|
Friday, April 18, 2003
Water in a desert ...
I grabbed this picture because it's cute, but also because the caption, which I copied, has a bit of PC language which I've seen before, and find fascinating for its loopiness. It can be, (but isn't always) insulting to describe a grown woman as a girl. This kid is, in fact, a girl. Really. There's nothing wrong with that, and no need to describe her as "a young Iraqi female!" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Time and tide ... Don't miss this article on the late, great Mesopotamian marshes, A dream of restoring Iraq's great marshes...Located at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers near Basra, this vast watery substrate sprawled over 20,000 square kilometers, providing sustenance and shelter for a wide array of wildlife. They were also home to 200,000 "ma'dan," or marsh Arabs, a group of hunters and fishermen who trace their habitation of the region back five millennia.Ah, the international community. Remind me to explain some things to you some time soon, Azzam... The marshes were an integral part of the Iraqi culture and collective psyche, said Alwash, and their loss is an emotional blow that is hard for outsiders to understand...I hope things get moving on this. Restoration looks difficult but not impossible. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A treat ... We had dinner last night with Peter Pribik and Dave Trowbridge. Good food by Charlene, & lots of good talk. One topic that made me think; Dave spoke eloquently about our political system of checks and balances, and how it was necessary for our own good to have something like it in the International realm, and that therefore we should take infinite pains to preserve even a flawed International Order (which he boldly traced back to the Peace of Westphalia,) and how Buffalo Bush had now crushed the delicate mechanism under the heel of his...well actually Dave didn't say that last part...just teasin'.Then Peter, a Czech, pointed out how extremely American this line of thought was. It's true! Even I, though very skeptical of International hocus-pocus, think it perfectly obvious that we would be better off with some reasonable feedback and restraint on any tendency we might have to rule the world for its own good. Perhaps people in other countries talk like this, but I haven't heard of it. I'm sure the French don't, though they would love to see us fettered. And what other country has ever asked the UN for permission to go to war? And we more-or-less invented the UN and the League. I suspect Americans instinctively feel a void, and will continue to try to fill it, though I really don't expect to see it filled soon. I think Dave was being a wee bit unfair complaining about how badly the War was 'sold' by the administration, since much of the incoherence was caused by our trying to work with the very international community he values...for instance our pretending to be merely enforcing the will of the UN. I think the real source of fuzziness is that we are acting out of cold-blooded logic. That's REALLY taboo. Imagine being in a situation where you have to kill 10 people to save a thousand. You can expect the world to call you a heartless brute and monster; and self-righteous Belgians will hurry to put you in the dock. You would be wise to blur the issue as much as you can. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ My wife the lawyer just loved this ... From the Volokh Conspiracy, sung to the tune of the Turtles' classic "Happy Together":Imagine me as God, I dothere's more... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Posted
7:31 AM
How do the reductions in GDP and employment that would result from greenhouse gas emission roll backs square with his professed interest in boosting economic performance and employment?We would love to know his answers, but we'll never hear them [The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions. You can find Paul Krugman's writings, including the latest columns, here] Thursday, April 17, 2003
I'm the real anti-war guy ... It just now occurs to me to re-state, though I would think it obvious, that I'm a hawk on Iraq and the war on terror precisely because I think toughness now will prevent future wars, wars that would quite possibly be much worse than this one.And if I am sometimes bitter when writing about the anti-war crowd, it is because I think they are pushing policies perfectly designed to foment future wars. (And also to keep horrors like the N Korean gulag in good health.) Furthermore, I believe THEY CAUSED THIS WAR! The same general group, with the same policies, have been behind the repeated appeasements that have placed us in this mess. Every weak response to terrorism (remember, about 1,000 Americans were killed by terrorists before 9/11), and to the crimes of terror-supporting states, made this war more likely. (And one of the worst mistakes was by my party, leaving Saddam in power in '91.) (Do you think I use too many parentheses? They seem to proliferate on their own whenever I touch the keyboard..