some useful context. (Via Instapundit).

* On the other hand, as critics of Donald Rumsfeld go, Greg Djerejian is among the most credible. (Via Just One Minute).

* The evidence against Ali Hassan al-Majid (a.k.a. “Chemical Ali”) is finally being aired. It is about time.

* Finally, Indiana Jones and the Battle for Fallujah?

UPDATE: Speaking of context, I’m curious as to the context of attacks against Rumsfeld for writing, but not personally signing, some “condolence” letters. In World War II, did George Marshall? In Vietnam, did Robert McNamara? In the Gulf War, did Dick Cheney? In Somalia, did Les Aspin? I honestly don’t know and would like to. There is an issue of time, but it does seem to me that a personalized letter from a subordinate would be preferable to a form letter from the Secretary. Anyway, it does sound a little tacky, but some context is necessary for me to know if this is something that is at all unique to Rumsfeld.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 3:36 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 16, 2004
LAW/WAR: Habeas Extended

Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion today in Omar Abu Ali v. Ashcroft (the kind of case that pretty well announces what it's about in the caption) refusing to dismiss a habeas petition brought by a US citizen who has been detained by Saudi Arabia since June 2003. Ali, who alleges that he has been tortured by the Saudis, also alleges that he is being held at the behest of the US government. The court concluded that habeas jurisdiction was not necessarily barred either by the fact that Ali was held outside the US nor by the fact that he was in the custody of a foreign power, but ordered further discovery proceedings to develop the factual record.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:31 PM | Law 2002-04 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 15, 2004
WAR: Spanning the Globe, 12/15/04

* Not to point any fingers or anything, but this is a cool article on the KGB’s historical fondness for using poison (complete with spring-loaded umbrellas!).

* The Washington Post covers Germany’s frustrating inability to prosecute anyone in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The more one reads about modern-day Germany, the more clear it is why it has been a favorite rest stop for terrorists: the legacy of the Nazis has left the country unwilling to take responsible security measures, both internally and externally.

* Like the Abu Ghraib case, this should be investigated and any wrongdoers should be severely punished.

* In criticizing Bernard Kerik, who clearly had some issues, a few of which might even be relevant, I’m pretty much in agreement with Rich Lowry’s argument that the first rationale for his withdrawal was the most important.

* Speaking of which, John Derbyshire doesn’t like the way some caricature the immigration debate.

* One of the contributors over at Slugger O’Toole provides a nice reminder as to which side in the dispute in Northern Ireland was recently praising the late, unlamented Yasser Arafat. (Hint: it’s not the one many Irish-Americans like to demonize). That said, from my limited knowledge, the anti-Catholic Rev. Paisley is someone I’m pretty loathe to defend.

* Finally, Ed Morrissey looks at the recent statement by Mahmoud Abbas calling the intifadas a “mistake as well as having some good suggestions as to how to support the troops this Christmas.

UPDATE: There is some dispute over the facts of the Kerik “nanny” situation. I have nothing to add about that, one way or another. My point was a more general one: for a potential head of DHS, or for anyone that matter, allegations of violating of U.S. immigration law should be viewed as a deadly serious matter in a post-9/11 world.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:23 PM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
December 10, 2004
WAR: The Last March of the Ents?

I don’t agree with all of it, but Victor Davis Hanson has a cool column today on the “Ents of Europe” and the War on Terror. J.R.R. Tolkien probably would have hated it, once writing that “The Lord of the Rings” was “neither allegorical nor topical.” As these things go though, Hanson’s analogy strikes me as pretty apt.

Hopefully, for all of us, the final outcome will be similar.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:38 PM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: 12/10/04 Links

*Great, great column by Tom Friedman on the radicalization of Iraqis under sanctions. Friedman often infuriates; he's right about diagnosing problems but responds by suggesting daft solutions. This one's more on the diagnosis side. (Link via Geraghty).

*A fine primer on Ukrainian history from a Ukrainian friend of LT Smash. If you've studied Russian history, as I did in college, some of this will be familiar, but there were also things here that were new to me or that I'd long forgotten.

*You'll want to head over to Soxblog, where pseudonymous blogger James Frederick Dwight (you really shouldn't need to think too hard on the origin of his pseudonym) is tearing apart a sloppy New Yorker piece comparing hospitals and clinics that treat cystic fibrosis (start here and scroll up for followup posts, including his discussion of my initial reaction to the piece, which was that it sounds like something drafted by the plaintiffs' bar).

*Yes, the Onion's Iraq Alert System just killed me. (Link via Simmons' Intern).

*Victor Cha, a Georgetown professor who advocates a "hawk
engagement" strategy regarding North Korea, will assume the post of Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

*You can look at this chart here and argue, as these Berkeley professors do, that the results on this graph show that the 2004 vote in Broward and Palm Beach counties were a suspicious outlier, but isn't the far more logical inference that the 2000 count in Broward and Palm Beach is the suspicious outlier? Gee, does anyone remember any controversy over the vote-counting methods used in Broward and Palm Beach in 2000? I wonder if the results would look less anomolous if you used the Election Day 2000 counts in those two counties rather than the figures that were generated a month later.

*The Gift That Keeps On Giving, Part LXVIII.

*Ann Althouse on Nancy Pelosi's horrible facelift/plastic surgery.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:12 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
December 7, 2004
WAR: Depends How You Define “Facts”

Earlier today, I made the mistake of reading Eric Alterman’s column on MSNBC.com. After discussing how French anti-Semitism during World War II was basically a myth, which seems to conflict with a number of events I remember reading about in history class, Alterman launches into a critique of a registration-only article discussing bias at The New York Times. Needless to say, Alterman disagrees with its author, basically asserting that the Times is, in fact, a right-wing mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. Fine.

Anyway, Alterman goes on about how Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with al Qaeda and about how this is a skull-thumpingly obvious fact that everyone knows. I don’t want to rehash the whole debate over Iraq’s al Qaeda connections, which are contentiously debated (see here, here and here for counter-arguments, as well as here for my take). But having just recently been reading the 9/11 Commission report, which Alterman apparently never has, I was struck by his certainty.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:52 PM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Mr. Bin Laden’s Wild Ride

Reading this story - about how (newly democratic) Afghanistan is hoping to make the caves of Tora Bora into a “visitor attraction” - suggests to me that tourism may not be the best hope for that country’s economy.

Although you never know:

Tourism was once a major industry for Afghanistan. In the 1960s and 1970s the country was a key stopping point on the Hippy Trail from Europe to India — famed for its spectacular scenery, ancient ruins and local intoxicants. But the Russian invasion of 1979 placed Afghanistan off limits and, for 25 years, it has remained in tourist limbo.

Now the first visitors are returning. The latest issue of the Lonely Planet Central Asia guide is the first to include a section on the country.

Previous editions contained a two word entry on Afghanistan: “Don’t go!”

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:13 PM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
November 30, 2004
WAR: Another Opportunity to Help

Via IMAO, here's a page from a California radio host with a variety of suggestions and calls to action that includes an address where you can send get-well wishes to wounded soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq:

AMERICAN HEROES KOGO RADIO 9660 GRANITE RIDGE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:48 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 26, 2004
WAR: Havel-Mania Update

With Instapundit in full dog-with-a-bone mode on my idea of Vaclav Havel for UN Secretary General - which, I admit, is more wishful thinking than anything - Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard picks up the idea, while A Fistful of Euros notes that Havel's eclectic and sometimes dyspeptic worldview isn't entirely a conservative's dream. Well, yeah. But a good man unafraid to speak the truth would be such a vast improvement at the UN that it's worth it.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:12 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 24, 2004
WAR: The UN's Abu Ghraib - and Havel for the UN!

Captain Ed notes a UN scandal larger and worse than Abu Ghraib, as there have been more than 150 charges of rape, prostitution, pedophilia and other sexual abuses by UN peacekeepers in the Congo against innocent refugees. Of course, as with the Oil-for-Food scam, stories that reflect badly on the UN get only a fraction of the attention devoted to stories that reflect badly on the Bush Administration, even if the story itself is considerably worse. And that imbalance in the worldwide press has tangible bad effects on the credibility of the US as opposed to the credibility of the UN, which by any right ought to be close to zero at this stage.

Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds, who's been doing great work pulling together the latest from the Ukraine, likes my suggestion that Vaclav Havel should replace Kofi Annan as head of the UN.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg calls my suggestion of Havel "a great, wonderful, humane, inspired idea." Now, if only I can figure a way to get traffic to the blog out of this . . .

SECOND UPDATE: Matt Welch, who knows a lot more about Havel than I do from his years in what was then Czechoslovakia, is also supportive: "I think it's a capital idea, and would likely bring a gust of support behind the growing "Community of Democracies" reform initiative."

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:50 AM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
November 22, 2004
WAR: Defeat in Ukraine

Looks like the reform-minded, pro-Western challenger, Viktor Yushchenko, has been defeated by Viktor Yanukovich in Ukraine's presidential election, in a victory for Yanukovich ally Vladimir Putin, who obviously wants Ukraine bound more tightly to Russia. The usual cries of voter fraud are being raised, although at this distance it's never easy to tell if they are valid or not.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:36 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
November 19, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Links 11/19/04

*Real subtle, that Zarqawi:

In video shot by an embedded CNN cameraman, soldiers walked through an imposing building with concrete columns and with a large sign in Arabic on the wall reading "Al Qaida Organization" and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

Inside the building, U.S. soldiers found documents, old computers, notebooks, photographs and copies of the Quran.

*Jay G has an amusingly profanity-laden tirade (you were warned!) about critics of Hardee's new super-fatburger.

*While what he did may well have been wrong, I'm loath to sit in judgment of the Marine who shot what appears to be a wounded and non-threatening sniper in Fallujah. I believe very, very strongly that a man who wears the uniform is entitled to the benefit of every doubt. But Dale Franks explains why sometimes soldiers have to be punished for reasons that have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with discipline.

*David Frum lays out options for blockading Iran and has some helpful history of the words "Palestine" and "Philistine".

*NZ Bear reminds us that we still need a loyal opposition.

*Kevin Drum notes that the exit polls always overestimate support for the Democrats.

*What are these "morals" you speak of?

*Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post on the centrality of corruption to Arafatistan. Jeff Jacoby, of course, had the definitive Arafat post-mortem:

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg.

*How the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign made better use of email than the Democrats.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:36 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
November 18, 2004
WAR: “Semper Fi”

Though it is a subscription-only "featured" article, Thursday’s Wall Street Journal editorial offers a clear-eyed perspective of recent events in Fallujah, in proper perspective. It is worth excerpting heavily:

Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. Have we lost all sense of moral proportion?…Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat…

When not disemboweling Iraqi women…killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque?

Beyond the one incident, think of what the Marine and Army units just accomplished in Fallujah. In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country.

In a more grateful age, this would be hailed as one of the great battles in Marine history--with Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Hue City and the Chosin Reservoir. We'd know the names of these military units, and of many of the soldiers too. Instead, the name we know belongs to the NBC correspondent, Kevin Sites. We suppose he was only doing his job, too. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge in the moral abdication that would equate deliberate televised beheadings of civilians with a Marine shooting a terrorist, who may or may not have been armed, amid the ferocity of battle.

The incident in question should be investigated fully at some later date, but in the meantime we should be deeply grateful to the Marines - whose death toll has apparently since risen - for moving mountains yet again, under the most difficult of circumstances. Semper fi, indeed.

UPDATE: I’ve never been in the military, but this sounds like sensible advice to me.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:56 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 16, 2004
WAR: France’s Nuanced Diplomacy

Speaking from formerly German-occupied territory, Jacques Chirac is again lecturing Tony Blair on the wisdom of taking sides against the United States in Iraq:

Britain gave its support but I did not see anything in return. I’m not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.

He sputters on:

It is like that nice guy in America — what’s his name again? — who spoke about ‘old Europe’. It has no sense. It’s a lack of culture to imagine that. Imagining that there can be division between the British and French vision of Europe is as absurd as imagining that we are building Europe against the United States. [Emphasis added]

Yes, who could imagine that? If I was going to make up snooty, hypocritical and overly sensitive things for Chirac to be saying I don’t think I could do a better job. Hopefully, the British retain the good sense to remember why they’ve been suspicious of the French since the dawn of Western Civilization. And remind me: what exactly has France gained by working tirelessly to fray European relations with the United States?

(That is, except for stories like this and hearings like this.)

UPDATE: Despite the ever-infuriating Chirac, it is good to hear that the Bush Administration is still working with France. After all, we still have shared interests with that country and European thought, in general, is larger than just one man, regardless of the size of his ego.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Australian Arthur Chrenkoff has a nice history lesson about why Poland is increasingly siding with the U.S. over France.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:16 PM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
November 13, 2004
WAR: Another Way To Help

If you're looking for a way to say "thanks" to our men and women in harm's way overseas, go here for more on the “Help Our Troops Call Home” program and donate prepaid calling cards. One of the best gifts that soldiers deployed overseas can use is the ability to call home and talk to their families.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:42 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 11, 2004
WAR: Giving Thanks

Following up on yesterday’s thoughts, happy Veterans Day to all those who have so bravely served and defended our country through the years, whether in popular or less popular wars.

We owe much to all of them.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:51 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: New Day Dawning?

Daniel Drezner is soliciting views as to whether Yasser Arafat’s death will mean progress for Israeli-Palestinian negotiation. He also has similar thoughts to my own:

Assuming that Arafat's successor recognizes the futility of the second intifada, one wonders whether, to use a crude analogy, the Palestinians will be to Bush what the Soviets were to Reagan -- an implacable foe that was transformed into a near ally after a display of toughness on the U.S. side and a change in leadership on the other side.

Of course, this requires a Palestinian version of Gorbachev.

Who knows? But the U.S. should get involved again here without looking like it’s picking leaders for the Palestinians. In my view, this is an excellent area for the Bush Administration to reach out to Democrats. Bringing in some Clinton-era type, perhaps a George Mitchell, Kenneth Pollock or even Richard Holbrooke, might be a good move for all concerned parties. The broad outline of what a final agreement might look like has not tremendously changed since the Clinton era, the Bush Administration has just taken a firmer stand, mainly due to Arafat. With him gone, peace may be closer. Since the other apparent option is Palestinian civil war, let’s hope for the best.

UPDATE: I agree with Max Boot's assessment of Arafat:

There has been no more successful terrorist in the modern age. Yet his biggest victims were not Israelis. It was his own people who suffered the most. If Arafat had displayed the wisdom of a Gandhi or Mandela, he would long ago have presided over the establishment of a fully independent Palestine comprising all of the Gaza Strip, part of Jerusalem and at least 95% of the West Bank.
Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:50 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 10, 2004
WAR: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

Happy birthday wishes here and here to the U.S. Marine Corps. As usual, the Marines are on the front lines of battle, this time in Fallujah.

I feel thankful that they’re on our side.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:46 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 6, 2004
POLITICS/WAR/LAW: 11/6/04 Links

*Now, They Tell Us: the lead story on the NY Times website yesterday was one that veterans of the 1992 election will find familiar: the discovery, all of a sudden, that the jobs picture is better than it was painted in the run-up to the election. I'm watching carefully for signs of economic revisionism where Democrats and Bush Administration critics who just a few days ago were comparing this economy to the Great Depression start arguing that Bush was hard to beat because economic times are good.

*Kos just topped the "screw 'em" classic, by openly hoping for America's defeat in Iraq:

The big silver lining, and it's significant, is that Kerry won't be tarred for cleaning up Bush's mess. Had Kerry gotten us out of Iraq, he would've been blamed for "losing the war". Now Bush will ineptly lose it for himself.

Kos is taken firmly to task for this by Greg Djejerian:

[S]uch flippant treatment of a major national security issue is also very small; and the American people have smelled this smallness out. That's part of the reason a somewhat embattled American president, with a less than ideal economy and with a tough war on his hands, was handily re-elected (I believe not since FDR has a President been re-elected while simultaneously gaining seats for his party in both Houses of Congress). Americans like to dream of big projects and goals--and the Democratic party is failing them in this--content instead to lazily carp from the sidelines. Worse, some of that party's activists, it too often appears, would wish for some important, declared national objectives to be scuttled. Trust me, that wasn't a winning strategy in the past, it isn't one right now, and it won't be one in the future.

Kos is undoubtedly particularly peeved at the failure of his personal ambition to become a power player in the Democratic party, as all 15 of the House and Senate candidates he backed lost. The list, here, is particularly funny now due to the misspellings and egregious cheap shots, like claiming Jim Bunning's mental health was deteriorating. (Link via Blogs for Bush)

*Speaking of Blogs for Bush, the site will continue in a new format, although it's unclear to me how its function will differ from that of RedState.

*Catch Mark Steyn in something close to full gloat mode here and here. I liked this one:

Michael Mooronification damages everyone who gets it.

Look at the recently resurrected Osama bin Laden. Three years ago he was Mr Jihad, demanding the restoration of the caliphate, the return of Andalucia, the conversion of every infidel to Islam, the imposition of sharia and an end to fornication, homosexuality and alcoholic beverages. In his latest video he sounds like some elderly Berkeley sociology student making lame jokes about Halliburton and Bush reading My Pet Goat.

*Speaking of gloating, while I might divide the group differently, I endorse the general sentiment of John Derbyshire as to the people who deserve to be gloated at and those who don't.

*From November 2: Best Jimmy Breslin column ever.

*Lileks on New Yorkers who are aghast at the supposed ignorance of the red states that voted for Bush:

It's a big country. Please take this in the spirit it's offered: we watch the news that comes from New York, read the magazines that come from New York, see the shows that come from New York. It's entirely possible we know you better than you know us. Nu?

*Tim Blair links to some classic inside stuff from the Bush and Kerry camps. The guy who comes off in this as the real political brains isn't Karl Rove but Bush himself - note that Bush figured out before Rove did that Howard Dean was toast in the primaries. Of course, this is consistent with the theory that Bush's expertise is knowing people, and he knew Dean personally.

*Stuart Buck thinks - and I agree with him - that Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor would have retired before the election if it were not for the legitimacy questions that people raised after Bush v. Gore.

*Where credit is due: Wretchard notes that "[t]he French may have performed a valuable service by admitting Arafat to a military hospital in Europe which will reduce the risk of imputing his death to Jewish poisoning, a rumor that has already made the rounds in the Middle East."

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:35 AM | Law 2002-04 • | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
October 31, 2004
WAR: Why They Fight

I was reading The Atlantic Monthly earlier today and came across a very lengthy and eloquent "letter to the editor" by a Marine Reservist who served in Iraq. Anyway, since the Atlantic makes you subscribe to access much of its online content, I couldn’t reprint it as it appeared, but it turns out the main text of the letter has circulated before. Here is the full text. (Via Pejman Yousefzadeh). Here is an excerpt:

The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten, and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused - but now there is hope. You did the right thing.

It’s worth reading in full.

UPDATE: From that same issue and available here, Robert Kaplan had a good piece on the clash of cultures between the generally liberal media and the generally conservative military. This quote, about the value military men tend to place on plain speaking, struck me:

One Air Force master sergeant told me, ‘I reject the notion that Bush is inarticulate. He is more articulate than Clinton. When Bush says something, he's clear enough that you argue about whether you agree with him or not. When Clinton talks, you argue over what he really meant.’

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:08 PM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Case For War - The First Time

OK, a blast from the past, but one that still has some timeliness today. I finally got around to digging out a column I wrote in December 1990, back when I was a college sophmore, laying out the case for war with Iraq. The first one, of course. In college, I wrote a weekly op-ed column, mostly politics and campus events (we already had Bill Simmons writing the main sports column).

It's interesting, of course, to see how much the arguments then echoed the ones those of us who supported the second war made again, especially the bottom-line conclusion: "there is not just one reason to stop Hussein, but every reason to stop him." You can read the whole thing here.

One major change in my thinking since then, of course, is my attitude towards Israel; until the Gulf War, I had generally fallen into the "Israel as an ally is more trouble than it is worth" camp, and that comes out here.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:57 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 30, 2004
WAR: OK, He's Not Dead

Mark Steyn is eating crow served by his readers on his longstanding argument that bin Laden died in December 2001. Meanwhile, Beldar thinks bin Laden's "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" theme is an effort to speak the language of appeasement: "I think it's a very clear attempt to begin negotiations with a Kerry administration for a "cease-fire" in the Global War on Terror." You don't have to think that Kerry would accept such a proposal - as Beldar apparently does - to worry about the possibility that Kerry has succeeded in communicating to the rest of the world, which may have trouble grasping the nuances of his position, that he would do precisely that.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:22 PM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Heat Rising Near Fallujah

The good news: heavier fighting around Fallujah, as coalition forces turn up the volume on the "insurgent" stronghold, including the heaviest and sustained artillery barrage in recent weeks. The bad news: 8 Marines killed and nine wounded "in a single incident" (no further details presently available) in the area. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:12 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 28, 2004
WAR: Don't Say It

I agree 100% with Dales: "tapes made by terrorists should never be given any press at all by our press.". This isn't a journalistic issue and it isn't a political issue; it's a security issue, and that takes precedence.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 3:08 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: An RDX Disposal Question

Paul at Wizbang wants answers. For now, all he has is a potentially plausible working hypothesis: that by January 2003, all but 3 tons of the 141 tons of RDX at Al Qa'qaa was gone from that facility, and that IAEA inspectors knew this and withheld the fact from the UN Security Council during the pre-war debate. If you can help shed light on his analysis, drop by and lend a link or a comment.

I have to say, given that "there were no dangerous weapons in Iraq" was one of the points Kerry had decisively won in this year's political debate, he seems to have shot himself in the foot by placing so much emphasis on the eve of the election on the dangers posed by these conventional weapons that were in Saddam's hands before the war.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:52 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 27, 2004
WAR: Prayers For Repentance

I can pray for billionaire terrorist Yasser Arafat to repent his sins. But, as with Fidel Castro, I feel not a shred of guilt in hoping for his death, which will improve and perhaps save countless lives. Roger Simon wonders if he's dead already, and on the very day that Ariel Sharon wins approval for his Nixon-goes-to-China plan for unilateral pullback of some of the settlements.

Back to the ballgame.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:13 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS: Getting The Job Done

The latest and apparently last theory that Kerry and his media allies have settled on is to attack Bush's execution of the War on Terror, including both the Iraq war and Afghanistan; the theme of the attacks has been that Bush is incompetent, which is taken now as received wisdom beyond challenge by fact. Go read Greg Djerejian's long essay on this point, and yesterday's shorter Wall Street Journal op-ed (for a similar analysis, see Dan Darling on the Washington Post's effort to argue that the Iraq war and anti-Iran hardliners undermined the al Qaeda manhunt). Both contribute to a few of the key points that need to be borne in mind in evaluating the Bush Administration's performance:

1. War is a difficult and complex endeavor, requiring the making of scores of decisions large and small. Many of those decisions are, by their very nature, made on the basis of severely incomplete information, fraught with uncertainty and likely to have lethal consequences if they go wrong - and often if they go right, as well. The military acronym SNAFU got that way for a reason. Bush, by leading the nation in wartime, is certain to make more mistakes, and with worse consequences, than any peacetime president.

2. The history of wars, in fact, is almost unbroken in the making of catastrophic misjudgments by even the best of wartime leaders. Certainly if you review the records of Lincoln, FDR and Churchill, three of the models of civilian leadership in war, they and their generals and civilian advisers made numerous errors that cost scores of lives, many of which in retrospect seem like obvious blunders. I'd like the critics who formerly supported Bush and have now abandoned him to at least admit that on the same grounds, they would have voted for Dewey in 1944 and McClellan in 1864.

3. More specifically to the issue at hand, in almost all cases, the decisions by Bush and his civilian and military advisers involved avoiding alternatives that had their own potential bad consequences, and the critics are judging these decisions in a vacuum. The decision to disband Saddam's army and undergo a thorough de-Ba'athification is a classic example, cited incessantly by critics on the Left. But what if Bush had kept that army together, and they had acted in the heavy-handed (to put it mildly) fashion to which the Ba'athists were accustomed, say, by firing on crowds of civilians? Isn't it an absolute certainty that all the same critics would be singing "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," accusing Bush's commitment to democracy as being a sham and a cover for a desire to set up friendly tyrants to keep the oil pumping, that we'd hear constantly about how we've alienated the Iraqi people by enabling their oppressors, how we showed misunderstanding of the country by leaving a minority Sunni power structure in place over the Shi'ite majority? Wouldn't we hear the very same things we hear now about Afghanistan, about using too few US troops and "outsourcing" the job, or the same civil-liberties concerns we hear when we turn over suspects for interrogation to countries without our restraint when it comes to torture? Don't insult our intelligence and try to deny it.

The same goes for many decisions. More troops? We'd hear that this is a heavy-handed US occupation. I mean, we heard something like that when Giuliani put more cops on the street in New York, let alone a foreign country. Like most conservatives, my preference would have been to go hard into Fallujauh in April. But even if the alternative decision to hold off until there could be significant Iraqi participation in the assault was wrong, it was not an illogical one, but rather a decision made with the patience and foresight to consider the long-range political consequences in Iraq of differing military approaches.

4. Many of the decisions at issue here, from specific ground commanders' decisions to secure particular sites to Tommy Franks' call on Tora Bora, were decisions principally made by people lower in the chain of command, many of them in the military. This is not to say that Bush, as the head of that chain of command, is not ultimately responsible to the voters for those decisions; he is. But it is to remind people that they are not second-guessing solely the judgments of a small coterie of the president and civilian advisers, but the entire chain of command. Tom Maguire makes this point explicitly with regard to Tora Bora:

[I]f the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chose not to overrule his subordinate, why should Bush? This . . . actually strenghtens Bush's case - the issue was identified, alternatives were weighed, and a decision was made. We all wish the right guess had been made, but I, at least, am glad that the decision making team was aware of the issues and the alternatives.

If Kerry is campaigning on a promise to make the battlefield decisions and always make the right ones, good for him. Say Anything, John.

5. Much of the criticism has focused on the idea that Bush needs to admit more errors, and that Kerry would be better at recognizing and admitting mistakes. Djerejian zeroes in on an argument made by David Adesnik and Dan Drezner:

[P]eople like Drezner and Adesnik are asking: maybe Kerry's a gamble--but at least he's not a proven train wreck. While Adesnik think "accountability", in the main, is the issue that has gotten waverers on board for Kerry--the real core grievance appears to be best reflected, instead, in this Adesnik graf that Drezner approvingly links too:

As a professional researcher, I think I simply find it almost impossible to trust someone whose thought process is apparently so different from my own. In theory, I am sure that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all believe in evaluating the relevant data and adjusting their decisions to reflect reality. Thus, when I say that I object to the way that this administration makes decisions, I am saying that I do not believe that it has lived up to the intellectual standard it presumably accepts. [emphasis added]

Let's put all this in plainer English, OK? What Dan and David are saying, I think, is: When this Bush team effs up (and they have effed up a lot), are they able to (on a bare-bones constitutive level, say): a) even recognize they have effed up and b) then move to redress the eff up?

