Spurning America

Here's an excerpt from Michael Barone:

Army Special Forces Soldiers, as my U.S. News colleague Linda Robinson writes in her riveting book, Masters of Chaos, are very much aware of "the tradition of their military history." On the eve of a difficult mission, "more than one soldier went to sleep hoping that the next days would prove him a worthy member of that lineage." That's one reason the military maintains old units, so that soldiers will be motivated to match the deeds of those who came before and prove worthy to those who come after.

Similarly, one of the comforting aspects of attending religious services is the knowledge that you are doing what others have done before you and others will do after: Even nonbelievers often feel a twinge of awe when they attend Christian or Jewish weddings or funerals and witness liturgies with centuries-old roots. And then there's the flag. Most Americans feel a shiver when they hear "The Star-Spangled Banner" played and reflect on the triumphs and tragedies that those serving under that flag have won and suffered over more than 200 years. You're part of something larger than yourself.

But not all of us cherish ties to past traditions. "America's business, professional, intellectual, and academic elites," writes Samuel Huntington in his 2004 book Who Are We? have "attitudes and behavior [that] contrast with the overwhelming patriotism and nationalistic identification with their country of the American public. . . . They abandon commitment to their nation and their fellow citizens and argue the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large." He believes that this gap between transnational elites and the patriotic public is growing. Huntington knows whereof he speaks: He's been at Harvard for more than half a century.

Read it all.

Iraqi Election Turnout High

ABC News:

Iraq's deeply divided Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds voted in large numbers on a new constitution Saturday a referendum mostly free of insurgent violence and aimed at establishing democracy after decades of Saddam Hussein's repressive rule.

In the south, Shiite women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the poll stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with violet ink, apparently responding in mass to the call by their top cleric to support the charter.

But in Sunni regions both in Baghdad and several key heavily Sunni provinces the surprisingly high turnout seemed to consist largely of Iraqis voting "no" because of fears the charter would set in stone the Shiite domination they fear.

"The constitution is a sign of civilization," Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said after casting his ballot. "This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."

Overall turnout was about 61 percent and surpassed 66 percent in seven of Iraq's 18 provinces, including key Sunni Arab-majority ones, according to initial estimates, election officials said Saturday.

Opening Day

In addition to being the big Iraq vote, today is opening day in South Dakota:

More on Iraq Election

Here's more about the vote in Iraq:

The Iraqis have voted on the referendum. Turnout is reported to be high in many areas of Iraq. Saddam's own hometown in Tikrit is estimated to have had a 78% turnout. Dr. Fareed Ayar, a member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, estimates over 11 million particpated in the ballot, almost 70% of the registered voters. The much touted "Ramadan Offensive", designed to disrupt the election process and bring the Iraqi people to their knees has failed.

Iraqis have voted in places that were formerly parts of Zarqawi's "Islamic Republic". Turnout is not likely to be high in along some areas of the Euphrates in Anbar due to the recent operations, the uncertainty of security measures and the secrecy of the location of the polling places until the final minutes leading up to the election. But any turnout is a mcuh alters state of affairs in the regions where citizens were formerly inimidated by Zarqawi's butchers.

An Iraqi citizen raises his purple stained finger in the former "Islamic Republic of Qaim" (pictured). Iraqi soldiers now stand guard of the city of Barwana (pictured), another of Zarqawi's former strongholds where citizens were executed on the Barwana bridge for minor violations of the strict interpretations of Salafi Shariah law.

Bush Lied?

Via Powerline, here is a detailed article by Steven Hayes that goes in depth into the famous "16 words" of George Bush's in the 2003 State of the Union speech claiming Iraq had been seeking nuclear material in Africa.  Regarding the "Bush lied about WMDs" claim, I have noted numerous times that one can be wrong without being a liar.  The Bush team might have been wrong about the presence of massive quantities of WMDs in Iraq, but it does mean it lied about it.  But to accept the "wrong" versus the "lie" version, one has to start thinking about how intelligence is gathered, how intelligence is interpreted, and how intelligence is disseminated.  But for the left, for whom hatred for George Bush looms high as their motivation for everything, these questions about intelligence are too, well, boring, and don't fit with the storyline that Bush is malicious and evil.  The virtue of Hayes's piece is that he actually looks into those questions about intelligence as they pertain to the "uranium in Africa" story and the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame follies that ensued.  Joe Wilson has figured prominently in peddling the "Bush lied" story.  Like Powerline, I think this is the important conclusion of Hayes's piece:

ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.

