Fideli certa merces

Ignorance: The Enemy of Freedom

2009-02-18T18:51:00.000-08:00

Transparency, and everything that goes with it, is a prerequisite of freedom.

For how is it I can claim freedom of choice if I'm intentionally left ignorant of the choices or the consequences of those choices?

But there are some trade-offs involved in the process.

To the end of rectifying the ignorance that is a barrier to freedom, government passes and enforces laws against fraud (where someone deprives another of the fruits of his labor under false pretenses), waste (where the fruits of labor are devalued for use on things for which it has no mandate), and abuse (the difference from waste being only malicious intent).

However, these regulations have a cost. Transparency in food, for instance, requires accurate nutritional measurements and labeling. This costs the manufacturer/distributor money, which they build into the cost of the goods sold.

Plus, any time there is a regulation, there is someone there to claim a violation, which results in a strain on the judicial system (not to mention the risk of an unfavorable judgment, regardless of guilt, which must also be accounted for in pricing).

So in addition to the costs that are built into the costs of goods, the legislative and judicial costs (i.e., government overhead) that these regulations incur are ultimately borne by the taxpayer.

In order to raise these funds, the government must require the governed to sacrifice a portion of the fruits of their labor to pay for the infrastructure and the added cost of enforcement.

Since this taxation is an inherent limit of the freedom of the taxpayer, who cannot spend the money the government took on other things he feels more likely to satisfy his happiness, it can be said that regulations and freedom are negatively correlated.

Thus, people should regard regulations with jealous suspicion, understanding that though regulations often change, the power that they imbue on the government that passes them is only very rarely given up voluntarily.

Consequently, regulations tend to have an additive effect, which makes diligence and skepticism -- regardless of the party in power -- that much more important.

Time for Some Campaignin'

2008-07-17T08:15:00.000-07:00

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Benedict Arnold Was a Volunteer, Too, Rep. Murtha

2007-09-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

Credit Jason Mattera of the Young Americans Foundation for confronting Rep. Jack Murtha (D - PA) on his calling Marines in Haditha cold-blooded killers. As of this moment, the charges against them are being dropped left and right, and Murtha refuses to apologize.

In fact, Murtha even has the audacity to, instead of acknowledge that what he said was not ever supported by the facts of the case, claim moral superiority by pointing out that he volunteered for duty in Korea. As usual, Murtha tried to shield himself from any criticism by pointing out that he was, at one time, a tolerable human being and patriot.

Benedict Arnold was wounded in action in Canada when he took a round to the leg, but he kept leading his troops on in spite of the damage. He was considered a hero.

After he betrayed the U.S. at West Point, he led a small force to take Richmond and captured an American officer. Arnold asked what the Americans would do to him if they captured him. The American patriot told him they would bury his leg with full military honors and hang the rest of him.

Murtha - You are no Benedict Arnold. You are far worse. At least when Arnold changed sides, he started wearing the uniform of the enemy.

Guliani's McCain Endorsement

2007-08-08T04:05:00.000-07:00

On the Mark Levin show yesterday, Mark was incredulous that Rudy Guliani dared to suggest he would back McCain, if Guliani himself decided to not enter the race. Levin's disdain for McCain is the result of his lack of conservative credentials.

There should be no mystery here. McCain, in spite of sizable support, is on his heels, and it is speculated that he may drop out soon. This little display of "generosity" may encourage McCain to, once he drops out (and he will) to throw his support Guliani's way.

Not all McCain supporters will, as a result, back Guliani, but some of them will. This was a pure political play. Nothing more.

By the way, McCain's lack of conservative credentials should be of little concern to Levin, as Guliani has next to none. Why he's pretending as if they disagree on only one or two minor issues is beyond me.

Putting the Spotlight on Jack Murtha's Shameful Behavior

2007-07-11T11:54:00.000-07:00

May 16, 2006:
"A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines 'killed innocent civilians in cold blood,' a U.S. lawmaker [Jack Murtha] said Wednesday."
[source]

July 11, 2007
"Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Corporal Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force," according to the hearing officer for the case.
[source]

The biggest shame is that it took so long to determine something that was so plainly evident. Jack Murtha disgraced his office, his countrymen, and the Marine Corps, but we -- and the accused Marines -- had to wait over a year for the investigation to bear this out.

It goes to show you the practical harm that can accrue when you support your nation's enemies rather than your own nation.

Pacifism Must Be Mutual

2007-06-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

My brother, in response to a post I made elsewhere, made a good point with regard to pacifism. Rather than try to interject my own "wisdom," I'll let his words speak for themselves.

Einstein was a pacifist too. He used to cry at the site of military men marching by in formation. Yet when he was confronted directly with a choice to lend his support in stopping Hitler or to not, he signed the letter Leo Szilard had written urging Franklin Roosevelt to develop a bomb before Germany did.

If one of the smartest men how ever lived had to abandon his utopian principles for realist ones, what makes the rest of us think we could avoid getting in a fight if confronted with it directly? Pacifism only works if both parties agree to it. If one party adheres to pacifism and the other does not, the pacifist will be the one to become extinct.

Einstein's story shows us that pacifism is a luxury some enjoy at the expense of others. That is why I admire those who serve: Because they volunteer to meet the harsh world on its own terms so that America can live in a cocoon of peace. I admire them because they allow the rest of us to revel in our illusion of pacifism, choosing not to fight, because others have chosen to fight for us.

An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

2007-05-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

I love you to death... And I'm buying a lot of what you're selling (and have been for a long time). Congress should have fulfilled its duty to declare war, as you said.

But although we'd be better served by a your vision of nonintervention, we still can't get around the fact that we were attacked on 9/11. Whatever the flaws were in our policy that the enemy used for motivation, the act was still unjustified, morally.

Since we were unjustly attacked, we had a moral responsibility to retaliate and prevent further attacks. Withdrawing from Iraq before the situation is stabilized will do nothing to advance that end -- and will indeed hurt it, no matter whom is elected President.

I know all the talking points that tell us that "Saddam wasn't behind 9/11... blah blah blah."

That's really irrelevant. Saddam was a known sponsor of terror -- terror that had already reached our soil. The very definition of terrorism gives us the reason we need to remove such threats swiftly and forcefully. If anything, we've not been swift or forceful enough, which is where I think a formal declaration of war would have been very helpful from a practical standpoint. Obviously Congress was obligated to declare war, morally, if they really thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our national interests.

Dr. Paul, I admire and respect you for your integrity, rationality, and respect for our Constitution. Unless I'm terribly mistaken about you, regardless of what you do with your position here, I likely always will.

However, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider this particular opinion, or at least acknowledge that if you are elected President, you would follow a policy that respects the ends of the sacrifice already made by so many in our military (as well as our taxpayers).

Until you do, though I'd still strongly consider you as a viable option in the general election, I will never donate to your campaign and I'll never work for your election.

I won't be working for anyone else, either, but you were at least the one candidate I wanted to support.

Peace in Name Only

2007-04-26T19:49:00.000-07:00

Without a hint of irony, after taking his part in the passage of a bill that orders the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq, Barack Obama brazenly claimed that we are "one signature away" from ending the war in Iraq. Veterans need to politely inform this nincompoop that wars are not won on paper, and the conflict in Iraq -- you know, the one Congress authorized -- is only one part of a global struggle against Islamofascists who will decidedly NOT go away just because the Commander-in-Chief did or did not sign a worthless piece of paper.

To be sure, the terrorists we are fighting want President Bush to sign it. They want anyone in that office who will force our troops to do the unthinkable -- retreat in the face of the enemy, and they know a Democrat is more likely to do that than a Republican. Nothing would make them happier, except for, perhaps, a bill forcing the President and the rest of the U.S. to convert to Islam. But whatever you do, don't suggest that the terrorists want Democrats to win. That would be like questioning their patriotism.

I don't know, but is that any worse than questioning the President's integrity? Because the Democrats do that all the time, even though they were in full agreement having access to the same intelligence when their judgment and patriotism were set against the backdrop of 3,000 dead bodies and the bravery of men and women who had the courage to stand up and fight back without being told.

To justify their claim of Bush's dishonesty, Democrats also must conveniently forget the numerous resolutions Saddam Hussein violated, the terrorists he openly supported, the chemical weapons he never accounted for, and the fact that WMDs have actually been found in Iraq. We didn't find the stockpiles he used to have but never demonstrated that he destroyed them as he promised. Everything else was 100% true. Conclusion? Bush lied. Iraq is a failure.