As an initial matter, admitting mistakes, especially in wartime, is overrated, particularly if that means (1) admitting a decision was wrong before you have all the information to reach a final conclusion about it, or (2) making a public self-analysis that gives useful information to the enemy. How often did Churchill, battling daily to keep up the fighting spirit of the British, go on the radio to say, "sorry folks, I blew it again and got a bunch of people killed"? I tend to think that Bush made a big mistake of this kind when he conceded the point last summer on the inclusion in the State of the Union Address of British charges that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa; as it turned out, the Brits stood by their report, and Saddam really did send an envoy there to do precisely that.

The more important point in wartime is the ability to recognize what's not working and change tactics or, if appropriate, strategies. Djerejian cites several examples of Bush doing precisely that, most notably with the firing of Jay Garner but also extending to expanding the number of troops on the ground.

In any event, where, I would ask, is the evidence that Kerry is better at admitting mistakes than Bush? This is a guy who brought all sorts of political grief to himself by stubbornly refusing for three decades to admit that he was wrong to repeat false charges, under oath and on national televison, that smeared his comrades in Vietnam as guilty of pervasive war crimes. Has Kerry admitted he was wrong to oppose nearly every aspect of the foreign policy strategy that President Reagan pursused to great effect in the closing and victorious chapter of the Cold War? Has he admitted he was wrong to oppose the use of force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991? Maybe I missed something, but I don't even recall him admitting he was wrong for trying to slash the intelligence budget in the mid-1990s following the first World Trade Center bombing. Indeed, one of the most common threads throughout Kerry's behavior in this campaign has been his unwillingness to take any personal responsibility for mistakes, from blaming his speechwriters for things that come out of Kerry's own mouth to picayune things like blaming the Secret Service when he falls down on the slopes. As Jonah Goldberg notes, Kerry's "liberal hawk" backers may argue that the decades of bad judgment in Kerry's past are rendered inoperative by September 11, but Kerry's stubborn insistence that he hasn't changed in response to September 11, and that he had the right answers all along even when he wrote a book in 1997 that barely mentioned Islamic terrorism, gives the lie to the notion that Kerry is a model of self-reflection. Even the man's own supporters can't seriously defend the proposition - on which many of them heaped well-deserved scorn during the primary season - that Kerry has been consistent from the start on whether Saddam was a serious threat that justified a military response. Yet there Kerry stands, insisting to all the world what nobody believes, that he hasn't changed his position. Preferring Kerry to Bush because Bush won't admit mistakes is like preferring fresh water to salt water because salt water is wet.

In any event, will Kerry somehow change, grow in office, shed a lifetime of bad judgments and blanching at the use of American power, suddenly stop valuing diplomacy as an end and the status quo as the highest virtue? Just because Bush changed in office means nothing. First of all, Bush was a guy who had already proven his willingness to change and admit his problems when he quit drinking, had a religious awakening and basically overhauled his whole approach to life in his forties; Kerry can show no similar example of a willingness to change. And Kerry is now in his sixties, six years older than Bush in 2000, and while Bush may count September 11 as a life-changing event, Kerry had already had his, in Vietnam. Kerry's foreign policy world view was set decades ago, both by the example of his diplomat father and by Vietnam. The fact that Kerry has been malleable and vascillating over the years, clear a pattern though that may be, is no reason to think that he will suddenly re-examine his approach to accept the need for the United States to lead a continuing effort to overturn the corrupt, rotten and deadly status quo in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

6. The final charge is that Bush's errors would be forgiveable if he had done more, earlier, to explain the risks and burdens of war to the American people. Of course, this has nothing to do with the execution of the war, but political leadership is important, and in many ways it's much more the president's job than is the decision to use X number of troops to seal off a particular location. First off, the charge that Bush argued the war would be easy is refuted by virtually all his speeches, in which he said over and over and over again that we were in for a long haul, and there would be difficult times ahead. Of course, that has long since become obvious from events, and in any event we really were not in a position before the war to know precisely how it would all play out. But I will agree that he never gave a Churchillian "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech specifically about Iraq, and that many hawks in and out of the administration underestimated in their public arguments the difficulties of a post-conquest insurgency (then again, many doves told us that we'd be bogged down with thousands of casualties taking Baghdad). Of course, the war itself, up to and through the fall of Baghdad, was as much of a "cakewalk" as a real life shooting war against a substantial enemy can ever be; the problem is simply that we didn't broadcast the coming insurgency (which, by the way, would have had the effect of greatly encouraging the insurgents).

In the end, that's what this argument is all about - not the difficulties of war, which are well-understood, but simply a political argument about the use of speeches to predict the unpredictable. Moreover, on that ground, again, there's no reason to think Kerry would be better; after all, Kerry is the guy who won't even admit to this day that his war vote was a vote for war. Kerry's the guy who wasn't able to predict that his campaign would have to prepare for attacks by people who'd been holding a grudge against him for 30 years.

No, Bush hasn't been a perfect war leader, but show me who was. He's had tough calls to make, and unlike Kerry he can't shift with the wind without consequence. Progress has been frustrating at times, because our overall enemy - the forces of terror and tyranny, of radical Islamism and fascist gangsterism - have recognized that an American victory in Iraq would be a defeat for them in the war on terror. You know that, I know that, they know that. But that just makes it all the more urgent to stick with a guy who believes in the mission, and who has proven that he will keep on trying new approaches until the job is finished, rather than looking for the door.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:30 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
October 26, 2004
WAR: Hitchens and Castro

Must-read: Hitchens on what you have to believe to believe that Zarqawi's presence and organization in pre-invasion Iraq is not evidence of Saddam's complicity with Islamist radical terrorists.

Also: Andrew Sullivan catches this quote, which I heartily endorse, from State Department spokesman Richard Boucher:

QUESTION: Did you hear that Castro fell?

MR. BOUCHER: We heard that Castro fell. There are, I think, various reports that he broke a leg, an arm, a foot, and other things, and I'd guess you'd have to check with the Cubans to find out what's broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what's broken in Cuba.

QUESTION: Do you wish him a speedy recovery?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Castro definitely fits that narrow category of persons whose death would so improve the lives of so many that I feel no guilt in wishing him ill.

UPDATE: So the Bush Administration chose, for a variety of reasons (the quality of available intelligence is, as always, disputed), not to imitate Clinton's ineffective missile strikes on Afghanistan but instead wait for the invasion to deal in toto with Zarqawi's terror camps. And Saddam was able to plan an insurgency, move around dangerous weapons and possibly move men, money and weapons to Syria during the run-up to war. Which may well have included the high explosives the NY Times was huffing about yesterday, which the inspectors had left in Saddam's hands (along with hundreds of thousands of tons of other conventional explosives) without concern.

I'm beginning to think Mark Steyn was right that the real problem with the Iraq War is that we waited too long trying to go through all the international hoops before invading, costing us the ability to catch Saddam by strategic surprise. And yet, as Wretchard puts it, "[t]he price of passing the "Global Test" was very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken to the cleaners again."

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:49 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
October 24, 2004
BASEBALL/WAR: Field of Dreams

Nice article here on Iraq’s national baseball team. It is truly a shame, however, to hear that so many of the players enjoy playing the game, but fear its association with America. That fear is indicative of the climate of terror which some hope to permanently reinstate in Iraqi society and which is anathema to the spirit of the joyful pastime we often take for granted.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:16 AM | Baseball 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 22, 2004
WAR: Kicking In

Spirit of America needs our help again. Dan Henninger has more on the good cause in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Why should we care about elections in Iraq? Regardless of your view on the Iraq War and its aftermath, helping assure free and fair Iraqi elections is the right thing for America to do and, if successful, will only speed the safe return of American troops. See here for my view. Either way, this is important business.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:29 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 20, 2004
WAR: Open War Is Upon You, Whether You Would Risk It Or Not

Radical Islam apparently didn’t get the memo that Spain is supposed to be on the sidelines of the War on Terror:

The suspected leader of a militant Muslim cell plotted to deal Spain the “biggest blow of its history” — a suicide truck bomb laden with half a ton of explosives aimed at killing the country’s top judges investigating Islamic terror and destroying their case files, officials said Wednesday.

Police said they had intercepted hundreds of letters from suspected cell members in which they said they were willing to stage suicide attacks.

The plot to blow up the National Court, Spain’s nerve center for investigating Islamic terror, was detailed in a report from the National Police intelligence unit obtained by the Associated Press. The report quotes a protected witness who had been in contact with the suspected ringleader Mohamed Achraf, an Algerian born in the United Arab Emirates.

Thankfully, tragedy was averted…this time. We should take this kind of thing personally. Despite its distasteful current government, Spain is our NATO ally. An attack on it should be treated like an attack on us. We should do all we can to help the people of Spain defend themselves. Only by banding together can the countries of NATO and the world defeat the scourge which threatens us all. Terrorism is not a nuisance which can be simply wished away or fought by law enforcement alone, not by the United States and not by Spain.

Welcome back to the fight.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:00 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
October 15, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Showdown in Fallujah

The Big One is on in Iraq, as US forces are finally doing what, at least in retrospect, they should have done back in April, cordoning off Fallujah and opening a major offensive against the heart of the insurgency. I can't offer any insights on the military angle, but here's what's interesting: the Bush Administration was quite happy to leak word earlier this week that it had no intention of any major offensive actions in Iraq until after Election Day. The left, predictably, went nuts over this report (see Kevin Drum, Mark Kleiman, Matt Yglesias, Atrios, Brad DeLong, and, yes, even the Kerry campaign), claiming that Bush was putting politics over national security by not launching an offensive in mid-October. Which raises four possibilities:

1. Something changed between Monday and today. Unlikely, given the amount of preparation that goes into something like this.
2. The media stories were wrong and/or based on reports from people who knew nothing. Always a possibility.
3. This was a head-fake to throw off the enemy in Iraq.
4. This was a head-fake to throw off the Bush Administration's domestic political opponents so they'd demand that Bush go on the offensive, which would make it more difficult for them to immediately switch course and cry "October Surprise".

Without discounting the other possibilities, #4 sure sounds like typical Bush political strategy, with #3, of course, being an added bonus. And the usual suckers fell for it, for the same reasons they always do.

And maybe now we know why Bush wanted to talk to Kerry after the debate.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:36 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (3)
October 14, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Stop the Presses

Academics disagreeing with the direction of Republican foreign policy? Shocking!

In fairness, the letter Drezner links to is worth checking out and the comments of Drezner himself are characteristically fair. The credentials and assertions of the “S3FP” should be weighed a little more heavily than much of what usually passes for anti-war arguments, but those arguments themselves are still basically repackaged Democratic talking points, some of which (notably General Shinseki’s comments, the cited James Fallows piece) have been the basis for frequent distortions by the Kerry campaign.

Rich Lowry has a cover story in National Review this month, which cites a large number of Administration officials and which, while supportive of the war, is very critical of a number of aspects of its management. (I’d link to it were it available online). Anyway, Lowry nicely debunks Fallows’ view - which has become orthodoxy in many circles - that the Defense Department ignored all pre-war plans concerning reconstruction. It should also be said that Lowry’s article reads largely as a Defense Department rebuttal to proxy attacks by the State Department and, thus, should be read critically. Yet, that very legitimate side of the argument is too often ignored by the more Foggy Bottom-friendly press corps.

As for my position on the Iraq War, I strongly disagree with the stated position of the S3FP. Most of their arguments were addressed in my lengthy, four-part defense of the war (see here, here, here and here). Check it out, especially the third part.

Finally, as for the scholars’ notion that “on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious” - inaction would only have meant increasing the number of stories like this. Maybe they can live with that. I’m glad we don’t have to.

UPDATE: John Derbyshire has some comments on the Lowry article, which, again, I wish I could to link to here directly. It has a lot of good stuff to ponder, regardless of where you ultimately come down on the war.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:30 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
October 12, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: The Right War, The Right Place, The Right Time – PART IV

This is the final part of a four-part series on the Iraq War.

Part I looked at why America could not rest after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and why state sponsors of terror, such as Iraq, require our attention. Part II looked at why, in particular, North Korea and Iran should not have taken precedence over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Part III looked at why the decision to go to war in Iraq was necessary and justified. Those questions provide a necessary background to this analysis.

This part looks at what, roughly a year and a half on, America has gained and what it has lost from the Iraq War. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? The answer, attempting to look at the war from all angles, is yes.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:00 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 11, 2004
WAR: We Remember, Again

Bali, two years on.

UPDATE: Tim Blair interrupts his post-election gloat-a-thon to remember the attacks.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:43 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: The Right War, The Right Place, The Right Time – PART III

This is the third part of a four-part series in praise of, and defense of, the Iraq War.

Part I looked at why America could not rest after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and why state sponsors of terror, such as Iraq, require our attention. Part II looked at why, in particular, North Korea and Iran should not have taken precedence over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

This part, the longest yet, details why America and its allies were right to take it upon themselves to enforce years of violated UN Resolutions by military force and, ultimately, to remove Saddam Hussein. In other words, this is the meat of the sandwich.

The hardest part of writing this is deciding where to start.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:35 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
October 10, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: The Right War, The Right Place, The Right Time – PART II

This is the second part of a four-part series on why the Iraq War, contrary to the position de jour of Senator John Kerry, was the right war in the right place at the right time (see Part I here). America acted both wisely and decisively in removing Saddam Hussein from power and is doing the only right thing in helping the Iraqi people get their country back on its feet.

Why, though, of North Korea, Iran and Iraq was a military response appropriate for the latter but not for the first two?

Let’s look at them one at a time.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 2:14 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: Go John Go!

Make sure you check out Tim Blair for a well-deserved bout of "[h]urtful, savage, imbalanced and triumphalist ranting" at Saturday's election victory by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, sounds like an an Aussie Howard Dean:

The real importance of tomorrow's election lies in the foreign policy changes that would be instituted under the Labor Government of Mark Latham. The man who once broke a taxi-driver's arm, and ran Liverpool's (a suburb of southern Sydney) municipal council into historic levels of debt and political chaos now has an opportunity to shape Australia's place in the world. The shape it would take can be speculated upon by the remarks Mr Latham has, in the past, made about the President of the United States. "The most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" he declared about the American President who overthrew two tyrannical regimes in a single term. Latham then went on to label his Australian conservative opponents as a "conga-line of suckholes" for having originally supported the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Senator John Kerry, Mr Latham has prevaricated and occasionally made complete reversals of policy on what Labor would do in Government. "All the troops home by Christmas" was the original clarion call. Then it became some of the troops. Their position hasn't been clarified for some weeks, and thanks to Labor's compliant fifth columnists -- the media -- it isn't likely to be placed under any scrutiny, any time soon. But the fetid stench of appeasement wafts through the air, and it is unmistakable.

Meanwhile, some irregularities but no widespread violence as Afghans went to the polls for the first time since the US liberated their country from the Taliban.

In both cases, of course, the elections represent a setback for John Kerry's campaign. Afghanistan is a clear triumph for the Bush Administration; we're hardly home free there, but the ability to conduct an election free of violence gives the lie to claims that the country has fallen apart, and gives hope for similar progress in Iraq. That's terrible news for Kerry.

In Australia, of course, Kerry's sister - the head of his campaign there - created a stir in mid-September when she basically told Autralians to side against the United States by voting Howard out of office:

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad -- including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.

Howard's victory stands as a rebuke to the Kerrys and their ham-handed attempt to pry another ally out of the coalition. And, of course - of much greater importance - it preserves the role of our most faithful ally as a vigilant force against terrorism.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:25 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 9, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: The Right War, The Right Place, The Right Time - PART I

The United States and its coalition partners were right to invade Iraq to depose and disarm Saddam Hussein and we are right to be staying to help the Iraqi people combat a ruthless insurgency and develop a stable, representative government. President Bush made the right strategic decision at the right time.

Why Iraq? This is the first of a very lengthy, four-part post on that question. (Like the Crank, I’m sorry to be short-changing baseball - which I do love - but I feel that these are important issues and that this may be the very biggest.).

As we live in the continuing wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has a responsibility to aggressively confront rogue regimes, allies of terror and repressive dictatorships wherever and whenever it can. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq emphatically fit all three categories.

I strongly disagree with the argument that state sponsors of terror are irrelevant to the Global War on Terrorism simply because the specific terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were sub-state actors. Following the successful invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban, the United States was right to broaden its sights and to act to head off gathering threats, correct festering wrongs and enforce long-ignored international resolutions. The approximately 3,000 victims of September 11th deserve no less.

The main question is where, post-Afghanistan, should the next front have been? Let's examine that.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:01 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: What We Take For Granted

This picture says a lot. As usual, a Churchill quote comes to mind:

At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper.

That quote may need to be updated. The little woman in the little burqa in the little hut in post-Taliban Afghanistan, risking her life to vote in a process she may not even fully comprehend, may be the best tribute of all.

UPDATE: John Hillen offers an amusing corrective to negative media spin of the Afghan election. See here for more.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:46 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 8, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: The Big Picture

Tonight's debate will do much to decide this election. The president also needs for it to help the country focus on something broader: a debate about the fundamental question of what kind of war we are now engaged in. That is the question that has divided our political system since at least the January 2002 State of the Union speech, when President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” None of this is new ground for those of us who have followed these questions closely and debated them endlessly. But as the time of decision approaches, it is useful once again to go back to first principles on the issues that divide us.

Here's the bottom line:

Kerry: We are at war with Al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban because they attacked us; we are at war in Iraq because we attacked them.

Bush: We are at war with any and all international terror groups, whether or not they have previously attacked us, and we can win only when we have removed or fundamentally altered the regimes that support or harbor them.

That's the distinction. Let's explore. There are a number of different strains of thought among President Bush’s critics on the Left, ranging from those whose disagreements focus principally on the mechanics of war-fighting to the Michael Moore/Ted Rall=type lefties who opposed the war in Afghanistan and would oppose basically anything that involves the exercise of American power. The latter group, of course, is beyond reason or argument.

The principal thrust of the argument advanced by many mainstream Democrats, however, and recently embraced by John Kerry, goes something like this:

1. The US may only go to war (a) to respond to an attack, (b) to interdict an imminent threat, or (c) with the sanction of the UN. In other words, we have the right to engage in direct self-defense ((a) or (b)), but the legitimacy of any mission that goes beyond direct self-defense depends on the agreement of collective bodies like the UN and, to a lesser extent, NATO.

2. The US was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11.

3. Therefore, the US has the right to strike back at Al Qaeda, including nations that directly support Al Qaeda.

4. There is no evidence of direct involvement by Iraq in supporting Al Qaeda attacks on the US, and therefore any war against Iraq is not a part of any war of self-defense or retaliation in response to September 11, and is arguably a distraction from finishing that war.

5. There turned out to be no evidence that Iraq had sufficient WMD capabilities, let alone intent to use them, to establish an imminent threat to the US.

6. Therefore, we had no right to act against Iraq without international sanction.
The relevant international organizations had not reached a determination to attack Iraq. Absent an imminent threat or a connection to the war against Al Qaeda, we should not have gone to war until they did.



On one level or another, this has been the argument of critics like Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Bob Graham, and John Kerry has now embraced it by calling the Iraq war a "diversion". I think I’ve been fair in setting out the syllogistic quality of this line of thought, which in its defense does have deep roots in Western thought about war. I actually agree with some of its underlying philosophy, although as I’ll discuss below, the current situation demands the competing argument of the Bush Administration and its supporters that this approach is hopelessly insufficient to deal with the ongoing threat of international terrorism.

For all of John Kerry’s past efforts to appeal to pro- and anti-war voters alike, there has long been copious evidence to suggest that this is what Kerry actually thinks. One of the clearest signs came back in June, when Kerry said this:

This administration took its eye off of al-Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq . . .

In short: we are at war with a single organization (Al Qaeda) and have gone and started a second, separate war in Iraq, without meeting necessary preconditions for doing so.

What Bush, his administration and its supporters (myself included) have consistently argued is that the old way of looking at these issues is wrong, for a number of reasons; I'll focus here on two.

1. "Al Qaeda" is not the only enemy. Yes, that's who attacked us. But the goal here isn't just to put them out of business but to end the terrorist threat to the U.S. once and for all. To my mind, we are at war with (a) any organized terrorist group that can reach across national borders or within the U.S.; (b) any state that sponsors, supports or gives aid and comfort to any such group. Even if you discount the evidence of Saddam's overtures to bin Laden, the fact that Saddam had a long history of actively supporting some terrorists and harboring others makes the ability to tie him to bin Laden almost academic; you can't well say you are at war with terrorist sponsors and leave Saddam in place. Remember, after all, that Al Qaeda itself is only a loose association of groups anyway, formed by a merger with the Egyptian group Islamic Jihad. It's sort of silly to have arguments over whether, say, Ansar al-Islam or Zarqawi were or are part of Al Qaeda; the similarity in rhetoric, tactics, goals and ideology makes them part of the same problem regardless of where the lines on their org charts point.

2. We can't win the war without broadening it. Because we are fighting a type of enemy, united by its ideas and tactics rather than as a single organism, we can't win just by rolling up body counts, capturing territory and choking of funds, although all of those are helpful. What we need to do is change the dynamics of the states that have fostered the problem, both by supporting such organizations and by encouraging the hatreds that breed terrorists.

The choice between Bush and Kerry is clear, it is fundamental, and it is essential to our security. It's a matter of life and death that we get it right.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:51 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Making The Next Guy Think Twice

Kaus has a good point about the idea that "Saddam only wanted us to think he had WMD," and one that's closely related to the point about credibility I made below:

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?

Of course, if the cops shoot him, the next guy will think twice about claiming to have a gun, now won't he?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:18 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: A Word About Credibility

One of the major themes of the first two debates has been America's credibility in the world at large, and the corresponding ability of the nation to get other nations to follow us. John Kerry and John Edwards insist that America has "misled" the world, as far as the reasons for war and the progress in Iraq. Bush and Cheney have responded that Kerry has sent "mixed signals" that undermine our credibility. Now, far be it from me to suggest that it doesn't matter, particularly on the home front, if the president tells the truth. (I also don't agree with Kerry and Edwards that this administration has been misleading about why we are in Iraq and how we're doing there, but that's another day's argument). But Bush and Cheney are, fundamentally, talking about an entirely different type of credibility - the type that really matters in international affairs.

Because, in the end, most of the countries on this earth, and most of the large masses of people, aren't real big on believing what foreign governments tell them, and with good reason. Most of us on some level - and diplomats and heads of state most of all - recognize that governments speak self-interestedly, and don't take what they say at face value. Or, at a minimum, they make their own minds up - the justifications for war in England are viewed as an issue of Tony Blair's credibility, in Australia an issue of John Howard's credibility, not so much Bush's.

But where a nation's credibility is critical is when you ask whether it is believed that a country keeps its promises - and its threats - acts reliably in its own interests, finishes the jobs it starts, and the like. Did the Soviet Union care if the United States saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, or whether the explosion in the Gulf of Tonkin was just a pretext? Of course not. But the Soviets watched very carefully when they saw that America didn't stay to finish the war and didn't stand behind the South Vietnamese when the resulting peace treaty was violated by the renewed invasion from the North. And they watched equally carefully when Reagan started fighting to back up our interests, even in places like Grenada where the direct US interests were relatively minor. Because Reagan understood that our credibility in the Hobbesian world of international affairs depended upon not taking slights lightly. And every new president faces, fairly early, tests of his credibility - that is, in some sense, what the Chinese did to Bush in early 2001. There have been other tests, too - and don't think the world hasn't noticed that from Kyoto to the ABM treaty to the International Criminal Court, Bush has stood for one thing and one thing only: protecting US interests against agreements that failed to adequately protect them. Next time someone wants to make a deal with us, they will remember that. In short, credibility in international affairs isn't about telling the truth - it's about being clear where you stand and following through, so your allies know you will keep your promises and your enemies know you will back up your threats. Does anybody seriously think Kerry has that kind of credibility?

The real problem of US credibility in the Middle East - and yes, it's been a bipartisan one - is the widespread belief that we don't have the guts to stick it out through tough times and that we will abandon our allies on the ground to the same old despots. Think Somalia, or the abandonment of the Kurds and Shi'ites in 1991. In a way, that's one of the most compelling reasons, if an unstated one - but one that any world leader immediately understood - why we went to war with Saddam. The guy was flouting the terms of the cease-fire, calling into question the credibility of our willingness to enforce agreements with the US. He was thumbing his nose at the US in myriad ways (including his public cheerleading for the September 11 attacks, something nearly none of even our declared enemies dared to do), calling into question the credibility of our willingness to respond to slights, insults and threats.

And now, we have found ourselves in a daily struggle to win over the Iraqi people - and the biggest obstacle is the fear that we will once again cut and run and abandon them to the same old forces of evil, as we did in 1991, as we did in Somalia, as we did in South Vietnam. It is critically essential to our credibility - and to the security of the situation of our troops in the field - that there be no doubt that the US can not be deterred from finishing the job in Iraq, no matter how long it takes, what the obstacles or the costs are or what political pressures are brought to bear on the president by the Howard Deans of the world. Can John Kerry say he has that kind of credibility, the kind that led the Iranians to conclude that they didn't want to be holding US hostages even a minute into the new Reagan Administration? Bush and Cheney are dead right, and deadly serious, about the fact that Kerry does not. Everything in his record and history suggest a guy who is consumed by fear of the quagmire, who hemmed and hawed and finally opposed the first Gulf War, who has grown gloomy and panicked about this war whenever things have gone badly in the field or in his own political campaign. In fact, Kerry has even argued that we should have threatened war with Saddam - but not been ready to back that threat up the minute he failed to cooperate.

Credibility matters. Lack of it gets people killed. The kind of credibility that counts is not the credibility to persuade people in argument or admit mistakes. It's the credibility to say, "this we will do," or "this we will not stand for," and then prove that you will not yield in that determination. That's the credibility that Bush has, and Kerry does not.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:16 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (3)
October 7, 2004
WAR: A Bloody Corner

The violence between Christians (principally Catholics) and Muslims in just one state in Nigeria has, over the past three years, claimed more than 53,000 lives, nearly the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam War. Of course, this being Africa, the violence is tied in with ethnic, political and financial rivalries (unlike in most parts of the world, the oil in Nigeria isn't in the Muslim parts of the country) as well as religious hatreds. Nigeria is sub-Saharan Africa's most populous country, probably its richest in natural resources and one of the (relatively) better-off countries in terms of some of the conditions for self-rule. But the past several years have been hard ones for the country. It's one of the places we have to hope to see get a handle on itself.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:36 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Failing the Test of History

With the Presidential campaign finally heading towards a climax and the baseball playoffs in full swing, I couldn’t resist jumping back into the mix here, however temporarily.

Anyway, I noted with some satisfaction that President Bush finally went on the offensive about one of the most glaring weak points in John Kerry’s various positions on Iraq: his vote against the 1991 Gulf War.

John Kerry and John Edwards have very disingenuously been holding up the Gulf War as a model of multilateral military engagement and cost-sharing. The problem is not that this isn’t true – it clearly is – but that Kerry voted against the very war which his campaign now says forms the criteria by which he defines acceptable multilateralism (i.e. virtually the entire world on our side).

A rough history follows (I apologize for any errors, but am mainly going from memory). In 1991, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was, for the second time, on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, yet, in an act of almost incomprehensible recklessness and stupidity, invaded neighboring Kuwait prior to attaining a nuclear capability. After some hesitation, the United States led by the first President Bush decided that the invasion could not stand and developed the largest international coalition in history, backed by, among many others, the U.N. Security Council, a number of Arab allies and the indispensable sine qua non of any successful military alliance: the French.

