Victory in Iraq? The War Has Been Won

It's been an interesting week for media coverage of Iraq. The good news keeps pouring in (see here and here, for example), and despite a tendency among some media outlets to portray stability in Iraq as a lull (see here and here), it's becoming increasingly clear that we've reached a turning point in the war.

In fact, Andrew Bolt, in an article syndicated from Australia's Daily Telegraph, agues the Iraq war's been won:

Here it is: The battle is actually over. Iraq has been won.

I know this will seem to many of you an insane claim. Ridiculous! After all, haven't you read countless stories that Iraq is a "disaster", turned by a "civil war" into a "killing field"?...

You have. And you have been misled. Here is just the latest underreported news, out this week.

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October - the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month - mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists - was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources.

That is still tragically high, but the monthly toll has plummeted since January's grim total of 1990.

What measures of success do critics of Iraq's liberation now demand?

Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled.

The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide.

What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules.

Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones.

There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.
And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers.

The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote.

Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions.

Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse.

I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won.

Bolt anticipates left-wing denials of victory. For instance, he makes a penetrating point about assessing violence in Iraq comparatively:

Iraq remains an ugly place, with lethal hatreds, yet none of these killers are winning and Iraq will not fall to them.

Consider: Iraq's official estimate of civilian deaths from violence is now about 25 a day. In South Africa, with twice the population, the official murder toll is 52 a day.

That's a rate of killing equal to Iraq's. Do you think those murders will topple South Africa? And does anyone say of South Africa that these killings just prove freedom was not worth it?

Of course, radical war opponents will respond with, "Yeah, but Bush lied about WMD," or some such nonsense. Yet, truth be told, the radicals will have to sink to the depths of denial in refusing the obvious fact of impending victory.

Indeed, the time for political recrimination and division is over. Neither Americans nor Iraqis have an interest in endlessly debating the origins of the war or the administration's earlier incompetence. We are winning now. Americans need to unite.

Roberts Gates, in his comments on Iraq this week, indicated that substantial progress was being made, but he was careful not to declare a full-blown victory:

Asked whether he would declare that the United States was now winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Gates responded: “I think those end up being loaded words. I think we have been very successful. We need to continue being successful.”

Gates tempered his comments to show a proper concern about resisting euphoria over the war's progress. That said, the administration's been rightly criticized for its failure to adequately market Iraq's importance. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird made this point in 2005:

The president must articulate a simple message and mission. Just as the spread of communism was very real in the 1960s, so the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam is very real today. It was a creeping fear until September 11, 2001, when it showed itself capable of threatening us. Iraq was a logical place to fight back, with its secular government and modern infrastructure and a populace that was ready to overthrow its dictator. Our troops are not fighting there only to preserve the right of Iraqis to vote. They are fighting to preserve modern culture, Western democracy, the global economy, and all else that is threatened by the spread of barbarism in the name of religion. That is the message and the mission. It is not politically correct, nor is it comforting. But it is the truth, and sometimes the truth needs good marketing.

Laird was writing a year before the administration shifted to a new counterinsurgency strategy with General David Petraeus.

But the success of America's new course is clear, and it needs good marketing. Even if the administration hesitates in declaring victory (since war opponents will never acknowledge the point), the message of impending victory in Iraq ought to be distributed as widely as possible. We may have setbacks ahead, which is why a lengthy and large postwar military presence in the country is expected. But the Republicans have an historic opportunity to package success in Iraq as the defining issue of the upcoming elections. It's time to seize the moment.

Living Large in Russia: Economic Boom is Cultural Context for Authoritarianism

This morning's Wall Street Journal's got a fascinating piece on the politics of the Russian economy. The story is a case study on the economic fortunes of the Starodubovs of Moscow. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Starodubovs were featured in the Journal as a personal example of the hard times facing the post-Soviet Russian population:

When The Wall Street Journal first visited the Starodubovs as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, salami was also an important issue. To get some, Svetlana and her husband, Vitaly, had to stand in line for three-and-a-half hours in the winter cold holding baby Irina.

The paper has kept up with the family's progress. The Starodubovs have steady jobs and economic security today, and their fortunes are seen as an important bellweather of popular feeling on Russian President Vladimir Putun's political future:

The Starodubovs' ascent from the hand-to-mouth existence of the 1990s to relative security today helps explain why President Vladimir Putin is perceived so differently in Russia than he is in the West. For many here, he is a hero. After nearly two decades of crazy desperation and living from one day to the next, the relative calm of the Putin era feels like such a tremendous achievement that for many in Russia, it's more than enough to earn their loyalty.

"To tell the truth, I don't know who runs out of money these days," says Vitaly. "I don't think anyone is that badly off."

Since Mr. Putin took office in 2000, about 20 million Russians have been lifted above the official poverty line (another 20 million remain in poverty, according to government figures). An oil-fired economic boom has brought long-awaited stability after a string of crises in the 1990s and more than doubled average incomes, adjusted for inflation, since 2000. A middle class is growing, but so is the gap between rich and poor. Still, the government is scrambling to pour tens of billions of dollars into rebuilding Russia's crumbling roads, power networks, hospitals and schools, all of which have seen little investment since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Rising incomes are the big reason why nearly half of Russians say they want Mr. Putin to stay on when his term ends next spring, even though that would require changing the constitution. Mr. Putin has said he won't do that, but recently said he might become prime minister after the March elections.

The Starodubovs say they like the stability Putin has brought to Russian. Their lack of concern for Putin's autocratic tendencies is an example of Russia's authoritarian political culture, which is charaterized by attitudes of dependence on the state, and the need for protection and security.

Read the whole article, in any case. Cell phones, DVDs, and the internet are regular features of Starodubov family life. A very Americanized family life, in many respects, and quite different from the Stalinist existence under the old Soviet Union (nothwithstanding the lingering cultural authoritarianism).

Piling On? A Case Study in Clinton Damage Control

The "piling on" meme, through which the Clinton campaign has portrayed her disastrous debate performance as a case of patriarchial attacks on her candidacy, has generated some interesting discussion. Barack Obama makes the point that Clinton should be touting her experience on the issues, not flashing the gender card (You Tube via Kate Phillips):

Ruth Marcus shreds the piling on meme in her Washington Post commentary:

The Philadelphia debate was not exactly a mob moment to trigger the Violence Against Women Act; if anything, this has been an overly (pardon the phrase) gentlemanly campaign to date. Those other guys were beating up on Clinton, if you can call that beating up, because she is the strong front-runner, not because she is a weak woman.

And a candidate as strong as Clinton doesn't need to play the woman-as-victim card, not even in "the all-boys club of presidential politics," as Clinton called it in a speech yesterday at her all-women alma mater, Wellesley College. I have a pretty good nose for sexism, and what I detected in the air from Philadelphia was not sexism but the desperation of candidates confronting a front-runner who happens to be a woman.

