What Junk

Peggy nominee says: "We are in a 30-year war." No, we're not. We're in an indefinite war until we get nuked, and then we'll be in a 1-year war, doing the things to destroy the Arab regimes we should have done right after 9/11.

Angelo Codevilla - Bush Hater?

I think his point is actually more profound: the American regime as currently constituted is incapable of winning the war, because this would require it to give up the shibboleths that have been the source of its legitimacy during the 20th century. A serious war on terror would result in a world, and an America, as different from the present as the Edwardian world was from the world after WWI. Codevilla uses "regime" in the Aristotelian sense of, not just the government, but the prominent people and institutions that create the incentives and disincentives that determine who rules and for whose benefit. Even with Bush president, the "regime" in America is composed of institutions like the New York Times, CNN, Goldman Sachs, the National Education Association, the National Council of Churches, Harvard University, the ACLU, Common Cause, "Hollywood," "Madison Avenue" etc. etc. ad infinitum. These people do not, cannot and will not fight and win the war.

A Bad Article : Let Me Count the Ways

Bill Kristol's latest screed against Rumsfeld really has nothing to do with the man. I guess Kristol just doesn’t like his manner. But that aside, his criticism is really one that should be addressed to the entire Bush administration. Since 9/11, the Bush explanation of the war has be one against Al Qaeda and other offshoots of what the CIA has taken to calling the “Sunni Islamist jihad.” Once that enemy has been identified, then the entire approach of the war is to obtain cooperation from friendly governments to crush the terrorists through police and counterinsurgency measures. Much of the argument about the word “war” is really an argument solely over whether terrorists will simply be killed, or whether they should be put on trial. Kristol may want to bash Rumsfeld over the phrase the “struggle against violent extremism.” The reality is that the belief this war is a war against private groups, not sovereigns states, is shared by everyone from the President on down. If Kristol has a problem maybe he should write a screed against Steven Hadley.

Kristol’s other complaint is Rumsfeld doesn’t care about winning in Iraq. This slander is really a difference of opinion that has been in place since 9/11. There would be no Iraq war without Rumsfeld, because he was always concerned that Iraq was the real force behind anti-U.S. terrorism (as I believe it was). However, Rumsfeld thought it was a mistake (rightly) to try to make Iraq a U.S. possession after the fall of Saddam. He and Wolfowitz always wanted to empower the opposition to form an interim government, followed by a quick U.S. departure. As Angelo Codevilla has noted many times, we can only changes regimes by supporting a regime’s extant internal enemies, whoever these people happen to be. Therefore, the only approach that made sense was to arm the Kurds and Shiites and let them do whatever they believed necessary to win and impose order. Certainly, such an approach would have resulted in the New York Times denouncing “right wing death squads” as they had in Central America in the 1980s. But America would have been spared the casualties incurred in the ongoing insurgency.

The question is: is America really capable of producing a better outcome than simply letting the Iraqis sort out their differences, even upon the pain of civil war, and is this better outcome worth the costs? If you really do believe our enemy in the GWOT is the “Sunni Islamist jihad,” why would you care if Dawa and SCIRI militias destroyed Zarqawi’s support base? This sort of cold realism is certainly contrary to Bush’s democratic idealism. But is it wrong?

Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush told USA Today. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

"Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush told USA Today. "When a
friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

I wish President Bush was a little less concerned about personal loyalty and a little more concerned about not making mistakes. Bush is a big, big disappointment.

This Is Where I Give Up

It's clear from this that Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Pataki and President Bush (and Rudy Giuliani for that matter) just aren't paying any attention to what is going on at Ground Zero. They are all nominal Republicans but they can't seem to be able to muster the attention to keep the WTC Memorial from becoming the province of left wing kooks. Malkin says Tom Bernstein is an old college classmate and business crony of the President. Is this another instance of social connection trumping shared values?

I Begin to Wonder

If, as Austin Bay reports, our strategy in Afghanistan has been severely compromised by the Isikoff/Newsweek story, I begin to seriously wonder if our strategy isn’t all wrong. A strategy should not be vulnerable to such a serious set back as a result of a small adversity completely out of your control. And the U.S. government can’t control what journalists say about it.

Maybe we should have pursued a strategy based on “arm’s-length diplomacy,” as Angelo Codevilla has suggested, which would be insensitive to changes in political climate and would not rely in any way on America being popular, understood or well-thought of. All that would matter would be whether other nations thought it was in their interests to oppose us. If they thought “no,” then the strategy would be a success.

Sometimes He's Really Full of Crap

Bryan Preston calls him the InstaPilate. I can't imagine how anybody can described Congressional action to save Terry Schiavo as "free-floating judicial activism." Judge Greer's the one who bought into a pro-euthanasia agenda, rather than interpret the law. But we can't question what the philosopher kings announce from the bench, can we?