Yet, when the vote had come before the U.S. Congress, Kerry voted against taking military action.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:47 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: There's Something Happening Here, But What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear

Too many cops on the street in Manhattan this morning. Cops ringing my office building. Whole bunch of cop cars with their lights flashing lining up by the NASDAQ Marketplace building in Times Square. I'm not sure what's up, but unless there's a big event in town (I know the President's headed to Missouri today), something's up that I'm not hearing about.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:14 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 27, 2004
WAR: The "Q" Word

A big controversy erupted back in April when Ted Kennedy called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam;" commentators on the right like Instapundit and Jonah Goldberg accused Kennedy of preaching defeatism, while people on the left, like Mark Kleiman and Matt Yglesias, tried to argue that Kennedy hadn't really meant an unwinnable quagmire; Kleiman eventually relented when Eugene Volokh pointed to Kennedy using the "q" word:

Eugene Volokh finds a news account of a Senate debate today in which Kennedy explicitly likens the Iraq situation to Vietnam, describing both as "quagmires." Unlike Kennedy's Brookings speech, this is unambiguously defeatist language. I don't know whether it's accurate analysis . . . but, accurate or not, it's fair to say that having it used on the Senate floor is likely to make it harder to convince, e.g., Ali al-Sistani to come down on our side rather than Sadr's side.

Well. Now, we have John Kerry running a campaign commercial criticizing ads run by Bush "[i]n the face of the Iraq quagmire . . ." Defeatism has become the major theme of the Kerry campaign in the closing weeks, to the point where he would run an ad just assuming that the war in Iraq is a "quagmire."

Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:26 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
September 26, 2004
WAR: Follow The Money

Austin Bay, just back from Iraq, had an important observation about a key driving force in the insurgency there:

[Before the war,] no one knew the Baath hardcore had so much money. . . . Saddam stole billions. How much of the trove remains? I don't think the Swiss, Persian Gulf and Asian bankers who helped him stash it know. Recall the crisp $600 million U.S. soldiers found in a building in Baghdad. No doubt stockpiles of Baathist cash remain hidden in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

The Baghdad rumor mill says Baath warlords pay bombers anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 per attack, so even a million dollars can buy a lot of bang. It also buys TV time. The thousands of trucks that successfully deliver goods in Iraq don't make CNN. The one that the mercenary bomber blew to bits does.

It's a strategic weakness every PR operative knows: TV demands drama. TV magnifies the thug's bomb.

(Link via Instapundit). This is a huge point. It's also why I can't understand why we're not turning some serious screws to get Oil-for-"Food" documents out of the UN's grubby hands - the faster we find the money, the faster we can strangle the insurgency. (Unless we already have that stuff behind the scenes and are not making a big public stink so it's not widely known we have it, or unless the trail's gone cold enough that it's no longer urgent)

See here for more on how the Oil-for-"Food" money may have been used to fund al Qaeda as well, despite the conventional wisdom that Saddam would never have anything to do with terrorists. (Hat tip: CQ)

Meanwhile, Ollie North, also back from Iraq, offers his own perspective; you may not like North, but he has two advantages that many reporters don't: he's a combat veteran himself, and he actually went back to re-embed in some of the hot zones to see what was going on. He makes an important point about why, even if it stretches the definition of "terrorist" to cover people attacking foreign troops in their own native land, they can hardly be described as anything but:

[T]his is no "guerrilla insurgency." By definition, "guerrillas" or "insurgents" represent an organized political alternative to an established regime. Radical Sunni and Shi'ite clerics like Muqtada al-Sadr, who tortured and killed 200 men, women and children and buried them in a mass grave in Najaf, don't promise to make things better for the Iraqi people. Nor do the remaining Ba'ath Party warlords or foreign extremists like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. These men inciting gunfights in Iraq aren't "insurgents" — they are anarchists. They offer no unified "platform" other than "jihad." When not shooting at coalition or Iraqi security forces, they are trying to kill each other. Dangerous? Yes. A "guerrilla army"? No.

I'm not sure I agree with regard to al-Sadr, who clearly has an endgame in mind that results with him gaining some form of political power. But many of the Sunni insurgents, Zarqawi included, fit this description to a T.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:20 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 22, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Flip, Flop & Fly

Tracking all the Kerry flip-flops on Iraq is a hopeless endeavor, but here is a choice one. Kerry's speech on Monday:

The President claims [Iraq] is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war . . .

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

So, what did Kerry say when he voted on the Iraq war resolution?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. . .

A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

Man, this is just too easy sometimes. I also found this amusing:

The President . . . should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

[snip]

The President . . . should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

So, after all of Kerry's bluster about a coalition of "the coerced and the bribed," be wants to get more people on our side by . . . bribing them. But at least he's being consistent in calling for outsourcing jobs currently done by U.S. companies and workers, right?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:30 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
September 14, 2004
WAR: Excess of Evil

German newspaper Die Welt, "citing unnamed western security sources," charges that Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people:

It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the "Al-Fashr Hospital" in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.

Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.

Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.

Read the whole thing. (Link via The Corner). You will recall that Sudan was the site of a suspected chemical weapons factory (which may or may not have been an aspirin factory instead of or in addition to manufacturing chemical weapons) that had ties to both Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, according to Clinton Administration officials justifying the 1998 bombing of the factory.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:34 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
September 11, 2004
WAR: Where I Was

Can't do much more for today than send you back to where I was on September 11, 2001.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:11 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
September 7, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: The Iraq Straddle

Kerry supporters have been howling since the Republican convention (see this EJ Dionne column on Zell Miller's speech for an example) that Republicans were somehow dishonest for suggesting that a Kerry Administration would subordinate its judgment to that of the UN or let decisions to protect U.S. national security be held up by the French.

In a lot of ways, this is classic Kerry non-definition: the man spends nearly all his energies (including those spent on Vietnam, which is deployed in the service of this endeavor) trying to explain what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does ("that dog won't hunt"). Let's see if we can unpack Kerry's semi-current Iraq position on its own terms and see if I can explain precisely why I find these cries of outrage - and, indeed, Kerry's entire position on the Iraq war - so spectacularly disingenuous.

1. Was Iraq A Sufficient Threat To U.S. National Security To Justify War? The Bush Administration and other war supporters made many arguments about the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to our national security (see here and here for some of my own thoughts on the subject), ranging from his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to his ties to international terrorists to broader arguments about his role in the region.

There is a coherent argument - albeit one I regard as dangerously irresponsible - to the effect that Saddam's regime was not a threat, and there are those who dispute particular items in the Administration's bill of particulars against him. But Kerry has not renounced his prior conclusion - underlying his vote in favor of authority to use force against Saddam's regime - that the regime posed such a threat. Despite generalized blather about "misleading the nation into war," Kerry has never, to my knowledge, made a serious effort to attack the factual underpinnings of the Administration's case, something that would be particularly difficult to do on the WMD issue given his own and Edwards' prior statements on the issue. He hasn't tried to deny Saddam's ties to terrorist groups and provision of safe haven to terrorists; that's a place Kerry, wisely, doesn't want to go.

2. Could Steps Short of War Have Removed The Threat or Revealed It To Be Overstated? Another of the "process" arguments before the war, and emphasized by some critics since, is that if the weapons inspectors or sanctions had been given more time, we would have discovered an absence of weapons - and not gone to war - or would have found some other way to defuse the multifaceted threat posed by Saddam's regime. Kerry has also not attempted to pursue this argument, perhaps recognizing the foolishness of arguing that we could at some point have taken Saddam's word - or the word of the inspectors he was actively working to deceive - that he was cooperating with inspections (when there's been substantial evidence since the war that he was doing anything but), and perhaps simply recognizing that Kerry would look foolish if he renounced his own war vote. Instead, Kerry has admitted that, even knowing what he knows now, he would have voted the same way. In other words, for all his arguments that war was unnecessary, Kerry hasn't made any effort to convince the public that the reasons he cited for voting in favor of war would or could have been resolved short of war.

3. Should We Have Waited For More Allies? Instead, Kerry's main argument has been that (1) we went to war without sufficient support from our allies and (2) things would have gone better, and easier, for us if we had waited to get that support. Of course, given what we now know about weapons inspections - i.e., that inspectors were never going to unearth a "smoking gun" - it is entirely implausible to suggest that "more time" would have resulted in a larger coalition. What was going to happen to change the minds of the war's critics? If the 12-year history of the conflict shows anything, it's that prolonging confrontations inevitably leads to fissures in the coalition encircling Saddam. Delay would only have led more of the allies to walk away from war.

In short . . . Kerry's position on the war, at least as set forth in his convention speech and some of his other efforts to explain it, amounts to this: we needed more allies, we shouldn't have gone to war without them . . . but we weren't getting them. If that's not a veto in the hands of our "allies," specifically those (France, Germany, Russia and China) with seats on the UN Security Council or leading positions in NATO, what is? (Howard Dean on Bill Maher's show the other night was focusing this point on Iraq's neighbors, but let's not pretend that any more Arab states would have lined up to give public support to the war).

P.S. - Of course, all this is an analysis of Kerry's position on the war as of his speech to the Democratic Convention, not the Howard Dean imitation he's now peddling. Bill Kristol notes that Kerry's current position is one he previously saw as so irresponsible as to disqualify one from high office:

JOHN KERRY said yesterday that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Not an unheard of point of view. Indeed, as President Bush pointed out today, it was Howard Dean's position during the primary season. On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Dean also said, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."

But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry was right then.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:49 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Oh Yeah, Life Goes On

Michele Catalano breaks radio silence over at A Small Victory to explain why she isn't going to do wall-to-wall September 11 remembrances this year. The decision to put tragedy behind us in some way can be a painful one, but life is far too short to feel guilty about deciding to focus a little more on what we have left.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:44 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 30, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: But, Will He Fight?

On the big questions - would Kerry come out as an anti-war candidate or as a guy who stands by his vote for the Iraq war - and its practical significance (does he embrace the idea of an offensive strategy, including preemption and sometimes having to move without French and German allies), Kerry, unsurprisingly, didn't give an answer and tried to have it both ways. I've perma-linked this at the top; you owe it to yourself, in examining Kerry's views on this issue, to watch the RNC's devastating video on his contradictory positions over the years.

Where do we start?

Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn’t make it so. . . . As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics.

Of course, Kerry himself cited Saddam's WMD in voting for the Iraq war. But hey, nobody watching at home remembers that, do they?

And as President, I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

In theory, I agree with that, but "have to" means many different things to many different people. Was Iraq part of the larger war, which no one should dispute is one we have to fight?

Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.” So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

In other words: threat has to be imminent. Initiative has to belong to the enemy. That's a "no" on voting for the Iraq war.

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won’t happen until we have a president who restores America’s respect and leadership — so we don’t have to go it alone in the world.

We all know this is hokum - the major European powers have neither the will nor the means to project more than token military support into Iraq. Kerry knows this, and does not care.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

"[B]efore they get us"? Sounds like we're back to preemption and being willing to go on the attack.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.

Required, how?

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Oh, only if we're attacked first. As if there was any doubt that Kerry would respond to an attack. Well, unless - as is almost invariably true - the intelligence is fuzzy on exactly who attacked us, where they are located, and who their patrons are.

I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.

Sounds nice, but if you really mean the stuff before about needing allies, eventually there are times when the only realistic choice is to go with only ten or twenty of them or to wait for the whole world to get on board, resulting in inaction.

And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

Note how quick to say "not in Iraq." So much for the idea that we need more troops there. Also, Kerry doesn't exactly have the best record of voting for "the newest weapons and technology."

As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

Which sounds good, but I note also that nearly nobody at this convention talked about the sicknesses of jihadism and anti-Semitism and tyranny in the Muslim and Arab worlds. You'd think the problem was just a few renegades.

We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

Actually, I'd like a president who is willing to say that today.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:57 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
July 16, 2004
WAR: Don't Read This Before Flying

Very long, creepy story (via Instapundit). But one you won't hear from the mainstream media.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:52 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 13, 2004
WAR: Smash Get Angry

Can't blame LT Smash for losing his cool over this.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:16 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: A Voice

Yes, Iraq's government now has something of its own to say about foreign troops: in response to word that the government of the Philippines may withdraw its troop presence earlier than planned in return for the release of a hostage, the Iraqis are asking foreign governments not to negotiate with hostage-takers.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:49 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 7, 2004
WAR: Yes, Virginia, There Is Yellowcake

Instapundit reports that a British commission on intelligence "is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger." So much for Joe Wilson's Hercule Poirot act, and so much for the supposed unreasonableness of President Bush's reliance on the British reports in the 2003 State of the Union Address. But then, the report also vindicates this guy ("[A]ll U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.") and this guy ("We know that [Saddam Hussein] is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.").

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:49 PM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/LAW: Edmonds Gets Shut Down

Remember Sibel Dinez Edmonds, the disgruntled former FBI translator who aired sensational charges of disloyalty and deliberate incompetence at the FBI after September 11? Well, on Tuesday the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed her lawsuit, accepting an affidavit by John Ashcroft to the effect that resolution of her claims would require the disclosure of state secrets.

Edmonds' charges are grave, but not tremendously credible. Here's hoping that Congress has conducted or will conduct an adequate investigation, because her claims (probably properly) won't get their day in court.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:40 PM | Law 2002-04 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
July 6, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Edwards on the Iraq War

Memory lane - an October 10, 2002 press release:

The bipartisan resolution on Iraq was cosponsored by Senator Edwards. It closely tracked provisions he spelled out one month ago. The joint resolution gives the president authority to use military force against Iraq to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It calls on the president to work with the U.N. to make Iraq comply with its resolutions, but authorizes force if diplomatic means fail. The measure also focuses on what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq and its transition to democracy.

Senator Edwards said the debate on the congressional resolution helped make the case to the American people that Saddam Hussein must be stopped from adding nuclear weapons to his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

I posted much more in this vein at the Command Post back in January. On the other hand, see this Peter Beinart column from last fall trashing Edwards and Kerry for voting against the $87 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:25 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 5, 2004
WAR: Moore is Not Better

One of the nuttier memes rising on the Left is an effort to seek a moral equivalence between Michael Moore and the Bush Administration; we'll let Paul Krugman play the tune, although people like Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias are following him to the sea:

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

Leave aside the laughable notion that Moore didn't get anything seriously wrong. (My favorite example is when ABC's Jake Tapper confronted him with Richard Clarke's admission - very much against Clarke's interest - that he and he alone, not dark, powerful moneyed interests around President Bush, authorized the flights of members of the bin Laden family out of the US after September 11, and Moore countered that "I don't agree with Clarke on this point." Yeah, what would Richard Clarke know about decisions made by Richard Clarke?)

Anyway, this is a classic debater's trick of raising the level of generality to the point where factual refutation is almost pointless . . . the comparison is so obscene that I hate to give it credence by trying to refute it, but consider just a few obvious points:

1. The Adminisration made a number of well-supported and nearly undisputed points in the run-up to war about intelligence relating to Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, past stockpiles, ongoing deceptions, and connections to Al Qaeda. From this, the Administration argued for some inferences - such as an ongoing and/or future threat of Saddam-Al Qaeda cooperation or the existence of large WMD stockpiles - some of which remain controversial and others of which haven't panned out. The chief charge of late against the Administration is that, by some sort of Jedi mind trick, it sought to subliminally (or subliminablely, as it were) convince people of an Iraqi connection to September 11, for which the evidence is exceptionally sparse and generally unconvincing.

By contrast, the issue with Moore isn't that he made valid points but some people think he was insinuating something unsupportable. Virtually all of Moore's points of any substance are wholly speculative and either rely on non-existent evidence or ignore substantial contrary evidence. If you peel back the frauds and the tricks, there's nothing there at all.

2. Even considered in the most uncharitable light, the Bush Administration was asking us to draw dark inferences about the most diabolical and conspiratorial characters on the face of the earth. Saddam having WMD? Well, this is a guy who's used the stuff, both in battle and against civilians, let alone the whole record of his cat-and-mouse games with inspectors. This is rather like accusing Steve Howe of being mixed up in drugs. And Saddam doing business with bin Laden, and maybe participating in a crazy attack on the U.S.? This is a textbook totalitarian dictator with a rap sheet a mile long of unprovoked aggressions that were manifestly not in his best interests, including trying to assassinate a former president of the United States, which would serve no purpose at all but spite. Is it really that crazy to suggest that a regime who boasts of paying suicide bombers and puts up murals and celebratory newspaper coverage of the September 11 attacks would get mixed up with terrorists?

Moore, meanwhile . . . I mean, I just don't know anymore what color the sky is in Krugman's world, but Drum and Yglesias can't really believe that Bush went to war in Afghanistan principally to benefit Unocal, or that Bush is somehow in bin Laden's pocket. Is it really easier to believe that Bush is a tool of bin Laden than that Saddam would do business with him? Or have they become so consumed by Bush-hatred that the difference between the President of the United States and a guy who sat and watched with glee while his subjects were eaten by dogs is totally lost on these guys?

UPDATE: Drum's still at it. This is apparently now one of his favorite hobbyhorses.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:40 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
July 4, 2004
WAR: The Media Enemy

We can debate until the cows come home what the obligations of a free press in wartime are, whether it's fair to impugn the motives and biases of the Western media, and whether it makes you a Nazi to even discuss the subject. What's not debatable is that modern war requires the U.S. military to regard the media (Western and otherwise) as a potential source for turning victories into defeats, simply by the way coverage of stories tends to focus on U.S. setbacks and the way any absence of peace is portrayed as an American failing. Wretchard at Belmont Club has a poignant example of how this affects tactics:

In what was probably the most psychologically revealing moment of the battle, infantrymen fought six hours for the possession of one damaged Humvee, of no tactical value, simply so that the network news would not have the satisfaction of displaying the piece of junk in the hands of Sadr's men. The enemy understood the rules of engagement too well, but from the other side. "Squeezed into a few downtown blocks, Sadr militants began using children to shuttle ammunition, soldiers said. Youngsters carrying large plastic bags darted from corner to corner, and the soldiers would not shoot them. 'We all grew up knowing you don't hurt women and children,' Taylor said. 'And they used that to their advantage.' The US estimates that 20 civilians were killed in operations around Najaf. The Najaf hospital claims 81. When the Russians retook Grozny after a disastrous first foray, they returned to the operational formula of Marshak Konev in Berlin and rained down 8,000 artillery shells per hour on the town, killing perhaps 27,000 before attempting it again. The vastly more powerful Americans did not, yet triumphed. They are inept, as everyone knows.

Ted Koppel was determined to read the names of 700 American servicemen who have died in Iraq to remind us how serious was their loss. Michael Moore has dedicated his film Farenheit 9/11 to the Americans who died in Afghanistan. And they did a land office business. But at least they didn't get to show Sadr's miliamen dancing around a battered Humvee. The men of the First Armored paid the price to stop that screening and those concerned can keep the change.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:44 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Amnesty, National

Iraq's new provisional government ponders amnesty for Iraqi insurgents, which strikes me as a good thing, in theory; it's all well and good to take a hard line, but offers of amnesty are often good ways to try to draw down a guerilla war in face-saving fashion.

In practice, there are twin problems: first, the somewhat invisible nature of the enemy may make them uninterested in the benefits of amnesty. Then again, these guys may be less invisible to Iraqis than to us, and nobody wants to live in the wilderness forever. If the long-term strategy is to peel off all but the hardest-core jihadists, this may be a worthwhile strategy. Second, of course, you need some way to verify that people have actually laid down their arms.

It should go without saying, of course, that no amnesty should be shown to non-Iraqis who have entered the country to fight. The only solution to those guys is to kill them.

In a perhaps not-unrelated development, Muqtada al-Sadr is again blasting the Iraqi government:

"We pledge to the Iraqi people and the world to continue resisting oppression and occupation to our last drop of blood," al-Sadr said. "Resistance is a legitimate right and not a crime to be punished."

[snip]

[I]n his statement Sunday, the young cleric said, "There is no truce with the occupier and those who cooperate with it."

"We announce that the current government is illegitimate and illegal," al-Sadr said. "It's generally following the occupation. We demand complete sovereignty and independence by holding honest elections."

The call for elections is an interesting touch, and suggests that he may still be giving himself a fallback position to get involved in the new government while stoking anti-American resentments. In the case of al-Sadr, as with the amnesty decision, it really has to be up to the Iraqis (who understand the byzantine power dynamics of the place better than we could hope to) to deal with him. That's the risk we have to take if we're going to bank on self-governance.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:19 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 3, 2004
WAR: I'm Sayin, Bro

This is too funny for words:

Rock, Paper, Saddam

via Michele.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:17 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
July 1, 2004
WAR: Shame, Shame on Krugman

David Frum notes Paul Krugman's latest jeremiad, this one against Simone Ledeen, the daughter of Michael Ledeen, who has been working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq; it's a good illustration of why Krugman is basically Michael Moore with degrees:

I have to say that I am stunned by the implication that working in Iraq is some kind of sinecure that one obtains by wire-pulling. I wonder how many of Krugman’s dinner party pals are badgering their political connections to get their children internships in Baghdad? Simone Ledeen risked her life in Iraq for her country. One of her best friends was killed by a car bomb. She herself was frequently fired upon. I can attest first hand that her insights into the situation in Iraq were both shrewd and sensitive. Her intelligence and courage and idealism are the virtues that wartime America most desperately needs.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:39 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 30, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Paralysis

I've stressed before that I'm not that interested in pinning blame on Americans for the September 11 attacks; there's way too much 20/20 hindsight out there. Nonetheless, it's important to keep the historical record straight - not least as a reminder that those who want to return to the pre-September 11 policies are horrifically mistaken, and also as a curative against current agitprop that seeks to blame President Bush for the problem. In that light, it's important to keep the Clinton legacy on terrorism in perspective and understand why, with the benefit of that hindsight, it was such a disaster.

Clinton likes to speak today of his "virtual obsession" with getting Osama bin Laden. Here's his explanation of why he didn't, from Larry King's show on Sunday night:

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.

So we were deeply immersed in this. So what I say all the time is -- and what I told President Bush when we had our little meeting after the Supreme Court decision -- I regret deeply that I didn't get him. I tried everything I knew to get him.

I wish -- the only real regret I have in terms of our efforts is nearly everybody in the world knew that he did the USS Cole in October of 2000. I knew what our options were, I knew what our military options were, I knew what our covert options were. And I felt I couldn't take strong military action against Afghanistan because the FBI and the CIA didn't officially agree that bin Laden had done it until after I left office.

If they had done so when I was in office, I would have taken stronger action -- even as a lame duck president.

KING: Do you know why they didn't?

CLINTON: I think they just had a process they wanted to go through. And keep in mind, you know, when Oklahoma City happened, which before 9/11 was the worst domestic terrorist incident, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Muslim militant terrorist. And I remember standing in the Rose Garden of the White House pleading with the American people not to jump to any conclusions.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it.

There's just a world of misguided caution there, and not just on Clinton's part; the FBI and CIA bear some pretty substantial responsibility as well. But note that Clinton treated the Cole incident exactly as the current critics of the Iraq war would have treated Saddam Hussein: by giving bin Laden the benefit of every doubt, by treating it as a law enforcement matter requiring indictable evidence before one moves to protect the nation. The consequences of this approach, as we now know, were catastrophic.

Clinton's approach was also problematic for a deeper reason: he spoke at the time and speaks now, as President Bush has wisely stopped doing, as if apprehending a single leader (bin Laden) was the goal, and as if military action was pointless if he didn't apprehend the #1 guy. But we also know, as Clinton knew and told the nation as far back as August 1998, that Taliban Afghanistan was home to "a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden." Of course, it was the men training in those camps, not bin Laden himself, who actually executed the September 11 plot, and thousands more trained there who may still be at large. In a January 1999 speech, Clinton reiterated the problem:

Since 1993, we have tripled funding for FBI anti-terrorist efforts. Our agents and prosecutors, with excellent support from our intelligence agencies, have done extraordinary work in tracking down perpetrators of terrorist acts and bringing them to justice. And as our air strikes against Afghanistan -- or against the terrorist camps in Afghanistan -- last summer showed, we are prepared to use military force against terrorists who harm our citizens. But all of you know the fight against terrorism is far from over. And now, terrorists seek new tools of destruction.

Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services -- or military assets.

Indeed, even ordinary internet users knew about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan during the last two and a half years of the Clinton Administration.

Richard Miniter has taken a dark view of Clinton's efforts:

[S]tarting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

[snip]

In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.

Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.

At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.

Rich Lowry:

[W]hy attack just one Afghan training camp? Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it."

Now, Clinton's failure to act is sometimes excused by other circumstances: impeachment distracted him, he had to prosecute the Kosovo war, he couldn't act during an election. Let's go to the timeline of Clinton's military responses against al Qaeda or, for that matter, against Iraq, charted against a selection (admittedly incomplete) of significant events:

MonthEventsMilitary Actions
August 1998August 7: Embassy bombings. August 17: Clinton grand jury testimonyAugust 20: Missile strikes on terror camps in Afghanistan
September 1998September 11: Starr Report releasedNone
October 1998n/aNone
November 1998Congressional electionsNone
December 1998December 19: Clinton impeachedDecember 16: Desert Fox (bombing of sites in Iraq)
January 1999n/aNone
February 1999February 12: Senate acquits ClintonNone
March 1999March 24: Bombing in Kosovo beginsNone
April 1999Kosovo campaign continuesNone
May 1999Kosovo campaign continuesNone
June 1999June 10: Kosovo campaign endsNone
July 1999n/aNone
August 1999n/aNone
September 1999n/aNone
October 1999n/aNone
November 1999n/aNone
December 1999n/aNone
January 2000n/aNone
February 2000n/aNone
March 2000March 7: Bush, Gore lock up nominations; stock market begins long slideNone
April 2000n/aNone
May 2000n/aNone
June 2000n/aNone
July 2000Republican ConventionNone
August 2000Democratic ConventionNone
September 2000n/aNone
October 2000October 12: Cole bombing; October 11: second Bush-Gore debate, candidates discuss Iraq but neither addresses terrorismNone
November 2000Election, recount beginsNone
December 2000December 12: Supreme Court stops recountNone
January 2001January 20: Clinton leaves office amid flurry of presidential pardons and new regulationsNone

Again, the purpose of the timeline isn't to damn Clinton (although one does come away with the conclusion that his military aggressiveness tended to wane when he wasn't in extreme political/legal peril, and question what he could have been doing instead of spending "a whole day a week every week for a year, maybe a little more" in marriage counseling), but to point out the obvious: for more than three years after the August 1998 attacks, the nation and its president (Clinton, for most of that period) knew there were terrorist camps operating in Afghanistan, and failed to treat them as a lethal threat. In the latter half of 1999 in particular, it seems difficult to explain why an offensive against terrorists could not have been a higher priority. Let us not repeat that error.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:51 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)
June 29, 2004
WAR: The Comic Bomber

The American Spectator has an interesting look at a comic-book writer who foresaw the development of suicide bombers.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:19 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 24, 2004
WAR: Going Hard on the Mullahs

David Warren thinks the rising nuclear threat presented by the repressive theocarcy in Iran is so grave that Bush should launch military strikes, even if it costs him the election. Via Bill Hobbs, who agrees but thinks Bush's electoral prospects wouldn't be harmed. I'm highly sympathetic to the idea of using air power to take out Iran's nuclear capacity and using covery operations to speed the overthrow the Iranian government by pro-Western democratic reformers. I'm less certain that we've quite reached the right moment for either, but I would certainly hope that the Administration is considering the question closely, election or no election.