But check out Ezra Klein, in his post at the American Prospect, as he attempts to put up a smokescreen around the gender card issue:

Do you guys think Clinton is making this about gender, and I'm giving her comments too sympathetic a read? Or has the press been aching to make this a race again, and so are now in a feeding frenzy mode, and are making everything from complicated answers about immigration to straight descriptions of gender realities a huge issue?

Nice try. Clinton bombed the debate. The piling on meme represents a classic Clintonian attempt at political damage control.

For more commentary, see Memeorandum.

Trumpet the News: Good Things in Iraq

The London Times asks, "Is no news good news or bad news?" The question is important to ask when thinking about the political spin on Iraq progress:

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favourable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country's potential is to be realised.

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair's War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed.

All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.

Yesterday's Washington Post, in a main news story, spoke of Iraq progress hesitantly, call the decline in violence a "lull." To this, Jules Crittenden responded:

This and other lull articles are lullabies for war opponents who might be alarmed at the prospect of a Bush victory, and the implications that could have for their own congressional and presidential aspirations.

Crittenden really nails the point.

I'm always amazed at how the Democrats can't beat a track fast enough for an exit out of Iraq. One would think that victory in Iraq would present a "New World Order" moment for the party, a chance for them to build on Republican foreign policy achievements to put their own stamp on America's foreign affairs for the years ahead. This is a huge missed opportunity for the party, and all the more reason to vote Republican next year.

See more commentary at Memeorandum.

Will Rudy Be the Republican Nominee?

The Economist has an analysis of Rudolf Giuliani's presidential campaign. Will Rudy take on Hillary? Here's a key snippet:

Mr Giuliani's reputation as tough on terrorists rests largely on his unflappability after the World Trade Centre was attacked. That is a less substantial achievement than rolling back crime or welfare, but it is what television viewers remember about the man who has been dubbed “America's mayor”. He adds to his reputation with ferocious displays of hawkishness, vowing to remain “on offence” in Iraq and promising unflinching support for Israel. One of his foreign-policy advisers, Norman Podhoretz, urges President George Bush to bomb Iran's nuclear sites as soon as practically possible—though Mr Giuliani does not go so far.

Mr Giuliani's hawkishness could be a vital factor in his struggle to win over Republicans who think him too soft on social issues such as abortion. Many pro-life conservatives are also pro-Israel and convinced that Christendom is threatened by “Islamofascists”. Mr Giuliani addresses such audiences with deference. He admits to being an imperfect candidate. He admits that they will not always agree with him, but insists that they can always trust him. This is a veiled jab at Mr Romney, whose recent conversion to pro-lifery smacks to many of opportunism.

Some of these social conservatives are nonetheless so appalled by Mr Giuliani that they threaten to back a third-party candidate if he wins the Republican nomination. Others think that would be foolish, since it would virtually guarantee victory for the Democrats. But many Republicans fall into a third category—they are simply unaware that Mr Giuliani is socially liberal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 37% knew he was pro-choice and only 18% knew he favoured civil unions for gays.

This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him? Some undoubtedly will. But others may not have bothered to find out where he stands on abortion because they do not think it matters much. After all, the president cannot ban the practice. The most he can do is to pick pro-life Supreme Court judges who, if confirmed by a substantially pro-choice Senate, might conceivably one day overturn Roe v Wade and hand the issue back to the states. This is highly unlikely, though, and most voters pay more attention to other issues.

For many Republicans, Mr Giuliani's chief virtue is that he has the best shot at beating Hillary Clinton. His boosters say his moderate social views could lure swing voters and bring big blue states such as New York and California back into play, at least forcing the Democrats to spend time and money defending them. Perhaps, but many swing voters will be repulsed by his hawkishness or his dodgy friends. (His third police chief, Bernard Kerik, is currently being investigated for tax fraud; were he to be indicted, that would be awkward for Mr Giuliani.)

Read the whole thing.

Giuliani's nowhere assured the nomination, and the article includes some polling data on voter preferences on both the Democratic and Republican candidates. As I've noted before, Giuliani's not my first pick, but I won't be upset if he wins the nomination.

Paul Tibbets, 92, Pilot of Enola Gay

Paul Tibbets, the pilot who ushered in the nuclear era, helping to end World War II, is dead at age 92. USA Today has a brief obituary:

Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the B-29 bomber Enola Gay, died today. He was 92.

Tibbets dropped an atomic bomb known as "Little Boy" over Hiroshima, Japan, at 8:16 a.m. on Aug. 6, 1945. As many as 200,000 people may have been killed within five years by the blast and its aftereffects, according to the Energy Department. This website has photographs of the devastation the bombs wrought before they forced the Japanese government to surrender to Allied forces led by Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

The Associated Press reports that Tibbets, who retired from the Air Force as a brigadier general in 1966, had no regrets about his role in the world's first atomic airstrike. "You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal," he was quoted as saying in 1975. "I sleep clearly every night," he added.

Tibbets wanted to be cremated, with no funeral or grave marker left to inspire protests.

It's a sad commentary on the state of our politics that the man who helped save countless lives - and whose work hastened the end of the war - is today vilified as a mass murderer by the postmodernist America-bashers of the multiculturalist left. The Jawa Report cites this nasty attack on Tibbets, from White Noise Insanity:

Paul Tibbetts [sic] did not die a hero to America. I’m sorry, but it does not take a brave person to strap a bomb to a plane, fly high above a sleeping city, and then drop an atomic bomb on it! Only a coward could be proud of himself after doing something like that....

Not only was a he a typical reich winger throughout his life, meaning he had zero compassion for the people of our planet, but he managed to be the typical reich winger upon his death by being a coward. Why? He told his loved ones that he didn’t want a stone or a marker for his grave. Why? Well, apparently this “big brave reich winger” didn’t want Americans to stand around his grave protesting what he had done in WWII!

Tibbets is also attacked at The Progressive:

I’m making a partial exception to my self-imposed rule of not speaking ill of the dead.
Paul Tibbets, the pilot who dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima, died Nov. 1, unrepentant till the very end.

“I wanted to do everything that I could to subdue Japan. I wanted to kill the bastards. That was the attitude of the United States in those years,” he told an interviewer in 1995. “I have been convinced that we saved more lives than we took. It would have been morally wrong if we’d have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die.”

There was only one problem with his analysis: He was just plain wrong. In the last few decades, there has been a whole slew of studies showing that the dropping of the bomb was—militarily and strategically—completely unnecessary.

The Progressive piece cites revisionist historians who have criticized President Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan.

Other historians get the story right, however. In an essay published July 2005, on the eve of Hiroshima's 60th anniversary, Richard Frank, the author of a respected history of the Guadalcanal campaign, published a commentary piece in the San Fancisco Chronicle defending the decision to drop the bomb on Japan:

What if the United States had chosen not to use atomic weapons against Japan in 1945?

Americans typically believe that an invasion of Japan would have been the consequence, but four other possibilities have been raised: a diplomatic settlement; Soviet intervention in the Pacific theater; continuing war with dire effects on millions of Asians trapped in Japan's empire; and a new strategic bombing directive.