While there are many Democrats out there who, solely on the basis of their gullibility and stupidity, still have their integrity intact, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and every Democratic candidate for President are cowards, liars, and political opportunists who are willing to sacrifice American troops and America's security because they think it will help them gain power.

Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not questioning their patriotism. I'm saying plainly, they are not patriots.

They're fools, charlatans, and quite possibly the most dangerous people in America. If we do not succeed in Iraq... if we withdraw before we finish the job... the collapse of our nation cannot be far behind. Armed with the knowledge that we are, as Osama bin Laden predicted after Clinton withdrew us from Somalia, a paper tiger, we'll have no means to stop the committed fanatics from bringing their version of jihad to this country.

If we elect Democrats in the next election, we will deserve exactly what we get. I will be, for the first time in my life, ashamed to be associated with my countrymen.

Everybody say "Awwwww"

2007-01-16T04:53:00.000-08:00

The Origin of OO-RAH

2006-11-08T21:16:00.000-08:00

The origin of the word “OO-RAH” has been a subject of frustration and dispute over the years. U.S. Marines were the word’s first proprietors, using it to express contentment or to set expectations. And although use-dependent, the word OO-RAH can take on a variety of meanings. Now after languishing in military jargon obscurity for decades, it has rapidly become much more commonly known as even civilians associate its use with Marines.

The spelling of the word has never been standardized, as is often the case with phonetic interpretations of a sound that can only be properly formed at the bottom of the lungs. Variant spellings include “OORAH,” “OOHRAH,” and “OOH-RAH.” However it is spelled, it is recognizable as distinctly Marine whether spoken or written, and it can easily be distinguished from the Army version, the venerable but significantly less motivating “HOO-AH.”

On one of the many training videos I had to endure as a Marine, a major in Service “C” uniform was speaking to a bunch of elementary school kids. Never one to particularly enjoy watching these videos when much more important work was waiting to be done, I was at least amused by the approach. Within a course of minutes, the major got the kids’ attention and obedience in a manner reminiscent of boot camp, where upon hearing the command “EYEBALLS!” sixty recruits would lock their eyes on the drill instructor and say, in unison, “SNAP!” Amusingly, the major went on to deadpan, “Marines do not cheer. Marines do not clap. When a Marine is pleased, he says, ‘Aarugha.’” From that point on, whenever he called for an affirmative response, the children would yell at the top of their lungs, “AARUGHA!” I don’t even remember why I had to watch that video, but I’ll always remember that major and his group of elementary school kids or as my dad would call them, “future Marines.”

Of course, an astute reader would note the lack of a “G” in “OO-RAH,” and I also had this thought. However, as it turns out, there appears to be some connection between the familiar battle cry of a Marine and the deep klaxon alarm of a submarine. According to several sources, including Lcpl Paul Hirseman (2004), writing for the Marine Corps website:

Marines and historians have determined the true origins of "Oorah" lie with recon Marines stationed in Korea in 1953. During this time, reconnaissance Marines in the 1st Amphibious Reconnaissance Co., found themselves traveling via submarine to where they were needed. The memorable call of "dive, dive!" would be called on the intercom and a klaxon alarm, which made a very distinct "Aarugha" sound, would announce the descent of the sub below water.

The recon Marines, who heard this sound often, started using it as a motivational tool during runs and physical training. Over time, the word "Aarugha" came to be too much of a mouthful, and eventually molded itself into the familiar "Oorah," according to Maj. Gary Marte, a retired Marine.

[source]

Having grown up as a Marine brat and being given the unique opportunity to watch my two older brothers join the Corps before me, I was well acquainted with the term before I joined. I originally thought it could only mean that the person saying it was highly motivated to be a Marine, as I heard it most often after the “Star Spangled Banner” finished playing before a movie at a base theater. Since then, I have seen it used as a replacement for “Aye, Aye,” as a greeting, and to announce the presence of Marines, such as when the Corps is mentioned to a mixed audience. To further demonstrate the indefatigable utility of OO-RAH, I‘ve compiled a top 10 list of possible meanings:

I am a Marine.
I enthusiastically accept your message.
I am excited to be here.
Pleased to make your acquaintance.
What you ask of me—not only will I do—I will do in a manner befitting a Marine.
I expect good things out of you.
Good job.
I am not supposed to be motivated about performing this task, but I will force myself to express excitement for the benefit of my fellow Marines and to tactfully annoy my superiors who gave me the task.
I love being a Marine.
I am about to destroy something.

While the above list is unofficial and not comprehensive, some of the meanings do strike a chord. According to one retired Marine, “[T]he first time my wife heard the ‘OO-RAH’ chant was at a base theater. Everyone stood as the national anthem was played, and one half of a nanosecond after the last note... every Marine went into a repeating OO-RAH chant. [My wife] turned to me and asked, ‘Why are they all barking!’”

That brings us to number 11 on our top 10 list (Marines must exceed expectations, after all):

11. Happy Birthday, Marine!

The Virtues of Capitalism

2006-11-03T15:40:00.000-08:00

Several years back, a friend of mine told me about something she had seen on cable, where some PhD was upset because enough money was being spent on marketing a beneficial drug to actually administer the drug -- for free -- to people who needed it. The implication my friend made -- and presumably the PhD -- was that the money spent on marketing was a waste.

A young socialist in the making, my friend was not very pleased when I suggested that the money that was fed into the marketing budget would not have been possible but for its successful dissemination of information about the drug to the correct audience, without which many people would have been ignorant of it, and they would have not been able to share in its benefits.

Sure, the company could have poured millions of dollars into the research and development of a medicine, paid for rigorous testing, modification, and retesting to ensure it met the standards of the FDA and good conscience, and then just given it away, but such a venture would not have been sustainable. That lack of sustainability would have put the company out of business, which would have robbed many sick people of the ability to buy the drug. Sometimes drug companies do give away medicine for free, but they are only able to do so because they have made a profit elsewhere.

Of course contemporary socialists would point out that state ownership of the drug company would prevent it from going out of business, but the fact of the matter is that without the accountability that comes with the ability to earn and retain property, state-owned companies typically lack the motivation necessary to create innovative products economically.

Unless we are, in fact, advertising for drug companies, not everything is going to have the same direct impact physical health of society as medicine. However, we can take some solace in the knowledge that capitalism results in increased innovation (that goes along with trying to outdo one's competitors), employment, and the popular acquisition and retention of property, which is often invested in other fruitful ventures or charities.

This machine is not indestructible, but it is at least serviceable. And while some might be depressed by looking at it as the fine-tuned collaboration of independent self-interests, I look at it as the clumsy serendipity of collective sacrificial service. To wit: We are not successful by seeking first what we want, but we are successful by seeking first to give others what they want. It is easy to be selfish and ask for what we want. It is more difficult - and more fulfilling -- to try to anticipate what others need. Even if we know implicitly that the result is good for us, too,

When I reflect on the fact that this is consistent with a Christian worldview that calls on us to treat others as we would like to be treated, I am reminded that God doesn't make arbitrary rules. Notably, capitalism in action cannot replace good conscience, but it can often be a decent barometer.

A Web 2.0 Experiment: The Popcorn Scholar

2006-10-13T07:24:00.000-07:00

I've been noticing an flurry of posts on blogs such as Logic + Emotion and Servant of Chaos about the potential power of Web 2.0. And I know I don't even have to mention Seth Godin. He's been an advocate for this for a long time, and he's staked quite a bit of his own fame and wealth behind it. But it has me wondering two things:

1. Are we right, and
2. How can we verify it?

Meet the Popcorn Scholar. My 9 year-old son, Avery: the newest entrant in the blogosphere.

Having grown up a military brat before I joined the Marine Corps myself, I have a large extended network of family and friends; it just so happens that we are spread out across the world.

My son just entered the Webelos, which is this transitional period between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, but all of them fall under the Boy Scouts of America (BSOA). Like Girl Scouts famously sell cookies to raise money, the BSOA sells popcorn, and as every parent of a school-age child knows, when you have kids, you have fundraisers no matter what.

One of my son's first events as a Scout was to go to DFW to greet troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan -- obviously something very near and dear to my heart, coming from a family of four Marines. We were told that most of them were just going to be home for a few weeks on R & R, and then they'd be shipping out back to their respective theaters of operation.

Several members of my son's Webelos "den" went to the airport and filled little goodie bags with popcorn that was graciously donated either by parents or the friends and other family members. It is a small gesture, but I know from growing up in a Marine Corps family how big of a deal such small gestures are to the morale of the troops for them to feel appreciated for their sacrifice. Even small gestures can seem like big ones when they have the weight of the community behind them.