Of course, given Iran's vast size and our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea, there's no way we'd be able to provide nation-building security support in Iran. But then, democracies broke out all over the place in the late 80s and early 90s without American hand-holding, in many cases in countries ravaged by Communism. In Iran, there's no possibility of getting a worse government than the current one, so the only real risks would be (1) total destabilization of the place and (2) we better be damn sure we hit all the nuclear sites. Those are real risks. But nuclear weapons in the hands of the sponsors of Hezbollah is a prospect too frightening to contemplate.

Like the man says: faster, please.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:35 PM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: No Mahdi

The good news from the Washington Times' account of the 1st Armored Division's defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (link via Sullivan): "The division estimates it killed at least several thousand militia members" out of an estimated 10,000 strong militia. I'm less disappointed in letting Sadr go if we killed so many of his men, since that makes it much harded for him to rebuild a power base. I'm hopeful that Sadr will be dealt with eventually, just not by us. The important thing is, he was defeated and by this point, everybody knows it.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:10 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 18, 2004
WAR: The Weathervane

Over at the Command Post I note John Kerry's latest broadside against the idea that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror, and contrast it with what he said back in 2002 when he voted to authorize the war. It's Kerry's clearest statement yet that he simply wants no part of the current strategy in the war on terror - viewing the problem as one arising from the nature of the whole Middle East and requiring a regional solution - but sees the war as just Afghanistan and some parts of Pakistan where Al Qaeda remains in concentrated hiding.

John McCain, by stark contrast, has not gone wobbly at all; in this New Republic article (subscription only), despite some criticisms for how the Bush Administration handled the pre- and post-war situation in Iraq, McCain expresses no reservations about the decision to go to war based on the information we had at the time (or on what we know now), and makes clear that he buys in completely to the "neocon" vision of the war's overall strategy:

Added to th[e humanitarian] justification for war were the potential benefits to the region--the ripple effects that a free and democratic Iraqi state can still have on the Middle East. Naysayers have accused hawks of playing dice with people's lives: How could we possibly know that a democratic Iraq would have a demonstration effect on the region? On one level, they are correct; we cannot know. But we did know what would happen if we didn't try. The ossified situation in the Middle East, with its utter lack of political freedom or economic opportunity for millions of men and women, helps breed murderous ideologies that threaten the United States. And the region's autocratic but pro-American regimes are increasingly incapable of stifling these deadly, anti-Western tendencies in their own people. The Saudi regime pledges its love and respect for the United States, yet 15 of 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi. Establishing a democratic Iraq in the heart of the region was, and remains, our best chance for encouraging the necessary transformation of the Middle East. Already, the effects of Iraq are being felt: A major reform conference recently took place in Alexandria, Egypt, and the Arab League has endorsed a reform agenda.

So, in the end, we had essentially three choices--deal with Saddam early, while we could; deal with Saddam later, after sanctions had lost force, he had resuscitated his weapons programs, and more Iraqis had lost their lives; or simply sit back and hope for the best. We were right to act. And we have paid a high price for our noble ambitions--over 800 Americans dead, well over $100 billion and counting spent on the war, disgrace at Abu Ghraib. But, when I stood in August at the mass grave at Hilla, where 10,000 Iraqis were executed--some tied together and shot so as to save bullets--I did not wish to take it all back. We believed we would be greeted as liberators, and in many places we have been--not everywhere, to be sure, but, during my visit to the country, there was widespread thanks for the coalition.

Count me with McCain on this one. We know where he stands. The best you can say about Kerry's position is that it's subject to change.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:00 AM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
June 16, 2004
BASEBALL/WAR: Neither Here Nor There

Apropos of nothing: Walter O'Malley catching a game at Ebbets Field with King Faisal of Iraq in 1952.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:17 AM | Baseball 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 15, 2004
WAR: No Worse Friend, No Better Enemy

I'm just speechless. This sounds like something from the Onion, but it's not.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:40 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Camouflage

Is it me, or doesn't this picture suggest that the Army's new uniforms stand out against the backdrop - which isn't really what you want from camouflage? Still, I guess the new uniforms are good for urban combat.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:37 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 14, 2004
WAR: The Missing M.O.

As David Adesnik notes, the Reagan foreign policy legacy of using democracy promotion as a strategy and not just an aspiration is alive and well in the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.

But there is one significant area in which Bush has thus far not made use of the Reagan era precedents. There were, to simplify a bit, three major foreign policy approaches during the Cold War. One, identified primarily with the Nixon and Ford years, was Detente: treating the Soviet Union as if it was any other nation and making deals that presupposed that we could peacefully co-exist with a massive tyranny. One, identified mostly with Truman and JFK, was Containment: the idea that if we refused to do anything to assist the Soviets and opposed their expansion at every turn, the combination of the Communist centrally planned economic system and the Soviet empire's ethnic tensions (George Kennan particularly stressed the latter) would sooner or later cause the whole system to collapse under its own weight. The third, coined during the Eisenhower years, was Rollback - the idea that rather than wait passively for trouble, the United States should work to undermine Communist control of captive nations.

It's clear that no administration relied exclusively on one of these strategies; most tended to pursue a mixture of all three, but there was a distinct shift in emphasis from one administration to the next, and the Reagan years involved particularly agressive efforts not only to peel back recent Communist gains but to undermine the basis of Communist tyranny in the heartland of the Warsaw Pact nations.

Of course, a similar debate over the overall strategy is alive today, as President Bush pushes for rolling back the terror-sponsoring tyrannies of the Arab world, while critics argue for a more reactive "containment" strategy. What's particularly worth remembering from the Reagan years, however, is that there were multiple ways to skin the cat of Soviet oppression, and the Bush team doesn't seem to be doing much to project two of America's most potent weapons: material support for domestic insurgencies fighting within tyrranies, and ensuring that our message gets heard within those nations.

On the latter there have been some efforts to revive the "Radio Free Europe" concept for the Arab world. On the former, though, we seem to have no strategy. Granted, supporting revolts within Iraq failed miserably in the 1990s. But in some of the other Arab or Muslim states in the region, the ground may be more fertile, notably in Iran, where popular discontent with the mullahrchy appears to be widespread. We don't want or need to wait to go to open war with Iran to put our efforts into weakening or removing its oppressive government.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:34 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 13, 2004
WAR: Nothing To See Here, Please Move Along

Stryker notices a verrrry interesting World Tribune report about a briefing by UN inspectors to the Security Council:

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

I'm not so sure about the World Tribune's sources or credibility, but as usual this sounds like it could bear watching.

UPDATE: The World Tribune is apparently a NewsMax-style wire service run by some Washington Times staffers, so a grain of salt is appropriate, but most of the various pieces of this story are basically confirmed by reports in the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and that right-wing rag, the New York Times. However, these sources don't refer to shipments of materiel prior to the Iraq war, focusing instead on the banned missile components disappearing after the war.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:12 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 10, 2004
WAR: Hearts and Minds, Part II

As I've insisted before, "the war for "hearts and minds" isn't about making them love us; it's about making the Iraqis and others in the Arab and Muslim worlds take responsibility for their own back yards, stop blaming us for everything and stop encouraging and assisting people to try to kill us."

According to Tom Friedman, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus gets it:

I called Lt. Gen. David Petraeus in Baghdad, the widely respected U.S. commander for rebuilding the Iraqi Army. He told me that contracts for more than $3 billion worth of equipment, uniforms, training facilities, weaponry, bases and communications gear for the new Iraqi Army are finally being signed and executed — so by the end of the summer, a lot of it should be getting to units. Moreover, he said, the first battalion of Iraqi internal security forces, trained for urban warfare, will be deployed in Baghdad. If the training stays on schedule, says General Petraeus, a critical mass of trained Iraqi Army, civil defense and police forces should be up and running by January, in time for elections.
"Early on, just after we got here, we talked a lot about how to win Iraqi hearts and minds, and get them to like us," General Petraeus said. "But we understand now that what we really need is for them to love the new Iraq. That is what needs to happen. . . . Bombs are going to go off every day, but what we need to do is somehow keep looking to the longer term and focus on building the new Iraq. . . . We just need to keep our heads down, be patient and keep driving on. This is really, really hard work."

Also: more good news for the new Iraqi government in the disbanding of the militias (link via Iraq the Model) and the new government's assertion of full control over Iraq's oil industry (link via Joe Katzman of Winds of Change).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:06 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: War Aims

The Belmont Club identifies a key problem in the War on Terror: the absence of publicly announced goals for the next stage of the war. The first step in the WOT was obvious: removing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and closing up the terrorist camps there (although it did have its Chomskyite detractors on the Left). The second was an interim measure: making clear that the United States wasn't going to waste its time negotiating with Arafatistan, and would essentially back-burner the "peace process" until there was new Palestinian leadership. This caused only a relatively minimal controversy because the policy ended up simply leaving the status quo in place. The third step was also obvious but controversial, removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Wretchard identifies six areas where we need to identify our goals, but #4 is about Iraq and the last two are about Europe; I'm more interested in the problem presented by the first three:

1. The desired end state in Saudi Arabia: whether or not this includes the survival of the House of Saud or its total overthrow;
2. The fate of the regime in Damascus;
3. Whether or not the United States is committed to overthrowing the Mullahs in Iran and the question of what is to replace them;

Now, I have little doubt that George Bush will pursue a more aggressive policy as to each of these than John Kerry would, given how steeped Kerry is in the diplomatic status quo and how little enthusiasm he seems to have for viewing the WOT as a war at all. But the fact is, Bush has not committed anything but the barest of his energies to building a public case - at home or internationally - to #2 & 3, and none at all to #1.

Thus far, the steps taken have been the imposition of sanctions on Syria, the naming of Iran as part of the "axis of evil," the slow-motion (as these things always are) nuclear inspections of Iran, and Bush's occasional rhetorical bone thrown to democracy in Iran. As to the Saudis, they remain nominally our allies.

But here's the problem that the broad strategy in the WOT has faced all along, and that is now approaching a crossroads, especially as to the Saudis: at some point, with the obvious steps taken care of, the president needs to put the squeeze on these three regimes - but at the same time, maintaining some modicum of support with our other, tenuous allies in the region may be impossible if we declare openly our intention of overturning these regimes. In other words, it may not (at least yet) be in our national interest to announce our next steps.

At the same time, eventual public support will need to be prepared - not just for the future but to buck up support at home during the long twilight struggle in Iraq - and there is, of course, an election coming in which the people ought to be told why it is that Bush has a strategy for dealing with these three regimes and Kerry doesn't.

Put another way, Bush may have to choose between honesty and a certain amount of deception (or, more properly, silence and ambiguity), where honesty is in his best political interest but ambiguity is in the nation's interest. I fear the consequences of either course.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:43 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 9, 2004
WAR: What Is Sovereignty?

The big meme on the left side of the blogosphere regarding the transfer of power on June 30 in Iraq is . . . well, it's just a sneer:

It amazes me that some people actually buy this Iraqi handover and "transition". After the handover, we still run Iraq from our embassy there. The new government has no real power. The UN resolution doesn't provide for any extra troops in the field.

(Link via QandO). Now, I don't have all the answers here; as usual, I'm content just to re-frame the questions. What is sovereignty, after all? Yes, it's true that a country doesn't have complete and total sovereignty over its territory if there are foreign troops running around and they can't easily be told to leave. But is that the only aspect of sovereignty? (It's ironic, if you think about it, that so many folks on the Left are equating the Hobbesian monopoly on force with the sole measure of government).

There are many entities in the world that have some but not plenary sovereignty over their territory:

*The State and City of New York lack many attributes of sovereignty, such as the ability to coin money or run a foreign policy, but my state and local governments still have the ability to lay and collect taxes, send people to jail, run fire departments and schools and collect trash, tell me where to put bottles and cans for recycling, and impose all sorts of onerous requirements on businesses doing business in New York. Quebec has even more sovereignty than New York does.

*France similarly lacks its own currency, control over its own trade policies, and must even submit to the dictates of Belgian bureaucrats as to the regulation of its beloved cheeses. Yet, it is unquestionable that France exercises considerable sovereignty.

*Even the United States' sovereignty has limits: not only are some powers reserved to the states, but we are bound by treaties with Native American tribes that reside within our own borders.

So, how do we determine whether the new Iraqi government has been given sovereignty and is beginning to exercise it (two different things - letting the Iraqis have a police force is not the same as it actually functioning)? Let's start with this handy checklist:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:48 PM | War 2004 | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Personal Diplomacy

Interesting WaPo article on how President Bush relates personally to other world leaders. In the end, though - unsurprisingly - personal relationships only go so far; Bush has apparently hit it off much more with Vicente Fox than with Ariel Sharon, but it's Sharon he's worked with more lately because that's where US interests are. While I have a pretty low opinion of the Saudis and their unctuous spokesman Adel al-Jubeir, he at least has been open about the fundamental basis of U.S.-Saudi relations:

"The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is not based on personalities. It's based on interests," said Adel Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de facto ruler. "I don't think it's ever been as strong as it is now."

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:13 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 8, 2004
WAR: "The Marines did it through aggressive raiding and downright obstinate refusal to budge regardless of the costs."

An interesting analysis of the situation in Fallujah, with a conclusion that's not so reassuring, from a Marine on the front lines. (via Andrew Sullivan)

It's amazing how many guys there are on the front lines who are capable of drawing a compelling narrative of what's going on and are willing to put in the time to do so. We've come a long way from Vietnam and Walter Cronkite having absolute control over what the public got to hear (or, for that matter, World War II and the Pentagon having absolute control). And, of course, the less a few anti-war voices in the media can control the storyline, the better.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:51 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 7, 2004
WAR: Moving the Bases

Phil Carter notes some preliminary progress in a good and long overdue idea: leaving behind the last vestiges of America's Cold War-oriented military bases in Germany and rearranging our forces to fit their current and likely future missions.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:55 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Charting The Cost

Interesting chart here showing the distribution of American soldiers killed in Iraq by proportion of state population. Unsurprisingly, given the formula, small states dominated the top of the list, mostly "red" states in the mountain/plains area (the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska) but also including several New England states. The more urban states - NY, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts - tended towards the bottom half.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:25 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 2, 2004
WAR: Hook Will Bring You Back

Bob "The Prince of Darkness" Novak - a fine conservative of good standing in many domestic battles, but also a guy who's been a relentless critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policies, to the point where the National Review openly questioned his patriotism - has a gloom-and-doom look at Afghanistan. Sgt. Hook, who's actually serving in Afghanistan at the moment, takes umbrage.

(Link via Dean Esmay)

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:32 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Goalposts

We can't well judge where we stand on victory in Iraq - and how much more needs to be done - without stepping back and reviewing what our objectives there were in the first place. I'm not looking so much to answer all these questions in this one entry as to frame the issues:

1. Removing the Regime: As I've explained repeatedly before (see here, for example) and will no doubt return to again soon, the first and primary reason for the Iraq war was the nature of the regime itself - implacably hostile to the United States, planted at the center of the region that has been the epicenter for terrorism against the United States and its allies, immune to outside persuasion or pressure, safe from any internal revolt, and unpredictable in its actions. The regime's record on numerous issues supported the conclusion that it could neither be changed nor safely ignored. Recall just one example, one of the most critical facts about Saddam Hussein's regime: after September 11, when nearly all of the world's worst dictators - Castro, Khaddafi, even Arafat - were lining up to give lip service to denouncing the attacks, Saddam's state-run media was trumpeting them with front-page celebrations. The Ba'athist regime put up murals cheering the attacks. All of which underlined why the United States Congress had passed, and President Clinton signed into law, legislation making "regime change" in Iraq the formal policy of the United States. Removing the regime would also take care of its appalling human rights record.

The objective of removing the regime was, of course, accomplished by mid-April 2003, which is what anyone who was paying attention understood to be the "Mission Accomplished" announced by President Bush a few weeks later. The final nails in the coffin were the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein and the December 2003 capture of Saddam himself. While it's true that some ex-Ba'athists are starting to resurface in the new Iraq, notably in the Fallujah Brigade tasked with pacifying Fallujah (and now the head of the new provisional government), that's as unremarkable as the presence of ex-Communists (like Yeltsin and Putin) in post-Soviet Russia, given the lack of alternatives to being in the Ba'ath party while Saddam ruled the country. There's nothing to fear in terms of the regime rising again in anything resembling its prior form, especially given how much of that form was dictated by the personality of Saddam Hussein himself.

2. Removal of the WMD Threat - While the human element was Iraq's chief threat, the regime's persistent pursuit of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear - was, famously, the subject of international debate for years before the war dating back to Israel's bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. On the issue of WMD programs, we can feel pretty good about what we've accomplished - we know that the regime was continuing to, at a minimum, 'keep its powder dry' in terms of maintaining the know-how and capability to ramp up production of chemical and biological weapons, which are cheaper, quicker and easier to produce and transport than nuclear weapons; that that capability was concealed from weapons inspectors; and that that capability is now dissipated.

Actual weapons - including the large stockpiles previously identified by the UN (and cited by President Bush) but not accounted for - are another matter. If we ever get comfortable that there really were no such stockpiles by the time of the war, of course, that would be good news; a propaganda victory for war opponents, but good news nonetheless. On the other hand, if there's one thing that's made me genuinely nervous about the aftermath of the war (or perhaps the interminable 14-month "rush to war"), it's the possibility that WMD materiel made its way to Syria or into the hands of rogue individuals or groups, including Al Qaeda or other international terror groups. Thus, it remains premature to declare victory on this front, and we may never really get to the bottom of the question.

3. Eliminate Iraq as a Terrorist Safe Haven: Regardless of the continuing debate over the extent of Saddam's active operational and financial assistance to various terror groups, the incontestible fact remains that Iraq before March 2003 was (as Iran and Syria remain) a black hole on the map into which terrorists of all kinds - Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ansar Al-Islam, possibly some of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers - could disappear or encamp without fear of being apprehended or reliably traced. For the moment, that aspect has been greatly diminished - it's true that we haven't found Zarqawi, but then fugitives in the US have been known to evade capture for years as well, and there have been many, many foreign terrorists captured or killed by US forces there. There's at least been very significant progress in reducing the freedom of terrorists to move into Iraq as a safe haven. And, of course, Saddam is no longer pumping cash into the suicide-bombing operations in Israel, which is good.

4. Prevent the Re-Emergence of a Hostile Regime: Obviously, this is the big-ticket endgame right now, and one that might ultimately require us to play power politics, since neither the Shiites, the Sunnis nor the Kurds can create a dangerous rogue regime in Iraq if the other two groups retain some base of power. The major danger would be an Islamist theocracy controlled by Iran under someone like al-Sadr (who's pretty well discredited and weakened at the moment, although the careers of the likes of Khomeini and Saddam suggest that a guy like this is a continuing danger to bounce back until he's actually dead or in permanent US custody).

5. Prevent the Descent of Iraq into a Failed State: The opposite pole, and the first of the objectives that represents an objective of the reconstruction rather than the war (although Christopher Hitchens, among others, has argued that Iraq was headed this way anyway) is preventing anarchy - if Iraq winds up looking like Somalia, it will resume its status as a place for transnational terror groups to congregate. Again, the jury's still out, but the growth of local institutions in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south hopefully could create a fallback position where if post-occupation Iraq started to crumble, there would be hope of salvaging parts of the country from anarchy.

6. Building a Role Model: Most of the objectives of the Iraq war were negative - get Saddam out of power, stop the spread of weapons and terror groups, etc. The positive goal - building democracy in Iraq - has attracted mountains of scorn, but when you consider that we had little choice but to try to rebuild the place anyway once we'd removed the existing regime, why wouldn't we want to use all the persuasive powers at our command to try to provide a positive example to the rest of the region? Needless to say, this aspect of President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" has a ways to go, although there's no reason to suspect that there won't be elections by January - the more troubling question is what comes after that. My own bottom line: regardless of the shape it takes, if the resulting institutions provide accountable government that the Iraqi people are happy with, that alone will put pressure on the neighbors to shape up. Considering the number of former tyrannies around the world that have transitioned to functioning or semi-functioning democracies in the last 20 years without any U.S. troops at all, and sometimes in the face of bitter-end internal resistance, faltering economies, and/or inhospitable cultural traditions, I hardly consider this an unrealistic endeavor.

7. Humanitarian Reconstruction: Rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Keeping the lights on. By all accounts, this is going well. In fact, we made significant progress just by putting and end to the failed sanctions regime, which gave the "containment" policy a brutal cost in human life.

8. Prevent Iraqi-on-Iraqi Violence: At the end of the day, this is Iraq's problem, not ours, although we obviously need to keep violence from overwhelming the other mission objectives. The US media has tended to elevated this to Job One in Iraq, thus missing the entire point of the exercise.

(I'm ignoring "prevent violence against US troops," since that's not so much an end goal as something we're trying to do while working towards our goals; in military terms, force protection is an ongoing priority but not a mission objective - if every other job on the list was done, we could keep the troops safe just by bringing them home. The importance and difficulty of protecting our forces has, of course, been a critical concern through all of this.).

9. "Flypaper": The notion that our troops would serve as "flypaper" - attracting jihadist fanatics to Iraq to kill them rather than have to hunt them down elsewhere - always struck me more as a sliver lining to the cloud of the insurgency rather than a positive goal. It's not that we actually want people attacking our soldiers. But if they are going to pour into Iraq, killing a lot of them is a laudable goal that will advance our ultimate war aims, and the casualty figures from the front suggest that we are indeed doing this at a fairly high volume.

10. Get the Wells Pumping: Nobody seriously argued that oil should have been a valid reason for war - we could have increased Iraq's production by lifting UN sanctions - but given oil's importance to the Iraqi, world and US economies, getting the wells pumping at full tilt was obviously an important thing to do. From what I've read, that's going fine, although it may be some time before Iraq can really tap into its full potential as an oil producer.

11. Reorganize US Base Structure: Basing US troops in Saudi Arabia, of course, was not only expensive and inefficient (like the Germans, the Saudis could be picky about where they would let us go), but also an irritant cited by bin Laden as a grounds for jihad. We seem to be headed towards the first leg of this objective, getting our bases out of Saudi Arabia, and for now we have temporary bases in Iraq from which to stage more operations against the likes of Syria and Iran. But it's an open question whether the new Iraqi government will agree to long-term basing rights.

I've probably forgotten something, and I'm also leaving off some of the more intangible objectives, like demonstrating US resolve, sending a message to other dictators, improving the future credibility of UN resolutions, repaying the Kurds and Shiites for abandoning them in the past, etc. I'm also ignoring the end of the oil-for-food boondoggle, since that wasn't and couldn't have been fully appreciated as a war aim before the war.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:16 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)
June 1, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Kerry All Over the Map

The Bush campaign has a very amusing graphic showing John Kerry's shifting positions on Iraq. (Link via Instapundit).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:37 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 29, 2004
WAR: MoveOn Speech By Man Who Can't Move On

Fear Leads To Anger, Anger Leads To Hate, Hate Leads To Suffering

For those of us bloggers and pundits on the right, an Al Gore speech is just a gift that keeps on giving. Here's the full horror:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:11 AM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
May 28, 2004
WAR: Today's War Links

*The Donovan has cleared all else off his blog for a Memorial Day remembrance of a soldier killed in Iraq. Very moving.

*Gerard Vander Leun on moving the goalposts regarding Saddam's WMD programs.

*The Gettysburg Address, in Arabic.

*Matt Yglesias accuses Michael Ledeen of treason.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:27 PM | War 2004 | TrackBack (0)
WAR: One of the Bigger Lies

NRO looked at the response to Bush's big Iraq speech earlier in the week, and of course it was full of blather about the need to get certain unnamed countries (France and Germany) involved in the mission. Kerry released a statement saying that leadership in Iraq would "require the President to genuinely reach out to our allies so the United States doesn't have to continue to go it alone". It's amazing what one-trick ponies the leading Dem spokespersonages are on punting foreign policy responsibilities to countries that don't want them (it's consistent with calls for drafting people who don't want to serve into an army that doesn't want them). But we can argue yet another day about the idea that the United States needs more help from the Coalition of the Unwilling.

What sticks in my craw is the constant abuse by Democrats and by left-leaning bloggers and commentators of the word "unilateral" and the phrase "go it alone" to describe our supposed complete lack of allies in Iraq. I'm sorry, but the word "unilaterally" does not mean "with the support of a bunch of other countries but not all of them." Argue if you will that we need more help, but these words don't mean what they're being used to mean. When the British announce they are sending more troops to Iraq, as they did yesterday, doesn't that mean that more troops are going to Iraq and that they are not Americans? When soldiers from other nations are killed in Iraq - as many have been - do they not die? Every single time a Democrat describes our Iraq policy as "unilateral" or "go it alone," this is a knowing and flagrant falsehood. Period. Just stop it.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:59 AM | War 2004 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)
May 27, 2004
WAR: War Links 5/27/04

*You've doubtless read this somewhere before - it's been linked all over - but if you haven't, go read this plea for a computer game that simulates the frustrations of real war, complete with weathervane politicians, hyper-negative media, fatuous celebrities, and all the other horrors of modern PR in wartime. It's sidesplittingly funny precisely because it captures the tragic reality so well.

*Daniel Pipes reminds us that we're still at war with Hamas and Hezbollah.

*The Wall Street Journal, LT Smash and Cori Dauber have more on the continuing stream of emerging evidence of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the Iraq war, including some intriguing links to the September 11th plot (a linkage I've always been skeptical of but that seems here to have some potential substance to it). The Saddam equivalent of the "there is no Mafia" crowd will continue to deny, deny, deny, but Saddam's multifarious ties to terror groups were always cloaked in uncertainties, and the question was always how much of a chance we were willing to bet on his good will.

*Hitchens defends Chalabi

*Tim Noah, attacking a recent statement by Attorney General John Ashcroft, tries to argue that bin Laden wouldn't care about influencing the election to defeat George Bush. Noah throws in a totally gratuitous comparison of Ashcroft to bin Laden ("Chatterbox thought Ashcroft would show a greater aptitude for imagining the thought processes of an insane religious fanatic."). He also assumes, erroneously, that bin Laden would understand American politics well enough that "surely he would know—or someone would tell him—that the overwhelmingly likely political result of an attack against the United States in the months leading up to Election Day would be a landslide victory for Bush." This seems inconsistent with bin Laden's prior actions and statements, which suggest a guy who thinks the U.S. is weak and will fold at the first sign of trouble.

Now, I can understand why the idea that bin Laden could be rooting for Kerry - something Kerry can do little enough about, at this point - would rankle a Democrat like Noah. But get real: everyone outside the U.S. will read a Kerry victory as a defeat for an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, much as the contrary conclusion was drawn in 2002. The Islamists Bush has tangled with will declare victory. To some extent that happens whenever the incumbent loses, but it will be greatly magnified in the current circumstances. Trying to deny this makes Noah sound desperate.

*Wartime humor only from the mind of Laurence Simon: "Hey. Cool. Pandas."