Contrary to wishful theories, no realistic prospect existed for a diplomatic settlement. The American aim of unconditional surrender was not just a slogan. It constituted the keystone to the enduring peace that followed. It provided the legal authority for the occupation of Japan and the ensuing fundamental renovation of Japanese society.

Japan's leaders opposed unconditional surrender precisely because they understood it meant the extinction of the old order dominated by the militarists and their consorts. That old order had started a war that killed more than 17 million people -- most of them Asian noncombatants. The strongest evidence that compromise remained out of reach is that even when the Japanese government finally issued its first real surrender offer on Aug. 10, 1945, it still demanded that the United States guarantee that substantial power would remain in the hands of the emperor.

Frank continues:

Had the war continued for two weeks or perhaps only a few days, the destruction of the rail system would have brought about the mass famine that probably would have prompted the Japanese to capitulate. But this also means that Japanese would have died by the millions.

What history without Hiroshima illustrates is that there was no alternative happy ending to the Pacific War. When realistic consideration is given to the alternatives, atomic bombs stand as the worst way to have ended the war - except all the others.

This is the context in which we should remember Tibbets. Also note these heartfelt words from the Flag Gazer:

Thank you, Paul Tibbets. Thank you for what you did for our country, thank you for ending the war, thank you for all of the lives you saved and all of us you allowed to be born. You will always be my hero. Farewell, and Walk with God.

Walk with God, yes...that's a much more appropriate eulogy.

Anti-Terror Interrogations Real Target of Democrats

Today's lead editorial at the Wall Street Journal argues that anti-terror interrogation practices are the real target in Democratic oppostion to Michael Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General:

Democrats welcomed Michael Mukasey as a "consensus choice" for Attorney General only weeks ago, but incredibly his confirmation is now an open question. The judge's supposed offense is that he has refused to declare "illegal" a single interrogation technique that the CIA has used on rare occasions against mass murderers.

All of the Democratic Presidential candidates have come out against the distinguished judge, and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee appear ready to block his nomination from even reaching the Senate floor. This is remarkable not for what it says about Judge Mukasey but for what it reveals about Democrats and the war on terror. They'd disqualify a man of impeccable judicial temperament and credentials merely because he's willing to give U.S. interrogators the benefit of the legal doubt before he has top-secret clearance.

Could there be a clearer demonstration of why voters don't trust Democrats with national security? In the war against al Qaeda, interrogation and electronic surveillance are our most effective weapons. Yet Democrats have for years waged a guerrilla war against both of these tools, trying to impose procedural and legal limits that can only reduce their effectiveness. Judge Mukasey is merely collateral damage in this larger effort.

Read the whole thing.

The editors make a powerful case that the Democrats' Mukasey fight is being driven not by calculations of what's best for American national security, but by the need to pander to the party's antiwar base.

In any case, the good news this afternoon is that key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are backing Mukasey's appointment, which means the nominee will likely gain confirmation (maybe Senate Democrats read the Wall Street Journal).

For additional commentary, check Memorandum. For a prototypical demonization of both the Bush administration's anti-terror agenda and Judge Mukasey, check the comments from the left's foremost surrender hawk, Glenn Greenwald.

Ron Paul and the Fringe of American Politics

My recent post on Ron Paul's prospects in New Hampshire attracted a lot of attention from the "Paulites," the extremely vocal online activists committed to defending Paul with denunciations and threats. The exchange in the comment thread was colorful, and prompted Patrick at Driving out the Snakes to write a follow-up post suggesting I had a "bee in my bonnet."

Thankfully, Rick Moran at the American Thinker sheds some perspective on the unhinged masses attracted to the Paul campaign. Here's the introduction:

What is it about the candidacy of Ron Paul that has attracted the paranoid fringe of American politics?

Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming "neocons" for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism). For all we know, they may be the majority of his supporters.

But just as clearly, there is a dark underbelly to the Paul campaign -- a ruthless, mob of internet ruffians who seek to intimidate those who would dare criticize them, the Paul candidacy, or most especially, one of their pet conspiracy theories about 9/11, the "New World Order" (an amorphous term that generally means the imposition of a one world government), or something as mundane and silly as planting a computer chip in every new born in America.

The question isn't whether Ron Paul believes in any of these conspiracy theories, although he has said on at least two occasions that he believes the investigation into 9/11 must be reopened to explore "unanswered questions" about the tragedy. It is his apparent pandering to this lunatic fringe that must be explored and reasons for it demanded from the campaign.

I say "apparent" pandering because there is the possibility that Paul is completely clueless that his anti-government rants (a subjective word but apt if you listen to his speeches or watch him in the debates) full of dark hints of conspiracy and wrongdoing by the highest officials in the land, actually ring a Pavlovian bell for the paranoid conspiracy freaks causing them to flock to his banner.

The article includes excerpts from Paul's statements suggesting that he's not completely oblivious to the ideology and interests of the lunatic hordes flocking to his side. Moran offers this passage too, which applies in my case:

Constant attention is paid [by the Paulites] to Technorati and other blog search engines so that the most minute negative mention of Paul will bring several commenters rushing to his defense. Some are indeed polite and accommodating. Most are not. Personal attacks are common as are charges that the blogger is part of a conspiracy against the candidate.

Such attacks prompted Red State to ban the Paulites from its comment section, a move that raises touchy questions of free speech. Captain Ed Morrissey disagreed with Red State's decision, but he then makes this rather naive statement on the relative repulsiveness of the Paulites versus the far-left antiwar, multiculturalists:

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

Captain Ed's known for his cool-headed political commentary, but on this issue he's out of his depth. Ideologically, the extreme fanatics on both the left and the right have joined together in common cause against the Bush administration and Iraq. In this sense, the traditional left-right ideological continuum is being pulled up, like a string, to square the circle among the most implacable foes of the American democracy.

I pointed out in my post, for example, that Adam Kokesh, an activist in the Stalinist group International ANSWER, proclaims himself a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. Moreover, Paul's campaign is attracting the most vile contingents of America's neo-nazi movement. Indeed, this grassroots fringe mobilization represents the latest iteration in the long tradition of apocalyptic extremism in American politics.

Moran's piece provides a nice conclusion to this theme:

Is Paul pandering to the conspiracy nuts in America, knowing their enthusiastic support for him will assist his campaign? Or is he unaware that by appealing to the basest emotions brought to the surface by his dark hints involving dark forces carrying out a campaign to take away our freedoms, he is giving the paranoid, the fearful, and the ignorant haters a standard to rally around?

He is a foolish man if he believes he can control these forces. In the end, they can only destroy him.

That's a lesson otherwise anchored Paul supporters might do well to digest.

A Long Morning for Charlie Company

The American Spectator has a gripping retelling of the 82 Airborne's "Charlie Company" (2-505 Parachute Infantry Regiment) and its close-range firefight with insurgents in Samarra, Iraq, August 26, 2007.