As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

This is not a minor detail. The Senate report, which served as the source for much of the chronology in this article, is the definitive study of the events leading up to the compromising of Valerie Plame. The committee staff, both Democrats and Republicans, read all of the intelligence. They saw all of the documents. They interviewed all of the characters. And every member of the committee from both parties signed the report.

It is certainly the case that the media narrative is much more sensational than the Senate report. A story about malfeasance is perhaps more interesting than a story about incompetence. A story about deliberate White House deception is perhaps more interesting than a story about bureaucratic miscommunication. A story about retaliation is perhaps more interesting than a story about clarification.

But sometimes the boring stories have an additional virtue. They're true.

Voting in Iraq

Here is a live-blog of the Iraq vote:

Democracy

New York Times:

Iraqis walked through silent streets on Saturday morning to begin voting on a new constitution that, if passed, would mark a major step toward the formation of the country's first full-term government since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Some of the voters marched to polling centers with their closest friends or family members, others alone. Blue-uniformed Iraqi policemen with Kalashnikovs guarded the centers, mostly schools, and frisked people while American troops sat in tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles nearby. In Baghdad, helicopters buzzed low over dun-colored rooftops.
...

The voting started hours after Baghdad and parts of southern Iraq began emerging from a blackout caused by a disruption to a northern power line, possibly due to an explosion and perhaps an insurgent act of sabotage.

That had little effect on the voting. After the country's 6,100 polling centers opened their doors at 7 a.m., people began lining up to get the paper ballots, check off "yes" or "no" for the constitution and drop the sheets into boxes. They then stamped their index fingers with purple ink to show they had voted.

"I came to vote for Iraq," said Fayek al-Ani, a businessman in a collared shirt walking into a polling center in downtown Baghdad. "The most important thing is that I came to vote."

 

Daschle to MD

10-14-05 edition of Hotline:

The MD Dems announce that ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) will attend a "special reception," along with Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), on 11/1 at the Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor Hotel at 5:30. The reception precedes the evening's Tribute Dinner to honor Sarbanes' "40-year career in public service." Tickets, which are $50/person, are "going fast for an evening that will be the largest, most successful in Maryland Democratic Party history" (Hotline sources, 10/14).

Sitting Bull

South Dakota Magazine:

Also at the conference, historian/journalist Dale Lewis told me how to find the spot were Sitting Bull was killed — something I’ve been meaning to do. I’d heard it was marked with a copper plate sometime after his death at the hands of Indian policemen on Dec. 15, 1890. Dale got the directions from Will Robinson, the great state historian of yesteryear. Robinson said to go to McLaughlin and go south on the road until you see an old Indian walking. Ask the Indian and he’ll tell you. If the Indian isn’t walking along the road then you aren’t going to find it.

SD

I'm a big Greg Latza fan.  A fan of Blue Stars, I guess.  Anywho, I thought this picture represented South Dakota quite well:

Is there anything better than a SD sunrise?

Daschle in Paris

Daschle is talking about running for President of the US while he's in Paris.  Here's a post by Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal on the Journal's blog about Daschle's trip entitled "An American in Paris."  And here's an excerpt from the Agence France-Presse article, which calls him a "member of a US law firm trying to drum up business":

Tom Daschle, a former US senator who lost his seat last year, told AFP that he was undecided about whether to run as a candidate in 2008 presidential elections that will decide who will succeed George W. Bush.

"I haven't made any decision about my political future," he said during a visit to Paris when asked specifically about his plans regarding the presidency.

"My hope is to make as much of a contribution for my party over the next couple of years as I can," he said.

Bush Suspends Davis-Bacon and Wages Rise!

Micky Kaus at Slate has been great on the Davis-Bacon Act, and Bush's suspension of its provisions in the Katrina wake.  Our colleagues on the left branded Bush as the enemy of the working man, or something like that, for this action.  Davis-Bacon requires contractors to the federal projects to pay "prevailing wages," i.e., union wages. 

In fact, Davis-Bacon is an atrocious piece of legislation.  Its original purpose was to protect white union workers against competition from Blacks.  It has served since to protect union workers against low-skills job seekers.  It makes federal projects more expensive, requires mountains of paperwork, and hurts small contractors. 

Kaus shows that wages in Louisiana and Mississippi are rising, not falling, as a consequence of Bush's action and the obvious fact that the demand for workers is high.  With enemies like Bush, the least advantaged worker scarcely needs friends.