*Shades of Larry David: Time Magazine gives Don Rumsfeld crap for calling himself a "survivor," but Tim Blair is ready with examples of Time reporters calling Bill Clinton a survivor for surviving nothing worse than oral sex and Newt Gingrich. Unmentioned here: uh, Rumsfeld also survived a terrorist attack - don't forget that he was in the Pentagon when it was hit by American Airlines Flight 77.

A slight tangent: maybe I've paid too little attention or maybe it's the media here in New York, but has the 9/11 Commission focused awfully heavily on the World Trade Center and ignored the Pentagon? Of course, the Pentagon's victims and survivors are a lot less sympathetic to Democrats, but still . . .

*Kevin Drum links to an article making the obvious point that the World War II Memorial shouldn't be criticized for having been built in a style that was popular during, well, World War II.

*Warblogger Dan Darling shows how blogging can be a great career move - if you're a college student. I just loved the part where he couldn't get recommendations from his professors because he wanted to work at the American Enterprise Institute.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:46 PM | War 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
May 26, 2004
WAR: 18,000 Terrorists?

I note the latest estimate of Al Qaeda strength over at the Command Post.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:12 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: A Shiite Sakharov?

The Washington Post identifies Hussain Shahristani as the likely prime minister of the new Iraqi provisional government that will rule from June 30 until elections can be held. The Post profile makes Shahristani out as a sort of Shiite Sakharov:

Shahristani, who has a doctorate in nuclear chemistry from the University of Toronto, served as chief scientific adviser to Iraq's atomic energy commission until 1979, when Hussein became president. When he refused to shift from nuclear energy to nuclear weaponry, he was jailed. For most of a decade, he was in Abu Ghraib prison, much of it in solitary confinement. He escaped in 1991 and fled with his wife and three children to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and, eventually, Iran, where he worked with Iraqi refugees. He later moved to Britain, where he was a visiting university professor.

But unlike other exiles, Shahristani was not active in opposition parties, choosing instead to focus on humanitarian aid projects. He does, however, have a critical connection: He is close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite cleric, whose support is essential for the viability of an interim government.

That would be the nuclear weapons program that didn't exist, of course; Saddam put scientists in jail for refusing to participate in it even though it didn't exist.

Shahristani's ties to Sistani are a double-edged sword, although there's really no denying Sistani's positive influence (or, more importantly, his influence, period) thus far. You can read Shahristani's own thoughts, in one of his Wall Street Journal op-eds urging faster elections, here:

Al-Sistani is perhaps the only person who can realize both the dreams of the majority of Iraqis, and the declared goal of the U.S.: to create a stable democracy that could potentially transform the Middle East. The U.S. should value the role the Grand Ayatollah is taking to lead the Iraqi people away from militancy and toward the international system of democracy. If Washington plays it right, this path that Al-Sistani spearheaded in Iraq could prove to be the most significant victory in a war on terrorism. Let us hope--and pray--that Washington has the wisdom to seize it.

The most practical way to help Iraq now is to allow the U.N. to work with representatives of all constituents of the Iraqi society to develop a formula for early direct elections--an achievable task. Elections will be held in Iraq, sooner or later. The sooner they are held, and a truly democratic Iraq is established, the fewer Iraqi and American lives will be lost.

Interesting side note: the WaPo article says that another one of Shahristani's WSJ op-eds (subscription only) was what called the attention of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to Shahristani. I'm sure the WSJ op-ed editors are smiling at the opportuinity to play kingmaker, as it were. Here's a selection from that article:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:21 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 25, 2004
WAR: Hearts and Minds

Matt Yglesias misunderstands the basic point about winning hearts and minds in Iraq that I make below:

One stable [sic] of "Iraq's all good, man" commentary has been to note that Muqtada al-Sadr is very anti-American while Ayatollah Sistani is not a fan of al-Sadr. Since Sistani is a very influential figure, this could be good news indeed. Good news, that is, if the fact that Sistani is a Sadr opponent implied that he was a fan of the American occupation. But it doesn't and, in fact, he isn't. So we're screwed either way. Less screwed, admittedly, under a scenario where we undercut Sadr military and Sistani undercuts him politically than we would be under the alternative, but still screwed.

The fact that Sistani's "no fan of the occupation" means nothing. Heck, George Bush is no fan of the occupation - what sane person would be? What matters is that Sistani does not appear to be supporting attacks on coalition troops or on his fellow Iraqis, and for the moment he doesn't appear to be pushing a jihadist theocracy.

Remember: the war for "hearts and minds" isn't about making them love us; it's about making the Iraqis and others in the Arab and Muslim worlds take responsibility for their own back yards, stop blaming us for everything and stop encouraging and assisting people to try to kill us . . . just because the Germans don't much like America doesn't mean we didn't win the "hearts and minds" war after World War II. Iraq for the Iraqis is good news for us.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:19 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Rallying The Troops

If President Bush's latest effort was less than inspirational, you can always count on the internet for a pep talk. Bill Whittle has a tremendously long two-part essay starting here reviewing the case for going to war in Iraq and why we must press on to victory. (Link via Instapundit) Not a lot of new information here, but uplifting nonetheless. Whittle's analysis of Fallujah bears repeating:

We ran from Fallujah, we hear; those murdering bastards are laughing at us. We’re not tough enough to win. Uh, not quite. Hundreds of those murdering bastards are dead. They are not laughing at anything.

The Fallujah bridge pissed off a lot of Americans. It really made us see red. Would we be disgusted enough to walk away, or furious enough to go in and indiscriminately slaughter thousands? The architects of that atrocity must have thought they nailed that perfect tic-tac-toe move: we go one way, they win on the other. Quoth Den Beste: the object of Terrorism is to provoke an overwhelming response. And the response to that response is the political and strategic goal of the terrorist.

Al Sadr, you less than magnificent bastard! We read your book!

Blah, blah…war is lost…blah blah blah... disaster, wreck and ruin… Only it turns out that the United States military may have produced a few life-long professionals who actually hold victory more precious than crowing loud. Many of us value reason over emotion, and reality over wishful thinking. Well, we did not level Fallujah, and we did not do it because those bodies on that bridge were bait, pure and simple. We didn’t take the bait. Or, I should say, our military didn’t take the bait; I took it, hook line and sinker. I wanted to level the goddam city and then walk away and let them kill each other. Now, as Al Sadr’s support evaporates; as his militia thugs are being hunted and killed by shadowy Iraqi ghost armies and extremely corporeal Marines; as his fellow Mullahs condemn him; as Iraqi demonstrations against him and all that poison and ruin he represents continue to rise; as his headquarters are destroyed, his most vicious ‘soldiers’ killed in their own backyards, playing defense in an urban environment by Marines whose skill and tactics stagger credulity for their expertise and success – now, we must ask ourselves: did you want to feel good or did you want to win?

I want to win. I was an idiot for taking that bait. And I thank God daily that America makes better, smarter people than me.

* * *

The threat of the vast Shiite uprising that loomed in early April has largely evaporated. Things are still very tense. They may again get worse; they may become horrible. But we will win this because we are not going home until we do. This is slowly beginning to dawn on some of the hardest heads in Iraq. When Iraqi leaders start saying things like we’d better help the Americans stabilize the country, because they will not go away until we do – well, that is precisely, exactly the kind of victory we need. We need that attitude. There is a shred of can-do self-reliance in those words. Al-Sadr will either end up like Uday and Qusay or Saddam. Those are his remaining choices.

Emphasis in original; read the whole thing. On the same note, NRO provides some choice words from Marine Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:14 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Will Hollywood Get It?

Sometimes, unfortunately, persuasion has to come retail. Little Green Footballs notes that Madonna canceled a concert in Israel due to death threats from Palestinians against her and her children.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:59 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Hillary Is Right!

Yes, I'll say it: Hillary Clinton is right to call for a larger Army, in an ironic joint statement with former House impeachment manager (now Senator) Lindsey Graham (the Senate's too small for grudges). You don't have to believe that we need more troops in Iraq today to conclude that, on the whole, the demands of the War on Terror require us to expand our capacity to fight wars and/or occupations/insurgencies on multiple fronts at once to preserve our credibility in dealing with multiple problems at the same time.

What will Bush do? He's thus far resisted calls for a larger Army. But he's reversed course before after initially resisting calls for, among other things, a Homeland Security department, and left his critics outflanked on all sides as a result. If Bush decided to veer rightward and demand a bigger Army, the Democrats - as usual - would find themselves with no room to move, since many of them have gotten to Bush's right on this issue and couldn't flip far enough to get back to his left. Presumably, their only response would then be to call for more taxes to pay for more soldiers, but Democrats call for more taxes in just about any situation, usually without effect.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:57 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Fireside Chat

President Bush spoke to the nation last night to lay out the case for staying the course in Iraq. The president's delivery sounded awfully flat on the radio, and the speech was hardly a stirring one. On the substance, though, some good points were made.

Mickey Kaus, in his crusade quest for faster elections, is of course thrilled at this line, as I knew he would be: "The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January."

In a key passage, the President surveyed the security situation on the ground:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:46 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 23, 2004
WAR: Moore Again

Heard on the radio in the shower this morning: Michael Moore described as "humbled" by being given an award at Cannes. Followed by audio clip of him saying he intended to make sure the soldiers in Iraq had not died in vain.

Even before the audio clip - dripping with self-importance and self-satisfaction, as always, to say nothing of hypocrisy - my wife could hear me laughing at the concept of Moore being "humbled" by anything.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:10 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 19, 2004
WAR: The Fantasy of Containment

Kevin Drum links to a Wesley Clark article (also in the Washington Monthly) on the lessons of the Cold War:

The neoconservatives persist in seeing a vast difference between Reagan's policy of confronting the Soviets and previous American administrations' tack of containing it. In fact, it was precisely those decades of containment and cultural engagement that made Reagan's challenge effective.

Drum's conclusion:

Clark's point is a simple one: Neither Reagan nor any of the seven Cold War presidents before him ever attacked either the Soviet Union or one of its satellites directly. This wasn't because of insufficient dedication to anticommunism, but because it wouldn't have worked. . . .
* * *

In the end, the patient strategy of military containment and cultural engagement was the right call, and it's the right call for the war on terror as well. Too bad George Bush doesn't seem to get this.

(Emphasis in original). Now, there are fair arguments about the Cold War's history; suffice it to say that you can take the victory without agreeing that containment without a more aggressive approach was the right call at each and every historical moment. And there were those on the Left who never accepted the costs and burdens of containment, let alone of Reagan's policies, notably including John Kerry. But leave all that aside for now. Because Drum's idea that a "patient strategy of military containment and cultural engagement" is a feasible way to run the war on terror - a notion he apparently shares with Clark and many others on the Left - is pure fantasy.

There was a substantial downside to merely containing the Soviets: the loss of lives and freedom in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc., as communists lashed out in the far corners of the world and we could never do more than push back in a reactive way. But while lots of people died at the hands of our enemies, they were often not Americans, so I can see how you can consider this a viable option. Here, however, the downside of taking punches while waiting for containment to work is, we lose an office building, a planeload of civilians, a city.

Containment sorta worked, in preventing direct attacks on us, because we had deterrence. But that just isn't present anymore. As to non-state actors, where do you hit them back? And as to their state sponsors, the critical problem is deniability. Ask yourself: if Saddam was involved in the first WTC bombing, or Oklahoma City, or September 11, how would we prove to a certainty? One thing we surely know from the Iraq war debate is that there would be no shortage of Americans eager to defend any foreign dictator against charges of complicity in terrorism, and no shortage of obstacles to getting perfect evidence in the aftermath of an attack.

On a related note, containment requires solid and dependable intelligence; we can't rest easily on a strategy of decades of patience if we don't know what the other guy is up to. We now know that much of the intelligence developed about Iraq - not only by the Bush Administration but by the Clinton Administration, the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Russia and others, and relied on and cited even by the UN and Congressional Democrats - was off base in a number of significant ways, and not all of them in the direction of overestimating threats. In fact, it turned out at the end of the Cold War that the CIA got a lot wrong there as well. Consistently dependable intelligence is hard; who among the containment advocates would argue that we will always have good enough intelligence to switch to an offensive posture when and only when threats of attack are imminent?

Also, the anaolgy to our pressure on the Soviet economy doesn't fly. We can't collapse Arab economies, because we can't kill the oil business and that's all they have anyway. Certainly, Arab and Muslim leaders have proven quite adept at convincing a largely illiterate populace that their problems stem from a Zionist conspiracy and not the faults of their leaders. Accepting the status quo means accepting that as a permanent condition. Containment does nothing to stop the anti-American propaganda that feuls hatred of us and is at the very core of our problem.

Also, containment in Iraq was a fiasco - it was expensive and dangerous and we now know that the sanctions regime, while imposing real hardships on the Iraqi people, was largely ineffective to stop Saddam from skimming off an almost limitless supply of funds that were available to make mischief.

Also, containment means accepting that hostile regimes (as Saddam's was) will, at a minimum, decline to cooperate with our law enforcement efforts against non-state actors. As long as their were big black holes on the map into which we couldn't follow the trail of terrorists, they sure as heck were not contained.

The problem of the war on terror is, we need to change the behavior of regimes in the region - either by external pressure, internal pressure, or regime change - and we need for our own safety to do so ASAP, not four decades from now. The reason Saddam was first in line (after the Taliban) is that his behavior was most intractable and least subject to change, but others are due for more pressure next. Just living with him wasn't an option.

Containment isn't always a workable option; it wasn't in World War II or several other historical conflicts. It isn't now. It's frightening that many Democrats don't understand that.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:52 AM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)
May 17, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Linkmania 5/17/04

Time to dump out a bunch of links I'd accumulated but won't have time upon which to blog:

*Where else in the world but the U.S. is it a "coverup" if you announce an investigation in a press release posted on the internet? Also: if the problem with Abu Ghraib is humiliation, isn't that multiplied by airing the pictures? I mean, the media won't publish the names of rape victims, but it will show this? And this picture about says it all on the President's reaction to this story.

*Pete Stark is just crazy. And he's not alone.

*Michael Barone thinks it's 1988 again. Read the whole thing.

*Daschle's stall on judges hits new lows.

*Too good to be true? Vodkapundit sees hope for the end of EU farm subsidies.

*Jimmy Kimmel Suckers the NY Times.

*Boston Globe on blogs; the key point here is the fact that blogs are all about the print media, and can miss out on the significance of events that are especially TV-centric.

*Missing hijacker? Nelson Ascher takes this with a grain of salt, and you should too, but it's an intriguing one.

*A delightful WaPo profile of John McCain:

He has no idea why George Tenet still runs the CIA. "I think he must have some negatives somewhere," McCain says, meaning photo negatives.

McCain met with Tenet at Langley about a year ago. Seemed like a good guy, McCain says. Tenet made his case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it sounded compelling.

"But it was a little like a Chinese meal," McCain recalls. "An hour later I was hungry again."

McCain is that rarest of creatures, a genuine maverick. Guys like him usually wind up just being in the wrong party, like Arlen Specter or Zell Miller. But McCain is, on some issues, as conservative as they come, and on others he is frankly quite liberal. But wherever he sets his sails, he never trims them.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:40 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Destabilizing

Now this is bad news: the head of the Iraqi Governing Council has been killed by a suicide bomber. The worst-case scenarios for Iraq that always troubled me the most were the ones that looked at what happened in Lebanon after its president was killed by a bomb in the early 1980s.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 5:55 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 13, 2004
WAR: Iraq and Al Qaeda, Again

Dan Darling over at Winds of Change has a long, fact-packed discussion of his reasons for supporting the Iraq war, focusing heavily on the Iraqi regime's terrorist connections. (Links to interviews with the two defectors who first publicized the Salman Pak hijacker-training story, which Darling discusses at some length, can be found here and here). Meanwhile, Laurie Mylroie has some new details in her dogged pursuit of the theory that the Iraqi regime was, in fact, involved directly with Mohammed Atta. Darling also has a good discussion of Mylroie's theories, which remain pretty speculative; as I have, he concludes that Mylroie's critics haven't done themselves any favors by their overreliance on scorn and ad hominem attacks, but that it's hard to put too much weight on her work in the absence of more solid evidence. Both pieces are well worth the read; judge for yourself.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:00 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 12, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Sanity Check

Robert Tagorda points us to polls showing a high level of public support for Don Rumsfeld in the Iraq prisoner abuse crisis. Which I would attribute, to some extent, to common sense: not blaming the head of such a vast organization as the Armed Forces for the behavior of every soldier. People get the fact that Rumsfeld, as it were, did not order the Code Red. In fact, it appears that, outside of the Abu Ghraib facility, nobody did.

Democrats screaming for Rumsfeld's head and looking to score points against President Bush would be wise to first ask themselves what they would want their guy to do in the same shoes. The facile answer is that a Democrat would never find himself (or herself) in the situation of having prisoners mistreated by American soldiers. One way to put that is that a Democrat wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq; while that is probably true, it's also true that many Democrats did vote for war (and some still support it), including the party's current presidential nominee. You certainly can't look at the broader situation - American troops sent into sometimes hostile territory and engaged in putting down an insurgency while building national institutions - and say no Democrat would ever go there.

The second idea is that this is somehow the fault of insufficient troop strength, and a Democrat would never have made the mistake of providing an insufficient number of troops. Even crediting this argument, this position is highly implausible (anyone remember Mogadishu, Desert One, or the Bay of Pigs? Democrats have often been accused of applying insufficient force).

The third, I suppose, is that the absence of formal Geneva Convention rules here was the problem, although I fail to see where such rules would be a substitute for better field-level supervision of individual soldiers.

All that really leaves is the charge that Democrats are better at supervision . . . which is also ridiculous. Bad stuff happens at lower echelons in any organization. Are we to believe this sort of thing doesn't happen in prisons in the U.S. under the supervision of elected Democrats? And have the Dems ever espoused such stringent "the leader must fall on his sword" doctrines for their own - did they call for the resignations of Janet Reno after Waco, Bill Richardson after Los Alamos, or are they calling even now for the head of Kofi Annan?

The fact is, this problem happened on the ground, and while the Administration's response after the fact may not have been pitch-perfect, it's been diligent, contrite and relatively open in ensuring that those responsible will be punished. I certainly haven't heard a realistic explanation of how the Administration has done anything particularly disappointing since learning about the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:09 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Bait and Switch Watch

Following up on yesterday's point, in political arguments (or any arguments), you always have to be on the lookout for the bait and switch. Of course, no one side has a monopoly on this tactic, but one of the more egregious ones that we've seen used ad nauseum is the Left's insistence on switching between connecting Saddam Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda and connecting the regime to September 11; for example, the absence of a September 11 connection is taken as definitive proof that there was no Al Qaeda connection, and statements by the Bush Administration drawing an Al Qaeda connection are taken as if they drew a September 11 connection. Trying to get some people to recognize this distinction can be like talking to a brick wall, unfortunately. Chris Matthews' recent interview with Don Rumsfeld contained a classic of the genre although the transcript doesn't capture how fast Matthews was talking in his (ultimately unsuccessful, of course) effort to trick Rumsfeld:

MATTHEWS: You know, when you watch the culture of the country, there’s a great sense in country music, you remember how you felt. You’ve heard these songs. They’re so American. And they talk about the war in Iraq as being some kind of payback or justice for what happened to us on 9/11.

Do you think that’s a fair way to look at it morally and sort of sentimentally, the idea that we’re getting back at the people that hit us?

I mean, the soldiers are, maybe—probably think that. I’m just guessing. They think, “We’ve got to go back and hit them. They hit us.” Like Pearl Harbor. They hit us; we’re hitting them back.

Is that accurate in history?

RUMSFELD: I guess in life, things are never quite as simple as they seem. There’s no doubt but that we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq, there, and it’s part of the global war on terror. The direct connection between 9/11 and...

MATTHEWS: You feel there’s a connection?

RUMSFELD: There’s a different one. No.

MATTHEWS: You see one?

RUMSFELD: No.

MATTHEWS: You don’t see an al Qaeda-Iraq connection before 9/11?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:33 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 11, 2004
WAR: The Wrong Thing

Stryker has the best gut-level reaction I've seen to the whole Iraq prisoner-abuse story . . . I haven't yet gotten to a longer post on the subject - as you may have noticed, I don't always like to jump on issues I haven't had a chance to think through - but, at the end of the day, (1) I don't have a problem, and I suspect the chain of command all the way up to Rumsfeld didn't have a problem, with some fairly rough interrogation techniques (in terms of imposing psychological pressure) for getting critical information out of captured insurgents, but (2) saying that you can live with "rough interrogation techniques" or were aware they were being used is a far cry from accepting the sort of sicko sexual abuse and degradation we've seen depicted. And beware of anyone who tries the bait-and-switch tactic of blaming the higher-ups for knowing about (2) if all they expected was going on was (1). (Greyhawk over at Mudville Gazette, in a post linked by Instapundit, caught Seymour Hersh in a similar bait-and-switch talking about civilian detainees who were not housed in the controversial part of the prison and aren't part of the allegations here).

UPDATE: Deacon over at Powerline notes a similar bait-and-switch.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:43 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 7, 2004
WAR: The Star

More details emergs about the heroic death of Pat Tillman as he is posthumously awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in combat. (Link via Bill Hobbs).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:59 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 6, 2004
WAR: Make This Man An Honorary Scotsman!

If Mr. Met doesn't get them (see below), the bagpiper will. (Hat tip to Baldilocks via Stryker).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:29 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
BASEBALL/WAR: Mr. Met, Patriot

While Michele is busy heaping slanders on Mr. Met (it gets worse), I think it is important to defend the honor of He of the Round Head by raising this important fact, from a 2002 report:

He’s serving in the U.S. Army now and has gone from wearing a baseball as a head to keeping the ball rolling at a prison camp for terrorists.

His name is Lee Reynolds and over the course of the last three years he has been a man behind the mask of New York Mets mascot Mr. Met.

Major Reynolds is currently stationed in the Army public affairs office at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to Army officials.

Camp X-Ray is the name of the military compound where al Qaeda and Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan are being held.

According to Mets officials, Reynolds’ role as the Mets mascot is one shared with a “couple of people.”

Mets officials said that they hope he is safe and that they are grateful for Reynolds’ service to his country.

According to published reports Reynolds, 38, will be stationed in Cuba for the next six months.

Reynolds told a reporter for the New York Post, “Reserve soldiers come from all walks of life, and right now I’m serving my country and serving my state after 9/11. I am very proud to be here, in spite of having to miss the entire baseball season and the Mets have always been 100 percent supportive. They’ve said the door is open for me.”

Of course, the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are sure to confess when he walks into the interrogation room in the Mr. Met head . . .

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:20 AM | Baseball 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (3)
May 4, 2004
WAR: The Long Journey Home

This has been linked all over, but you still need to read the simple yet powerful narrative of a fallen Marine's journey from Dover Air Force Base to his final resting place in Wyoming, written by the Marine Lt. Col. who escorted the remains.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:36 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 30, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Political Natural Selection

There's been a lot of piling on UMass grad student Rene Gonzalez over his breathtakingly asinine op-ed essentially spitting on Pat Tillman's grave (even drawing co-blogger Kiner's Korner out of his long hibernation). Ricky West has the goods on Gonzalez' other public fulmintions, including (predictably enough) anti-Semitism and racial slurs aimed at African-American Republicans, and one of his commenters notes that Gonzalez is also a signer of one of those appallingly discriminatory "divest from Israel" petitions.

Gonzalez' attitudes are despicable, of course, although he's as much to be pitied for his ignorance as hated; the guy is obviously so isolated and so lacking in social skills that he had no clue how offensive the vast majority of sentient adults would find his remarks. Hopefully, UMass has the sense not to have this idiot teaching anything to undergrads; he has, or should have, killed any chance he ever had of teaching anywhere, since nobody wants to court lawsuits by hiring an instructor so completely lacking in basic sensitivity.

Tim Blair notes a related consequence:

Rene is now a graduate student. He's active in politics, he's interested in all the big issues, he's maybe thinking about a political career, and he's just written something he'll deeply regret . . . Rene will get what's coming to him. Picture him a couple of decades from now, struggling to explain his youthful extremism to party officials or journalists or voters.

As you will recall, this is the same reason why I support keeping flag-burning legal: anything that allows guys like this to imprint the scarlet letter of anti-Americanism on themselves before they get into politics is A Good Thing.

(On a related note . . . when I worked on Jim Rappaport's 1990 Senate campaign against John Kerry back in my College Republican days, there were rumors among the low-level volunteers that somebody had video of Kerry from the early 70s burning a flag. Knowing what I know now, it's obvious that Kerry was never as far gone as all that - but if he had been, it would have been political death for him even in Massachusetts).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:11 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Walking Out

I've long thought the September 11 Commission was, at best, pointless, since there had already been numerous official and unofficial inquiries into September 11, leading to overhauls of airport security, the Homeland Security Department, the Patriot Act, the war in Afghanistan and the new preemption posture leading to the war in Iraq, etc. Much of the really important stuff was public record anyway. The relevant question 2 1/2 years later is how those efforts are working, and not why policies that are no longer in place failed.

Anyway, for months and months now we've been hearing about the necessity of having the president testify, and the usual suspects have been up in arms about how it's beyond the pale for Bush and Cheney to testify together rather than have the president testify alone. (Never mind that Bush is, at the end of all this, the primary person with responsibility for national security to whom the commission must report anyway). So, how important was the president's testimony? Two Democrats on the panel didn't even bother to stay for the whole thing due to minor speaking engagements. And how appalling was it that Bush was permitted to testify with his #2 man at his side? Well, Henry Hanks reminds us of a fact the critics have consistently omitted: that Bill Clinton was allowed to show up to testify before the commission with his lawyer/damage control expert Bruce Lindsey and his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, in tow.

So much for that storyline.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:44 AM | War 2004 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: I've Been Looking Too Long At These Pictures of You

At first glance, the Reuters report noted by The Command Post about how many North Koreans died in last week's train explosion because they ran back into their houses to save portraits of Kim Jong-il and his father - portraits the oppressed North Korean people are required to maintain in their homes - sounds like an urban legend spread by opponents of the regime to demonstrate its inhumanity and the level of regimented terror ordinary North Koreans live in on a daily basis, to the extent that they would run into a burning building rather than face what their government would do to them if for even the most understandable of reasons they didn't have their portraits of the Dear Leader.

But what's far creepier is the fact that these reports were actually coming from the North Korean regime itself. Why on earth would the regime publicize this? The only answer, of course - other than the regime's complete and total isolation from and indifference to the opinions of anyone outside the police state's borders - must be the intimidating effect the story would have on an already terrified North Korean population, by emphasizing the fact that the regime is actually proud of the fact that it values a picture of Kim more than it values the lives of its subjects.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:32 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 29, 2004
WAR/FOOTBALL: Pat Tillman, R.I.P.

As with The Crank, there is little I can add, or say more eloquently, about Pat Tillman that has not been said already. Suffice it to say, he was an extraordinarily example in a world that grows increasingly concerned with celebrity status. I'm glad our country still produces people like him, and I hope his family finds comfort in the tremendous example he provides for us.

There are, of course, a few critics of even Tillman. Here's one as an example. But this clearly is a ridiculous attack from an immature person trying to create a stir and name for himself. For a worthy dismal of this attack, read here. Moreover, the UMass President deserves credit for his strong criticism of the column.

For a more amusing attack, note this:

Simeon Rice, a former Arizona Cardinals teammate now with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, scoffed when Tillman enlisted in May 2002.