My son was excited about it like I've rarely seen him excited before. I could tell by looking at him that he took great joy in seeing these heroes walk through that crowd to thunderous applause, shaking hands as they went, and I knew I had to help nurture that admiration, generosity, and respect.

Of course, Avery wants to do well in scouting, too, and it's my job to give him the tools to do it. The answer was staring me in the face. The Internet. It is the glue that holds my widely dispersed network of family and friends together.

Introducing Avery to blogging has some fringe benefits, as well. He'll have his own website where he can collect donations, but he will also learn how to measure the world according to his perspective and develop the discipline to follow through and INNOVATE--skills that he can use for the rest of his life.

I know... Some of you who have developed an addiction to blogging will consider this cruel and unusual, but aren't you at least curious to see if this Web 2.0 thing is everything people -- including me -- are saying it is? The livelihoods in many of our chosen professions depends on that answer being "yes."

I mean... I have been posting on discussion boards and chat rooms since at least 1996. I contribute regularly to two blogs, I am a member of LinkedIn, I have a MySpace page, my very own FAQ, a couple of Squidoo lenses -- a virtual community that's as close as an email, or a blog post, away.

By myself, I am insignificant, but together, shouldn't we be able to move mountains?

So what is it worth to you to find out? Will you make a post on your blog about it? Will you donate a few seconds of your time to leave a comment on my son's blog? Will you donate $5 to the fund, which goes to the popcorn sold by the Boy Scouts, who will use it to put a smile on the face of a few of our heroes?

Oh, and we only have until October 27.

I'll encourage my son to keep blogging... hopefully long after that... but there is an immediate urgency to getting the word out now. If you would help, I would appreciate it, but more than that, you will be helping to support both the Boy Scouts and the heroes who keep us safe. Plus, we'll be able confirm that our suspicions about the power of Web 2.0 are correct. I will keep you all aprised of the results.

popcornscholar.com

Be prepared, do your best, and Semper Fi.

Beyond Incompetence

2006-09-27T06:56:00.000-07:00

The classified reports that are being leaked to news organizations go far beyond accidental missteps ala war-critic Richard "Stone Age" Armitage. The New York Times has been particularly malicious in releasing information they knew to be classified and hiding behind "Freedom of the Press." Well, maybe the federal government cannot prosecute the New York Times for publishing information that they came by through no malfeasance of their own. But the government can and should prosecute those who leaked it.

The initial leak-based report of the most recent national intelligence assessment was incomplete anyway. And anywone who thinks that the recommendations about prosecuting war on terrorists is simple enough to be based on a headline or a couple of sentences has an unrealistic view on life and cannot be trusted with pen and paper, let alone a printing press.

The crux of the argument is not really news anyway. The assertion by the intelligence community--that the war in Iraq is being used by terrorists as a recruitment tool--is not a mystery. To act as if what this reality, which has always been understood, validates their opposition to the war smacks of dishonesty. The terrorists hate us and are always looking for ways to replenish their ranks. They need to do that because we keep killing them.

The law of averages suggests they will achieve some measure of success no matter what rationale they use, but the Iraq issue is uniquely effective for a whole host of reasons, including a deep-harbored fear among many of the manipulated ill-informed that the U.S. is trying to run a 21st century Crusade against Islam. Al Quaeda is decentralized because we have killed or captured many of their leaders and we keep disrupting their attempts to organize.

Of course, this has natural consequences in the short term. As we literally and figuratively blow them to smithereens, it will be difficult to find all of the widely dispersed pieces (and this is, the estimate indicates, a desireable short-term goal). However, that dispersement poses particular challenges for a nation as large as ours, given the terrorists' proclivity to hide themselves behind civilians. It is right and proper that we recognize these consequences, for they speak to the nature of terrorism and the natural difficulties in fighting it.

The war against terrorists cannot be won without recognizing its difficulties. But the more obvious truth is that it cannot be won if we give up once we discover it will be difficult. This much is expressed in the supposedly damning document, which states:

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists groups willing to use the political process to acheive their local objectives...

Duty to preservation of freedom requires our nation destroy rebellions against the rule of law. Now is not the time to flounder. Now is the time to stand firm, and although there's nothing in the leaked information that warrants classification, those who did leak it should be treated as the traitors they are.

United We Stand

2006-09-06T06:49:00.001-07:00

Last night I took the time to buy and watch United 93, the 2006 film about America's first response to the attacks on 9/11. It occurred to me as I watched it how effective the unpredictable use of terrorism can be against a society that relies on government for everything, including defense. In the film, well-meaning, good people from all walks of life are shown in a state of well-controlled but utter confusion. As NORAD strove to protect America's landmarks, operations centers and cities, they could not react quickly enough to the events at hand.

It's easy to dismiss the ineffectiveness of the government's reaction to the attack at the time as being the result of not having our "war footing." We did not even understand who the enemy was and how big their plan was until all the planes in the air had either reached their targets, crashed into fields, or landed safely. Inconsistent information was coming in from different places, and I got a sense of hopelessness that resulted from the situation and confusion being portrayed, not the certainty of historical events. I was inundated with Hollywood movies, I guess, and was hoping for a different outcome until the very end, and I forgot just how real it all was--how real it all is.

But the war footing explanation doesn't hold water. Not really. The people in charge of NORAD were trained professionals, as were the members of the military responding to the atrocities that day. There was nothing at all wrong with their training. The effectiveness of the tactics used by the terrorists speaks directly to the absolute nature of big things to react slowly and the effectiveness of causing damage to big things--even kill them--through subterfuge.

Terrorism to America is what Death by A Thousand Cuts was to an unfortunate Chinese prisoner. It is never the first cut that kills. It is the accumulation of cuts over a period of time, which was usually followed by a coup de gras to finish off the prisoner, although such a stroke only hastened the inevitable.

The passengers and crew of United Flight 93 were truly America's first responders. It wasn't the government or the military, with all of their training, money and foreign intelligence who dealt the first blow to our attackers. It was ordinary folk just going about their business who, in one shining moment, inspired a nation to fight back in spite of the enormous difficulties.

Semper Fi, Joe

2006-08-22T06:50:00.000-07:00

No event in the history of the Marine Corps characterizes he dedication and courage of Marines than the flag rasing on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. The flag-raising that Joe Rosenthal captured on film was actually the second of that terrible and glorious day. It captured more than courage, though, but also everything that goes along with it: strength of character, loyalty, and hope. In Rosenthal's own words, it symbolized a "devotion to their country that those young men had, and the sacrifices they made."

While these things have lasting significance for the United States in general, it had particular significance to the Marine Corps. The Secretary of the Navy during World War II, James Forrestal, said, "The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years." However, that statement isn't entirely accurate.

As Rosenthal stated, it wasn't the photograph that defined the Marines. It was the Marines who defined the photograph. And they didn't decide to be courageous just at that moment. They were courageous because of the lives they cultivated over the years in a country of freedom and hope as well as the the training they endured to earn the title "Marine." However, without that photograph, there would be no record of it to pass on to the world and to future generations of Marines who could be inspired by the previous generation's example.

Rosenthal was more than just a photographer "at the right place and the right time." The place of carnage and death at Iwo Jima, I would offer, was anything but the "right" place or time for anyone. He took his life into his own hands when he decided to take that assignment in order to create a record of the valor that defined Marines. He was courageous in his own right, and he was loyal to America to the very end.

Sadly, that end came for him yesterday at the age of 94. His legacy lives on, though, in many forms, including the Marine Corps Memorial, and now the National Museum of the Marine Corps. His contribution and courage will never be forgotten as long as there is a Marine Corps.

Semper Fi, Joe. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Middle East Madness

2006-08-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

The desire of people to take an illogical position on anything simply in order to feel better about themselves never ceases to amaze me. Never has the disconnect between what people say and plain reason ever been so apparent as when they pontificate over the predicament in the Middle East.

There are so many options a country has when it is attacked. And most of them lead to more attacks. The only certain way to prevent attacks in the future is to incapacitate those who would attack. And incapacitating a violent enemy through force is completely moral. Talking does not incapacitate the enemy. Nor does showing "restraint." Yet this is what the global community constantly calls on Israel to do.

I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. I dispute the premise, because those who are inclined to become terrorists are probably already aiding the suicide bombers and other militants--which negates their status as civilians in the first place. Thus, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill them, too. But even if it were true, if Israel were to really unload the firepower it's capable of unloading, the terrorists would soon discover that terrorism is not a tactic that will solve their "problems."