Check out the Kausfiles for a full discussion of the topic.

Try Gerhard Schroder's Approval Ratings

In my previous post I noted (borrowing from Powerline) that President Bush's approval ratings weren't all that bad compared to the low points of other Presidents.  Its worth noting that they are stellar compared to those of our European allies. Germany finally has a government, at least nominally.  The Prime Minister will be Angela Merkel, which is the good news.  The bad news is that there isn't any other good news.  Key posts will be occupied by Social Democrats, who will effectively block any real reform.  Anatole Kaletsky in the London Times describes the situation with ruthless clarity.

AFTER THIS WEEK’S creation of a German government in which Angela Merkel will not even control the Finance and Foreign ministries, all three of the great European nations that have dominated the Continent’s history for 2,000 years — Germany, France and Italy — are effectively leaderless. They will almost certainly remain politically paralysed at least until the French presidential election of 2007. The power vacuum now covering the whole of continental Europe is almost unprecedented, at least since the disastrous period between the two world wars.  [My emphasis.  HT to RealClearPolitics].

Timothy Garton Ash, writing in the British Guardian, notices a bit of good news.  Schroder himself will be leaving office. 

It's a very good thing that the Federal Republic of Germany will have a chancellor who is a woman and comes from east Germany. Both seemed unthinkable 20 years ago. Both are major steps towards a modern normality for Germany, no longer divided between east and west, nor between ruling men and serving women. Outgoing chancellor Gerhard Schröder always said that he wanted Germany to become a more normal country. His departure is his last and perhaps biggest contribution to that goal.

 Still, Germany's welfare state drastically needs economic reform, and at the moment that seems all but impossible. 

Those who are more optimistic than I am about Germany's capacity for change point to what is happening already among the young and in business. Now it's true that one meets a lot of impressive, highly educated young Germans, able to tell you, in fluent English or French, what their country needs to do. The trouble is that you are most likely to meet them in Oxford (which has lots of outstanding German students), Harvard, Paris or Tokyo rather than in Heidelberg, Munich or Berlin. Today's genuinely free German youth have seized the chances offered by an integrated Europe, and a globalised world, to vote with their feet. Many of the brightest seem likely to make their professional careers largely outside Germany. Unless something changes back home, that is.

Kaletsky again on what this means for Europe.

The tragedy, however, is that something precious will be lost if the people of Germany, France and Italy choose the path of a slow, comfortable national decline, rather than revitalisation. What will be lost, of course, is the global dominance of the European civilisation that these three great nations largely created.

As a democrat one has to acknowledge that the ageing electorates of Germany, France and Italy are entitled to vote for political paralysis, economic decline and global irrelevance. But the inevitable eclipse of European civilisation by a brash, materialistic American or Chinese culture will be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Well, I'm not sure how materialistic American culture is, compared to Europe.  A whole continent willing to lock the young out of work permanently, just to avoid shortening their vacation time, that's not obviously morally superior to the American model.  But I do agree that Europe is failing, and that that is a world tragedy. 

Bush's Poll Numbers in Perspective

Powerline continues to be the best blog out there.  Here is some perspective from John Hinderaker that is long overdue. 

The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.

But are Bush's numbers really that bad?  His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad.  Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

*Johnson:     35%
*Nixon:     24%
*Ford:     37%
*Carter:     28%
*Reagan:     35%
*Bush I:     29%
*Clinton:     37%

Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.

Remember the Cole.

From Michelle Malkin's excellent blog:

Today is the fifth anniversary of the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Please take a moment to note the event on your blogs today if you have a chance. Stars and Stripes pays tribute to the 17 sailors killed in the terrorist attack, the dozens wounded, the survivors, and the families affected.

Done.  Read Michelle's post. 

More on The War

Judith Apter Klinghoffer:

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR IN IRAQ

That is the irrefutable message of Bernard's Haykel's op ed in today's NYT, yes, the same NYT which Ed Koch so correctly takes to task for denigrating the war on terror. Haykel writes: .

The simple fact is that many jihadis believe the war in Iraq is not going well. Too many Muslims are being killed. Images of that slaughter, conveyed by satellite television and the Internet throughout the Muslim world, are eroding global support for the jihadi cause. There are strong indications from jihadi Web sites and online journals, confirmed by conversations I have had while doing research among Salafis, or scriptural literalists, that the suicide attacks are turning many Muslims against the jihadis altogether.