"He really wasn't that good, not really . . . Maybe it's the Rambo movies, maybe it's Sylvester Stallone, Rocky," he told a radio interviewer.

Can you say, "No more endorsement deals for me!", Mr. Rice?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:06 PM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: A House Divided Against Itself

Obsidian Wings, which has one of the best mascots of any blog, brings what sounds like bad news from Cyprus.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:45 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Tin Cup Is Rattling

I've post-dated this post to April 29 so it will stay at the top of the page until then (updated as necessary), humbly asking you to donate to the Spirit of America, a charitable group supporting the efforts of U.S. troops to spread good will in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It's a worthy goal, and one that gives us private citizens a chance to do a little something to help out in the war for hearts and minds. See here and here for more details. I'm in with one of three coalitions of blogs competing in a drive to raise money for Spirit of America by April 29. For rewards, Michele is offering to dedicate posts and music to people who donate, and Dean Esmay is offering supporters of his coalition a post on a topic of their choice. Bah. I can do better: I promise that if you donate to Spirit of America, the Cubs and the Red Sox will win the World Series in your lifetime, or your money back. [disclaimer: refund may only be claimed after conclusion of lifetime] So there.

Give Victory a Chance! Please Donate Here. Thank you.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 3:00 AM | War 2004 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
April 28, 2004
WAR: Oh, Those WMD

We already knew that the critical charge supporting the legal basis (if you take such things as UN resolutions seriously) of the war in Iraq has been confirmed by David Kay: Saddam Hussein's regime failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions that formed the basis of the 1991 cease-fire between the U.S.-led coalition and Iraq, specifically including his use of force and fraud to deceive UN inspectors about the status of his WMD programs.

But the question remains: what, really, had those programs accomplished, and why did our intelligence project a more advanced program than we have found evidence of?

Kenneth Timmerman at the conservative publication Insight Magazine has been parsing the evidence coming out of Iraq and now claims that we have, in fact, found many of the pieces of the WMD puzzle, but in ways that lack the sex appeal needed to dislodge the now-settled media narrative that the Bush Administration was just making this stuff up out of thin air for the past six years. Among the items Timmerman notes:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:44 PM | War 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
April 27, 2004
WAR: Natural Selection

American Digest brings us an example, from Iraq, of "The Darwin Awards in Real Time." Priceless. On a similar note, Laurence from Amish Tech Support has an amusing tale of some Palestinian hoodlums who tried to rob a fully armed suicide bomber, an escapade that, shall we say, did not end well for anyone involved.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:51 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
April 26, 2004
BASEBALL/WAR: Men of Honor

I have little to add about the death of Pat Tillman that hasn't been better said elsewhere, although a quote from General George S. Patton I'd seen used elsewhere lately seemed a fitting tribute: "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

It is worthwhile, at such a time, to remember that Tillman is not the first professional athlete to put his athletic career aside and put his life on the line for his country. The sacrifices of the World War II generation, like Ted Williams, is also a tale that's been better told elsewhere, including the contributions of Williams, Bob Feller, Joe DiMaggio, Hank Greenberg, Johnny Mize, Warren Spahn, Yogi Berra, Ralph Houk, Phil Rizzuto, Cecil Travis, Mickey Vernon, Dom DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Johnny Pesky, Dick Wakefield, Joe Gordon, Tommy Henrich, Charlie Keller, Alvin Dark, Sam Chapman, Buddy Lewis, Hank Sauer, Sid Gordon, Virgil Trucks, Hank Bauer, Barney McCosky, Ferris Fain, Eddie Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Wally Judnich, Enos Slaughter, Pete Reiser, Elbie Fletcher, Terry Moore, Al Rosen, Ralph Kiner, Pee Wee Reese, and others.

But baseball's sacrifices in the First World War need remembering, too, including:

*"Harvard Eddie" Grant, formerly an everyday third baseman for the Phillies and Reds, killed in action October 5, 1918 in the Argonne Forest.

*German-born Robert Gustave "Bun" Troy, who made a brief appearance with the Tigers in 1912, killed in action October 7, 1918 in Petit Maujouym, in France.

*Christy Mathewson, who suffered severe health problems from which he never recovered - possibly contributing to his death in 1925 at age 45 from tuberculosis - after inhaling poison gas in a training accident. (Ty Cobb also served in the same unit).

*Grover Cleveland Alexander, who as I explained here, would probably have made it to 400 wins or close to it if he hadn't lost a year at his peak to World War I, and who suffered lasting trauma from seeing combat with an artillery outfit.

*Sam Rice, who as I explained here, missed a year following his first big season after being drafted into the Army in World War I; Rice also got a late start in the majors because he’d joined the Navy at age 23 after his parents, wife and two children were killed by a tornado (Rice saw combat in the Navy, landing at Vera Cruz in 1914). Without those interruptions, Rice could easily have had 3500-3700 hits in the major leagues.

*Hall of Famer Rabbit Maranville also missed a year to the Great War, as did several others I've overlooked here.

Perhaps not quite on the same level as a guy like Tillman, who volunteered for some of the Army's most hazardous duty, but in the long run those are just details. Heroes all.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:45 AM | Baseball 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1)
April 22, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Communism Sucks

Yeah, you knew that already - if "sucks" is strong enough a word for the senseless death, imprisonment, torture, oppression and impoverishment of millions worldwide, not to mention an arms race, numerous wars and coups, etc. We had a grim reminder today of those horrors in the thousands incinerated in North Korea by a train collision, an event that was almost certainly caused by the endemic and frequently fatal incompetence of communist regimes.

Thankfully, we're down to just two hard-core Communist states (North Korea and Cuba), although nominally Communist China is still a tyranny and some shifty ex-Communists can still be found in power throughout the former Warsaw Pact. No thanks to John Kerry (seen here shaking hands with Sandanista dictator Daniel Ortega), who from his return from Vietnam all the way through the end of the Cold War never really got on board with the notion that it was a worthwhile endeavor to rid the world of this malignancy. Today's edition of OpinionJournal's Political Diary (worth every penny of the $3.95/month cost) gives some examples from Kerry's tour with the anti-war movement in the early seventies, the efforts that shot him to the political prominence on which his entire subsequent career has been founded:

Mr. Kerry may have to explain yet more dubious remarks from [1971] at West Virginia's Bethany College in which he declared: "Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world." College newspaper accounts report Mr. Kerry also told students that "there is a disbelief in the American Dream, people are questioning if it is really a dream or if the dream still exists."

Mr. Kerry went on to tell his Bethany College audience that communism did not represent a threat to the United States. "The soldier went to Vietnam to defend the country from aggressive communism in the tradition of World War II," Mr. Kerry said. "But the soldier learned he was not fighting communism. Communism was not a threat to our country and the war was not moral."

NRO also has words with a Vietnam-era critic of Kerry's blithe use of false charges against American soldiers; it's a good read, and an important one. Kerry's conduct in the early 70s wasn't just irresponsible or impulsive youth; it was about the conscious use of sensational slanders to advance his own career at the expense of the national interest, and about patterns of thought and behavior about national security issues that have plagued his entire public career.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:57 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: True or False?

The Man Without Qualities does some September 11 myth-busting. Among the myths:

3. The September 11 hijackers used box cutters as weapons. Instead, the Commission said it was more likely the hijackers used "Leatherman" utility knives that have several tools and a long, sharp blade that locks into position - which at least two of the hijackers probably purchased and FAA guidelines permitted on board. Box cutters were banned.
Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:38 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POP CULTURE: Springtime for Arafat

For those who have complained - rightly - of Hollywood's post-September 11 squeamishness about making movies about terrorism where the bad guys are (duh!) Muslim and/or Arab fanatics, there is hope: Steven Spielberg, who's likely to be pretty damn unsympathetic to lunatic Jew-hating Palestinian terrorists, is making a movie about the terror attacks at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:29 PM | Pop Culture • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 21, 2004
WAR: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

I'll break in here quickly from my lunch to remind you to donate to the Spirit of America, a charitable group supporting the efforts of U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to spread good will with the people who live there. See here for more on the group's current need for donations, and here for a first-hand testimonial from LT Smash. I've joined up with the coalition of blogs headed by Kevin from Wizbang and Michele from A Small Victory in soliciting donations daily between today and next Thursday for this worthy cause (Michele has more on the friendly competition with two other blog coalitions to see who can raise the most money).

Please Donate Here.

Thank you.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:23 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Saudi Oil Deal, or Saudi Oil Weapon?

Presented for your consideration:

*Matt Welch and Kevin Drum try to make something of the idea that President Bush struck some sort of secret deal with the Saudis to drive down oil prices before the elections (which, as James Joyner notes, is pretty much what John Kerry was critizing the Bush Administration for not doing only a few weeks ago).

*QandO and Captain Ed think the story doesn't add up to much when you put it in perspective and consider the source.

What intrigued me about this whole story, though, is that only a month ago, in a widely-discussed piece, Ed Lasky was arguing precisely the opposite: that the Saudis were deliberately using high oil prices to squeeze the economy to try to get Bush out of office.

The truth? Hard to say. Although I've long since concluded that Occam's Razor, especially when applied along criteria we in the West would understand, does not apply to the motivations of the Saudi regime, given the byzantine internal politics of the Saudi royal family.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:20 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR/LAW: Lileks and More Lileks

Lileks has been on a ferocious roll lately. Tuesday's Bleat looks at Claudia Rossett's NRO piece drawing up a roadmap of the ties between the UN's oil-for-food boondoggle for the benefit of the long-suffering Iraqi people Saddam Hussein and some secretive financial institutions that have been linked to Al Qaeda. Rossett's piece is far from definitive, but it's cautious and apparently well-sourced, and raises some real issues about whether Saddam's dealings with shady Al Qaeda-linked financiers and his evident opportunity to funnel them money undetected was just coincidence. Among other things, Lileks notes the problem this could later present for the Democrats and their standard-bearer:

[W]hat does this do for John Kerry’s credibility? He stated on Sunday that Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaeda, an assertion that has now taken on the mantle of Absolute Fact.

Monday, Lileks gave a well-deserved Fisking to Andrew Sullivan's call for a regressive, growth-strangling gas tax. Read the whole thing.

Friday, Lileks offered up the best effort I've read yet to articulate the opposition to the gay marriage movement (indicative of his openness to honest debate on the one issue but not the other, Sullivan links to the gas tax Bleat but ignores this one). After noting that he doesn't have a religious issue with homosexual relations or with same-sex marriage, Lileks tears into the argument of an anthropologist in support of same-sex marriage, in terms that are worth reprinting here in full:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:42 AM | Law 2002-04 • | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: One-Sided

Michael King looks at a shameful banner ad run by the Kerry campaign demonizing Halliburton while its employees are in the firing line over in Iraq. (In fact, if you know your history - the British East India Company, anyone? - the Kerry people even have the past wrong). It's still amazing that the guy can simultaneously run on a platform of (1) demonizing companies that send American jobs to foreign countries and (2) threatening to take big contracts away from an American company and give them to foreigners.

King also notes that Doonesbury is about to have a character, former football star B.D., lose a leg in Iraq (I'm not clear what he's doing there, but then if I read Doonesbury twice a year it's a lot). I agree with King that while this could be a good storyline in less aggressively partisan hands - and probably good for the aging, decades-past-its-prime comic strip - Trudeau's record doesn't suggest a guy who's capable of that kind of balance.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:29 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: On The Other Side

Somebody explain to me why anyone still listens to Michael Moore? (Link via Instapundit).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:24 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The WMD That Aren't There

Stryker has some updates on supposedly non-existent WMD.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:21 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 20, 2004
WAR: Um, That Would Be Good To Know

Stuart Buck shares an unfinished tale of what may have been additional September 11 hijackers who got away without even being identified. There's gotta be more to this story. Right?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:04 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 19, 2004
WAR: Man, That Ain't Oil, That's Blood

To date, thirty Halliburton workers have been killed in Iraq. Question of the day for Democrats who have bashed the company: are these Americans we are proud of? (I only caught the tail end, but CNN was running an interview with some Halliburton workers last night that seemed to be putting a human face on the company' workers in Iraq that doesn't look like a Thomas Nast cartoon).

On a related note, the papers have been buzzing about an Italian (read: "fraudulent" coalition member) security guard, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who was executed by his captors in Iraq; Quattrocchi reportedly tried to pull off his hood to look his captors in the eye and shouted, "I’m going to show you how an Italian dies." Noteworthy observation: in extremis, facing death and with nothing left to him but his pride, Quattrocchi fell back on something that mattered to him - his nationality. Not, "Europe" and not the "legitimacy" of international organizations. It is worthwhile, before sending men to fight and die - even sending private citizens into war zones - to remember for what they will do so.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:00 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
April 15, 2004
WAR: Spread The Word

Michele is raising money to help the Marines in Iraq set up a TV station to win hearts and minds. Head on over and lend a hand - especially all you libertarians who want to show that even core government functions like foreign policy can be supported by private donations.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 5:07 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 14, 2004
WAR: Playing Offense, Playing Defense

I can't say this often enough: in asking what could have been done pre-September 11, you have to divide the question in two parts: offense (taking the fight to the terrorists) and defense (ratcheting up homeland defense and law enforcement).

On offense, in hindsight, Clinton was a (can we use the phrase?) miserable failure. There are, I think, fair-minded arguments on both sides about whether and what Clinton could or should have done based on what was known at the time, but we now recognize with the benefits of hindsight that he should have done more to pressure and/or topple terror-sponsoring states, finish off the camps in Afghanistan, etc. Bush failed, again in hindsight, by failing to change Clinton's policies in this regard. But with just 8 months in office, no public mandate for war, no consensus on the issue among our allies, and his hands full just trying to get all his foreign policy people through the Senate (the people who want UN approval for everything didn't mind dragging their feet on Bush's UN ambassador), a quick change in policy would have been turning a battleship in a bathtub.

On defense, again, hindsight proves that there were systemic and bipartisan failings in providing for airport security, FBI/CIA cooperation, processing of intelligence, wiretap authority, etc. It seems clear that some of these could have cracked the case if we'd been organized as we are today. None of those systemic failures can be pinned on Bush (again, how many top DOJ jobs were left vacant for weeks or months?), and it's debatable how many can be pinned on Clinton, either. The problems were systemic.

What that leaves is the idea that, even with the faulty apparatus for gathering domestic inteligence and even with the meager infrastructure that existed for screening airline passengers pre-September 11, there was some information that went up the chain to the White House that should have led to the conclusion that something needed to be done ASAP that wasn't already being done. The FBI certainly seems to have been busy reassuring the President that they were all over this issue like PB on J.

What's left? That's where we get this August 6 briefing (although you can't evaluate it if you haven't seen what's in every briefing). As noted below, though, I just don't see what information was in that memo, taken in context and not just in hindsight, that says "stop what we're doing now, call the airports and look for Arab men fitting, you know, a certain profile." The bin Laden threat was indeed well-known - most of us knew September 11 was bin Laden as soon as the planes hit the towers. But the Democrats just haven't made the case that the red warning light of impending airline hijackings, specifically, should have gone off in a way that should have pointed to a practical solution.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:21 AM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)
WAR: Japan Getting Serious?

Setting the World to Rights has some thoughts on Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi's response to threats to kill the Japanese hostages in Iraq.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:09 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Hindsight

The Boston Globe throws a tantrum over the August 6, 2001 memo (reprinted over at Kevin Drum's site):

[W]hen Bush read the carefully chosen title of the Aug. 6 brief -- "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" -- he should have demanded that his national security team scour files for useful information and institute immediate preventive precautions.

The Aug. 6 memo was in response to a request Bush had made for an assessment of bin Laden's intentions. It was the right question to ask. . . But the answers Bush received should have lit a fire under him. He should have demanded action from the government agencies under his command.

After all, Bush was being told that bin Laden wanted to kill people inside America, that he already had operatives and cells in this country, and that he "wanted to hijack a US aircraft." If Bush had made prevention an urgent priority, two of the hijackers -- Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, whom the CIA had identified from a terrorist conclave in Malaysia and who were living openly in San Diego -- might have been nabbed. The memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix about Arab males at flight schools might have been pursued. The request from the FBI's Colleen Rowley to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, might have been granted. The government had the clues that fateful summer. It lacked a commander in chief to prod officials to align them in a pattern and take preventive action.

(Emphasis added). Talk about nonsense - does the Globe really think that the people making these decisions report directly to the president, or for that matter, have less than about 10 layers of reporting between them and the president? And remember, every level you go down, to get action, you have to order that many other people to do other things that wouldn't get you anywhere . . .

Jane Galt has a great rebuttal to the hindsighters. Excerpt:

You're George Bush in August 2001. Tell me, specifically, what you would have done based on that memo, that would have a reasonable chance of apprehending the hijackers. "Put the government on alert" is glaringly insufficient. The memo says that Al Qaeda may want to hijack an airplane to secure the release of militants, or that it may aim to make some sort of attack in Washington. Given that you do not know which of these, if either, is true, nor when, where, or how the attack will come; given that the "chatter" to which opponents of Mr Bush like to refer has more often not presaged an attack (as we have seen with the numerous "Orange Alerts" and so forth); and given that any measures you take will be expensive and anger some subset of the population, what do you do? If your answers include, with astonishing foresight, such unprecedented things as strip searching passengers on domestic flights or ordering pilots not to open cockpit doors even after hijackers have begun killing passengers, please explain which of the tens of thousands of domestic flights taking off in the United States each day you plan to target; where you will get the extra personnel to do so; how you will respond when the ACLU and the airlines get a preliminary injunction against you for flagrantly violating passengers' civil rights; how you plan to sell the massive delays to the millions of angry passengers; what you are going to do about the inevitable Democratic charges of racial profiling; and how long you plan to keep this up, given that you have no idea whether an attack is due this week, this year, or at all? You must also include a section explaining what you are going to do about the North Korea expert shouting in your ear that you really need to pay attention to this intelligence saying that crazy Cousin Kim may have nukes.

(Emphasis in original). Read the whole thing.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:55 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 13, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: The Oldies Station

It's late, so forgive me if I ramble . . . Instapundit asks, "[t]o the Democrats, well, 'we'd all love to see the plan.' Where is it?" I'm starting to wonder if Kerry is running the Nixon '68 playbook, what with his platform of having a secret plan to end the insurgency in Iraq and have peace with honor, the details of which he won't share with us. (Of course, he voted for it because he was brainwashed by Bush!) Here's a problem with nominating a guy like Kerry whose entire resume is built on something he did 35 years ago - the ability to adapt his thoughts to new and changing circumstances is painfully limited. Frankly, Kerry's a has-been. George W. Bush gets accused of being inflexible, but maybe there are advantages to nominating a guy who didn't make up his mind on a lot of things until recently.

Meanwhile, Goldberg blasts Ted Kennedy for raising the specter of quagmire. Jonah's column is pretty standard fare - there's something to be said for the idea that using the "V" word is a universally recognized signal for defeatism. Frankly, when you hear a liberal say "Vietnam," you know the meaning of what he's saying without listening just as sure as you know a conservative's meaning when you hear him mention Neville Chamberlain. But it did make me wonder: as Lileks has noted, despite the Democrats' current conventional wisdom that Vietnam was Nixon's war, Kennedy actually voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, as did Robert Byrd, the other big quagmirist in the current war (has Kerry ever asked either one for an apology?). As with John McCain and campaign finance reform, or Trent Lott's momentary vow to become a born-again fan of affirmative action: Lord save us from penitent politicians, forever making amends at our expense.

Unrelated Cynical Question of the Day: What percentage of America's voting public is aware that Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke are not the same person? (Not that I blame the average voter for a certain rational indifference to the Beltway crisis of the hour, by the way). There's this Clark guy running around on TV, used to be sort of a Republican, used to work for Clinton, now he says Bush should have prevented 9/11 and not gone to war with Iraq . . . I can see how folks would get confused.

Finally, speaking of McCain, I think it's just funny that the Democrats' cupboard of leadership is so bare that many of them would kill to put a Republican (and not just any Republican, but one who's more of a war hawk than Bush, and is a firm supporter of school choice and private Social Security accounts and other heresies) on the ticket. I mean, could you imagine anybody in the conservative press or blogosphere agitating to put Bob Kerrey or even Zell Miller on the GOP ticket? The closest we'd come is lifelong liberal Republicans like Powell or Giuliani or Schwarzenegger, and even they'd be viewed with mixed feelings.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:49 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)
April 12, 2004
WAR: Training On Safety

I've seen very little media coverage on this, other than generalized reports on stepping up safety alerts at train stations after the March 11 bombing in Madrid, but one thing I noticed in the last two weeks: most of the trash cans have disappeared from the LIRR waiting area in Penn Station. I have to assume this is connected.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:02 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 8, 2004
WAR: Died For What?

Lileks absolutely nails it in this morning's Bleat:

Given the horrible headlines that followed the brutal deaths of four Americans last week, you’d think that would be the main story, or at least something that merited a mention in a headline. But a dozen dead Marines is the main story. The reason they died is not the main story. What has been accomplished is not the main story. To me, this is like printing “Four Thousand Dead in French Assault” and putting “Omaha Beach secured” in the subhead.

Which one honors the dead more?

Read the whole thing; he's got lots more good stuff on other topics.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:49 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Kos Theory

I generally prefer to blog on a subject like last week's Kos Kontroversy when I've got sufficient uninterrupted blogging time to unpack all its implications, but I haven't had that kind of time lately and the issue's getting a bit stale now. So, I'll just run through my quick thoughts.

First of all, if you missed it, blogger Markos Zuniga of the popular far-left site Daily Kos (which I had added to my blogroll not long ago because of its excellent horse-race coverage, notwithstanding the overall left-wing nuttiness of the site) created a big stir when he made the following remarks on the death of the four Americans who were lynched by a mob in Fallujah:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 15:08:56 GMT

I won't get into all the subsequent controversies, covered well enough by Michele (also here), Instapundit, and others far too numerous to mention, about (1) whether Kos misbehaved in trying to erase/conceal the entry on his site and in his various semi-apologies and justifications, (2) whether it's proper to pressure Kos' advertisers over a remark on his blog (I'll agree that the trend there is disturbing), or (3) to what extent left-leaning bloggers had an obligation to denounce what Kos said. (The latter being a point I'll expand on another day, the short answer being that it depends how bad the comments are, how prominent the blogger making them is, how prominent, prolific and/or professional the blogger with the 'obligation' is, and whether the latter blogger often makes similar demands of the other side; in any event, Oliver Willis gets credit for being the first big blogger on the left to denounce this). Random thoughts, though, on a few aspects:

First, I don't have much use for people who, in the course of defending Kos, describe his remarks merely as "stupid". Yes, they were stupid. But the problem isn't that they were stupid, or ignorant, or prejudiced, none of which is exactly rare on blogs or anywhere else people air their opinions. Nor is the problem that Kos was too flip and too disrespectful of the dead. The snarky, quick-hit, shoot-from-the-hip style of blogs does, sometimes, lead to undue callousness. As someone who writes under intense time pressure (when time runs out, I gotta run for a train), I can sympathize with bloggers who don't always get to dress up their statements with the appropriate nods to convention and politesse.

No, the problem with Kos' remarks is that they were vicious and mean, and effectively took sides with a lynch mob. Now, I recognize that many on the Right have been equally rough on Ahmed Yassin, Uday and Qusay, and even on less thoroughly evil figures like Rachel Corrie. But there's a common denominator there: those are all people who chose to take sides with those who want to kill us. They're on the other side.

And that's how Kos treated the men who were lynched in Fallujah: as not on his side. Except that, whatever you think of "mercenaries" and their motives (more on that below), there's no dispute that these guys' were in ultimately in Iraq because the Coalition Provisional Authority wanted them there to assist in its efforts to rebuild the country into a democracy. The fact that Kos sees the people engaged in that task as being on the other side puts him, at least emotionally, on the side of the lynch mob, the fascists, and the Islamists.

In any case, the viciousness of siding with a lynch mob, in any case short of the Ceacesceaus of the world, is impossible to justify; as Kevin Drum put it:

I really don't think it matters if they were private contractors in any case. They were burned to death and hung from a bridge. Nor does it matter much that you don't like the war. Some of the wingnuts on the right gloated over the deaths of UN workers in last August's bombing, and that was wrong as well, regardless of what they thought of the UN.

(Emphasis in original). I don't think that Kos' attitude is representative of liberals/the Left as a whole. Still, there were those on the left side of the spectrum who insisted that any criticism of Kos whatsoever for this attitude was out of line. Check out Jeralyn Merritt's take:

We will make our position very clear: We wholeheartedly support Markos. He made a comment most people find objectionable and then retracted it and explained why he made it. To us, it should be the end of the story. Any attempt to inflate it or even to keep it alive has little to do with Markos, and everything to do with right-wing conservatives trying to make political hay out of it. This has become a right-wing ploy to debase the left. Don't let it happen. Don't let them win. . . .

As for the "liberal bloggers" who have criticized Markos, we'd point out that most of them are not really liberals but centrist Democrats. Shame on them. We discount their criticism and suggest you do too.

(Emphasis added). Wow. "Shame" on anyone who even criticizes Kos' hateful comments? That's an astonishing view. I can't see how you can say that people like Drum and Willis should be ashamed of themselves for finding Kos' comments offensive unless you are arguing either that (1) his "screw 'em" attitude is not only correct but beyond question, or (2) there is no level of offensive behavior by the left that should be valued above ideological solidarity (well, except for the dire offense of being a "centrist"). Neither is an appealing option.

On the other hand, as nasty as Kos' attitude on the war is - and even though I felt compelled to de-link him, especially since I had him on my list of bloggers who form the "Loyal Opposition" - I'm not prepared to give him the "Fredo, you're nothing to me now" speech the way the perennially overwrought Mark Kleiman did, at least initially:

[Ann Coulter] put herself beyond the pale of civilized discourse. Anyone who now quotes her, links to her approvingly, or supports her financially is dirtying himself: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Kos has now, it seems to me, put himself in the same category.

There are all kinds of people out there who contribute something to public discourse, even if they have some views that are appallingly uncivilized. Sure, there are some that are totally out of bounds, and I certainly wouldn't cite the likes of either Coulter or Kos on any subject without some appropriate caveats (nor would I have even before Kos made this comment; he's always been way out there, at least on the war). But, as I've long stressed, a person can do a thing that is entirely indefensible and still not be worthy of capital punishment. Put another way: we're all sinners here.

The second thing, and one that's also been covered extensively elsewhere so I won't dwell on it: I don't see what makes these guys 'mercenaries' as opposed to just security guards, which everyone needs in Iraq or many other dangerous places (Moscow, Mexico City, etc.) It's not like they were conducting offensive operations or anything. To say that every civilian who carries a gun for a paycheck is a "mercenary" means the security guard at the local shopping mall is a mercenary. You can call him that if you want, but in so doing, you've rigged your argument by abandoning the accepted commonsense meaning of the term.

My third and final point: Frankly, "screw 'em" appalled me. But it wasn't the part of this item that really made me so angry I had to wait several days before even considering blogging on this flap. What really got under my skin was the condescending assumption that those of us who supported this was thought that war was a big video game.

