1. As the US shows signs of winning the counterinsurgency war in Iraq, some of the defeatists on the left are denying that it's happening. Investor's Business Daily's Michael Ramirez portrays Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as
Baghdad Harry, a takeoff on "Baghdad Bob," the press flack for Saddam Hussein who famously declared that "there are no American infidels in Baghdad" even as our tanks drove into the city's center.
Those who can't deny our success in Iraq are trying to change the subject. The New York Times
reports on the dilemma faced by Democratic presidential candidates, who are now "trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress [in Iraq], and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy."
But the complaints about lack of political "reconciliation" in Iraq miss what is really happening there: the insurgency is being defeated first, without reconciliation—and the reconciliation will come later, because the insurgency has been defeated. In the meantime, the Times reports that US diplomats are
setting more modest goals for what they hope to accomplish politically.
The best answer to complaints about Baghdad politics is given by Charles Krauthammer, in the article linked to below, which argues that the Democrats are reversing ends and means. They are setting the political benchmark as the end they want to achieve, when political deal-making is really just a means to the end of victory over al-Qaeda and Iran in Iraq.
Even more deeply, I would cite this as an example of the virtue of persistence, the one substantial virtue President Bush has displayed in his management of the war, and a virtue that may eventually outweigh his many flaws. Persistence means accepting whatever reality dictates is necessary to achieve your goals—rather than giving up because Plan A didn't work out.
"
On Iraq, a State of Denial," Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, November 23 It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment—a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working.... We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks—mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government—that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation….
The Maliki government is too sectarian and paralyzed to be able to end the war in a stroke of reconciliation.
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?...
Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law….
This [the Democrats' criticism about "benchmarks"] is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq. But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working.
2.
Things Fall Apart Unfortunately, Iraq is about the only place in the Middle East where things are going conspicuously well at the moment. In two other vital conflicts, lack of American initiative may be allowing events to spiral out of control rapidly—as they always do when America stops asserting itself in the world.
In Pakistan, our failure to push Pervez Musharraf out of power to make way for a secular, relatively liberal leader like Benazir Bhutto has not preserved Musharraf's power as a friendly strongman. Instead, it has further weakened him to the point where he faces a new challenge from a much less savory rival: anti-American "moderate" Islamist populist Nawaz Sharif, who has
returned to Pakistan and is now billing himself as the country's "real" savior.
It's another example of how Musharraf does not seem to be capable of suppressing anyone except the good guys in Pakistan—while he continue to fold before the Islamists and their sympathizers.
In Lebanon, the US failed to follow up on the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005, and, much more important, Israel failed to vigorously prosecute its 2006 war against Hezbollah. The result has been another year of political paralysis, the steady attrition of Lebanon's liberals in a string of political murders, and the threat that Lebanon will plunge back into the chaos of sectarian civil war.
Note also that while this is happening, Condoleezza Rice is convening a conference to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—which the Syrians are taking advantage of this conference to offer up Lebanon as a bargaining chip in order to wring concessions out of Israel.
"
Vote Is Postponed as Lebanese President Leaves," Thanassis Cambanis and Nada Bakri, New York Times, November 24 The departing Lebanese president, Émile Lahoud, asked the military to take charge of the nation’s security on Friday, a few hours after the speaker of Parliament prolonged the country’s political crisis by postponing for a week a vote to choose a new president….
The caretaker government, composed of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his cabinet, has final authority until a new president is chosen.
Lebanon’s presidential crisis intensified Friday night, when the parliamentary vote to replace Mr. Lahoud, already postponed four times, was delayed yet again by Nabih Berri, the speaker of Parliament. Mr. Berri set the vote for next Friday….
The governing majority, backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia, has failed during two months of haggling to reach a deal with the opposition, backed by Syria and Iran. Mr. Lahoud is aligned with Syria. Mr. Siniora is considered an ally of the United States and Saudi Arabia….
One of the opposition’s main demands is that Hezbollah be allowed to keep its militia under a new president and new cabinet….
Samir Franjieh, a lawmaker with the governing coalition, said that Syria was waiting to see if it would be asked to play a central role in the peace talks. If Damascus reached an understanding with Washington, he said, Syria might use its considerable influence in Lebanon to push for a settlement.
3.
Rudy's Math I've tried to avoid the overly casual approach of referring to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" and to Rudy Giuliani as "Rudy." But considering that Giuliani's campaign signs all read, simply, "RUDY," I've decided to give up and occasionally call him only by his first name. Resistance seems futile.