Do finish reading the descriptive part of this article along with Sunni Sheikhs criticizm of Zarqawi's Declaration of War Against the Shi'ites. It proves what my guts have been telling me all along. The vast majority of Muslims and even Islamists recoil from the daily pictures of Sunni mass murder of Shia in Iraq. Even Al Qaeda's number two understands as much and "in a letter made public last week, Al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, cautioned Mr. Zarqawi against particularly gruesome executions and attacks on Iraqi civilians for fear of their negative impact on the global jihadi cause." It also encouraged Sunni leaders to cut a deal about the constitution. Why do you think Nazi sympathizers try to deny the Holocaust? Is it because they are proud of it?

Blowing up Westerners may seem like romantic justice to ideological radicals. Blowing up hapless fellow Muslims less so. In other words, the Islamists may have to give up on Iraq and permit an establishment of a democratic form of government there which would accelerate significantly the reform process already underway in the Greater Middle East.

Nor would it be easy for the Islamists to intensify their campaign in the West without causing major difficulties to their Diaspora which includes their own leadership. The home grown London bombing began to put an end to their cherished safe haven of Londonistan. The rest of the West is going to follow suit even more vigorously after the next bombing.

In other words, we are continuing to win ugly the war on terror and we are doing so in Iraq provided we do not listen to Haykel's plea and ease the pressure on the Jihadists in the West. Giving the enemy time to reassess and come up with new, improved strategies are not in out interest and, certainly, not in the interest of the innocents who will be blown up while Islamists do so. On the contrary, it is time to ratchet up the pressure and, finally, exploit success in the manner we failed to do immediately following the overthrow of Saddam.

What does Al Qaeda Think about the Iraq War?

Its a bit depressed.  Check out the highlights of Zawahiri's letter at Real Clear Politics, or the full text here. 

Why Did He Lose?

Well, could it be because language like this isn't conducive to any sort of positive political discourse?

Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.
...
"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

Again, check out what the folks at The Economist had to say about the left.

UPDATE:  Watertown native John Hinderacker weighs in:

"Routinely torturing people"--is that enemy propaganda, or the official position of the Democratic Party? Is there still a difference? If we're routinely torturing people, then why do those who get caught go to jail? And don't Gore and other liberals who travel abroad realize how much they are damaging the United States by recycling this nonsense?

For the rest, it's the usual parallel universe of the Democratic Party. The administration is trying to "control and intimidate the news media." Sure, we've all seen how intimidated the media are. That's why they never say anything critical of the administration. It would be more accurate to say that the media have tried to control and intimidate the Bush administration.

And I like the one about "taking money from working families and giving it to the most wealthy families." Sure, I remember the surtax Congress imposed to support the rich. Just once, I'd like to see a reporter ask Gore or some other liberal what in the world he's talking about when he makes that kind of statement. (You'd think the press would do it, too, since they're so intimidated by President Bush.)

Actually, though, Al Gore is one of the few rich Americans who really is supported by taxes paid by working families, since he receives a federal pension for his service in the Senate and as Vice-President. If he really means what he says, all he has to do is refund his pension to the federal treasury. What do you think the chances are he's doing that?

Le Politicien américain

The French press is noting Daschle [Update:  Here's the link]:

US ex-senator says undecided about whether to run for president in 2008

Tom Daschle, a former US senator who lost his seat last year, told AFP that he was undecided about whether to run as a candidate in 2008 presidential elections that will decide who will succeed George W. Bush.

"I haven't made any decision about my political future," he said during a visit to Paris when asked specifically about his plans regarding the presidency.

"My hope is to make as much of a contribution for my party over the next couple of years as I can," he said.

Daschle, who used to be the leader of the Democrats in the US senate before being narrowly beaten by a Republican in the November 2004 election in his home state of South Dakota, said he was making a week-long European trip taking in Britain, France and Germany in his capacity as a member of a US law firm trying to drum up business.

But his recent decision to form a new political committee from a fundraising body he used in his senatorial days has sparked speculation in the US media that he plans to run again for public office.

In his interview with AFP, Daschle, 58, ruled out taking a shot at the governorship of South Dakota, saying "I have little interest in state government, I have far greater interest in national government."

But he did admit that his new committee, called New Leadership for America, was set up as a "platform" for his ambitions.

"Whether it's to make a run for further office or not is unclear," he added.