Like Xbox? Yeah, when I saw my office building pouring smoke and bodies falling out of it, I thought it was just like f#&!%ing Space Invaders. Even on the substantive point - Kos' argument that every corpse in Iraq should be placed on the front page: we don't put every drug dealer who shoots another drug dealer on the front page. We don't put every fetus who's aborted on the front page. We don't put every Israeli victim of suicide bombings on the front page. We didn't put the victims of the Rwandan or Cambodian genocides on the front page, not every last one of them. We sure as hell haven't put everyone who was raped or gassed or run through a shredder by the Ba'athists on the front page. Massively publicizing every death is a decision about what things to highlight. Kos wants to stack the deck.

More links:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:44 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Mahdi

Reading this Belmont Club analysis (via Instapundit), I couldn't help but notice the reference to Muqtada Sadr's group calling itself "the Mahdi Army." You'll recall the self-proclaimed 'Mahdi,' from your 19th century history as the quasi-messianic figure who led an Islamist revolt against the British in Sudan that was ultimately suppressed following the defeat of the Mahdi's army by General 'Chinese' Gordon at Omdurman (more on that in general here and specifically here).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:06 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 6, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Quote of the Week

From the Krauthammer column I noted yesterday, this Q&A from the September 11 hearings is all you really need to know about desperate efforts to blame the Bush Administration for September 11:

SEN. SLADE GORTON: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 ... had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"

CLARKE: "No."

Indeed.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:42 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
April 2, 2004
WAR: "[T]he evidence that we saw . . . was not real"

Lileks has already had ample fun with John Kerry's interview on MTV, but this passage (also excerpted on Best of the Web) caught my attention - Kerry explaining the evidence that convinced him that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction:

[T]he evidence that we saw--we were given photographs, direct evidence--was not real. I mean, it just turned out not to be, not to pan out, so I think the vote was a correct one based on the evidence that everybody was given.

Kerry's in a hole on this one, since he has to explain how it is that he looked at the same evidence Bush did, came to the same conclusion, yet Bush is a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire, yet Kerry is uniquely qualified to make decisions about war and peace. What he seems to suggest here before he backs away is not that the evidence wasn't all it was cracked up to be, but that it was somehow faked or intentionally doctored. That's what he wants people to believe - Bush gave me bad data - but it won't withstand minimal scrutiny and totally abdicates Kerry's own responsbility for reaching his own conclusions.

The fact is, some of the evidence did not, as Kerry said, "pan out." There's much more to the WMD story than that, of course - like Saddam's trail of deception of weapons inspectors - but if Kerry's story depends on the CIA fabricating phony photographs, he's not going to convince anybody outside the fever swamps.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:03 AM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Clarke 4/2/04

OpinionJournal carries just a devastating review of Richard Clarke's book. Also, I noted yesterday allegations from the Left, amplified (as always) by Paul Krugman, of a smear job aimed at Clarke's personal life (see also here), but in fairness, I should note that the unsourced rumors involved give us, frankly, no evidence at all to tie them to anybody in the Bush camp, and nearly everything I've seen on this comes from the lefties (although Wonkette does seem to think that Laura Ingraham has been implying the same thing). I still think it's wrong if it's being done - but let's not be too quick to indulge the assumption that whatever Wolf Blitzer says is the gospel truth.

(On a side note, it still cracks me up that Blitzer is seen by the lefties as some sort of right-wing secret agent. Talk about paranoid).

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:34 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Peggy Noonan, Tough Guy

Noonan gets it just right about Fallujah:

We know what the men and boys who did the atrocity of Fallujah look like; they posed for the cameras. We know exactly what they did--again, the cameras. We know they massed on a bridge and raised their guns triumphantly. It's all there on film. It would be good not only for elemental justice but for Iraq and its future if a large force of coalition troops led by U.S. Marines would go into Fallujah, find the young men, arrest them or kill them, and, to make sure the point isn't lost on them, blow up the bridge. Whatever the long-term impact of the charred bodies the short term response must be a message to Fallujah and to all the young men of Iraq: the violent and unlawful will be broken.
Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:33 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Queer Eye For The Warlord Guy

A German fashion designer praises Hamid Karzai for his fashion sense. (Actually, "warlord" is a bit unfair to Karzai, but that's another post). Hey, a little superficiality is a welcome break from Afghanistan's usual methods of getting in the news.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:10 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 31, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Who Is Sibel Dinez Edmonds?

Powerline notes that the always-unhinged Paul Begala is calling Condoleazza Rice a liar in large part on the strength of allegations made by one Sibel Dinez Edmonds, a disgruntled former FBI translator who was hired after September 11. I noted Edmonds' sensational charges here.

Also on Powerline: a hilarious commentary on John Kerry's snowboarding attire.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:40 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Daily Clarke, 3/31/04

So the Bush Administration gets thrown in the briar patch yet again by allowing Condi Rice to testify. You gotta admit, Bush sure knows when to fold 'em. I'm actually distressed at the precedent here - refusing to let the National Security Council staff testify is something other administrations have stood for as well (including the 1999 refusal to allow Richard Clarke to testify). Chalk up another one for how little this whole September 11 commission will accomplish besides just scoring political points.

More on the Clarke Affair:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:22 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
March 29, 2004
WAR: The Rumor Files

Presented without further comment: This Powerline item from last week on new evidence of Saddam's Al Qaeda ties caught my attention, although I haven't tracked down the followup enough to have an opinion on whether it holds up.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:51 AM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Then and Now

I've noted this before, but it is sometimes useful to look back:

John Kerry, 2004:

[President Bush] misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam's nuclear program and WMD's.

John Kerry, October 9, 2002:

Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

Who indeed?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:41 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 28, 2004
WAR: Straight From The Horse's . . .

If you haven't already, you need to check out Smash's account from last week (here, here and here) of his attendance at an anti-war rally and his interview with one of the speakers. Unbelievable. There's only so much effort you need to expend on these people, but it's always enlightening to see what makes them tick. As Lileks put it:

These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they don't have the inbred moonshine-addled mah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-'em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didn't come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it. I'm sure you'll find in these pictures people who have cool jobs in San Francisco, people who get grants, write code, run the coffee-frother at a funky bookstore, and have no problem marching alongside someone who spells Israel with swastika instead of an S.

You can see an effective parody of this mindset in Frank J's Universal Democratic Underground thread, which -- if you've spent much time at the comment boards of the big left-wing sites -- is pretty dead-on accurate.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:25 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 27, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Clarke Star Crashing

Some controversies, you can't blog halfway, and with so many people blogging on the Clarke thing and so much new dirt on the guy every day, it's been pretty pointless for me to try to keep up even if I hadn't been swamped at work all week. One thought, on his easily disproven whopper about Condi Rice: there's no older cliche in the political book than disgruntled insiders claiming people they met with didn't know what was going on. Hell, they tried that with George Washington.

For what it's worth, here's my link-free, bottom-line take on what I think we know thus far about the propriety of blaming Clinton and/or Bush for September 11 (I may or may not go back and dig up the supporting links on this some other day, but it's all out there):

1. With the benefit of hinsdight, it's now clear that Clinton's people screwed up our anti-terror policy, beginning after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, through too much caution about committing to use military force and by a law enforcement-centered approach, despite having regularly considered more aggressive approaches.

2. In so doing, they were largely unchallenged by the GOP and not sufficiently challenged by the conservative press.

3. Had Clinton moved more aggressively, he would have had qualified support from some on the Right and the center-left, but the public appetite for a military response wasn't there, and would have been difficult for Clinton to generate without a major attack. It would have been a test of even Clinton's powers of persuasion.

4. Clinton's people knew well how bad the overall threat was, and warned Bush's people about the nature of the threat.

5. On the other hand, they didn't hand over any kind of a strategy or plan to do anything about it other than a continuation of the prior insufficient efforts.

6. Clinton also recognized the Saddam problem -- that the 'containment' regime's premises had collapsed and the status quo was ultimately unsustainable -- but similarly didn't hand over any strategy to do anything about Saddam.

7. Bush & Gore both recognized in the 2000 campaign that the status quo with Iraq needed to change, and both would have headed towards a clash with Saddam even without 9/11.

8. Neither Bush nor Gore said much about bin Laden or terrorism in the 2000 campaign. It was not an issue and didn't even come up at the debates.

9. The Bush Administration, like its predecessor, did nothing of significance on terror or on Iraq for its first 8 months in office.

10. However, the Bush Administration appears to have been developing strategies to deal with both problems (bin Laden and Saddam) by early September 2001, albeit without the urgency we'd want, with hindsight, to have seen from both Bush & Clinton.

11. The Bush Administration also seems to have had some warnings about Al Qaeda using airplanes as a weapon - in fact, I checked and there were widespread press accounts in June 2001 of Al Qaeda reportedly plotting use airplanes as a weapon at the G8 summit in Italy that summer - but never got more specific information, in part because of pre-Patriot Act restrictions on law enforcement's ability to connect the dots.

Bottom line: yes, in hindsight, both the Bush and Clinton Administrations, with more foresight, could have done more on both counts. Yes, they should have done more. Yes, I hand Clinton the larger share of the blame, at least as far as the failure to develop a long-range offensive strategy is concerned - whereas it appears that Bush was at least thinking in that direction. On the defensive question (i.e., having the homeland on alert), there's less to fault Clinton and a bit to question about Bush, but I regard the failings as mostly institutional - the problem was the inability to pursue evidentiary leads and get urgent warnings up the ladder, rather than a failure of leadership.

But the blame isn't, in my view, the important question - as I said, none of it is entirely damning, and it's bipartisan in nature. The important question is what's been learned. The Bush Administration, of course, is famously unwilling to throw red meat to its critics by admitting error (witness what happened when they gave an inch on the State of the Union), but its actions have shown a willingness to re-evaluate U.S. military doctrine and law enforcement practice in numerous ways since. The Democrats . . . not so much. I really don't have confidence that John Kerry, who's been busy blasting Bush for being too eager to go to war and who's campaigned against the expanded law enforcement powers of the Patriot Act, has really learned anything.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:17 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
March 26, 2004
WAR: American Warlord

Hey, doesn't that sound like a cool reality show? But it's also the military strategy du jour in Afghanistan. Link via Vodkapundit.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:37 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Priorities

Tom Maguire's been all over the Richard Clarke saga - so I don't have to! In one of his latest installments, he notes a choice vignette from Clarke's book:

[Bush r]esolved to attack al-Qaida on the evening of Sept. 11. That night, Bush spoke to his staff: "I want you to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters." When Donald Rumsfeld pointed out the legal problems posed by some proposed attacks, Bush said, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."
Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:18 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: The Little Flame, Three Years Later

Yet again I've been too busy at work to blog, but I had to mention that today is the three-year anniversary of an event that probably did more than any other to convince me of the impossibility of civilized people treating the Israelis and Palestinians as just two sides of a morally neutral "cycle of violence." Yes, the Palestinians have their grievances, and yes, children die on both sides. But a society that honors and celebrates a sniper blowing the head off of a ten-month-old girl is simply not ready to walk amongst the community of nations.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:44 PM | War 2004 | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)
March 24, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: So, It Should Be About Oiiiiiillllll?

The Bush Administration comes under fire for not putting more emphasis in its foreign policy on increasing the supply of oil? Of course, this article is a classic disembodied passive-voice attack, containing only one fairly mild criticism from the Kerry campaign and no named critics. But it's more than a little ironic to think that Bush would face criticism for not placing a higher priority on oil in our Middle East policy.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:25 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 19, 2004
WAR: On Taiwan

Assassination attempts on Taiwan's president and vice president can't be good news.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:22 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
March 18, 2004
WAR: Got Him! No, wait . . .

MSNBC has a look at why the Clinton Administration didn't get Osama bin Laden when it had the best intelligence you could hope for as to his whereabouts:

If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

"We were not prepared to take the military action necessary," said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

"We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles - either air- or sea-launched - very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets," Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA's ability to get bin Laden? "It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him," said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, "The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us."

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What's more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

Link via Andrew Sullivan. Now, the Bush Administration, after coming into office, wasn't much better before September 11, although there remains endless controversy over what the Clinton people told the Bush people, what plans the Bush Administration was drawing up in early September 2001, etc. More to the point, though, is the need after September 11 to get entirely away from a law-enforcement-first mentality that has been proven catastrophically misguided in dealing with international terrorists. Do you have confidence that John Kerry will stay the course in that regard, given some of his public statements on the issue?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:33 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: Gassing The Kurds

Picture, thousand words, etc.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:25 AM | War 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
March 15, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Hard Sell

Here's another way of looking at what's fundamentally wrong with John Kerry's approach to foriegn policy. Kerry, of course, has repeatedly insisted that he will, as president, do more to rebuild America's alliances with various foreign nations. But how, and at what cost?

There are, fundamentally, two types of diplomacy: you can think of them as hard diplomacy and soft diplomacy. Hard diplomacy is about getting people to change their behavior by changing the facts and/or changing your position; the most obvious examples are threats or reprisals and bribes with concessions. (Another example is creating the fait accompli, where you simply alter the facts on the ground). Soft diplomacy is, in essence, everything else, any effort that entails getting the other guy to change his position without changing yours. A lot of what people think of as diplomacy falls in this area, from ass-kissing on a personal or national level (i.e., talking nicer), to simple persuasion. The problem, of course, is that there's very little reason, in the real world, to believe that soft diplomacy has very much impact on the behavior of nations.

Here's what worries me: when Kerry talks about improving our diplomacy, there are two possibilities. One is that he's fool enough to believe that soft diplomacy is really important, and that he'll be able to get our reluctant allies to change their behavior just by asking nicer. Not only is this foolishly naive, but when has Kerry ever shown himself to be the kind of guy who can do this? He's never put in the effort to be a coalition-builder in two decades in the Senate; never tried for a leadership position, never worked in any notable way across party lines, never led a fight on major legislation (all these stand in marked contrast to Bush's record in Texas, by the way, and don't go telling me that Kerry can compensate by being more charming in person than Bush).

(One possible line of argument sometimes heard from the Left is that the U.S. has lost credibility on account of misusing intelligence, and that this has made us less persuasive . . . again, there are two possibilities: either Kerry intends to improve our intelligence-gathering operations, which would be a sharp reversal of his positions over the past 30 years, or he intends to be less willing to act on the kind of warnings we had in Iraq.)

The other possibility is that Kerry expects to use hard diplomacy . . . but threats of force or other reprisals? I doubt it. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what Kerry means, fundamentally, is that he will concede American interests and negotiating positions in ways Bush wouldn't.

That really could make Kerry popular in foreign capitals. But it shouldn't make him popular here.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:24 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 12, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: The War Is Not An Issue?

I just love this one, from Pejman: in 1944, a Democratic Senator who was the chairman of the party's national convention referred to a potential GOP victory as "Hitler's secret weapon."

It ain't beanbag. Lileks had more in this vein yesterday:

Accusing one's opponent of treason is a personal attack. . . . There's nothing comparable on the other side. Nothing. I mean, the Bush team runs an ad that has a second of 9/11 footage, and his opponents pitch a carefully staged fit - because that's all they have. . . I ask: imagine, if you will, that we're at war. (Just pretend.) A Democrat president is attempting to pacify Krepistan, which has been shooting at American planes for a decade. The Republican candidate says he's been in contact with foreign leaders who really want him to win, and is caught on tape telling a supporter he thinks the current administration is made up of crooked liars.

Think the New Republic might write a disapproving editorial or two?

Probably not. After all, didn't the Democrat president note that his opponent failed to grasp the strategic importance of Krepistan? Tit. Tat.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:05 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: Let Slip The Dogs of Impeachment

The impeachment of South Korea's president seems like it might be a big deal, no?

Which reminds me: if John Kerry were actually to (ha, ha) offer the vice presidential nomination to John McCain, would McCain re-use his best applause line from his 2000 stump speech, the one where he promised to rid the country of "the truth-twisting politics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore"? Would Clinton stump for a ticket including a man who voted to remove him from office?

Just askin'.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:57 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: An Attack on Us

To their credit, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the big three NY papers (the Times, Daily News and the Post) all give the Madrid bombing the blaring-headline treatment this morning. I haven't had time to absorb the whole thing myself . . . even if it does turn out that this is a purely local operation by the Basque terror group (last I saw, Al Qaeda was claiming 'responsibility,' but that sounds more like resume-puffing by a group whose successes have been few and far between lately), we should treat this as an attack on the United States. Spain has been an important and faithful ally in our war on Islamist/Arab terror, and we owe them no less than we have asked of them.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:52 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 11, 2004
WAR: On The Spot in Spain

Iberian Notes, an excellent blog run by American expats in Spain (and one we've traded links with from time to time), is all over the breaking story of this morning's terrorist attacks in Spain. Check it out. The Command Post should also have more throughout the day.

The war's not over, folks. I only wish.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:02 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 6, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Bring It On, Vol. 2

Mark Steyn takes a look at the weapons systems John Kerry wanted to cut back or cancel in his 1984 Senate campaign.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:25 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 3, 2004
WAR: Bombshell?

Maybe there's more to this story, but this NBC report sure looks like a huge black eye both for the Bush Administration and for critics who argued that the Administration exaggerated Iraq's terror connections and acted too aggressively in Iraq:

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
* * *
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.


* * *

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.


* * *

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.

Read the whole thing. . . of course, left unanswered here is exactly where in Iraq this was (i.e., was it an area under Saddam's control?), as well as how feasible the military plan really was. But undercutting the case for war? If we had shot first here and asked questions later, I'd think we'd have been able to argue that the presence of Al Qaeda-linked terror camps developing WMD was more than enough reason to go all the way and be rid of Saddam ASAP.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:51 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 1, 2004
WAR: Not in the Box

The most important thing to remember about the new revelations about the scope of Saddam Hussein's regime's ability to skim off funds from the UN's 'oil-for-food' program is not that Saddam was generally a bad guy or even that the UN is corrupt and/or incompetent. The most important thing is that the status quo wasn't working. The program, as sanctions often do, was hurting the Iraqi people without doing much to really interdict the flow of funds to the regime for use in any number of illicit purposes. And this was fairly well-known even before the war. It simply wasn't tenable to keep Saddam in a box indefinitely.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:03 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 28, 2004
WAR: Whose Chalabi?

One of the more tangled webs of the pre-war planning and intelligence in Iraq was the US government's controversial relationship with Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi. I never knew quite what to make of Chalabi, who was often lionized by the conservative press and vilified by those who preferred to leave Saddam in power. But a report a few weeks ago by StratFor (available by email to subscribers) raises some interesting questions - to wit, whether Chalabi, a Shi'ite, has long had some allegiance or connection to the Iranian mullahs.

The mullahs, of course, have a wide variety of interests in Iraq, some of which have been threatened by our invasion but others of which have been helped; their long-term goal, presumably, would be to see a weak Iraq controlled by an easily manipulable Shi'ite government. While it doesn't necessarily demean Chalabi's usefulness to us if he has - rationally - worked with the mullahs just as he worked with us to obtain his objective of a Saddam-free Iraq, any connection to the Iranian regime should set off alarm bells as to his trustworthiness.

One thing StratFor noted about Chalabi's background is that an Iranian connection could help explain much about the collapse of the bank he ran in Jordan until the late 1980s, which ended with a bank fraud conviction (of dubious validity) being entered against Chalabi in a Jordanian court. If Chalabi's bank was used as a conduit for Iranian funds during the Iran-Iraq War, this would explain why the Jordanians were suddenly interested in shutting it down as soon as the war ended (lest that come to light), as well as why they didn't treat Chalabi as a criminal so much as persona non grata, with the Crown Prince of Jordan personally escorting him out of the country.

A related question I've wondered about is how much of Chalabi's Iranian connections have been known to some of the fiercer opponents of the Iranian regime who have also been big cheerleaders of Chalabi, such as Michael Ledeen (see here and here for examples of Ledeen saying glowing things about Chalabi). I could be wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that Ledeen's source on his charge that the Iranians were buying uranium in Iraq was a Chalabi contact . . . the plot, as always in that part of the world, is undoubtedly a thick one, and one that may never fully be known.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:06 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 27, 2004
WAR: It's Never Good News

Only the NY Times could spin Iraqi Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Sistani backing down on his demand for elections before June 30 as "increas[ing] pressure" on the US.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:51 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: Get Unserious

I found it very revealing when Matt Yglesias suggested a few weeks ago that John Kerry should "really commit himself" to "build[ing] a viable democratic state in Iraq" . . . but that until the nomination was salted away he shouldn't do so because it would "be unpopular with the primary electorate and possibly lead to a Dean-resurgence."

Of course, with Dean out of the way, I'm still not holding my breath for Kerry to get serious. But it's more than a little scary to hear from a commited Democrat the idea that the Democratic primary voters aren't prepared to hear a serious, adult discussion about America's role in the world or its strategy for winning the war on terror.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:50 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 25, 2004
WAR: All One Problem, Part II

George Tenet has his problems, but his testimony yesterday indicates that he gets one key point: the war on terror is less and less about Al Qaeda per se, and more and more about smaller or harder to track groups that share the same fundamental anti-American political ideology.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:23 AM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: How Many Times?

Meryl Yourish notes that since September 2000, Israel has seen more than 7,000 people killed or injured in terrorist attacks of its population of 5.4 million Jews . . . she asks how many September 11ths that adds up to, proportional to the U.S. population. Of course, when you check the link to the IDF statistics, it's 928 killed and the rest wounded, including soldiers; the actual number of civilians killed is 653. If you just compare the 7,000 to the 3,000 or so killed on September 11, it's more than 100 times our loss; if you compare the 653 number, it's more like ten September 11ths. But no matter how you splice the numbers, it's a heck of a lot of blood spilled in four years. It's something to chew on, before condemning the Israelis for anything.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:32 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 24, 2004
WAR: I Taunt You

On that purported Al Qaeda tape that the Mad Hibernian links to below, I thought there were two interesting things:

1. The Islamists accusing the French of "Crusader envy." So much for the superiority of the French approach to the "simplistic" and "arrogant" American tack in getting a break from these nutballs.

2. There was something rather pathetic in the efforts to taunt Bush:

"Bush, fortify your targets, tighten your defense, intensify your security measures," the tape recording warned, "because the fighting Islamic community — which sent you New York and Washington battalions — has decided to send you one battalion after the other, carrying death and seeking heaven."

Sure, they could pull something off at any time . . . but until they do, this stuff sounds like bluster that wouldn't be necessary if their operations weren't severely crimped. Or, put another way:

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. . . now go away before I taunt you a second time.
Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:57 PM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
February 23, 2004
LAW/WAR: This Time, It's Personal

Darren Kaplan notes that Solicitor General Ted Olson will personally argue the government's case before the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the case addressing the government's ability to detain "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla. As you may remember, Olson's wife was killed on September 11.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:30 PM | Law 2002-04 • | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
February 19, 2004
WAR: It's All One Problem

Tacitus has a great series of posts here, here and here on why we should wake up and realize that Hezbollah and other non-Al Qaeda jihadist terror groups are also at war with us. This is very close to the core of what I believe Bush understands, and his critics willfully misunderstand, about the war on terror, and why the fissures over Iraq are so deep. (Among other things, Saddam's open support for suicide bombers in Israel and his known support for other terror groups - together with his invocation of the jihadist ideology in his public pronouncements - was, in my mind, a huge factor in why we were right to go to war with him). We simply can no longer tolerate the existence of groups like this. It's all one problem, and there's really no way to keep suicidal jihadist fanatics from following their anti-American creed to its logical conclusion.

While you're over at Tacitus' place, by the way, don't miss his two-part series here and here on the history and aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, including some first-hand reporting from Tacitus' trip to Rwanda late last year. It's a heart-rending account of a story that I, for one, have never entirely gotten my mind around (the French don't come off too well, although nobody else in the West does either), and is some of the best writing you are likely to see on any blog on any subject.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:02 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
February 18, 2004
WAR: A Fitting Tribute

Check out this story on a statue paying tribute to members of the 4th Infantry Division who have died in Iraq. (From LT Smash). I love the fact that the statue was done by an Iraqi sculptor and was cast from metal from melted-down statues of Saddam. A fitting tribute to that for which they gave their lives.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:41 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 17, 2004
WAR: Man of Straw

Tim Blair catches an Australian critic of Bush and the Iraq war fabricating quotes about WMD, including altering passages from the State of the Union.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:37 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 15, 2004
WAR: James Carroll

One of the very worst columnists in the business has to be James Carroll of the Boston Globe, a guy who will buy into any anti-American cliche, no matter how attenuated its relationship to the facts. Anyway, I hadn't fully grasped the roots of Carroll's problems until I stumbled accross this book review on Amazon:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:27 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 14, 2004
WAR: A Fifth Column?

Either FBI supervisor Mike Feghali ought to be fired instantly (and investigated to see if he should be prosecuted), or he has one heck of a libel suit . . . check out this potential bombshell article from FrontPage Magazine, charging that Feghali, a naturalized Arab-American, led his unit (translators who are a critical link in our homeland security apparatus) in celebrating the September 11 attacks, and added to that the Washington vice of deliberately slowing down work at his unit to show a need for more budget. (Link via Roger Simon).

But take the whole story, especially the more sensational parts, with a grain of salt, at least for now. The allegations seem to come entirely from one Sibel Dinez Edmonds, a disgruntled former employee who was fired by the FBI, and it's hardly unheard-of for disgruntled former employees to make up sensational charges. Still, the Senate Judiciary Committee, to whom Edmonds has complained, ought to make some efforts to ascertain the credibility of these charges.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:03 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)
February 10, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: Bush Meets The Press

Adding my two cents here . . . I watched Bush's interview on CNBC Sunday night at 10. I thought Russert was noticeably more deferential to Bush than to his usual guests, although he asked plenty of tough questions; the difference was more in the followup.

My take on Bush: obviously, this isn't his best format, but we knew that already. On Iraq, at least, I thought he was great. He stayed relentlessly on message (Bush's ability to not say things is a hugely underestimated skill), but once he got rolling he was also fiesty and impassioned on the importance of Iraq to the larger situation. On the connection between Iraq and the larger war on terror, you couldn't help but be impressed by his depth of conviction.

He had definitely prepared extensively for this. After each question, he'd pause and say "sure" or "OK" and then launch into his prepared answer, which made clear that he was there to stake out his positions rather than to engage in genuine back-and-forth conversation. Which is frustrating, but it also shows an un-Dean-like appreciation of the gravity of every word that comes from the President.

He was weaker on the other stuff. He was too defensive on the economy, didn't stress enough how things have improved lately, but then, he doesn't want to seem unconcerned to people who haven't tasted the recovery yet. I also thought when he started talking about how the market started dropping in March 2000 and the recession began a year later, he could have tossed in a dig about how when he proposed his tax cuts in 2001, the Democrats were saying he was overstating the country's economic problems (remember "talking down the economy"?). Maybe by debate time, the opposition research people will have dug up Kerry saying that.

Like Andrew Sullivan, I don't know what planet Bush gets his budget numbers from. But then, I don't put much stock in anybody's budget numbers.

On the AWOL issue, Bust could have said more but he doesn't want to dignify the issue; what the Democrats have been stupid about is giving him an opening to rip them for lumping in Guard service with desertion or fleeing to Canada.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:38 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
POLITICS/WAR: Dishonor

From the NY Daily News:

A new Time/CNN poll . . . found that 60% of voters deem Kerry did proper service in Vietnam, but only 39% deem Bush did.