Their problems aren't that great anyway. What it amounts to is some cognitive dissonance they are experiencing because they think Israel should be wiped off the map... yet despite their best efforts, it has not been. Because Israel will not commit suicide by returning the property it siezed from its attackers over several defensive wars, the fanatics who still call for the elimination of Israel feel their "human rights" are being violated because Israel continues to look after the security of its people.

Not surprisingly, the same people who are upset at Israel for fighting back are the same people who think we should not have invaded a country that we knew sponsored terrorism--both before and after 9/11. We knew it because he admitted it. He publicized it. They are also mostly the same people who think we should grant citizenship to the 10% of Mexico's population who are living here in the U.S. (1 in 12 is a felon, I learned today).

Is there any doubt to why a growing number of people call them the "Treason Party?"

Cameras and Cursing

2006-08-09T12:42:00.000-07:00

As I watch the fallout from Mel Gibson's drunken tirade from last week, I really thank God there were no video cameras present those few times in my life when I was stupidly inebriated. No, really. That could have been embarrassing. It's hard enough to know that my friends saw me like that. I can't imagine what it would be like if the world knew I just how stupid I was.

I can't pretend to know what it's like to be an alcoholic. My understanding from those alcoholics I know and love is that the addiction typically makes people behave out of character from their sober selves. This is a big reason why one of the twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and other addiction programs is to make amends with those the abuser has harmed. Alcoholism makes people do stupid things and even attempt harm themselves and those around them.

So Gibson makes an apology, through a publicist, the day the story broke. Unlike most apologies, Gibson took full responsibility for his behavior, and went on to say--and I thought this was true (and remarkable because it was admitted)--that he not only shamed himself, but his family with his behavior. He went on to say that he said some horrible things to the police who arrested him, that they did their jobs very well and probably saved him from hurting himself or others. If he was that drunk, I don't even think he would remember what he said and had to rely on second-hand accounts through the media. Or maybe the police, with whom he otherwise had a good relationship, told him.

When I read the apology, I was amazed at how contrite it sounded. Most people busted for drunken driving or other addiction related problems don't sound this way. Usually, they try to turn it around to make themselves out to be the victims. However sorry he was, though, to the ADL, Gibson had not quite groveled enough. He issued another apology, this time specifically addressing what he said, explaining that he doesn't now and never has believed those things, and offered to meet with Jewish leaders to start the healing process.

His friends--Jewish, Christian, and other--came to his defense. Not about what he said, which is, of course, not defendable, but they spoke to his character, and how he doesn't believe what he said that night.

I don't know what is really in Gibson's heart. But if Nick Nolte and Roman Polanski deserve second chances, then so does Gibson.

My Marine Corps Pilgrimage

2006-07-26T20:17:00.000-07:00

Last week I had the honor of meeting a few dozen Marines at Officer Candidate School (OCS). My personal experience with officers in the Corps was usually positive, but not always, and recent public developments concerning the Marine Corps in incidents such as Haditha and "Hadji Girl" has left me a little less than impressed. However, I must say that meeting these Marines was a breath of fresh air. I found the newest crop of Marine officers to be highly motivated with great presence of mind.

Although my exposure to them was limited by time and purpose of my visit, I was inspired as I walked out of there, and I'm confident that if there is anything that the leadership lacks right now, these men and women of great character and discipline are being trained as well as any group of Marine officers, and I know that I could trust my life and my country to them wholeheartedly.

After our second visit to OCS, my brother (who was also a Marine) and I went to visit The Globe and Laurel, a restaurant owned by author and frequent History Channel guest, Major Rick Spooner, who is as fine of a man as I am ever likely to meet. The Navy made Maj Spooner get out after 29 years, but from talking to him, what a wonderful 29 years it must have been (in spite of a brief stint as a POW)! Full of stories with his love of the Corps and America dripping from every word he spoke, he also had a quiet humility about him.

When we arrived, Maj Spooner, who, as he told it, was demoted to 2nd lieutentant from gunnery sergeant at some point in his military career, was talking to a batch of Marine platoon sergeants just back from Iraq. When he was done, he graciously came over to our table and chatted with us for awhile. My father remarked candidly that a lecture from such a legend of the Corps must have been very inspiring to the young Marine sergeants. Major Spooner, looking as if my dad had just kicked his dog, humbly replied, "They inspire me!"

After visiting OCS and seeing how these men carry themselves, continuously look to improve, do their duty in the most stressful of situations, and show honor and respect to those around them, I know exactly what he means.

Thank God for those who live in the spirit of Semper Fidelis (and the book by the same name) close to their hearts. Not only does that spirit profit the Marine Corps, but it also makes this nation a better place to live. I will never forget that day for the rest of my life.

God bless the Marine Corps!

The Last Refuge of Scumbags

2006-07-07T06:58:00.000-07:00

I love reading controversial opinions. They simultaneously describe things I never knew existed (and perhaps still don't exist) as well as the tendency of otherwise intelligent people to be absolutely full of themselves. This is especially true among lawyers and judges, who either are attempting to convict those who have done nothing wrong or exonerate those who have committed egregious crimes--which leads me to the recently decided court case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (No. 05-184).

Upon reading the Decision of the Court, written by John Stevens, and subsequent dissenting opinions by Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, I learned that Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, which limited the courts' jurisdiction by forbidding them from hearing habeas courpus requests.

Congress is afforded this authority to limit the court's jurisdiction by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What I find remarkable isn't the merit of the argument that these foreign detainees ought to have access to our court system or that the military tribunals held to try them are or aren't lawful. That is a subject for a different column. No, what is remarkable is the court's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 doesn't apply in this case because, essentially, Congress didn't say "Simon Says."

And this sums up the complicity of all three branches of government have in the destruction of the plain meaning of the Constitution. In a sane world, the executive would ignore such a ruling, and Congress would refuse to fund--and in fact would actively defund--any attempt by the courts to try such cases that Congress has declared the courts ineligible to try.

Going one step forward, courageous members of Congress would also seek to remove guilty justices from the office that they are only entitled to during periods of "good behavior." Flagrantly violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as "bad behavior" in my book.

What about yours?

Enemy of the State

2006-06-28T07:38:00.000-07:00

It is somewhat relieving to know that the Marine Corps still has many people in its midst who have retained their common sense.

The Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently feigned outrage over a video of a song written and performed by Cpl Joshua Belile, which was posted on YouTube.com. The song is simply a satirical look at a pretend battle in Iraq, where Iraqi civilian look-alikes sporting AK-47s lured a Marine away from fire and tried to kill him. The Marine, correctly looking to preserve his life, used the woman who lured him into the trap for cover and quickly dispatched those firing at him.

Good riddance. The good guys win, right?

In response to CAIR's outrage, YouTube removed the "offensive" video (leaving all manner of vulgar and America-bashing videos intact) and subsequent attempts to repost it. Had one listened to CAIR's willing allies in the press, casual observers of the passing scene would have been left with the impression that Marines seek out and kill innocent Iraqi civilians.

Enough already. Thank goodness for the alternative media like HotAir.com, which has posted the video in its entirety, with lyrics, to show exactly how stupid all this outrage really is.

CAIR is an enemy of the state who spews more venom over videos of fictional songs that satirically depict the right people dying and the right people staying alive than they do about Muslim fanatics sawing off the heads of actual civilians.

While Cpl Belile was quickly cleared of any wrongdoing (which accounts for the remaining common sense), at least one Marine involved with the investigation claimed the song was "insensitive" and "offensive," but not illegal.

Excuse me, but since when do the warriors of this country owe our enemies any sensitivity whatsoever? And since when does the Marine Corps jump at every accusation leveled at Marines by organizations whose leadership over the years has supported terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Al Qaeda?

If the Corps has any desire to retain Marines with combat experience as time goes on, they will start taking up for them when they come under the attack of the likes of Al-CAIRda.

Haditha: A Plausible Explanation

2006-06-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

After being subjected to weeks of accusations from the Treason Party, led by Representative Murtha and Senator Kerry, one of the subjects of the investigation has released his version of events that provides, I think, a plausible explanation for what happened that day and why there is an ongoing investigation.

On February 10, Time magazine published a story relating to an incident that occurred in Haditha, Iraq on November 19. To make the case for a cover-up, the magazine published several photographs of people who were bound, blindfolded, and obviously executed, claiming that these were the civilians who Marines claimed in their initial report died as a consequence of violent actions performed within the rules of engagement. As it turns out, these photos were of a different incident where the executioners were terrorists. But why trifle with facts when you have a perfectly healthy fire team to crucify?