[It's because you never learned to think clearly--ed.]) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Costs of the War ... I just read an interesting post by Daniel Drezner, Does victory in Iraq defeat the anti-war arguments? and a rebuttal on some points by Larry Magitti, who seems like a very reasonable anti-war voice.I was struck by the subject of costs of the war, especially costs after the fighting ends, I have no facts to add -- those guys certainly know a lot more than I do. But some questions immediately pop into mind. Do the various cost estimates subtract the cost of containment? We were spending a lot just because Saddam was a threat. I once read an estimate of 19 Billion a year, though I don't remember where that was. How about the cost of forces we will no longer need in Arabia and Kuwait? Also I assume we will obtain some bases in Iraq on long-term lease, and will no longer be dependent on places like Qattar. That's got to be worth something. Also, not basing troops in Arabia will remove one of Al Queda's biggest gripes. That should be worth $. And Iraq has money, or will have as oil starts flowing. (Plus that 40 billion in the greedy paws of the UN.) Obviously Iraq will be paying much of the cost of rebuilding itself. But how much? Everyone seems very vague on that. And the cheaper oil that will result from lifting sanctions will affect every economic calculation in the world. We will be affected directly, because most American businesses will have higher profits, leading to higher tax revenues. More importantly, every country that doesn't produce oil will now be richer. They will have more money to buy our chips and airplanes and films... And a great many countries that we worry about and send aid to will be in better shape. And to get into even more-incalculable areas, what is is worth to have countries like North Korea suddenly be noticeably more reasonable and accommodating? What would we have been willing to pay for that, if we could buy it in a marketplace? Actually, we have a clue about what we would pay, because we were paying. Weren't we giving them fuel oil, or aid, or something, in return for not developing nukes? And since I'm thinking of that imaginary marketplace, what would we have been willing to pay for Saddam to stop handing out rewards to terrorists? He was paying $25,000 for killing Israelis...plus similar payments to Abu Saayaffor killing Filipinos (and some Americans)...plus god-knows-what other terror subsidies and training... I'll guess we would have gladly paid 10 or 20 billion. And since I'm ascending into giddy and unquantifiable heights of what if, how about this: Modern military theory emphasizes the advantages of mobility, intelligence-gathering, and rapid decision-making over massive traditional armies. Those are exactly the reforms that Donald Rumsfeld has been trying to push onto a reluctant Pentagon. (When our forces bogged-down for a few days in Iraq, certain people had miraculous Damascene conversions to favoring large military budgets, and reviled him for "waging war on the cheap to win elections." Actually, a smaller yet more potent military was his theme long before 9/11.) SO, now he has been triumphantly vindicated. His plans to do things like shrink the Army from 10 divisions to 8 are now more likely to happen. Imagine the savings if that works! I wouldn't be surprised if, over the long run, this war (or rather, this battle in the War on the Terrorists) will have a negative cost... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Maybe looking a little more like an inside job? Frank Vannerson writes: I noticed this at the very end of an NYT article today on 'looting' the Baghdad MuseumIn one possibly encouraging sign, several people in the Al Awi neighborhood that surrounds the museum said they did not see looters leave with any antiquities, even amid gun battles and looting that lasted two days. Wednesday, April 16, 2003