A popular and respected member of the Democratic Party, Daschle acknowledged that the list of potential party candidates most likely to run in 2008 was headed by Hillary Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton and now a senator for New York.

Hillary Clinton, Daschle said, "is beloved in her party and I think will have an easy re-election (as senator) next year."

But, he added, 2008 was still off on the horizon.

"Three years is a long time and anything can happen," he said.

Just In Case You Needed One More Reason

Here's yet another reason to be disgusted with the Minnesota Vikings. 

George W. Bush's Religion

The always impressive Mark Steyn on George Bush, radical Islam, and religion.  The money paragraph:

Why is George W. Bush's utterly unremarkable evangelical Christianity so self-evidently risible but complaints from British Muslims hung up over the 11th century are perfectly reasonable and something we should seek to accommodate? Where is the secular Left's "insensitivity" when you need it? No doubt the bien pensants will still be hooting at born-again Texans on the day the House of Lords gives a second reading to the Sharia Bill.

New Republic Hits Daschle

The liberal magazine The New Republic hits Daschle on a big flip-flop:

DASCHLE'S NEW STANCE ON SOX

ISN'T THAT SPECIAL (INTEREST)

"I don't see any particular role for me as a lobbyist," former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told NPR last March after accepting a job at the Washington lobby shop Alston & Bird. No, he went on, his real goal was "to stay involved in issues." And, as the firm's "special policy adviser," involved he has remained, most recently on the issue of corporate accounting reform. 

Back in his Senate days, Daschle vigorously advocated for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), a piece of legislation designed to crack down on corporate malfeasance of the Enron and WorldCom variety. It passed unanimously, 99 to 0. Daschle beamed as President Bush signed it into law. But, on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page this week, the South Dakota Democrat expressed decidedly less enthusiasm for SOX. Sharing the byline with his Alston & Bird colleague and fellow former Senator Bob Dole, Daschle worried that "the unintended consequence of SOX can be a diminution in competition and innovation," and he recommended scaling back accountability requirements for companies "with revenues of less than, say, $500 million" in revenue. That would include, say, Lowrance Electronics, Knology, and BNP Residential Enterprises--all clients of Alston & Bird. So, while scaling back SOX for smaller companies might make sense in principle--the law has imposed heavy compliance costs--there seems to be very little principled about Daschle's newfound sympathy for small business.

Just last month, Roll Call reported that Daschle was "[s]eeking to reestablish himself as a political force" among the Democrats. This kind of political force the Dems could do without.

Here's the recent AP story about Daschle's upcoming entry into Iowa politics and possible run for President.  There is another big discussion going on at the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore about another issue involving Daschle's consistency. 

Miers Smoking Gun

Bad news for the Bush Administration.  Tdaxp is pointing to proof that Miers is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Jim Teela on Kent Conrad

From the Grand Forks Herald.  See a fuller version, appearing on Jim's blog. 

Dems

I've been catching up on my reading of The Economist tonight.  In this weeks issue, they recognize that not only the Republicans are facing troubles: "The Democrats cannot rely on the Republicans' current woes to deliver victories in 2006 and 2008."  Excerpt (reg. required):

Can anyone name a single exciting Democratic idea for dealing with poverty?  Or crime?  Or reforming the public sector?  Or winning the Kulturkampf with Islamic extremism?  In fact, can anyone name a single exciting Democratic idea, full stop?  The Democrats have squandered their years in opposition railing against the Republicans rather than recharging their intellectual batteries.  They may be winning a few political battles of late--largely because of Republican incompetence.  But they are losing the vision wars.
...
Worse still, the wrong side is getting the upper hand.  A new generation of angry young activists have used their mastery of the internet to tilt the party to the left.  Groups such as Moveon.org (which claims 3.3m members) and blogs such as the Daily Kos (which has thousands of partisans venting daily) now colour the whole tone of the political debate on the left.

The tennage scribblers of the left seem to be turning the Democrats into a deranged version of Pavolv's dog--reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory rather than thinking ahead.  Look what has happened in Congress, where the combination of a re-energised left and a ruthlessly partisan White House is making life miserable for would-be centrists.  In 1994, 102 House Democrats voted in favour of NAFTA; this year, only 15 voted in favour of CAFTA, and more modest free-trade deal.