So . . . 40% of survey respondents think that Kerry piloting his boat through firefights isn't enough? What would satisfy these people? Do the other 40% think he (1) should have died there, or (2) should have refused to serve?

On the other hand, Charles Johnson points out that this is dishonorable:

Al Gore . . . was a featured speaker at the Arab League’s lunatic “think tank” known as the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up . . . what should we call lending the prestige of the US Vice Presidency to a blatantly insane anti-America, antisemitic Arab hate group in the Persian Gulf—after September 11? And taking their money—no doubt quite a lot of it?

Johnson also links to an example of the kind of stuff the Zayed Centre has featured from other speakers.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:18 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
February 6, 2004
WAR: It's Not All Good

Josh Chafetz reminds us that the troubles Gerhard Schroeder is having in Germany may actually be bad news, to the extent that his political problems have less to do with his antiwar stance and more to do with his support for tax cuts, reform of Germany's bloated welfare state and other needed reforms, and given that his replacement could be even worse.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:56 PM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WAR/POLITICS: On Bringing It On

Ed from Late Final, on the difference between Bush and Kerry on the war:

Kerry: When he says, "Bring it on," he refers to President Bush, the RNC and Karl Rove.

Bush: When he said, "Bring it on," he referred to terrorists seeking to disrupt the transformation of Iraq to a free, democratic state.

(Link via Note-It Posts). Of course, when Bush said, "Bring it on," what was Kerry's response?

"The President’s comment yesterday regarding the continued attacks on American troops in Iraq was unwise, unworthy of the office and his role as commander in chief, and unhelpful to American soldiers under fire. The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship," Kerry said in a statement.

Oh.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:51 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
WAR: What Intelligence?

Stuart Buck points us to a quote from GOP Senator Charles Grassley that provides a rather different perspective than George Tenet's:

“I think it’s legitimate for me to question all of our intelligence information because that I never learned anything from those briefings that I hadn’t learned in the newspapers. If they don’t know anything more than they’re telling us, what’s the use of having an intelligence agency, and why bother to brief us?”
Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:41 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
February 4, 2004
WAR: Why War In Iraq?

I made this comment over at Roger Simon's site, but it bears repeating here because this issue keeps coming up. In the course of addressing a broader point, Simon said

"there were always two major arguments for War in Iraq-the moral one (Saddam was a mass murdering dictator) and the "practical" one (the "imminent"... or not) WMD threat."

This is a common formulation, but it's a false choice, and one that liberals enamored of the humanitarian argument are too quick to point to. There were, in fact, several other arguments. To name five: (1) Strategic: replacing tyranny with democracy in Iraq puts pressure on other Arab & Muslim states to reform. (2) Tactical: taking out Saddam removes a country where we couldn't track the flow of terrorists and weapons, thus increasing our ability to use our law enforcement and intelligence apparatuses, and also puts our troops on the borders of other notorious offenders. (3) Making an Example: Knocking off our most prominent enemy, a guy whose media celebrated Sept. 11, sent a powerful message that we are dead serious about not taking this crap anymore. (4) Legal: Saddam violated UN resolutions that were the conditions of ceasefire. (5) Combatting terror: the strongest argument of all, if controversial on the evidence, looked at Saddam's open support for Palestinian terror, his connections to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, and the evidence linking him to Al Qaeda and other groups. Don't let the WMD thing distract you from the fact that supporting terrorism is bad whether you have WMD or not.

For just a sampling of commentary on this point, see my pre-war comments here and here and see Steven den Beste, Armed Liberal, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, Qando, and NZ Bear's pre-war roundup.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:09 AM | War 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
January 30, 2004
WAR: On The Other Side

Matt Welch notes a recent interview with British journalist John Pilger in which he urges support for the Iraqi "anti-occupation resistance." Matt's headline is right on target.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:44 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 29, 2004
WAR: Kay For Everyone

David Kay's appearance before Congress (besides confirming that Kay is a dead ringer for Bob Barr) gives plenty for both sides of the neverending Iraq war debate to think about. Let's start by flashing back to what I wrote on this topic in September 2002:

There's been an unreal quality about the whole Iraq debate, arising from the gulf between the real, practical considerations for going to war and the legal arguments, under international and U.S. law, for doing so in a way that will bring Congress and the U.N. with us. The real reasons include Saddam's motive to use terrorist proxies and weapons of mass destruction against us, his opportunity to do so, the interconnection between Saddam's tyranny and aggressiveness and the general cesspool of government in the Muslim and Arab worlds and the positive example of fear we set by taking out our #1 declared enemy among nation-states. The legal arguments, by contrast, include the pre-existing Congressional and U.N. resolutions authorizing force, the legal and practical fact that we remain at war with him by virtue of his violation of cease-fire conditions and the unabated hostilities over the no-fly zone, and specifically Saddam's noncompliance with weapons inspections.
* * *
[T]he question is not whether we can meet the heavy burden of developing a casus belli from scratch. Bush is not a prosecutor overcoming the presumption of innocence; he's the exasperated parole officer of a guy who's violated all the conditions of his probation. And he made it quite plain that the international community has to understand that if Saddam gets away with this, the U.N. will never be able to put anyone on probation again.

For fans of the legal argument - generally the opponents of war - Kay's findings have been damning: it is now clear that Saddam's regime was in very serious violation of numerous UN resolutions, including continuing to have WMD programs and failing to cooperate with weapons inspections. It is equally clear that further inspections would not have gotten to the bottom of this, given the apparatus of deception and intimidation surrounding the programs. And recall, again, that these resolutions were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire; we had all the grounds we needed to call off the cease-fire and resume hostilities.

But for those of us who were more interested in the practical arguments, we have to live with the painful ambiguity: Saddam probably didn't have WMD that presented an imminent threat. Of course, caveats apply to that: there were other reasons for war; the whole point of the Bush Doctrine of preemption is to head off threats before they are imminent; Saddam may still have had bioweapons stocks sufficient to kill Americans and cause panic, in the wrong hands (consider how little anthrax was needed to panic the country's faith in the mail). But the hope for a smoking gun that would humble the critics into submission is long gone.

One guy who's vindicated in this whole thing is James Lacey, the TIME reporter who I believe was the first person (at least that I saw; check out his May 15, 2003 article on NRO) to float the theory that is now Kay's working hypothesis after delving deeply into the evidence: that Saddam himself was deceived by terrified underlings into believing that he had an extensive WMD program. Not only does this explain why Saddam worked so hard to avoid detection of the program, why the world's intelligence agencies were all fooled, and why even Saddam's own generals believed he had a WMD program (including why they issued gas masks to Iraqi soldiers in the field), but it also explains why we keep seeing 'mobile bio-weapons labs' and 'drones' that look sort of like the tools of a WMD program, but turn out on inspection to be functionally useless. Occam's Razor wins another round.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:47 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 23, 2004
POLITICS/WAR: EDWARDS LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!

In addressing some of Bush's key points of attack against John Edwards yesterday, I didn't mention Edwards' obvious inexperience, particularly in foreign affairs. Naturally, that remains his biggest vulnerability, which I'll get into more another day.

But Edwards is vulnerable from another flank as well: once Joe Lieberman is out of the race, he becomes the most pro-Iraq-war Democrat left, and that could render him uniquely exposed to the potential for a third-party challenge. A left-wing anti-war third party would get its most votes in places like California and the Northeast, where the Democrats are likely to run strongly anyway, but the places where it could be a factor are a number of swing states the Democrats need badly: Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

It's not just that Edwards supported the war (I'll deal another day with his position since the main combat operations ended); it's that his full-throated support for the most controversial justification for the war -- that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction -- puts him so totally at odds with the charges made by the anti-war Left (Dean, Clark, Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman, etc.) that the war was some sort of political stunt or oil grab dreamed up in Texas and that our WMD intelligence was all a creation of Dick Cheney and the perfidious neocons.

Of course, we all know that Edwards has plenty of company on the Left - others who stuck their necks out on the WMD allegations include such right-wing warmongers as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Lieberman and Tony Blair. But Edwards' statements on the matter were notably definitive:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:41 AM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
January 22, 2004
WAR/RELIGION: Serving Two Difficult Masters

The Washington Post carries an inspiring look at Dan Knight, a former Green Beret who's now a military chaplain on the front lines in Iraq:

"Being a noncombatant is not exactly my cup of tea, but if it's what God wants me to do, I'll abide," said Knight, 37, whose duties are to nurture the living, comfort the wounded and honor the dead. "I don't crave combat, but I fight to get on every mission I can. There's nothing more rewarding to me than being on the battlefield, praying with a wounded man."

It's a hard life to follow one of those callings, let alone both. As one soldier puts it, "He's just got an extra chain of command than the rest of us do."

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:49 PM | Religion • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 21, 2004
POP CULTURE/BASEBALL/POLITICS, etc.: A Few Of My Favorite Books

Nothing scratches the blog itch quite like a little bout of list-making. With that in mind, I decided to draw up a list of my all-time favorite books. For reasons that will become obvious, I limited myself to one book per author, and in some cases the one book is something of a stand-in for a larger body of work. The top 10-15 of these are the real immortals, the ones I go back to again and again. In some cases, I suppose, I've also stretched the definition of "book," but hey, it's my list. I also decline to apologize for the paucity of literature and the prominence of baseball memoirs on this list; I've always preferred polemics, analyses, humor and great storytelling, and I've never made pretense at being deeply intellectual in my interests:

25. Michael Lewis, Moneyball: This would rank higher except that so much of the story was already familiar to me, although in a few years' time I might change my mind. I discussed Moneyball here.

24. Raymond Woodcock, Take the Bar and Beat Me: I enjoy my job and the law, but not to the point where I can't see the humor in the profession of law. Woodcock, a reformed lawyer, graduate of Columbia Law School and practitioner at a big New York firm that has since gone under, wrote a scathingly humorous look at law school and the legal profession, and one I highly recommend to anyone considering a career in the law. Woodcock's take is blithely cynical in some places, but also self-critical, as he looks at how the law changed him, including his divorce (an occupational hazard of lawyering).

23. Leo Durocher, Nice Guys Finish Last: Leo's book, like Leo himself, is funny, vindictive, manipulative and an essential key to understanding six decades of baseball history, from Leo's run-ins with Ty Cobb to his frustrations with Cesar Cedeno.

22. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged: A cliched choice for conservatives, although I came to read this one relatively late in life (just a few years ago) after I was pretty well set in my thoughts, and I still haven't read any of Rand's others. It's a tale well-told (even if John Galt's didactic speech drags a bit), skillfully playing on the unfairness, pettiness and venality of a system that gives some people the ability to decide how to dispose of the fruits of others' labors.

21. Joe Garagiola, Baseball is a Funny Game: Garagiola's was one of the first baseball books I read as a kid, and dog-eared it rather severely. It's unmistakably pre-Ball Four in its G-rated treatment of the game (it was published in 1960), and thus will seem horribly dated to the modern adult reader, but still manages to capture the earthy humor of ballplayers and the genuine love for the game of guys like Garagiola and his boyhood pal Yogi Berra, who came up from a working-class Italian-American section of St. Louis. Garagiola also captures an up-close look at important figures like Branch Rickey and Frankie Frisch. A similar collection of humorous stories about the game from the 1970s can be found in the late Ron Luciano's books.

20. Stephen Carter, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby: A tough choice between Carter's books on church and state, affirmative action, and judicial confirmations, so I picked the one I read first. Carter describes himself mostly as a political liberal, but he fits comfortably in the neo-liberal camp in his willingness to challenge orthodoxies of the Left, especially on questions of race and religion. His writing is also a model of clarity and directness.

19. Scott Turow, One L: Yes, this was particularly influential because (like most everybody else in my law school class) I read it the summer before starting law school at Harvard. Harvard and law schools generally have changed a good deal since the 1970s, but Turow captures perfectly (and contributes to) the essentially internal psychodrama of the place. I'm also giving Turow credit here for his works of straight fiction, which are intricate and absorbing, however seamy.

18. Stephen King, Christine: King's books are always gripping, most of all The Shining and Christine. The latter gets extra points here for King's vividly accurate portrait of the minds of high school kids and the real and imagined terrors that can overcome them.

17. Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: As frightening as any Stephen King book, but much sadder; Bowden not only rescued the Battle of Mogadishu from historical obscurity, but in the process drew a compelling picture of the modern American military and the men who populate it, the mindset and tactics of its Third World adversaries (sometimes in spite of decent men in their midst), and the gulf that separates the two. The book's indictment of foreign-policy adventures like Somalia is almost an afterthought but one that stays with you.

16. Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August: If Bowden provided a readable and engrossing look at war from the ground level, Tuchman's World War I classic did the same from the top down. Tuchman recognized the Shakespearean tragedy of the onset of the Great War, and presents the plans of the various generals and the vissicitudes of the onset of war to maximize that effect. I also loved her book A Distant Mirror, a chilling compendium of the ills (literal and figurative) of 14th Century Europe.

15. Raymond Smullyan, Alice in Puzzle-Land: One of the many things I got from my mother was a love of logic puzzles, and Smullyan is the master of them. This book isn't just a collection of increasingly brain-bending puzzles, like his book The Lady or The Tiger?; it's also a clever and stylish takeoff on Lewis Carroll's bizarre cast of characters. The book is out of print and hard to find, but it remains a favorite.

14. J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: I was a bit of a latecomer to the Harry Potter books, having seen the first two movies with my wife (who'd read the books) before diving into this, the third installment (I've subsequently read the first two to my son); now I'm hooked. Having read all five, the third is the best, with a taut, fast-moving plot carrying lots twists (granted that a number of the surprises are telegraphed in advance). Perhaps as importantly, for the adult reader, Prisoner of Azkaban introduces the series' serious adult characters (i.e., characters who are more than just quirky authority figures).

13. The Opinions of Justice Antonin Scalia: The Caustic Conservative: Yes, I'm cheating here by citing a book that hasn't been released yet, based on its likely contents consisting of judicial opinions. I'll narrow it down here to its essence: the two opinions I particularly have in mind, and which have greatly influenced my thinking about American government and its principles, are his lone dissent in Morrison v. Olson (in which he argued that the independent counsel statute was unconstitutional, in terms that his nearly unanimous critics eventually had to concede a decade later), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (his denunciation of the theoretical emptiness and illegitimacy of the Court's abortion jurisprudence). Taken together, the opinions set out a central theme of conservative thought about government: the need to draw governmental power only from sources whose legitimacy can be reaffirmed by keeping them accountable to the people.

12. Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who: In enumerating favorite and influential books, too many people neglect the books they learned from first. But Dr. Seuss deserves a special place, and not only for charming this and many other hearers of his books to become readers of books in the first place. (I've also noted their usefulness in teaching children to read aloud). His longer books, with stories that have a moral to them, are masterpieces of precise and whimsical use of the English language, and in most cases manage to make their point without getting preachy, even on subjects (e.g., The Lorax and environmentalism) that are prone to heavy-handed one-sidedness. And they hold up so well that they are the rare children's book that an adult actually enjoys reading for its own sake.

My current favorite of these is I Had Trouble In Getting To Solla Sollew, which is a none-too-thinly-veiled slap at utopianism of all kinds. But the one that's endured the most in my consciousness since childhood is Horton Hears a Who, with a mantra that should be the creed of any pro-lifer: "A person's a person no matter how small." And its message of Horton's solitary courage when surrounded by neighbors who wish to define the Whos out of existence (one with undoubted Holocaust overtones) remains a powerful one for readers tall and small alike.

11. Baseball Prospectus 1999: I've arbitrarily picked the first of the BP books I bought. The Prospectus hasn't always been on the right side of the many arguments its staff has raised. Nor has it been as influential or groundbreaking, or nearly as entertaining, as Bill James' work; but the comparison is unfair. What matters is that they've consistently asked the important questions that were needed to move serious analysis of the game forward in the 1990s and beyond, and in so doing they've done a lot to drive the terms of debate ever since. I would never have understood baseball's post-1994 business environment and its ramifications without BP, and their work on projections, translations and pitcher workloads has often been groundbreaking. This is the first book I turn to every year to get a handle on the new season.

10. Tom Wolfe, Bonfire of the Vanities: Wolfe's novel about a Wall Street investment banker who becomes a cause celebre after hitting a young African-American teen with his car after taking a wrong turn in the Bronx just perfectly sums up all the ills of pre-Giuliani New York (only some of which have been fixed since then). The satirical bite of the book is only enhanced by Hollywood's ham-handed efforts to sanitize its portrait of New York's ethnic politics. My dad, who was on the NYPD until the late 80s, swears by the authenticity of many of the scenes in this classic.

9. Dave Barry's Only Travel Guide You'll Ever Need: If you've only read Dave Barry's columns and skipped his books, you've missed a lot. I had a tough choice between the Travel Guide and Barry's Short History of the United States, which is basically his annual year-end column writ large, but the Travel Guide packed in just an unbelievable number of laughs in a short space.

8. Lawrence Ritter, The Glory of Their Times: Simply the best oral history of baseball ever done, and the one all the others copied. Ritter got a number of ballplayers from the early 20th century to open up to him; all or nearly all of them are dead and gone now, but not their stories.

7. The Book of Job: As you can no doubt tell from the balance of content on this blog, I'm a Catholic who doesn't think about religion as often as I should. But the Bible undoubtedly informs my thinking in ways I can't even perceive, and when I have read Scripture, the book I've most enjoyed reading (from the Old Testament, ahem) is Job. Job deals with the toughest questions that face any believer in an omnipotent and benevolent God must grapple with -- why bad things happen to good people, where sin and suffering belong in the world -- and doesn't provide any easy answers.

6. Peter Gammons, Beyond the Sixth Game: The best assignment I ever had in school was when my sophomore English teacher, Mr. Donnelly, gave us a list of books to report on and one of them was this classic by Peter Gammons. Gammons is a lot of things to a lot of people, and these days he's best known for (1) having the game's most extensive network of sources, and (2) uncritically repeating everything those sources tell him (which is not unrelated to the maintenance of (1)). He is at times an open mind friendly to statistical analyses of the game, and at times gives a soapbox and his imprimatur to denunciations of statistical analyses of the game.

But first and foremost, Gammons is a guy who loves baseball, loves the Red Sox, and can really write. Beyond the Sixth Game is the tale of the Red Sox from 1976-1985, when Gammons was the Boston Globe's beat writer for the team, and it's a love letter to every fan whose heart was broken by those teams, and a cold-eyed analysis of how it happened (Gammons' thesis is that the ownership of the Sox failed to appreciate the new financial realities of the free agent era). His portraits of the players are detailed and affectionate (especially Carlton Fisk and Luis Tiant, two guys Gammons obviously really did think were very special people), and his narratives of the pivotal 1977 and 1978 seasons soar. No Red Sox fan - no baseball fan - should do without this book.

5. Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution: Ask conservatives of my generation about Ronald Reagan or conservatism, and chances are pretty good that you will get a picture heavily influenced by one of his "wordsmiths," Peggy Noonan. The book is only secondarily a memoir, although it does capture (with Noonan's eye for sympathetic detail) numerous Washington figures of the 80s, as well as her previous boss, Dan Rather, of whom Noonan was very fond despite his politics. More importantly, it's a book about writing -- about a particular kind of writing (political speeches), how they get created, why they matter, and what's important in crafting them. It's also a tribute to a set of conservative ideals, and how they continued to inspire conservatives even when their practitioners didn't always live up to their promise.

4. The Orwell Reader: Yes, I'm cheating again by including an anthology. Another invaluable assignment -- the best thing I got out of college, academically -- was buying this book for Professor Green's British Empire class. I re-read it end to end again after September 11. Orwell hardly needs my introduction; his depictions of working-class life in the 1930s (coal miners, dish washers) are famously vivid, and his jeremiads against those who wouldn't stand up to fascism are the stuff of legend. My favorite essays are "Politics and the English Language" and "England Your England" (I reached for the latter in the opening of my September 11 column, as well as reaching for a scene from the Council of Elrond from the next selection) and I'm sure I'm not alone in those choices.

3. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring: I had a tough choice here; The Hobbit was the first "grownup" book I ever read, back in the second grade, and it remains Tolkien's best-written book. But Fellowship of the Ring perfectly bridges the gap between the lighthearted adventure of The Hobbit and the epic sweep of Lord of the Rings, and launches the greatest fantasy epic of all time. The question: what will good men do in the face of unremitting evil? Tolkien's answer isn't always reassuring.

2. P.J. O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores: As far as I'm concerned, still the best book ever written about American government; O'Rourke brings his vicious humor to every branch and agency of the federal government he can locate. His chapter on farm policy is the best thing I've ever read on the subject, and his account of a Housing NOW! march is sidesplitting. Along the way he encounters everyone from Pat Moynihan to Mike Dukakis to Ken Starr. But the book does have just one terribly cringe-inducing line, in retrospect; in his look at American foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, O'Rourke states that

the main thing to be learned about foreign policy in this part of the world is that a wise foreign policy would be one that kept you out of here. There are some things you ignore at your peril, but you pay attention to Central Asia at the risk of your life.

If only.

1. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

Well, you knew that was coming; if I hadn't limited myself to one book per author, I'd have had a top 10 of Bill James books. As I've repeatedly noted, James has had a tremendous influence not only on my thinking about baseball but on my entire thinking process. I picked the first edition of the historical book because it is, on balance, the largest compilation of James' most pointed and entertaining writing and original thought, effortlessly spanning twelve decades of baseball history and bringing even the most distant past vibrantly to life. (I reviewed the new Historical Abstract here).

Honorable Mentions:

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:48 AM | Baseball 2004 • | Law 2002-04 • | Politics 2004 • | Pop Culture • | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
January 14, 2004
WAR: Pipes' Battle

If the government needed to develop newer and better rockets, and it handed over millions in grants to university physicists to do so, wouldn't it be the government's business to make sure that the physicists weren't neo-Ptolemaic crackpots who thought the earth was flat? If the government wanted to develop new vaccines, and it handed over millions in grants to university biologists to do so, wouldn't it be the government's business to make sure that the biologists understood and accepted basic tenets of modern medicine? When taxpayer money is involved, the government has every right to demand that its subsidies -- given for a concrete purpose -- are bing used by competent people who are actually working to achieve that purpose.

At bottom, that's all that Daniel Pipes' and Martin Kramer's projects to hold government-supported Middle East Studies programs accountable for their denials of the realities of the Arab and Muslim worlds are all about. The Washington Post, in a surprisingly even-handed profile, has more.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:08 AM | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 12, 2004
WAR: The Memorial

Zev Chafets argues that the WTC memorial proposal is distinctively Israeli in style, and attributes this to the fact that its designer is Israeli. Key quote: "Israelis understand how to commemorate mass murder the way Eskimos know how to deal with snowstorms."

I had posted this comment over at Michele's place, where she was criticizing the two-reflecting-pools design for being too cold and sterile: I didn't really look at the alternatives, but as somebody who worked in Tower One, I like the idea of being able to go back and stand where the plaza was and reorient myself to the holes where the towers stood; one thing that's unsettling about downtown now is the sense of having lost exactly where the towers were.

Rebuild the towers? Emotionally, I love it. Practically, who the hell wants to go back and work there? Not my firm, I'll tell you that. Rebuilding two 110-story towers and getting stuck with empty floors because few companies can get their employees to go back or can afford the insurance. . . that would be more depressing than anything.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:14 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
January 8, 2004
WAR/POLITICS: Dean's Not To Judge?

Over at NRO, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has a devastating look at why Howard Dean's remarks about not pre-judging Osama bin Laden's guilt until he'd been tried by a jury are such damning evidence of Dean's unfitness for high office. Key paragraphs:

Even at their most superficial level, Dean's remarks illustrate a mind-bending naiveté about the president's central role in federal law enforcement. Our Constitution commits the prosecution of criminals to the executive. United States attorneys in each federal district are appointees of the president; it is solely under presidential authority that they bring cases. The presumption of innocence - widely overused as a rhetorical lifeline for the arrantly guilty - is indeed deeply rooted in Anglo-American common law. But it is germane only as an evidentiary presumption, a vehicle for assigning the burden of proof at a criminal trial to the government rather than the accused. Yes, it solemnly binds the jury, but it has little if any relevance outside the trial context. For example, those accused of violent crimes are routinely held in jail prior to trial, often for well over a year. Even though they've not yet been convicted of anything, the presumption of innocence avails them nothing in bail proceedings.

The presumption posturing by Dean is especially unbecoming as applied to executive-branch officials. Federal prosecutors, once they have evaluated evidence and decided to bring charges, actually presume a defendant is guilty. Were they not to believe both that the accused is actually guilty and that the existing proof is sufficient to warrant conviction by a rational jury, it would be unethical for them to proceed to trial. An officer of the executive branch who seeks and obtains an indictment has already prejudged the jury trial

McCarthy also reviews the history of why it was so damaging to contiunue treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem after the mid-1990s.

Dean's inability to pass judgment on bin Laden isn't a gaffe; it's inseparable from his steadfast refusal to connect any dots about Saddam Hussein; it's the same attitude.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:37 AM | War 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)
WAR: Nose Down

When that Egypt Air flight went down in the Red Sea recently, I couldn't help but think of the 1999 crash brought on when one of the pilots put the plane into a nose dive - apparently deliberately - while repeating an Islamic prayer of sorts, an event that in retrospect seems like an obvious precursor to what came later. Michele had the same thought, and links to this chilling 2001 Atlantic article about that crash; if you haven't read it before, it's a must-read.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:08 AM | War 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
December 27, 2003
BLOG: New Categories

Those of you who prefer to skip to the baseball content, or who want to check the category archives, may have noticed that three of the categories here (Baseball, Politics and War, my three main areas of interest) load very slowly due to the huge number of entries since the blog started in August 2002 (as well as a few oddball archived emails from before that date). To remedy the problem for the new year, I've renamed the old categories ("Baseball 2002-03," etc.) and created a new set of categories ("Baseball 2004," etc.) to hold this year's entries. I've also changed the link at the top of the page so it goes to the Baseball 2004 category, and I'm notifying the few sites that link to my baseball category page rather than the main page to fix their URLs.

If you're looking for baseball entries from 2003 and earlier, click here for the Baseball 2002-03 category.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:52 PM | Baseball 2004 • | Blog 2002-05 • | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 7, 1990
WAR: ALL THE REASON WE NEED

This article originally appeared in The Crusader, the Holy Cross College campus newspaper for which I wrote a weekly column at the time.

As America lurches closer and closer to war in the Middle East, President Bush has come under heavy criticism. In a nutshell, it is argued that he has not offered one single compelling reason free of all other motives why America is involved in the reckless adventures of Saddam Hussein. This is a manifestation of Americans' desire to simplify complex foreign policy crises into simple black-and-white issues.

We must be sure not to mistake questions about the US-Israel alliance for an attempt to reduce the situation to a sort of "Arab-good, Israeli-bad" dichotomy. This would be even worse than its opposite, which all too often is resorted to in our policy decisions. The Israelis merely need to be held accountable for their actions, as we try to do with all of our allies.

In Iraq, however, while the situation is in fact complicated, America faces one of those rare cases where (as with Hitler in World War II) virtually all the facets of our foreign policy process indicate the same course of action. In short, there is not just one reason to stop Hussein, but every reason to stop him.

Read More »


Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:00 AM | War 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Site Meter