The presidential primaries are closing in on us fast, with the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary now less than six weeks away. As I've been reminding my readers, these early contests are likely to be won by Mitt Romney (and possibly Mike Huckabee), and not by Giuliani, despite the fact that he has a strong lead in nationwide polls. So what is Rudy counting on?
In the article linked to below, Tom Bevan explains the math, outlining the Giuliani campaign's plan to stay in the running, in second or third place, in the early contests—and then to build up an irresistible mathematical lead on 2008's extra-super Super Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Huckabee's momentum among Republicans may have peaked. Robert Novak's
latest column attacks Huckabee as a "false conservative," a "high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans." He also notes, correctly, that this is the "inherent danger" of the Republican Party's embrace of Evangelical Christians, who turn out to have a soft spot for government-coerced "compassion."
Novak notes that Huckabee has done well in part because no one has attacked him for his pro-welfare-state views. "Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate." Not any more—so the attacks are coming, with National Review's Jonah Goldberg, for example,
describing Huckabee as "scarier than Ron Paul," the libertarian candidate with the New Left foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the Giuliani campaign has some recent good news and bad news. On the good side, the latest crime statistics for New York City reveal that the city's murder rate has hit a
spectacular new low, with criminologists speculating that it may be theoretically impossible to drive it any lower. This highlights Rudy's signal accomplishment as New York City's mayor: the breaking of the crime wave.
On the other hand, Tony Perkins, a prominent leader of the religious right, has
denounced Giuliani, arguing that Rudy's promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges still "licenses him to appoint any number of judicial candidates who will leave Roe v. Wade exactly as it is."
He's right, of course, and in my book that's a selling point for Giuliani's candidacy: that he is not likely to entrench the judicial agenda of the religious right. But Perkins's article is evidence that many on the religious right will, for that very reason, not settle for Giuliani's vague promise to appoint strict constructionist judges.
"
Giuliani's Nomination Strategy," Tom Bevan, RealClearPolitics, November 12 Rudy Giuliani Campaign Manager Mike DuHaime and Senior Strategist Brent Seaborn held a conference call with reporters earlier today to outline their strategy heading into the primary season….
The argument goes like this: Iowa, while important for momentum, will not award its 40 delegates until later in the cycle, tentatively in mid-June. In New Hampshire, where the Giuliani campaign says they feel good about their current 2nd place position, the Granite State's 12 delegates (half of the normal 24 thanks to the 50% penalty levied by the RNC last week for holding its contest earlier than February 5) will be allocated on a proportional basis….
And then comes the Big Kuhuna on February 5th. The Giuliani campaign points out 1,038 delegates are at stake on Feb. 5th, nearly half of what is needed to secure the nomination, by far the single biggest day in the primary process.
Among those states in play on Feb 5th using a true winner take all delegate process (in other words not by winner take all by Congressional district) where the Giuliani team expects to win outright are New York (101), New Jersey (52), Connecticut (30), and Delaware (18)—for a total of 201 delegates. Missouri and its 58 delegates is another true winner take all state where the Giuliani team expects to be very competitive (Rudy is campaigning there today and recently received the endorsement of Senator Kit Bond)….
The main point that DuHaime drove home is that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who will enter February 5th with a big block of delegates (201, or 1/5th of the total at stake) more or less locked down. If things go as planned, regardless of the outcome of the early contests, when the dust settles on February 6, Rudy Giuliani will emerge as the delegate leader in the Republican race.
4.
The Real Endangered Species readers sent me a link to an
appalling article from London's Daily Mail about young environmental zealots who have had themselves sterilized so that they can never have children—on the grounds that children as such are a blight on the earth. Here is how the Daily Mail describes their spectacularly nihilist outlook:
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
To the extent that this outlook becomes accepted, the real endangered species we will have to worry about is man.
I link below to a good commentary on this from Investor's Business Daily, which gets extra points for citing the best answer ever directly given to all of these claims that every new human is just another mouth to feed: Julian Simon's identification of the fact that every new human is also another mind capable of creation.
"
Environmentalism's Outer Limits," Investor's Business Daily, November 23 Enviro-fanatics are sterilizing themselves to reduce their "carbon footprint." We dread where their nihilistic ideology—that mankind is an evil planetary force—will lead next….
The late economist Julian Simon, that prophetic debunker of Malthusian overpopulation theory, proved that people are no drain on our precious planet's natural resources. Rather, they are the solution to scarcities, thanks to the increasing ingenuity of successive generations….