At any rate, an investigation was launched, John Murtha claimed the allegations were fact (of course, not to waste any political capital from the outrage engendered from his accusation, he blamed it all on President Bush), and other members of Congress jumped on the bandwagon to convict these Marines in the court of public opinion while the investigation was still underway. Several Marine officers in the region were relieved of duty, and Marine Commandant General Hagee made a trip to Iraq to address the issue directly.

For the record, I respect and admire General Hagee's decision to travel to Iraq and get a firsthand account of the situation. It is difficult to really get one's mind around something by reading reports and looking at charts. As a leader needing to get the straight scoop, General Hagee made the exact right decision. General Hagee will not comment on the incident except to say that is still under investigation. Kudos to him.

The tin-foil-hat Murtha and Kerry supporters point to the initial report that claimed the civilian deaths were a result of the IED and that the firing of the Marine officers scream "cover up," and that in conjunction with the fifteen "civilian" deaths, it irrefutably proves that Marines are barbarous murderers with no regard for human life (in contrast to Murtha and Kerry, of course, who favor the legality of sucking the brains out of partially born, near-to-term infants). However, it doesn't occur to them that the dismissals may have been the result of the report, not the result of violating the rules of engagement.

In fact, it seems entirely plausible that the story released by Neal Puckett, the defense lawyer who represents one of the Marines being investigated for "cold-blooded murder," is the same as the one the Marines claim they've been telling all along. That would mean, somewhere along the line, either the events were misreported to the command, or the command misreported what they were told. Keep in mind that three of the officers in this command were fired, and as of yet, the reasons are not known.

I would like to suggest that perhaps the Marines acted properly. Sometime after the detonation of the IED, the Marines say they were taking fire. One of the Marines said the rounds were coming from a particular building, which, in accordance with accepted tactics, the Marines approached, "cleared" it with a grenade, and sprayed some fire into it after the grenade exploded. When they entered, they found several dead "civilians" who may or may not have been willingly providing cover for the enemy.

Noticing that the back door was open, the Marines surmised that the terrorists probably ducked into the next building, which the Marines cleared in the same manner, to the same results.

I don't know how the initial report of the incident was filed. There seemed to be a lot of input from people not close to the incident, but who were interpreting what they heard on the radio. If that's the case, the officers relieved of duty may have been guilty of implementing faulty processes for collecting data for their reports. It is also possible that they willingly filed a false report, believing that civilian deaths would reflect poorly on them or their Marines or that those deaths, if it were to come to light that they were the result of Marine fire, might endanger their Marines.

I don't know the answer, but these explanations are more plausible than the idea that any random four Marines in a group haphazardly go about killing civilians because they think it's funny or will help their cause. Marines are smarter than most people give them credit for. Sure... We have a few bad apples here and there. But the worst of them are a hell of a lot more honorable than turncoats like Murtha and Kerry. At least the worst among us still endeavor for an American victory. Murtha and Kerry could give a damn about America or her servicepeople, so long as their party recaptures power.

Why Ann Coulter Was Right

2006-06-13T06:08:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the passage in Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, because she took a swipe at one of the left's most sacred cows: the victims they hide behind in order to prevent a counterargument. The liberals are in a huff that Coulter expressed amazement that, of the thousands of people who lost family members because of the attacks of 9/11, the four "Jersey Girls" who cut commercials for John Kerry seem to be enjoying the celebrity they gained as a result of their husbands' deaths. When they get into a huff, they prove Ann's point, but more disappointing is the outrage being expressed by the right that Ann "went too far" because Ann pointed out that they were "enjoying" the deaths of their husbands.

It isn't that they disagree with Ann's bigger point that the left uses some tragedy to foster the ideas they couldn't sell to us through reason. Liberals have to make us feel sorry for their messengers, and by virtue of just being polite, we have to cede all of their points or risk being called "heartless."

The talk show hosts and commentators who are complaining about Ann's method have been making the same point for awhile. I have heard them make such points. However, they always preface their remarks with phrases like, "No one can understand how much they are suffering as a result of losing their husbands/children/limbs..." which has the effect of blunting a dull blade. Consequently, their points went ignored while the media willingly shielded the Democrats from criticism with the victims of some tragedy.

Ann cut through all of that with a short paragraph in her book. It's about time someone said what is manifestly true about the victim mongers without resorting to apology for having to make the point. Capitulating makes the conservative case weaker, and it ultimately makes this nation weaker.

It's a shame we had to learn how to be tough from a 110-pound woman. Not that I think women are weak. In fact, I believe just the opposite is true (evidence: childbirth). But just once, I would like to see the people in power be unafraid to speak the truth instead of this completely ineffectual mealy mouthed tripe.

Give Me a Break

2006-05-23T06:08:00.000-07:00

Nobody likes losing something they care about. Children, when they are still learning the basic tenets of sportsmanship, often go to great lengths to avoid losing. They will claim ignorance of the rules or change them altogether to suit their desired end: victory. A die roll of six will somehow become seven for the most obscure of reasons, not the least of which is "opposite day." Their bodies somehow repel imaginary laser beams in the reenactment of "Star Wars," and they will never be "it," because at the precise moment they were tagged, they remembered to cross their fingers. When caught eating cookies from the cookie jar, they sit with wide eyes in denial of what is plain as day to anyone with half a brain. Implied in his denial is the thought that maybe, just maybe, he can get away with it. When you punish the child for disobedience and lying, they get mad at you for not letting them get away with it.

Which brings me to Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA).

Jefferson was caught accepting a bribe of $100,000 from an FBI agent. The bribe came in a leather briefcase in $100 bills. There is video of him accepting this money. He was caught on tape promising political favors in exchange for the money. Two of the people who bribed him have already pleaded guilty to this specific crime. By all accounts, if this were a Columbo episode, it would be the shortest in history.

But what was Jefferson's response? He claimed that some holy writ of "separation of powers" forbids the Justice Department from enforcing the law Jefferson violated.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to assume there are properly passed laws that forbid representatives from accepting bribes. The Constitution authorizes Congress to remove the President from office for accepting or offering bribes, but it is silent on bribery for the House. It does authorize the House to expel a Congressman from office with the consent of 2/3 of that House, but it does not immunize that member from punishment for crimes. It is entirely possible that a House member be arrested and convicted of a crime, and have that member serve out the remainder of his term from a prison cell. Not likely, but possible.

"Separation of Powers" forbids the President from encroaching on Congressional or Judicial powers, and vice versa. It does not put a wall of separation between them that forbids any branch from carrying out its proper duties if it happens to involve a member of another branch. For example, the Constitution grants legislative authority to Congress. Therefore, it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for either the Executive or Judicial branches to draft its own legislation. It does not forbid the President from enforcing the laws Congress passes, or judges from finding people guilty or innocent of violating the laws Congress passes.

What seems to have riled up several members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Speaker of the House Hastert (R-IL) is that the FBI, under warrant, raided Jefferson's House office to gather evidence that was under subpoena. Not that anyone would have a problem with the raid if it were on an ordinary citizen. No. Being in Congress apparently gives these people special immunity from prosecution for crimes. Far from this raid being a violation of the "Separation of Powers" doctrine, this seems to be a prime example of it.

I think it's high time we sent every one of these people packing. With the exception of Ron Paul (R-TX) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), they are so thoroughly corrupted as to be completely unfit for office.

You might think that your congressman is good because he "brings home the bacon." Let me tell you something. If this is your stance, you are as guilty of accepting bribes as he is. Your currency is your vote, which you give in exchange for federal pork in your locale, and in exchange for passing out favors to you that are paid for with your own money, your congressman gets to keep the office that grants him the entitlements, favors, and--in some if not many cases--bribes he so enjoys.

Wake up, America. Your country is disappearing before you and you don't have the courage to stand up to those who are stealing your heritage.

No Border, No Country

2006-04-09T10:18:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I wrote to my state senator, Royce West, after I read a particularly infuriating franking letter in which West outlined his so-called "positions" on border security and illegal immigration.

Dear Senator West,
I typically do not respond to these e-mails, but I thank you for sending them nonetheless. It is a low-cost way to distribute information regarding your positions to your constituents, and I appreciate your taking care of the amount of taxpayers’ money you spend.

Now. As for your positions outlined here. I find nearly every one of them detestable. First of all, let us dispense with the contradictions.