The teenage scribblers are wedded to a suicidal strategy:  they think that their party's best chance of winning lies not in emulating Mr Clinton and moving to the centre but in emulating their nemesis, Mr Bush, and motivating their base.  This ignores the most salient fact about American politics: there are three conservatives to every two liberals.  The Democrats cannot win without carrying about 60% of moderates.

Luttwak on Iraq

I've been reading Edward Luttwak since Grad School.  He is a very sharp analyst of power politics, but a bit uneven.  He wrote the best book on strategy I have ever read (The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire), but has also defended protectionism in economic policy.  He makes a case for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in the Los Angeles Times. [Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics]. I'm not at all sure I agree, but it is a plausible argument. 

As U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad keeps reminding us, about 80% of Iraqis are not Sunni Arabs or Baathists, let alone Salafists, out to kill as many non-Sunnis as they can.

That 80% majority consists mostly of Arab Shiites and Kurds of all creeds, who jointly dominate the ranks of the fledgling Iraqi army and police force. Because both those forces are still lacking in morale and cohesion, it may be more important and necessary in the meantime for both Kurds and Arab Shiites to have their own well-armed militias.

Therefore, if U.S. forces are withdrawn, the insurgents would not be left triumphantly victorious in the field. They would face much more numerous Arab Shiite and Kurdish militias, as well as the largest part of the new army and police force.  What we have now are U.S. troops interposed between the insurgents and our allies in Iraq, in effect protecting our enemies from our friends [my emphasis].

In other words, if we withdrew now the likely result would be a civil war between Shiites and Kurds on the one side, and the Sunni minority.  Moreover the Sunnis could avoid certain defeat by turning on the insurgent element within their population. 

The trouble, of course, is that it would be a brutal war, and the subsequent government would be formed by the victorious generals.  We would have to take responsibility for that outcome.  I think we have to do better than that. 

What makes Luttwak an effective critic of the administration's policy is that he is concerned with the outcome.  In this he differs from almost all domestic critics of the war.  Except for the extreme left, almost no one in the anti-war movement really wants the insurgents to win.  Its just that they don't care much about seeing the insurgents defeated.  They show a lot of concern for our troops, which is laudable.  But they show virtually none for the millions of Iraqi women who risked their lives to vote.  You'd expect that from the isolationist right.  But the left  used to care about the rights and liberties of foreigners simply because they were people.  All the passion of the anti-war left is reserved for George Bush.  Otherwise they could make arguments at least as effective as Luttwak's.

Is America Governable?

Jason's post below on the new Hildebrand venture along with this previous nugget about Tim Johnsons' and John Thune's defense of agricultural spending shows just how unserious Americans are about their government. No one seriously suggests cutting entitlement spending, but some responsibly suggest cutting the rate of increase.  Take a look at this chart

The increase in mandatory spending over the last 40 years has been incredible and it is only getting worse.  This spending includes the entitlement spending that Hildebrand and Co. don't want touched and also net interest on the debt.  The huge increase is mostly attributable to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  These three programs alone constitutute almost half of all $2.6 trillion in government spending, and that percentage is increasing at an alarming rate.  For now, when you add net interest on the debt and defense spending (anyone want to advocate cutting that?) to entitlement spending you get over 80% of the federal budget.  What is left are things like federal money for education, roads, and, yes, farmers.  The problem is that every congressman and Senator has his or her version of the South Dakota farmer, a group that makes it politically impossible to cut certain kinds of spending. Then there are the Steve Hildebrands of the world that suggest that we not even think about reducing the rate of increase in those programs that cost the most and in the future will increase in size the fastest due to our aging population.  No one suggests cutting this spending.  Some do suggest adjusting the programs to reduce the rate of increase, and then the Hildebrands of the world scream bloody murder and the demagoguery commences.  Interest groups like Hildebrand's exist to make sure that we never get rid of any government program or even think about significant reform.  So we are left to add on program on top of program, making the government more complex, less rational, and more expensive.  Our democracy does not seem capable of making the decisions that are necessary to keep the government solvent in the long run and reconstituting programs so they fit with the 21st Century. 

Lest the Democrats jump on the "raise taxes" bandwagon, what we have seen in the past two years shows how cutting taxes can increase revenue.  With lower taxes our economy has been so productive that the government magically saved $100 billion in 2004 alone because of unanticipated revenues.  But taxes are not the issue.  The issue is whether we can adjust programs in need of serious updating or even elimination those that are no longer necessary.

Yankees Lose!