Simon showed that "the ultimate resource is people—skilled, spirited and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the rest of us as well."
5.
"I Get to Live How I Want" Jack Wakeland has coined the term "The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness" to describe the full impact of "globalization" on traditional societies across the world. More than an economic system, capitalism is a moral system, which carries with it the premise that the individual's pursuit of his own happiness is the central moral purpose of human life.
The article linked to below chronicles one aspect of that moral revolution: the rise in India—the ultimate bastion of the arranged marriage—of the independent, single working woman, free to choose her own life course and her own mate. It is an example of how economic progress enables and encourages the independence of the individual, with far-reaching consequences.
"
Careers Give India's Women New Independence," Somini Sengupta, New York Times, November 23 Not long ago, an Indian woman, even a working Indian woman, would almost always have moved from her parents’ house to her husband’s. Perhaps her only freedom would be during college, when she might live on campus or take a room for a year or two at what is known here as the working women’s hostel.
That trajectory has begun to loosen, as a surging economy creates new jobs, prompts young professionals to leave home and live on their own and slowly, perhaps unwittingly, nudges a traditional society to accept new freedoms for women….
The changes are sharpest in the lives of women who have found a footing in the new economy and who are for the most part middle-class, college-educated professionals exploring jobs that simply did not exist a generation ago….
More than anything, Ms. Maddala said, she wanted to savor her independence a bit longer. She moved here from Hyderabad, about 300 miles away, earlier this year. She described the lessons of freedom this way: “What is me? What is myself? How can I manage? We come here, we realize we are strong.”
“I get to live how I want,” [Ms. Cariappa] said. “There’s nobody telling me I can’t.”…
In November, Ms. Cariappa announced that her freewheeling days were coming to an end.
She and her boyfriend of seven years had decided to marry. That, too, was a break with her family’s tradition, because he is from another community, from another part of the country.
6.
Where Was America Born? The 400th anniversary of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America, has finally brought significant national attention to the rivalry between Jamestown and Plymouth, the Massachusetts settlement which, despite coming thirteen years later, has stolen credit for America's origin and even for the first Thanksgiving (actually held at Virginia's Berkeley Plantation in 1619).
The implications of this rivalry go far beyond local bragging rights, because the two colonies were founded on very different principles. Virginia was founded by a secular company of adventurers in search of profit—while Massachusetts was originally settled by religious zealots who escaped from religious tyranny only to impose their own religious tyranny. Which better represents the American spirit?
"
If Not First in Time, First in the Country's Heart," Abby Goodnough, New York Times, November 22 This year, as Jamestown, Va., splashily celebrated the 400th anniversary of its founding as the nation’s first permanent English settlement, the home of Plymouth Rock found itself on the defensive….
In a speech near Jamestown on Tuesday, President Bush challenged the popular notion that Plymouth was home to the first Thanksgiving.
“The good folks here say that the founders of Berkeley held their celebration before the Pilgrims had even left port,” Mr. Bush said, referring to a plantation in Virginia where settlers arrived in 1619. “As you can imagine, this version of events is not very popular up north.”
In response to such barbs, the people of Plymouth have gone to greater lengths than usual to prove it is “America’s Hometown,” as its marketing brochures announce.
“There’s no question Jamestown was first,” said Peggy Baker, director of the Pilgrim Hall Museum, home to Myles Standish’s sword and other Pilgrim artifacts. “But when it comes to issues of historical significance, we don’t just talk about first; we talk about what speaks to people’s emotions. Plymouth is the settlement that has spoken to the hearts and souls of Americans over centuries.”
Unlike the Jamestown settlers, who were mostly men seeking investment opportunities and planning to return home, the Pilgrims who came to Plymouth 13 years later were families hoping to start anew, Ms. Baker said.
The Caspian Sea nations look to be the group that hold the ring in the snout of the world with their monopoly on energy resources and sitting pretty on top of that mountain of gold, you'll find Putin. The same Putin who is bound by constitution to step down from power?, you might ask. Not so fast...
British National Party member, Nick Griffin's appearance (along with writer David Irving) at Oxford Union a scheduled at is creating a huge furore with MP, Dr Julian Lewis, resigning and many other bodies and individuals howling in rage. Why is this? Well, it seems that Nick Griffin and the BNP is thought of as 'racist'. Here is Mr Griffin's rebuttal to that charge:
Japan, the home of the Kyoto Protocol is struggling to meet its emissions targets and is digging itself deeper, ever deeper into debt in its determination to do this.