You say that you support strengthening and securing our borders, but you don’t support a fence, wall, sending them back, punishing illegal immigrants for breaking our immigration laws by coming here, or denying welfare benefits that are paid for by legal residents. Yet you do support a form of amnesty (above those who have properly waited in line), and you think anyone who comes to our door “by whatever means” should be allowed in. Exactly how does any of that make our borders more secure? It makes us effectively borderless. If we have no effective borders, Senator, we have no country.

Your comment about feeding illegal immigrants is a straw man that was undoubtedly picked up from media reports that came from statements made by certain members of the Democratic party, if through an unwitting mediator, such as a priest or reverend. However, we currently have laws that makes it a crime to aid illegal immigrants that use language almost identical to the language used in the “objectionable” portions, and it is not read to forbid religious organizations from giving food to starving people. It criminalizes those who take an active part in allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country by helping them cross the border or hiding them from authorities who would hold them accountable.

On the bright side, we do have a couple of areas of agreement.

First, you’re right that it cannot just apply to Mexican illegal immigrants. It should apply to all illegal immigrants. I’ve read, however, no legislation that states that such laws should only apply to those coming from Mexico. That just happens to be the biggest problem—probably because the Mexican “leadership” encourages them to come up here and even distributes instructions on how to do so without getting caught. Despicable. Why have you not sent any franking letters out about that?

You also agree that employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants should be held to account. This is true. However, I would point out that our problems with illegal immigrants would be less severe if we did away with laws that make the price of labor artificially higher. The income tax and payroll taxes that many illegal immigrants (assuming they’re being paid in cash instead of through a fake SSN, in which case the employer wouldn’t necessarily be liable anyway) don’t have to pay should be abolished outright. In its place, we should have a national retail sales tax, such as the Fair Tax, that ensures even those who are paid illegally will have to pay a tax when they buy goods or services here in the United States. This lightens the incentive to come here illegally, and it ensures that those who do pay directly into the same system they use to educate their children and procure medical care, regardless of whether or not we can track who is paying them and how. I know that, as a state senator, you have very little influence over federal legislation and constitutional amendments, but I do ask that you use whatever influence you might have to see this endeavor through. Happily, this has a host of benefits for ALL Americans.

Just please don’t try to confuse us with claims about the exploitation of immigrant labor. First of all, it is only illegal immigrants that concern us, and second, you ought not demonize employers for giving wages to people you refuse to stop from coming in. Employers are bound by the law; this is true. But your e-mail defies any understanding that those wishing to become citizens or workers here are also obligated to the law. The disconnect you display on that inconsistency boggles the mind.

Almost every LEGAL immigrant I’ve met is extremely hard working and is proud to be an American. Many illegal immigrants, as recent protests demonstrate, hold loyalty to their home countries—mostly Mexico. That alone should tip you off that this is about more than employment. It’s about the security of our borders—the same borders you won’t do anything substantial to safeguard.

One of the problems with having such a large body of people loyal to Mexico (or elsewhere) residing in our country is that—look—everyone is entitled to self-government. These people, though they live here and are bound by our laws, have absolutely no voting rights (although they might vote anyway, if reports are true!). How long do you think it will be that they will tolerate this? How long should they? It just so happens that their government is elsewhere, and it is there that they should go so that they can live under laws of their own choosing. It is morally incomprehensible that you would allow a large body of “guest” workers here that are permanently disenfranchised. If they want to become residents, there is a process that needs to be followed in order to achieve that status. It is simply unjust for you to allow them to jump in front of the millions of others who have been patiently waiting for this land of opportunity.

I put “guest” in quotes because guests, in the truest sense, are invited. We, being the 85% of Americans who desire stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, did not invite them. Therefore, they are not guests at all, but invaders. You are bound by your oath of office, sir, to protect this nation from invasion, and I will continue to hold YOU responsible for the continued broach of our laws.

With My Kindest Regards,
V. Cameron Beck

Good Riddance

2006-03-16T06:05:00.000-08:00

While much of the nation was paying tribute to retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I was breathing a sigh of relief. In my estimation, O'Connor had been on the bench far too long. I suppose the arrogance she displayed both while on the bench and afterward is the predictable consequence of holding a lifetime appointment without accountability, but it is by no means a healthy one. While, if you'll pardon the phrase, the jury is still out on the two recent Supreme Court appointments, Roberts and Alito, one has to believe that they'll be better than O'Connor in carrying out their duty to preserve and protect the Constitution.

First, let us dispense with the obvious. The judiciary in the United States would have no power at all save for that which the legislature has granted it through its laws and Constitution. The court's job is to apply the law in individual cases as long as the law conforms to the Constitution. Justices are never authorized to substitute their own personal preference for the law or the Constitution, for as stated earlier, they would have no power at all save for that which the legislature granted it. On that account, it is a metaphysical impossibility that judges created by the law should be greater than the law.

As an interested observer of the courts and as a student of history, I discovered one of the phrases O'Connor often used to disregard the restrictions and willful ommissions of the Constitution was "compelling state interest." This is to say that the Constitution's specific requirements could be suspended for reasons the Supreme Court deemed "compelling," federal law notwithstanding. This doctrine effectively subtitutes the will of unelected judges for the law, and is what honest conservatives and liberals refer to when they describe "legislating from the bench."

This should not be confused with simple misinterpretation, and its importance should not be underestimated, for acquiescing to this judicial activity means we do not submit to the rule of law, but to the rule of judges. This, in fact, means that we do not live in a constitutional republic, but in judicial tyranny.

I bring this all up because of some recent comments O'Connor made at a recent speech at Georgetown University. Speaking of those who hold the court accountable by restricting them through legislation, O'Connor claimed, her words dripping with judicial arrogance, "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

By making this statement, O'Connor seems to believe that laws just get in the way of what judges ought to be doing, which is arbitrarily rule this nation without any fear of losing their positions. It is long-past time for America to sieze control of this issue and impeach judges who so recklessly substitute their will for either the law or the Constitution. While I have little hope the legislature would find the courage do such a thing, recent rulings by the Roberts Court have renewed my hope that perhaps some progress can be made while we educate and grow leaders with the spines to stand up to their coequal branch of government.

Reflections on Love and Fear, Hearts and Minds

2006-02-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

The strategic relationship between love and fear has never been more apparent than in the current U.S. campaign to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. The idea is a noble one: Provide peace and security through force while simultaneously robbing the insurgency of even the desire to level an attack against either the U.S. forces or the goals they are trying to achieve. Yet, history has shown that the success of any such strategy by one sovereign nation occupying another has been tepid, at best, unless the conquerors first completely subjugated the enemy nation by making it too painful to resist by force. Today, measures needed to eviscerate resistance are considered “draconian,” but it still remains the most effective way to quell insurgency within a population. On the other hand, it is also necessary to remain just, for utilizing the weight of military might indiscriminately will only breed hatred, and success will only last as long as the occupying power has the will and resources to continue occupation. To truly inspire a just society that both fears and loves the government, military, or people that invaded their land, a wise nation will be fierce in targeting rebellious groups initially, but will get out of the way as soon as possible. It is a strategy that is only partly being implemented in Iraq, as the U.S. is trying desperately to get out of the way, but is taking half-measures in targeting the rebellious groups in order to gain their favor. However, their favor can only be gained if the insurgency is defeated utterly. Even though the quality of a strategy that focuses on one nation in a regional struggle can be legitimately questioned, it is useful to examine the strategy on its merits while granting its assumptions.

Alexander is called "The Great" out of admiration for the span of his empire. His was among the very first "Hearts and Minds" campaigns in the history of the world; it certainly experienced some of the earliest successes. As Alexander overcame each civilization, he would adopt some of their habits and absorb some of their cultures. This helped ease the pain for his conquests, but some of his own people resented the integration of cultures, and a select few of them eventually made Alexander pay. It should be noted that Alexander would have never had success with the "Hearts" campaign, had he not subjugated their minds first.

On the other hand, Attila the Hun made few friends in his conquests of the Holy Roman Empire (and everything else he conquered or pillaged), and the rule of his subjects depended entirely on his ability to wield the might of his hordes at the slightest provocation. While many provinces were forced to pay tribute to Attila over the years or risk being sacked, they only did so out of fear for their own survival--not out of any amiability for the Huns. While tradition holds that Attila died by drowning in his own drunken nosebleed (if I had a dime every time that happened…) recent studies suggest that he may have been assassinated.