The story focuses on "Reaper Two," a sniper team from the Charlie Company's 2nd Battalion. The team's mission that morning was to provide a rooftop observation point (OP) to guard against insurgent activity on the roads into the central Samarra, where Charlie Company's 3rd Platoon would be carrying out a search of an IED manufacturing shop.

Reaper Two's position atop the building was compromised, and the sniper team came under withering enemy fire. The team's four paratroopers - Sergeant Josh Morley, Specialist Tracy Willis, Specialist Chris Corriveau, and Specialist Eric Moser - fought courageously to hold their position:

ON THE ROOF OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING, Morley and Moser were taking AK-47 and PKC (a 7.62mm Russian-made machine gun) fire from both stairwells. As they spun around to return fire, they saw several small, dark objects flying onto the roof from the stairwell -- hand grenades. Morley recognized that the situation was rapidly deteriorating and knew that, though his team currently occupied the high ground in the emerging battle, they could not hold out for very long due to their vast disadvantage in numbers. Seeing that Willis, who was next to the team's radio, was busy firing into the stairwell through a window on the enclave's north side, and not knowing that one of the first hand grenades tossed onto the roof had disabled it, Morley made a dash across the roof to call for the QRF.

He never made it there.

As Moser fired into the door from his corner in an attempt to suppress the enemy assault, he saw Morley appear to stumble and go down, his weapon skidding across the rooftop toward the stairwell door. His first thought was that the team leader had tripped and fallen; a moment later, his brain registered the truth: Morley had been shot. A burst of gunfire from the southern stairwell across the dividing wall had scored a direct hit, with one round striking Morley directly in the forehead. He was dead before hitting the ground.

Moser didn't have time to dwell on Morley's death. Knowing that what had just become a three-man team could not long withstand the concerted effort by what was clearly a large enemy force to move up the stairs to his location, he took the same chance that Morley had, and crossed the roof to the radio while Willis continued to fire his .240 machine gun into the stairwell, killing at least two enemy fighters with well-placed bursts as grenades continued to be tossed up the stairs and out onto the roof. As he moved to the radio (which he found to have been disabled by a grenade), Moser was able to get a look down into the northern stairwell. Inside, he saw a number of armed men, both black and Arab rushing up the steps toward the roof -- none of whom were the individuals he had seen get out of the car moments before on the street. Apparently there had been fighters stationed in the building before the white car's arrival.

Read the whole thing.

We don't often get such intimate reporting of the modern American military in combat. The article, written by Jeff Emanuel, a special operations veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, keeps a tight focus on tactical developments of the firefight, and doesn't dwell on the carnage and losses. Emanuel's conclusion is uplifting, but not weepy. We see the perseverance and strength of our fighters, and we get a feeling for the importance of unit camaraderie in battle.

Hat tip: Infidel's Are Cool.

Gotcha! Immigration Flip-Flop Haunts Clinton Campaign

I noted earlier that I missed Tuesday's Democratic debate. There's no worry, though, since I'm catching some of the key segments online. Hillary's illegal immigrant drivers' license flip-flop is a true classic in the history of presidential debate moments, available on YouTube:

Although Clinton herself took debate moderator Tim Russert to task for playing "gotcha" in his questioning on the issues, the immigration gaffe is Clinton's own "gotcha" moment. The episode powerfully demonstrates the hypocrisy of Clinton's "nuance" on the issues. The New York Times has more on Clinton's immigration moment:

It was a moment that crystallized Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggles in Tuesday night’s debate. Questioned about a plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, Mrs. Clinton at first seemed to defend it, then suggested she was against it, until finally, pressed for a direct answer, she accused the moderator, Tim Russert, of playing “gotcha.”

Her verbal twists and turns provided her opponents with fodder for their central critique of Mrs. Clinton, which coursed throughout Tuesday’s debate: that she was trying to have it both ways on the issue, much as she was trying to portray herself as antiwar while voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Here's more, on the conservative reaction to Clinton's gaffe:

Illustrating the political dangers of the issue, Mrs. Clinton found herself under fierce attack Wednesday from Republicans and conservative radio hosts for her debate comments.

“I know there are some politicians like Hillary,” Rudolph W. Giuliani told the conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck. “They say different things to different people. They use different accents in different parts of the country. I’m used to that about her now. I had never seen it happen all in one place, in one minute.”

Thanks to Senator Dodd, by the way, for providing the opening for this classic Hillary Halloween haunt.

Also, hat tip to Flopping Aces for the YouTube. See also Michelle Malkin on Hillary's immigration moment.

Republicans Facing Tough Year in 2008

A new poll from The Pew Research Center indicates that 2008 will be tough year for the GOP:

A year before the 2008 presidential election, most major national opinion trends decidedly favor the Democrats. Discontent with the state of the nation is markedly greater than it was four years ago. President Bush's approval rating has fallen from 50% to 30% over this period. And the Democrats' advantage over the Republicans on party affiliation is not only substantially greater than it was four years ago, but is the highest recorded during the past two decades.

The public continues to express more confidence in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party as being able to bring about needed change, to govern in an honest and ethical way and to manage the federal government. The Democratic Party's advantages on these traits are much wider than during the last presidential campaign. Moreover, they remain about as large as they were just prior to the 2006 midterm election, in spite of rising public discontent with the Democrat-led Congress.

The voters' issues agenda also appears to benefit the Democrats. Along with Iraq, the economy, health care and education rate as the most important issues for voters. Compared with the 2004 campaign, fewer voters now place great importance on the issues that have animated Republican political unity in recent years – including gay marriage, abortion and terrorism.

Looking to the presidential election itself, the political climate appears to be affecting the morale of those in both parties. Democrats are more positive and more enthused than are Republicans. Since the beginning of the year, Democrats have closely followed campaign news at consistently higher rates than have Republicans, and somewhat greater proportions of Democrats say they have given a lot of thought to the presidential candidates.

Republicans not only are less engaged in the campaign, but they also rate their party's presidential candidates more negatively than do Democrats. Nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (46%) rate the Republican presidential candidates as only fair or poor; by comparison, just 28% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents give the Democratic presidential field comparably low ratings.

The poll also finds Hillary Clinton maintaining a large lead over Barack Obama nationally, 45%-24% among Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters. Clinton also leads Rudy Giuliani in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, with a 51%-43% advantage.

Note though that the election's still a year away, and a lot can happen in the meantime. As William Kristol pointed out last week, the conventional wisdom on a Democratic presidential blowout next year could be wrong.

One factor likely to help the GOP is Iraq (as Kristol mentions). The surge has improved security in the country subsantially, and the public has become a bit less pessimistic on our chances of victory there. Indeed, good news on the war keeps coming, with today's Los Angeles Times reporting that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths dropped dramatically in October.

Additionally, campaigns matter, and should Hillary win the Democratic nomination, her "nuanced" flexibility on the issues (her flip-flopping) may provide a powerful issue for GOP attacks on her character and credibility.