give 'em an earful ... Donald Rumsfeld: To the Iraqi people, let me say this: There are a lot of reporters embedded with coalition forces in your country. The reporters should be interested and willing to listen. This is your opportunity to tell them your stories so that history properly records the viciousness, the brutality of that regime, and so that history is not repeated. To the free reporters and journalists in Iraq, this is your opportunity to listen and report. It is an historic opportunity for journalists. This is also true for Iraqis here in America, who can now speak freely to the press without concern about their families and friends still in Iraq. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ More nightmares for the left ... (from Straits Times)The Marines found 123 prisoners, including five women, barely alive in an underground warren of cells and torture chambers...Uh, tell us again how the UN was going to deal with Saddam? Curses be upon that Donald Rumsfeld, for hurrying to war "on the cheap," and leaving our troops in "dire straits." (From Arab News)BAGHDAD, 16 April 2003 — On Yasser Arafat Street, one of Baghdad’s busiest shopping areas, the shops are open and shopkeepers are scrubbing the street and sidewalks outside them. Fruit and vegetable markets are bustling, and families are out promenading with smiles on their faces.My guess is that they re-name that street...My suggestion: The person who started the US on the policy of promoting democracy in brown-skinnned counties, ignoring the sneers of intellectuals and the opposition of the State Department? Ronald Reagan. His success in Latin America (Notice, no more dictators there? Well, one) is the background, the underpinning, for the crazy notion of promoting democracy in the Middle East... Tuesday, April 15, 2003
I feel much better ... If you were a bit bothered, as I was, by the NYT criticism of Bush for returning the salutes of soldiers, please read this post (and comments), by Bill Quick. I myself am quite satisfied that the President may return salutes even though he is not in uniform. (Sorry, Mr Prime Minister, you can't.)The authority cited is one to which I think we owe the utmost respect, though I suspect that NYT writers would recoil with a snarl and fling their capes up in front of them, rather as if one had brandished a cross at them. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Posted
3:36 PM
Looting ... Dave Trowbridge has a post on the Iraqi National Museum. My thoughts:To the extent that we are responsible for the looting of the museum, we deserve harsh criticism. (And I'm very upset about it myself.) But pardon me if I'm not hugely impressed by leftists like Teresa Nielsen Hayden suddenly denouncing the US for not using overwhelming military power! Especially at the same time Nancy P is claiming we could have "toppled that statue" much more cheaply, and Democrat candidates are shedding crocodile tears over the cost of the war. And there are stories surfacing now that most of the looting was done by Ba'athist officials making one last haul. Let me PREDICT: if those stories turn out to be true, all this "passion" abut the museum will evaporate like the dew. Just as there were no "passionate" denunciations when Saddam's regime placed military equipment in antiquities sites, (and mosques, and schools and hospitals) knowing we wouldn't bomb them. (And no praise for the US Forces that spared them.) And assembling a larger force requires more time. Taking more time means more women raped, more children tortured to extract confessions from their parents. Is that what TNH is advocating? Alternatively, we could have gained more time if we had skipped the whole United Nations farce. Is that what TNH is for? And the criticisms about "fighting a war on the cheap" are absolute rubbish. A mish-mash of unscrupulous lies. General Franks was happy with the plan, we won decisively in 3 weeks, the predicted disasters were avoided, and the problems that arose were quickly surmounted! Our troops were not in "dire straits," and the one convoy destroyed would have gone through like all the others if it hadn't taken a wrong turn. And our success was despite the lack of one planned-for division! And a single squad could have protected that museum. We screwed up there, (possibly) but the way the criticism morphs into a denunciation of Rumsfeld and the administration shows where the passion is really coming from. And if we had sent twice as many soldiers, and something had gone wrong (and something always goes wrong), the same people would gleefully denounce our ponderous and old-fashioned tactics, and sneer about "overkill." We're suddenly getting way too much opportunistic hand-wringing about looting (which has mostly stopped), much of it from people who were perfectly content to let Abu Ghurayb Prison stay in business indefinitely. I'm not impressed with their priorities...and the thought that certain people are publishers, and can poison the future with such falsehoods is not pretty. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...writing about this essay by Terrence Moore, writes:
...The founders' remedy for the risk that an army might turn into a Praetorian Guard was to empower a citizens' militia. Perhaps we need a citizens' intelligentsia._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...has written a post on why our present multiculturalism is both "amoral and utopian."