Similarly, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were clearly about forcing capitulation out of fear of destruction, but the victorious nations in World War II later embarked on a long campaign to rebuild both Germany and Japan, where General Douglas MacArthur famously called for immediate charity to ward off future wars. Importantly, rebuilding could not have been initiated until those nations were first docile and under control. Neither Germany nor Japan was encouraged to abandon their cultural uniqueness—a demand that would have likely bred hatred—but they were forced to abandon some of their political traditions.

In Vietnam, the quest to win the hearts of one group of people was sought at the same time as the quest to destroy their brethren. This campaign met with very limited success. After peace was made between the U.S. and North Vietnam, the U.S. withdrew from the country, and the North easily defeated South Vietnam. The U.S. had to relocate thousands of friendly and peaceful exiles, whose hearts the U.S. had apparently won in defeat. The enemy, it seems, still did not fear the U.S.

Fear is an important tool of instruction; it is central to providing meaningful security. Any time people are fearless enough to raise arms against the occupying power, they do not possess the requisite fear to facilitate a secure state. The ruling authority must always seek to respond to crimes that have already been committed, when security requires the criminals be too fearful to commit any crimes. The administration of true justice prevents fear from becoming hatred. Beyond the mere administration of true justice, the people must also perceive the conquerors just if the conquerors wish to achieve some measure of docility.

There are only a few circumstances that would engender love in the conquered for the conquerors. However, love is more likely to be given if the third party does not conquer at all, but only aids in the overthrow of a despotic regime. For awhile, France was viewed quite favorably in the U.S. after the Revolutionary War, even in many influential circles up through the Reign of Terror and Napoleon's rule. But France didn't conquer the U.S.; that country just aided the U.S. in doing what its people wanted to do anyway. Key to the success of the intervention is that the U.S. was left free to govern itself, and its people were worthy of self-government.

They, for instance, protected the ability to acquire, possess, and accumulate property. This is difficult to impose on any people more inclined to desire government intervention and centrally controlled economies, as in countries ruled by autocratic despots. Apathy, in spite of its poor reputation, is useful, since it implies society’s other needs are met. Apathy means people are concerned with their day-to-day affairs, and are not concerned with who is ruling them. Paradoxically, this also means the ruling power can get away with more, which makes it all the more important for honest people to be running the government, as distrust and dissatisfaction sow the seeds of revolution. Apathetic people do not raise arms against their own government.

At least initially, it is important for people to have some semblance of control over the affairs closest to them. Therefore, very little should be centrally controlled in a large, diversely populated country. The model should be the original Constitution for the United States of America, where the powers granted to the federal government were finite and limited, and the powers granted to the states were infinite and unlimited. A bill of rights, while its perceived value is understandable, is not as important as a strict bill of specific powers. Leave all else to the provinces or the people, where the play a larger role in their respective spheres of influence, even if this means that certain standards do not mirror those of the West. Occupying power may grant lots of food in the short term, but these donations must cease as soon as possible to discourage unnatural dependence.

Only after a period of time that people adhere to the dictates of justice, unhampered by unnecessary and overbearing government intrusion will they begin to trust the government that rules over them, and thus will they subscribe to the necessity and legitimacy of the law. By the time this occurs, the occupying power will be long gone. It is doubtful that in the post-colonization age, an occupied country will trust its occupiers to rule over them perpetually. If embarking on a quest that will lead to occupation, peace can only be won by securing the minds before trying to capture the hearts of the populace. Retribution for revolt must be swift, painful, and public. Coverage of the event must be decidedly favorable to sway public opinion. Therefore, clandestine operations to suppress unfavorable media must be authorized in the short term—say—the first five to ten years.

When occupying a foreign nation, administering swift justice and enforcing order, overtures of peace from rival factions must be accepted in good faith. To facilitate the acceptance of peaceful means to solve grievances, the ruling power must welcome serious representatives of amity into the fold quickly and completely. Once their character has been vetted, their leadership within their communities can and should be promoted to engender trust in the system, if not the ruling power. As soon as security is established, troops are trained, and the new government is in good standing, the foreign power must leave the theater of operations to function in a remote area within the country. To ensure the continuation of the process, they may accept assignments to ward off foreign threats, but not local brigands. An armed population can ward off such threats, and they will grow tired of the behavior of insurgents and terrorists sooner rather than later, if they have the means at their disposal to combat it.

However, none of this is possible if the militant or terrorist factions are not first utterly subjected to the ruling power.

The EU and the Consent of the Governed

2006-02-16T22:17:00.000-08:00

In the course of recorded history, Europe has been a nation in conflict with itself. Home to twenty official languages and many cultures and social philosophies, achieving political harmony is a daunting and continuing task. However, the elements of a desire to be free from war and destitution and competition from the economic behemoth, the United States, have encouraged cooperation and collaboration never before imagined in Europe. Still, the fruit of that cooperation, the European Union (EU), is something of a paradox to conventional free-market libertarians. The economies of scale and lower trade restrictions that would be promoted by such free-market advocates is counterbalanced by the intentional and necessary surrender of national sovereignty to the regional political body. The distrust and differences of opinion that characterized Europe for centuries are not easily overcome, and like all political bodies, there is no guarantee that any solution obtained under the rules of the organization will result in the best possible conclusion. However, if nothing else, the new political ties that bind most of Europe appear to promote economic and political stability. By accomplishing this, businesses within the region and throughout the world can more safely invest their capital in member countries and, by doing so, promote the economic and social improvement of the citizens of those countries—as well as the financial success of the corporations themselves. Even so, the EU should not become blinded by its success. The fall of the Soviet Union provided the alliance with new member states and candidates, but failing to learn the lessons of the struggle against centrally controlled economies may doom it to become indistinguishable from the failed system it opposed for the better part of the last century.

Europe is comprised of many nations that, together, have been the hotbed of many violent and nonviolent disputes throughout the course of recorded history. Before the two world wars of the twentieth century, Europe provided the staging grounds for not only international conflicts such as the Punic Wars, the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Napoleonic Wars, but also internal revolutions in countries such as England and France that set the stage for other conflicts that included the Americas. As European powers realized the difficulty in achieving domination over outside territories and the fruitlessness of the failure of those efforts, they gradually adopted a general policy of conflict avoidance and maintenance of the political status quo among the territories within Europe. In the meantime, the United States was in a position, being far removed from such political struggles, to adopt a stance of neutrality towards the warring powers in Europe. Neutrality worked very well for United States, and partially because it faced no major external threat to its sovereignty and partially because of its libertarian economic and political ideals, it was able to build a vast industrial and military empire that was able to compete with, as its eventual participation in both world wars demonstrated, the very European powers that spawned its political prowess. In fact, the United States eventually displaced every individual European power in economic capacity.

After the Second World War, much of Europe was in ruins. An effort to reconstruct Europe was put into effect, and a system of open communications and collaborative debate was instituted through the UN to help avoid future international conflicts. Additionally, a network of European nations sought and achieved economic cooperation on the grounds that governments would be less likely to attack a country if the financial success of its citizens were dependent on the willing cooperation of that nation. To facilitate that cooperation, several nations adopted a collection of treaties that eventually came to be known as the European Union. The principles that formed this union are based in principles that most free-market advocates would request. They include the freedom to move people, capital, goods, and services among member nations, which would presumably reduce the cost of living and improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of member nations. Other nations could benefit from such an alliance as well. Instead of adopting the expense of sending delegations to each member nation in order to facilitate trade agreements, countries would need to send a single delegation. Once the Euro was adopted as an official currency of trade in 1999, outside countries could do business with the EU—including through direct foreign investments—with a reasonable faith that the currency would remain stable, and could thus assume less political and currency risk.

The drawback to such consolidation is the surrender of sovereignty that member countries must permit in order to achieve such financial heights and economies of scale. No longer can peoples ask their direct representatives to unilaterally protect particular industries within their countries against what they might consider unfair business or economic practices of international corporations or the countries from which they came. Such decisions to withdraw favorable trade policies are subject to the negotiation authority and approval of the august European body. Additionally, all EU members are expected to promote a particular social agenda that has included the abolition of the death penalty and the promotion of abortion clinics—not only in member nations, but across the globe. The danger in promoting any social policy is in adopting and being forced to continue bad policy because of a persistent economic interest if and when social norms change. In theory, the EU could always change its rules as cultural values change, but it does not account for changes in values of particular countries in spite of the binding effect of the EU agreements. Consequently, member countries whose peoples’ consciences cannot countenance the proliferation of certain values would be forced to support those values if it wanted to remain a member and retain the economic benefits of the EU. People who would be inclined to do so may use this knowledge to blackmail member countries into accepting unpalatable demands of the union. Consequently, the surrender of such sovereignty forces nations to choose between two or more undesirable outcomes, and thus dilutes the countries’ capacity to create and live under laws of their own choosing. Even though this ideological paradox would otherwise disqualify every nation from joining the democracy-promoting body, thus far they have been able to achieve a measure of economic and social success.