That said, things are certainly not looking good for Republicans. USA Today also reports the results from a new survey finding dramatic discontent in the electorate:

One year before Election Day 2008, most Americans are dismayed by the country's direction, pessimistic about the Iraq war and anxious about the economy. Two of three disapprove of the job President Bush is doing. Nearly a year after Democrats took control of Congress, three of four Americans say it isn't achieving much, either.

In all, 72% of those surveyed in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Oct. 12-14 say they are dissatisfied with how things are going in the USA while just 26% are satisfied. Not since April have even one-third of Americans been happy with the country's course, the longest national funk in 15 years....

There's plenty of time for attitudes to change before the election, of course, but the current landscape is the sort that in the past has prompted political upheaval and third-party candidacies. The last time the national mood was so gloomy was in 1992, when the first President Bush was ousted from the White House and H. Ross Perot received the highest percentage of the vote of any third-party candidate in 80 years. Bill Clinton was elected amid economic angst.

Both polls augur well for Democratic prospects next year. As the Pew survey notes, Democratic partisans are more enthusiastic about their party's chances than are their Republican counterparts. The USA Today piece shows as well how political scientists are talking about 2008 in history-making terms: Next year might be "a lot like 1952", according to David Mayhew, a political scientist at Yale and author of Electoral Realignments.

Of course, that's the year Eisenhower took over the White House after twenty years of Democratic power. Republicans might find some consolation in the 1952 analogy, however. Nineteen fifty-two ended up being an abberation in an otherwise long period of Democratic Party dominance. Perhaps Republicans can take heart knowing that should they lose in 2008, history shows clear prospects for the defeated party's return to power within a decade.

Rivals Rattle Clinton on the Evasiveness Issue

Tuesdays are my long days at work, so I did not see this week's Democratic presidential debate. I've been watching clips of the candidates' responses on television, and the newspaper commentaries are starting to trickle in.

This Los Angeles Times article discusses the new focus on evasiveness among Hillary Clinton's rivals, a weakness which might turn out to be the frontrunner's Achilles heel:

After searching for ways to rattle Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and stem her momentum in the Democratic presidential race, her chief rivals believe they have found an opening: what they cast as her evasiveness on several key issues.

The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wasted little time Wednesday suggesting that the New York senator's performance in Tuesday's debate unmasked her as a candidate unwilling to commit to concrete plans.

On at least five issues raised in the debate, Clinton replied in ways that left it unclear what she meant or what action she might take.

That practice has worked for her in the past, permitting her to avoid positions that might antagonize voters, particularly the less partisan ones important to victory in the general election.

But the limitations and potential perils of her approach were driven home at the debate in Philadelphia.

In comments likely foreshadowing the shape of the Democratic contest in coming weeks, top Obama strategist David Axelrod said: "We're going to spell out positions on issues and demand others do as well. One of the things that people are looking for is someone . . . who will be forthright with them and not pass everything through a political calculator. It's a distinction in this race."

A memo issued by the Edwards campaign was more blunt, charging that Clinton was not "telling the truth to the American people."

Republican presidential contender Rudolph W. Giuliani eagerly joined in Wednesday, taking a swipe at Clinton that echoed complaints from her Democratic rivals.

"She was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences," Giuliani said in a radio interview. "And then, by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I've never quite seen that before."

Clinton was wishy-washy on Social Security reform, and she flipped-flopped on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. As usual, Clinton dissembled on Iraq and the war on terror:

On Iraq, she said she was for ending the war, but also said an unspecified number of troops may be left in place for an ongoing mission of battling Al Qaeda fighters in that country.

The shift to pointing out Clinton's evasiveness is probably too late to slow her campaign juggernaut (an effort as difficult as stopping a runaway train, the metaphor I've used to describe the disastrous implications of a Hillary presidency for American politics).

See also additional analyses of Clinton's debate performance at the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times.

Intense Frontloading Forces New Presidential Campaign Strategies

The extremely compressed campaign calendar for the 2008 presidential primaries is forcing candidates to diverge from the traditional election strategies of the past. The Wall Street Journal has the background:

In a topsy-turvy presidential campaign, with hundreds of millions of dollars already raised and a January jam-packed with key events as never before, candidates are challenging some traditional notions about the best path to the White House.

In races past, candidates typically spent most heavily in the early going on the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, then had time to shift resources to larger, later states if the nomination hadn't been sewed up yet.

This campaign season is shaping up differently, especially for Republicans, where two major candidates -- Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson -- are spending their budgets most heavily on Florida. That state's Jan. 29 primary has made it for the first time a potential kingmaker along with Iowa and New Hampshire. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney is also a big spender in Florida.

For Democrats, the growing dominance of Hillary Rodham Clinton, challenged by a struggling but well-financed Barack Obama, has led unprecedented millions to be poured into Iowa -- twice as much as into New Hampshire. Iowa's Jan. 3 caucus has taken on greater importance for Democrats than four or eight years ago because it is the single best chance for Mr. Obama and John Edwards to stop Mrs. Clinton. None of the Democratic candidates are active in Florida because the national party, angry at the state for moving its vote so early, has forbidden campaigning there.

The shape of the campaign emerges from a Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign spending reports released earlier this month. The Journal estimated spending in each state choosing a candidate in January by analyzing campaign filings and gathering data on television-advertising spending and staffing.

"The Democrats are being very much condensed and focused on Iowa, whereas Republicans are pursuing a less conventional strategy," says Evan Tracey, an analyst with TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, a political media research firm. "Campaigns are having to make some tough choices as far as the states where they put their money."

Six states have primaries or caucuses for both parties in January -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan and Florida. A seventh, Wyoming, will select among Republicans. Then, on Feb. 5, California, New York, Illinois and other big states vote in what could be the campaign's decisive day.

The new schedule means voters in some large states may play a more central role in choosing the parties' candidates than in earlier years, when the stretched-out campaign meant the victor was often effectively decided before many big states voted.

Hillary Clinton looks more inevitable all the time. She's pulling so far out front that either Barack Obama or John Edwards will need a win in Iowa to slow the Clinton juggernaut. The Edwards campaign, though, unlike Obama's, would likely be finished with a poor showing in the Hawkeye State.

The real fireworks are on the Republican side. Both Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have placed major bets on the early vote in Florida, where both candidates hope a win will provide the momentum for victory on Super Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

After that day, we'll almost certainly know who'll be the Democratic nominee, although it's heads or tails on the GOP race at this point.

By the way, George Will defends the 2008 nomination process in his new essay at Newsweek. USA Today, on the other hand, suggests we need to reform presidential nominations, moving to regional primaries for 2012.

Wider Iranian Threat Seen on the Ground

This morning's Los Angeles Times reports that the conventional threat from Iran may be more immediate than the eventual development of nuclear weapons capabilities:

While the White House dwells on Iran's nuclear program, senior U.S. diplomats and military officers fear that an incident on the ground in Iraq is a more likely trigger for a possible confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

In one sign of their concern, U.S. military policymakers are weighing whether to release some of the Iranian personnel they have taken into custody in Iraq. Doing so could reduce the risk that radical Iranian elements might seize U.S. military or diplomatic personnel to retaliate, thus raising the danger of an escalation, a senior Defense official said.