...Trying to love a crowd is impossible. No one man can begin to know them all, yet alone know them well enough to love. One can and should, of course, have goodwill towards the crowd. And as time goes by a person who was once in the crowd can become better known, better liked, until, perhaps, that person becomes loved and loves in return. But note that there is no way to reach get inside the circle except by a process of choice and assessment, of admiring this and disliking that. You don't pick your closest friends at random. You don't pick your husband at random.And I hadn't encountered that great Churchill quote, on Lenin's sympathies being: "...cold and wide as the Arctic Ocean, his hatreds tight as the hangman's noose..." Monday, April 14, 2003
Thank you God, for many blessings ... Life can often be fretful and annoying, and I was feeling a bit that way just now, and Charlene said, "There are a lot of things we can be thankful for..." (Yeah, sure, thinks I, of course, of course, ho hum.) "...one of them is that Al Gore is not President."Suddenly, life seemed good, and well worth living... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Iraq, a nation the size of California... Andrew writes:...A little judicious research (the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History is useful for such things) turns up that California was conquered [from Mexico] in only 20 days; one less than it took to conquer all of Iraq. President Polk sent a smaller amount of troops into California than Bush sent into Iraq, and given the way military force has multiplied, the actual amount of firepower Polk sent in was miniscule by comparison... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Life, Liberty and Property... "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. --John Adams(Borrowed from the Federalist Newsletter) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's raining and raining ... April, April, Something I just noticed ... The New Criterion has a weblog, called Armavirumque. (Isn't that the goop Australians like to eat on toast?) They even have me on their blogroll! (My excitement is tempered by a hunch bordering on a certainty that they just copied Glenn Reynolds' blogroll into their template...) I thought this was pretty funny...As president of our university, I am proud to announce that we have extended a formal invitation to Iraq's President, the Honorable Saddam Hussein, to occupy the newly endowed Jimmy Carter Chair in Appeasement Studies. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Two interesting morsels from US News.com With little fanfare, the administration is tapping every cabinet department to help Baghdad get back to business. We learn, for example, that Justice will help set up courts, Treasury will build a banking system and even design a new currency, and Commerce will develop trade plans. The administration is also staffing a military governor's office and has begun asking top cabinet press officers if they'd like to be spokesperson for a year in Iraq.And this: Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke's brainstorm to "embed" reporters with troops in Iraq may finally change the relationship between the press and the military. Several officials actually call it "seeding" newsrooms with reporters who will know what it's like to be under fire. "In my view," Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer tells our Kenneth T. Walsh, "it's nothing but good in the long term for journalists to know the armed forces better and for the armed forces to know journalists better." Sunday, April 13, 2003
Small steps ... I liked this paragaph by David Cohen (in Brothers Judd Blog), writing on how General McCaffrey got the war all wrong:...The world is too complicated for us to deal with in its totality, so we all base our decisions on simple models of the world we run in our head. We not only need to check those models against reality, but we need to factor into all our decisions the chance that the world has moved on while we were distracted. This is part of the beauty of conservatism. By emphasizing small steps, respect for the past and the limits of human reason, conservatism stops us from trying to remake the world based upon our poor mental models. Ignore these limitations and you'll soon find yourself slaughtering the kulaks and creating a famine (but, on the other hand, you will get good press from the New York Times)...Wise words. That's kind of why I'm a conservative, and not a Libertarian, or some other theoretical type... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Abu Ghurayb When The Archbishops and the Professors and the 'Journalists' and the Hollywoodiots and the Democratic Candidates and the French and the Canadians and the anti-war bloggers and the NYT say they are against war, THIS is what they are FOR:Exposed: Secret and macabre world of jail where thousands were killed.I've often encountered in blogs the phrase, "there are many valid arguments against the war..." and I always nodded and thought, "well sure, of course..." Now I think I'd tend to say that any argument that glosses over Abu Ghurayb is not a valid argument. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No comment needed for this story: ...That was apparent in Basra's main power station, where the plant's directors met an American intelligence officer to decide what would happen to it.Via Brian Tieman, who says: ... to assume that without a dictatorial hand on their shoulders-- either Saddam's or Bush's-- the Iraqis will automatically devolve into the kill-or-be-killed mud-hut proto-civilization of the Y2K episode of The Simpsons is to suggest that they're a bunch of little brown savages. One of the arguments I've often heard is that if we indulge in adventures like Iraq, we will be seduced away from our simple freedom-loving ways, and gradually become corrupt empire-builders, proconsuls, sahibs...it is, of course, the classic Jeffersonian view. And then I read something like this, and I think, "No way. Americans aren't like that. Leftizoid professors might secretly wish they could rule the "little brown savages"...but Americans? Forget it. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Throw pies at them ... Here's a fascinating account of the first push into Baghdad. Especially interesting because we've already encountered bits and pieces of the story, but never in a clear context. Like the story of Pte Chris Lauman, who kept his shotgun with him as he was carried away on a stretcher, and had to use it...The 10-hour battle for Curly, Larry and MoeHere's another account, via Winds of Change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Comrades! Follow the 5-Year Plan to the Future ... Perry de Havilland writes at Samizdata:Last night I saw pictures of the Iraqi Ministry of Economic Planning in Baghdad burning, set alight by 'looters'. |