The first success of the European Union must be measured by the evident lack of major armed conflicts occurring in Europe since implementation of the various treaties that established the international economic cooperation. While a causal relationship cannot be proved, the fact that Eastern European countries that were formerly part of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War are seeking membership in the EU seems to indicate that all countries—even former enemies and developing nations—believe that there is more to be gained from cooperation than can be achieved through irrational paranoia and military conquest. Wars and the threat of wars, after all, require the attention of the inhabitants of the participant nations at the expense of other industries. Additionally, countries formerly operating under a system of centralized control are now developing market-oriented systems that will enable them entry into the EU. Although every nation is not there yet, the EU has touted not only the economic improvement of these nations, but also the quality of entire categories of essential products—such as agriculture—due to the cooperation made possible by the EU. As a result, consumable products will be made safer and, with the speed and ease at which they can be transported under the formal arrangement, available to a demanding public. The same holds true for any number of industries throughout Europe.

In a continent torn asunder by conquest, political uncertainty, and economic volatility, the European Union has exceeded the expectations of many casual observers. The premise for this skepticism might be explained by the public’s disbelief that the end to the Soviet empire was even a remote possibility. The color of war prevents grand economic cooperation because everyone is looked upon with rightful suspicion. As a result of the attention that must be paid to warding off possible attacks, little attention can be dedicated to anything else. It can be said with reasonable certainty today that Soviet communism was a flawed system that was due to fail as a result of its flaws. However, that certainty is derived only from hindsight. It is easy to forget that throughout the twentieth century, many nations either fell to the Soviet empire or had sufficient reason to fear that their countries would. If they were not being threatened by the Soviet Union’s military might, they were being threatened by willing accomplices in their own countries who embraced the Soviet empire’s ideals of centralized controls, forced redistribution of wealth, and separation of governance. While reflecting on this recent history, it would be wise for the member nations of the European Union to pay heed to the threat of centralized control and degrees of separation between the ruling and the ruled. Reduced trade barriers may be universally good, but it is unsustainable if the governed are not given adequate choices regarding their maintenance. Instability, thus, is less likely to result from war between the nations of the EU, but through internal revolution meant to restore the perceived or actual loss of sovereignty to a political body that does not represent the will of the governed.

General Thoughts on National Defense and Liberty

2006-02-16T19:51:00.000-08:00

The world is entirely different. It’s so hard to remember what it was like before September 11, 2001. I vividly remember that day. I was considering a change of careers to sell individual retirement accounts and mutual funds, so I scheduled some time off of my day job to get fingerprinted at the local police station. Little did I know what was about to happen to the financial center of America.

My boss, Jim, came in as I was going to speak with my friend and prayer partner, George. He asked me if I’d heard “about the airliner plane that flew into one of the Twin Towers in New York City, and a few minutes later another one came in right after it.” The notion was so preposterous that I somehow made myself hear him say, “Did you hear the one about the airliner plane...”

Jim wasn’t one to tell tasteless jokes, but he did have a dry wit, and his immediate demeanor was just as calm as always, which just added to my confusion. Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I waited for him to continue, but he neither smiled nor elaborated. He just stood there as if waiting for some sort of confirmation that I heard and understood the news he just delivered. In the next moment, a million thoughts scattered throughout my head. The implication would be that America was under attack, and I thought no one could be that daring. No one could be that stupid. It had to be a joke.

It wasn’t that terrorism was far from my mind. The day before, I finished a difficult essay had been writing since the execution of Timothy McVeigh earlier in the summer. In the essay, I postulated that America was too powerful to be harmed by conventional means, and that the next big enemy would be terrorists due to the combination of America’s might and pervasiveness. Where a conventional army would fail, terrorists could strike at any time, because not everything could be given equal protection. They can prioritize targets based on the level of protection it is given, and by definition, they give a high priority to civilian targets.

I didn’t guess that it would happen so soon. Being an avid reader of current events, and having read about the USS Cole strike when it occurred, I probably had read about Al Queda at some point. However, when in the coming days we were told how these monsters had planned this atrocity and believed themselves justified in doing it, I did not remember having previously heard or read the name.

I don’t know if anyone had any delusions of accomplishing any actual work that day, because they would have had to pry us from the radios and television set in order to get us to do it. After running around, crying and praying in private, finally settling down and figuring out that, as terrible as this moment was and as little as we know about who the attackers were, armageddon was not underway, I excused myself and preemptively abided by President Bush’s advice to “go about” my life. I was at the police station getting fingerprinted when the first tower fell. Wanting to simultaneously remember every moment and get the day over with at the same time, I understood that, whatever happens, somebody would have to get up in the morning tomorrow. Somebody would have to get the work done tomorrow. Somebody would have to live tomorrow. And it would be twice as hard as it was today. Armageddon wasn’t here. At least not that day. But September 11, 2001 marked a crossroads for America and the world. Momentum alone would have moved us past the intersection at which we found ourselves, so staying put was not an option. We were forced to choose a path, but what our appearance would be upon our arrival at the final destination remained a mystery.

Over the next few weeks, as we sorted out the fact from fiction, we were subjected to some truly inspirational stories of hope. Willful defiance of our enemies was displayed over the trees and fields of Pennsylvania, flags were raised, battle plans were drawn, and a spirit of unity erupted unlike any seen in America for decades. Could at be that a Great Awakening was about to occur?

***
As the mountain peaks eventually erode to hills and valleys, so did the passage of time do the unity and outrage that were engendered by this sickening act of terror. Lines were drawn in the sand, alright, but we divided our attention between the actual enemies abroad and the political enemies at home. In the meantime, we paradoxically called for our government to do more to secure us as well as respect our personal space and privacy to an impossibly unreasonable degree. When our government did act, it was done with the support of an overwhelming majority of people and politicians. Over time, the support for the action we demanded eroded until the nation became as it was right before the attack happened. Split. Right down the center.

It didn’t occur to most of us that we were all taking a wrong or incomplete approach. We were exampled with the right form only recently, but we were so caught up with the idea that wars are fought by governments through their militaries, we forgot that, when a terrorist takes a docile civillian as his preferred target, it is utterly impossible to surround every unarmed civilian with an armed guard. The answer is to follow in the path of Todd Beamer and the other passengers of Flight 93. We must be strong, as they were. We must become something more than the terrorists expect, more than they can defeat, more than they can handle, and we need to make them believe it, too, so they can see the fruitlessness of their efforts and the impossibility of their endeavors.

For terrorists prey on the weak and unprotected. They do not profit from attacking positions of strength. It follows, then, that it is necessary to be neither weak nor unprotected, and since it is impossible to station a personal bodyguard with every person (and who would want that anyway?), we must protect ourselves, and we must protect each other. We must fight back, or else we will be bankrupt by our government’s futile attempt to protect everything for us.

Half of the equation is being fulfilled. We are taking the fight to the heart of the enemy, so that they are too preoccupied to fight us here. Iraq and Afghanistan are two important fronts in this struggle from a strategic standpoint. However, the attacks in London and Madrid have shown that this strategy only works up to a point. The age-old question is how to deter a fanatical terrorist--who seeks his own death--from attacking without giving the enemy more tools to generate new recruits.

On one hand, we want the enemy to fear us, but on the other hand, we do not want them to hate us. However, when a choice must be made between attempting to inspire love and attempting to incite fear, it is more effective to cause fear. This works on a personal level, too, because the enemy is afraid to attack anything that is not weak. Thus, if there are no weak points to attack--if we are all united against them in the protection of each other and in defense of true justice, then they shall not have the will to fight us. In order to defend justice, an accord must be reached on its meaning, for even the terrorists believe themselves to be just. It is important to note that belief in any one thing does not make it so. Instead, justice must be ascertained as stringently consistent with a universal good, such as the virtue of rightly ordered freedom. This freedom is not defined as the complete absence of government coersion, for coercion can be used in defense of freedom against those who would rob others of their state of peace or of their natural property, such as their lives and the fruits of their labor. Enforcing properly enacted, scrupilously targeted laws against terrorism is a form of coersion, but it is coersion consistent with the protection and maintenance of a justly lived freedom.