The Bush administration has charged that Iran is funding anti-American fighters in Iraq and sending in sophisticated explosives to bleed the U.S. mission, although some of the administration's charges are disputed by Iraqis as well as the Iranians. Still, the diplomatic and military officials say they fear that the overreaching of a confident Iran, combined with growing U.S. frustrations, could set off a dangerous collision.

An unintended clash over Iraq "is very much on people's minds," said an American diplomat, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly express his views.

A U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, despite recent heated rhetoric from the White House, today "seems more remote," he added.

An on-the-ground clash could be sparked, say current and former officials, by a confrontation along the 900-mile-long border between Iran and Iraq, or in the waters of the Persian Gulf. Or it could be ignited over one of the periodic U.S. attempts to arrest those the Americans assert are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq.

The U.S. military might also retaliate if a bombing in Iraq killed a large number of U.S. troops and there was clear evidence of Iranian involvement, U.S. officials have warned.

One senior U.S. military official said the risk of war was now ever present in the Persian Gulf region. He described it as a "sleeping dog" that could be all too easily roused.

This current of thinking appears to be widely shared among many operational-level U.S. diplomats and military officers. Though these American officials are not among the handful of senior aides with whom President Bush consults in making final policy decisions on Iran, they are nonetheless influential as debate continues between hawks and moderates on how to handle the issue.

Many of them judge a U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear program less likely because of the administration's stated emphasis on diplomacy, the strained condition of the U.S. military, and worries that an attack could set off Iranian retaliation without halting Tehran's nuclear program for long.

In the Pentagon, the shift in thinking has occurred in part because many in the department's leadership -- including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- have concluded that a strike against suspected Iranian nuclear sites could be counterproductive, senior Defense officials said.

Washington charges that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, whereas Tehran says it is seeking to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

Gates believes that bombing the nuclear sites would probably slow but not stop the Iranian nuclear effort while building domestic support for the program in Iran and undermining the international diplomatic effort to pressure Tehran to give up its suspected nuclear ambitions, said the senior Defense Department official.

"The nuclear program is still clearly years down the road," the official added.

"The more immediate threat is Iranian meddling and arms supplies into Iraq."

J. Scott Carpenter, a former top State Department official in the Bush administration now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that despite warnings from some quarters that the administration was close to launching an attack on the nuclear facilities, "there is a lot of trepidation and circumspection" within the corridors of Washington power.

On the other hand, the risk of a collision on the ground in Iraq has been growing since January, when Bush condemned Iran's activities in Iraq, threatened to destroy Iranian networks he said were providing military gear to anti-U.S. forces, and dispatched additional warships and other military hardware to the region.

Suddenly, U.S. officials who had been complaining publicly that Iran was broadly meddling were now accusing Tehran of responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops. They focused especially on the activities of the Quds Force, an elite and ideologically motivated unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps that the U.S. believes has sent hundreds of members across the porous border with Iraq to help train and provide weaponry to anti-American militias.

U.S. intelligence officials continue to track the flow of weapons they say come from Iran, and believe that in addition to much-publicized explosively formed projectiles -- roadside bombs that can penetrate armored vehicles -- Iran is supplying rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and large rocket launchers, according to a senior military official in Baghdad.

I've noted previously that an attack on Iran is not imminent, despite left-wing claims to the contrary.

But as this article indicates, U.S. and Iranian interests are increasingly at odds. With our continued success in Iraq, Americans now have the best chance in recent years to turn the tide against Iranian aggression there, and throughout the Middle East as well.

Heartened by Success in Iraq

Frederick Kagen, in new essay at the Weekly Standard, says America should be heartened by our victories in Iraq:

America has won an important battle in the war on terror. We turned an imminent victory for Al Qaeda In Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq, but also in the global struggle. In the past five months, terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent. Car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent. Casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent. And violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan--traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks--was the lowest in three years.

Winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Our commanders and soldiers are continuing the fight to ensure that al Qaeda does not recover even as they turn their attention to the next battle: against Shia militias sponsored by Iran. Beyond Iraq, battles in Afghanistan and elsewhere demand our attention. But let us properly take stock of what has been accomplished.

At the end of 2006, the United States was headed for defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent leaders proclaimed their imminent triumph. Our own intelligence analysts and commanders agreed that our previous strategies had failed. The notion that a "surge" of a few brigades and a change of mission could transform the security situation in Iraq was ridiculed. Many experts and politicians proclaimed the futility of further military effort in Iraq. Imagine if they had been heeded.

Had al Qaeda been allowed to drive us from Iraq in disgrace, it would control safe havens throughout Anbar, in Baghdad, up the Tigris River valley, in Baquba, and in the "triangle of death"....

Instead, Al Qaeda In Iraq today is broken. Individual al Qaeda cells persist, in steadily shrinking areas of the country, but they can no longer mount the sort of coherent operations across Iraq that had become the norm in 2006. The elimination of key leaders and experts has led to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the al Qaeda bombings that do occur, hence the steady and dramatic declines in overall casualty rates....

How did we achieve this success? Before the surge began, American forces in Iraq had attempted to fight al Qaeda primarily with the sort of intelligence-driven, targeted raids that many advocates of immediate withdrawal claim they want to continue. Those efforts failed. Our skilled soldiers captured and killed many al Qaeda leaders, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but the terrorists were able to replace them faster than we could kill them. Success came with a new strategy.

Al Qaeda excesses in Anbar Province and elsewhere had already begun to generate local resentment, but those local movements could not advance without our help. The takfiris--as the Iraqis call the sectarian extremists of al Qaeda--brutally murdered and tortured any local Sunni leaders who dared to speak against them, until American troops began to work to clear the terrorist strongholds in Ramadi in late 2006. But there were not enough U.S. forces in Anbar to complete even that task, let alone to protect local populations throughout the province and in the Sunni areas of Iraq. The surge of forces into Anbar and the Baghdad belts allowed American troops to complete the clearing of Ramadi and to clear Falluja and other takfiri strongholds.

The additional troops also allowed American commanders to pursue defeated al Qaeda cells and prevent them from reestablishing safe-havens. The so-called "water balloon effect," in which terrorists were simply squeezed from one area of the country to another, did not occur in 2007 because our commanders finally had the resources to go after the terrorists wherever they fled. After the clearing of the city of Baquba this year, al Qaeda fighters attempted to flee up the Diyala River valley and take refuge in the Hamrin Ridge. Spectacular bombings in small villages in that area, including the massive devastation in the Turkmen village of Amerli, roughly 100 miles north of Baghdad, that killed hundreds, were intended to provide al Qaeda with the terror wedge it needed to gain a foothold in the area. But with American troops in hot pursuit, the terrorists had to stay on the run, breaking their movement into smaller and more disaggregated cells. The addition of more forces, the change in strategy to focus on protecting the population, both Sunni and Shia, and the planning and execution of multiple simultaneous, and sequential operations across the entire theater combined with a shift in attitudes among the Sunni population to revolutionize the situation.