No ballet can beat this:

If someone will eliminate the White Sox, I have nothing more to fear. 

Now she tells me.

"No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to
marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later
who you're stuck with."

-- Kirsten, age 10

Hildebrand's Next Mission

Former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand is on a new mission.  From the Washington Post:

Dems Rally on Entitlement Issues

The team of Democratic Party operatives who led the fight against President Bush's Social Security overhaul plan earlier this year are teaming up again in hopes of fighting cuts in entitlement programs ordered up earlier this year in a Republican-passed budget resolution.

The group -- known by the somewhat bulky title of the Emergency Campaign for American Priorities (ECAP) -- has essentially the same makeup of Americans United to Protect Social Security.  The firm of Hildebrand/Tewes, which is comprised of former Senate operatives Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, has been retained as the general consultant; Brad Woodhouse and Cara Morris, who ran the communications operation for Americans United, will do the same for ECAP.

Woodhouse said late Monday that the group's primary mission was to "stop [Republicans] in their tracks" when it comes to proposed cuts in social services and entitlement programs in the wake of the massive federal outlay for Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

Last week, House Republican leaders pledged to raise the $35 billion entitlement savings threshhold mandated in the budget to $50 billion, bowing to the pressure, bowing to the pressure from fiscal conservatives unhappy about the increased deficit spending of recent years.

ECAP's total budget will be in the low seven figures -- a total that included a major contribution from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) --  with the vast majority of the expenditures dedicated to a grassroots organizing campaign similar to that employed by Americans United.  The target list includes between 70-80 House Members as well as 15 senators that ECAP believes are persuadable on the issue.

AIM Reseach Log

I've begun a reseach blog to track the information I come across during my AIM research.  On it you will find articles, book reviews, interviews, etc. related to the American Indian Movement.  Feel free to stop by once in a while and check things out.

If you were involved with AIM in some way or another, I would love to hear from you; or, if you have suggestions on readings or other ideas to consider, I would also love to hear from you.  So come check out my Thesis Writing in Progress.

More on Daschle's Speech to Planned Parenthood

There is an interesting discussion on the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore about Daschle's speech to Planned Parenthood's "Politics, Sex & Cocktails" event, which was discussed here.  Reporter Kevin Woster writes in response to a comment:

Anna: Denise’s point is a good one. Daschle never would have attended this meeting while he was a candidate for elected office in South Dakota. Daschle clearly tried to have it both ways on this issue for many years - which is understandable if you are a pro-choice Democrat running in a Republican state where abortion is a very, very difficult issue for pro-choice Democrats. Eventually it caught up with him. During this last campaign, he refused to ackowledge that he was pro-choice, which he clearly was and clearly is. I say that neither as praise nor condemnation, but simply as fact. This appearance does two things: It definitively settles that issue. And it also says, to me at least, that the former senator has no plans to run for elected office in South Dakota again. K.W.

Daschle's Speech to "Politics, Sex & Cocktails" Fundraiser

Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal is writing on Mt. Blogmore about Senator Daschle's speech to a Planned Parenthood fundraiser called "Politics, Sex & Cocktails."  Professor Schaff addressed this event in "Tom, We Hardly Knew Ya."  Here's some of the original article:

Santa Barbara News-Press, October 3, 2005

Daschle addresses sympathetic ears 10/3/05 By MELISSA EVANS NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER Tom Daschle admits his favorite people are those who live like Republicans but support Democrats. The former Senate Majority leader from South Dakota enjoyed plenty of support as the keynote speaker Sunday at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser held in the backyard of a private home in the hills of Montecito on Sunday night. "We don't have too many of these in South Dakota," he said jokingly, referring to the swanky home. The annual fundraiser, called "Politics, Sex & Cocktails," benefited the organization's action fund in Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties. The money is used to support candidates and political causes that preserve women's reproductive rights and health options.

A Storm on the Right

Blogger Ed Morrissy in the Washington Post:

Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.

Was America A Mistake?

Happy Columbus Day.  Here's an Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. piece on Columbus that was published in 1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the new world.  As I recall, a longer version of this appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in late 1992, but the version here is the only free one I could find online.  I recommend digging up the longer Atlantic piece. 

Astros Win, Finally!

In 18 f***ing innings, as they would say on Deadwood.  That's two whole ballgames for the price of one.  The Astros brought the Rocket in to close, and he had to bat because they didn't have anyone left to bat in his place.  That's an  f***ing ballgame.