Some now say that, although America's soldiers were successful in this task, the next battle is hopeless. We cannot control the Shia militias, they say. The Iraqis will never "reconcile." The government will not make the decisions it must make to sustain the current progress, and all will collapse. Perhaps. But those who now proclaim the hopelessness of future efforts also ridiculed the possibility of the success we have just achieved. If one predicts failure long enough, one may turn out to be right. But the credibility of the prophets of doom--those who questioned the veracity and integrity of General David Petraeus when he dared to report progress--is at a low ebb.

There is a long struggle ahead in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere against al Qaeda and its allies in extremism. We can still lose. American forces and Afghan allies defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001 as completely as we are defeating it in Iraq. But mistakes and a lack of commitment by both the United States and the NATO forces to whom we handed off responsibility have allowed a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan. We must not repeat that mistake in Iraq where the stakes are so much higher. America must not try to pocket the success we have achieved in Iraq and declare a premature and meaningless victory. Instead, let us be heartened by success. We have avoided for the moment a terrible danger and created a dramatic opportunity. Let's seize it.

Indeed, let's seize it, all of us, including the Democratic presidential candidates.

Earmarking John Murtha

Democratic Congressman John Murtha is the king of pork barrel legislation, according to this eye-popping piece in today's Wall Street Journal. Here's the introduction:

If John Murtha were a businessman, he'd be the biggest employer in this town.

The powerful U.S. congressman has used his clout on Capitol Hill to create thousands of jobs and steer billions of dollars in federal spending to help his hometown in western Pennsylvania recover from devastating floods and the flight of its steelmakers.

More is on the way. In the massive 2008 military-spending bill now before Congress -- which could go to a House-Senate conference as soon as Thursday -- Mr. Murtha has steered more taxpayer funds to his congressional district than any other member. The Democratic lawmaker is chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which will oversee more than $459 billion in military spending this year.

Johnstown's good fortune has come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. Defense contractors have found that if they open an office here and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts. Over the past decade, Concurrent Technologies Corp., a defense-research firm that employs 800 here, got hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to Rep. Murtha despite poor reviews by Pentagon auditors. The National Drug Intelligence Center, with 300 workers, got $509 million, though the White House has tried for years to shut it down as wasteful and unnecessary. Another beneficiary: MTS Technologies, run by a man who got his start some 40 years ago shining shoes at Mr. Murtha's Johnstown Minute Car Wash.

A review by The Wall Street Journal of dozens of such contracts funded by Mr. Murtha's committee shows that many weren't sought by the military or federal agencies they were intended to benefit. Some were inefficient or mismanaged, according to interviews, public records and previously unpublished Pentagon audits. One Murtha-backed firm, ProLogic Inc., is under federal investigation for allegedly diverting public funds to develop commercial software, people close to the case say. The company denies wrongdoing and is in line to get millions of dollars more in the pending defense bill.

Mr. Murtha, a gruff, combat-decorated former Marine, was thrust into the national spotlight last year by his opposition to the Iraq war. Yet he has long been known in Washington, where he wields power like an old-fashioned political boss and has become a lightning rod for Republican attacks. With years of strong support for the military, he's also been an important voice for Democrats in battles over war funding and troop withdrawal.

Or, more accurately, he's been an important voice in the hardline left's Iraq surrender campaign. That's enough of a turnoff, but he's also a foul-mouthed bully:

In Washington, Mr. Murtha - Jack, as he's widely known - is used to getting his way. At 6-feet-6 and 75 years old, he has been known to physically intimidate opponents and fly into a red-faced rage when crossed. (One recent tirade, against a Republican who had tried to cut funding for a Johnstown earmark, found its way onto YouTube.) He curses like the Parris Island drill sergeant he once was, punctuating conversations by punching a finger into the chest of foes and friends alike.

Read the whole thing.

While Murtha's the pork-barrel king, he's just one powerful practitioner in the longstanding and widely-accepted practice of bringing home the bacon to constituents. Both parties are implicated in the practice (as the article notes, congressional earmarks are down this year under the Democrats).

To be fair, though, it makes good sense to use institutional rules to bring tangible benefits back home to the district. But as the article amply demonstrates, the enormous sums pumping through the earmarking system generate powerful incentives for corruption and waste. Even amid calls for reform, legislative logrolling keeps earmarking alive. It's difficult to change a system in which those who would seek to abolish a practice are the same recipients of the system's rewards.

That said, I just don't like Murtha (hopefully he'll be earmarked for a premature exit in 2008's elections), and I'm obviously not the only one. Michelle Makin, for example, is having fun with the article, and she provides this nifty Murtha Abscam YouTube as well:

See who's also blogging at Memeorandum.

*********

UPDATE: The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat reports that Republican William T. Russell, "a career Army man," and veteran of both Iraq wars, will challenge Murtha for control of Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district in 2008.

Hat tip: Sister Toldjah.

The Cult of Racial Victimology Backlash

David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks offer a penetrating attack on the cult of racial victimology in today's Los Angeles Times.

It turns out that Gloria Jeff, a political appointee at L.A.'s Department of Transportation, won a $95,000 award for wrongful termination from the city last week after she was fired for incompetence and uncollegiality. Jeff is black, and according to Lehrer and Hicks, her the award, probably handed down to avoid a lawsuit, "was appropriately lambasted in local editorials, which decried paying out a princely sum."

The authors argue that the ultimate message from the episode is that victimologists will defend racial favoritism at all costs, in their effort to maintain diversity in minority representation:

The award to Jeff and the discussion about her firing leave a uniformly negative residue. What prevailed is a worldview in which racial/ethnic identity is more important than any other factor in judging a person. Jeff had to be a victim of bias because of her color, regardless of whether there were legitimate reasons for her dismissal.

This method of viewing the world -- solely through a prism of race and ethnicity -- has a serious and, one would assume, unintended side effect, no matter the intentions of those who employ it. It tells the world that colorblind practices that hold minorities to the same standards as others may simply not be good enough. If an at-will employee terminated by an elected official like Villaraigosa, with an unparalleled record of minority hiring, can extract a sizable monetary settlement, what are the prospects for a run-of-the-mill private employer who wants to terminate a minority employee when no bias is involved? A very public precedent has been set: If the merest assertion of bias is made, the expectations of reward will probably be there.

There are employers who will understand this and, when faced with a choice between hiring a non-minority or a minority, may well think twice about hiring the minority because of a fear that any decision to terminate or discipline the employee would be subject to allegations of racism -- based solely on the employee's minority status.

African American leaders who assert racism at the drop of a hat presume to be advancing the cause of minorities by being vigilant. In fact, they may be inadvertently adding to the discrimination in our country and doing their constituents, and the public, a grave disservice.

Obviously, that's not a message that members of the victims' cult want to hear.