I must admit that its not as much fun watching the Braves lose, since Calamity Jane and Ted Turner split up.  But for sentimental reasons, I still enjoy it.

At the top of the marquee, St. Louis and the ChiSox rolled over their opposition.  It certainly seems only fair that they meet in the series.  The only dark spot on the day is that the Yankees are still alive.  Maybe the better angels of our nature will win out. 

The Mountain Lions are getting some Pretty Good Lawyers

Cougars Use Gift to Overcome Errors/Argus Leader

Miers

ZenPundit offers a great analysis on Harriet Miers.  Excerpt:

Aside from a reputation of being personable, hardworking and gracious, that's as much as I can say in favor of Ms. Miers. It was not a nomination worthy of the ridiculous abuse being currently screamed from the wingnut sections of the blogosphere but neither was it an inspiring choice on Bush's part and one that points to a deeper problem. The President has an administration that appears to be increasingly out of touch with not only the general public but also the Republican base. On Katrina, on Iraq and now on Miers, one catches the whiff of drift, isolation and complacency.

UPDATE:  Throughout all of this, it is important that conservatives don't get wrapped up in the Miers dispute.  Mutual respect among conservatives is important.  The commentary among conservatives will foster a dialogue and provide useful feedback to the Bush administration about portions of its supporters.  Let's leave petty disputes to the left.  That's the point Hugh Hewitt, who has ardently supported Bush's choice, is making; Paul and John at Power Line agree.

It WAS A Liberal Criticizing Herseth

The former/current Daschle staffers were recently blaming Republicans for letters to the Argus Leader from liberals complaining that Stephanie Herseth wasn't liberal enough.  They called it a "conspiracy" and a "coordinated smear effort on the part of Republican activists."  Turns out the letters were coming from the liberal side, as Randell Beck explains this morning:

But after Herseth's office raised a question last week about the authenticity of the letters, we started nosing around.  The letters, ostensibly authored by different people, originated at the same apartment on Kiwanis Avenue. ...

When I called the apartment on Kiwanis last week to locate the mysterious letter writers, a young gentleman answered the phone. He identified himself as Kurt Woodard, who, not coincidentally, wrote a letter to the editor published on Sept. 5.

A quick Internet search identifies young Mr. Woodard as the state coordinator for an organization called Progressive Democrats of America, a fledgling national organization devoted to pushing the Democratic Party to the left. Among its supporters are actor Ed Asner, 1960s radical Tom Hayden and ... well, you get the idea. It seems fair to say the PDA probably is not enamored of Herseth's affiliation with the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

The Argus can really go to work when helping Democrat Herseth knock down criticism (note the Argus acted after Herseth's office called them) and when doing lots of research to undermine a Republican Governor.  It will be interesting to see if the former/current Daschle staffers who blamed all this on a "coordinated smear" by a Republican "conspiracy" will now apologize.

Protests

A while back I mentioned the regular blocking of the Columbus Day parade by the activists in Colorado.  Today, the Rocky Mountain News has the follow-up:

As drums and chants echoed in the background, demonstrators briefly staged a mock death scene in the street today before a Columbus Day Parade passed by.

About 15 people laid down in an intersection before the parade was in view. Other protesters covered them with blankets and carried them away just before police moved in to make arrests.
...

Some protesters spilled red liquid to signify blood. Others held banners reading "Genocide," "Columbush" and "1492."

University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, who caused a nationwide uproar when he likened some Sept. 11 victims to Nazis, was standing along the parade route. He said earlier in the week he wouldn't participate in the protest as he has in the past because he didn't want to be a distraction.

Churchill declined comment Saturday. He was accompanied by a man wearing a jacket identifying him as an American Indian Movement security guard, who turned away reporters.

Churchill was among about 240 people arrested last year for disrupting the parade. He and other protest leaders were acquitted and the charges against the rest were dismissed.

Denver resident Todd Squillante nails it:

"I think they picked the wrong way of attacking their point," Squillante said. "They may have some valid points, in terms of the whites taking their land, but it shouldn't have anything to do with Columbus and Italians."

South Dakota gets a mention also:

Ann-erika White Bird, 32, of Boulder said Columbus helped touch off genocide against indigenous people and that the United States is ignoring international treaties and conventions by honoring him.

She said her home state of South Dakota celebrates Native American Day on the traditional Columbus Day while Colorado refuses to change.

"What message does that send?" White Bird asked.