Angelina Jolie and World Politics

Check this excerpt from Daniel Drezner's forthcoming article on celebrity and world politics (and Angelina Jolie!), at the National Interest:

WHO WOULD you rather sit next to at your next Council on Foreign Relations roundtable: Henry Kissinger or Angelina Jolie? This is a question that citizens of the white-collared foreign-policy establishment thought they’d never be asked. The massive attention paid to Paris Hilton’s prison ordeal, Lindsay Lohan’s shame spiral and anything Britney Spears has done, said or exposed has distracted pop-culture mavens from celebrities that were making nobler headlines.

Increasingly, celebrities are taking an active interest in world politics. When media maven Tina Brown attends a Council on Foreign Relations session, you know something fundamental has changed in the relationship between the world of celebrity and world politics. What’s even stranger is that these efforts to glamorize foreign policy are actually affecting what governments do and say. The power of soft news has given star entertainers additional leverage to advance their causes. Their ability to raise issues to the top of the global agenda is growing. This does not mean that celebrities can solve the problems that bedevil the world. And not all celebrity activists are equal in their effectiveness. Nevertheless, politically-engaged stars cannot be dismissed as merely an amusing curiosity in foreign policy.

Consider the most notable example of a celebrity attempting to move the global agenda: Angelina Jolie. Her image has come a long way since her marriage to Billy Bob Thornton. In February of this year she published an op-ed in The Washington Post about the crisis in Darfur, referencing her work as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. During the summer, her press junket to promote A Mighty Heart included interviews with Foreign Policy’s website and a glowing profile in Newsweek, modestly titled “Angelina Jolie Wants to Save the World.” In that story, former Secretary of State Colin Powell describes Jolie as “absolutely serious, absolutely informed. . . .She studies the issues.” Esquire’s July 2007 cover featured a sultry picture of Jolie—but the attached story suggested something even more provocative: “In post-9/11 America, Angelina Jolie is the best woman in the world because she is the most famous woman in the world—because she is not like you or me.”

What in the name of Walter Scott’s Personality Parade is going on? Why has international relations gone glam? Have stars like Jolie, Madonna, Bono, Sean Penn, Steven Spielberg, George Clooney and Sheryl Crow carved out a new way to become foreign-policy heavyweights? Policy cognoscenti might laugh off this question as absurd, but the career arc of Al Gore should give them pause. As a conventional politician, Gore made little headway in addressing the problem of global warming beyond negotiating a treaty that the United States never ratified. As a post–White House celebrity, Gore starred in An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, promoted this past summer’s Live Earth concert and reframed the American debate about global warming. Gore has been far more successful as a celebrity activist than he ever was as vice president. This is the kind of parable that could lead aspiring policy wonks to wonder if the best way to command policy influence is to attend Julliard instead of the Fletcher School.

The Fletcher School is Tuft University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Drezner's an Associate Professor in International Politics there.

I'm interested to read the full article when it comes out.

Remembering Mark Daily

Christopher Hitchens has a poignant remembrance of Army 2nd Lieutenant Mark Daily at Vanity Fair. Daily was killed in Iraq on January 15, 2007. Daily cited Hitchens as a deep influence on his thinking about the morality of the war, a fact that came as a jolt to the writer:

I was having an oppressively normal morning a few months ago, flicking through the banality of quotidian e-mail traffic, when I idly clicked on a message from a friend headed "Seen This?" The attached item turned out to be a very well-written story by Teresa Watanabe of the Los Angeles Times. It described the death, in Mosul, Iraq, of a young soldier from Irvine, California, named Mark Jennings Daily, and the unusual degree of emotion that his community was undergoing as a consequence. The emotion derived from a very moving statement that the boy had left behind, stating his reasons for having become a volunteer and bravely facing the prospect that his words might have to be read posthumously. In a way, the story was almost too perfect: this handsome lad had been born on the Fourth of July, was a registered Democrat and self-described agnostic, a U.C.L.A. honors graduate, and during his college days had fairly decided reservations about the war in Iraq. I read on, and actually printed the story out, and was turning a page when I saw the following:

"Somewhere along the way, he changed his mind. His family says there was no epiphany. Writings by author and columnist Christopher Hitchens on the moral case for war deeply influenced him … "

I don't exaggerate by much when I say that I froze. I certainly felt a very deep pang of cold dismay. I had just returned from a visit to Iraq with my own son (who is 23, as was young Mr. Daily) and had found myself in a deeply pessimistic frame of mind about the war. Was it possible that I had helped persuade someone I had never met to place himself in the path of an I.E.D.? Over-dramatizing myself a bit in the angst of the moment, I found I was thinking of William Butler Yeats, who was chilled to discover that the Irish rebels of 1916 had gone to their deaths quoting his play Cathleen ni Houlihan. He tried to cope with the disturbing idea in his poem "Man and the Echo":

Did that play of mine send out
Certain men the English shot? …
Could my spoken words have checked
That whereby a house lay wrecked?

Abruptly dismissing any comparison between myself and one of the greatest poets of the 20th century, I feverishly clicked on all the links from the article and found myself on Lieutenant Daily's MySpace site, where his statement "Why I Joined" was posted. The site also immediately kicked into a skirling noise of Irish revolutionary pugnacity: a song from the Dropkick Murphys album Warrior's Code. And there, at the top of the page, was a link to a passage from one of my articles, in which I poured scorn on those who were neutral about the battle for Iraq … I don't remember ever feeling, in every allowable sense of the word, quite so hollow.

I writhed around in my chair for a bit and decided that I ought to call Ms. Watanabe, who could not have been nicer. She anticipated the question I was too tongue-tied to ask: Would the Daily family—those whose "house lay wrecked"—be contactable? "They'd actually like to hear from you." She kindly gave me the e-mail address and the home number.

I don't intend to make a parade of my own feelings here, but I expect you will believe me when I tell you that I e-mailed first. For one thing, I didn't want to choose a bad time to ring. For another, and as I wrote to his parents, I was quite prepared for them to resent me. So let me introduce you to one of the most generous and decent families in the United States, and allow me to tell you something of their experience.

Read the whole thing. Hitchens relates a very intimate story of grief and sacrifice.

Hitchens spent time with the Daily family, and he was invited to spead the soldier's ashes off the coast of Oregon. He notes this about the experience:

I thought, Well, here we are to perform the last honors for a warrior and hero, and there are no hysterical ululations, no shrieks for revenge, no insults hurled at the enemy, no firing into the air or bogus hysterics. Instead, an honest, brave, modest family is doing its private best. I hope no fanatical fool could ever mistake this for weakness. It is, instead, a very particular kind of strength. If America can spontaneously produce young men like Mark, and occasions like this one, it has a real homeland security instead of a bureaucratic one. To borrow some words of George Orwell's when he first saw revolutionary Barcelona, "I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for."

Hitchens salutes Daily in the conclusion (may death be not proud to have taken him), and I found this poem, "Death Be Not Proud," by John Donne (1572-1631):

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

"And soonest our best men with thee doe goe," indeed. For Teresa Watanabe's story, click here; and for Daily's essay, "Why I Joined," click here.