Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/31/2003 10:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve been considering lately what it is that makes people stick to a particular point of view so doggedly that they refuse to acknowledge facts, produce untenable arguments, concoct wild conspiracy theories, and go against normal ethics and values. You see such things all the time: anti-war protestors say it’s all about oil and that the CEO of Exxon is orchestrating events, the same folks say Bush is a new Hitler, PETA compares the Holocaust to skinny cows on factory farms, etc. Now certainly, you can’t count out sincere belief. But that doesn’t explain why PETA would petition Yassar Arafat to not blow up donkeys but refuse to take a similar position about blowing up people (it’s not their place to get involved in political matters, they said) or for Jesse Jackson to say Jeb Bush was visiting the Holocaust on Florida Jews “once again” during the 2000 election conflict. After some thought, I have a theory that such behavior is a sort of manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Syndrome, of course, got plenty of mentions during coverage of Elizabeth Smart’s rescue from her lunatic kidnapper. It’s the notion that in a hostage situation, the captives will come to love and defend their captors, even beyond reasonable logic when confronted with it. Something like that could be at play with many causes’ supporters. There may actually be an existing term for this sort of thing, but it wasn’t immediately available. Just as people are held hostage by captors and the hostages come to love them, so do people become hostage to certain beliefs. These beliefs or causes take such primacy in the lives of their supporters, all else is secondary. Worse than that, the cause becomes an almighty, righteous end that is never wrong. What results is that anything that runs counter to the cause, resists the cause, threatens the cause, or fails to advance the cause is necessarily incorrect and must be quashed. The supporters become so committed to their narrow, focused belief in animal rights, environmental protection, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or any number of causes, that the advancement of that particular belief supercedes any other considerations, even common decency or ethics. That’s why their opposition will be attacked with the most vile slander and invective. That’s why the breaking of laws, the destruction of property, and the endangering of lives is allowed and encouraged; whatever furthers the cause and/or hurts the cause’s opposition is holy. Supporters come to love their causes so much and base so much of their lives around them that nothing else may penetrate.

Perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome isn’t the best was of looking at this. It’s really more cultish behavior in a way… it certainly brings up thoughts of Scientology (that’s a fascinating subject of its own and I’ll probably blog about it at some point… look at www.xenu.net if you would like more info.)

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/28/2003 02:32:00 AM (Archive Link)
One of the things I keep reading from the anti-war crowd is that their demonstrations are patriotic. Barbra Streisand loves to crow about how her dissent is just that. Problem is… I don’t think it is patriotic. Most definitions I’ve come across define patriotism as a love of one’s country or a feeling inspired by the same. In that sense, then sure, you could maybe describe some dissent as patriotic. It’s rarely put in those terms, though. Instead, the act of dissent itself is supposed to be patriotic which is absurd. The exercise of a legal right doesn’t equal patriotism. Some guy could start a communist newspaper that denounced everything American and called for everything short of armed rebellion but The New York Times is still in print. Ha, ha… joke! The point is is that such a paper would be perfectly legal in the U.S. and would be exercising its First Amendment right, but you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who would describe it as patriotic. Back in my hometown of Topeka, KS, there’s a raving lunatic named Fred Phelps (if you want to see how nutty he really is, gird yourself and go here) who says all sort of outlandish things about America, but nobody would consider him patriotic. In fact, the loonball would probably be insulted if you did. Anyway, the exercising of rights is not patriotic. If it were, then I’m patriotic for going to church, owning a gun, not owning a slave, voting, and paying my taxes as enumerated in various constitutional amendments. So no, dissent is not necessarily patriotism.

Given that, most of the current dissent we’re witnessing in the country is not patriotic either. Seeing as how most of the demonstrators view American power (political, economic, and military) and American leaders as evil, love of country doesn’t seem to be their primary motivation. Doing or saying anything that would be complementary to America, even generally, would be tantamount to similar adoration of its hated institutions, policies, and even the blessed rights they are exercising. So to good ol’ Babs, let the message go out… dissent? Sure, go for it! Just stop calling yourself a patriot when you’re doing something unremarkable which is protected by law.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/28/2003 02:31:00 AM (Archive Link)
Jesse Jackson, what a guy. Seems he’s calling for a truce in the Iraq war so humanitarian aid can get through. Is there no headline for which this guy will not grab? And on whose side is he working? Who thinks that the Iraqi forces would just sit back for awhile while aid was distributed? These are the same people who are using civilians as human shields and are firing mortars into the Basra marketplace. They didn’t seem overly concerned about humanitarian notions then and they aren’t likely to have a change of heart when Jesse rolls into town.

Jackson also says he wants to take a delegation of religious leaders to visit American and Iraqi POW’s “to be convinced they are alive and well.” It’s hard to know whether that comment is directed more at the U.S. soldiers held by Iraq or at the Iraqis being held by American forces. We’d all like to think the former but with Jesse, you can’t be sure. One thing is for sure… if he ever did make it to Baghdad to see the American POW’s, it would only be turned into so much propaganda by Iraq. And don’t be surprised if Saddam’s lackeys start saying an aid-justified cease-fire is a great idea and then blame America for not also agreeing to it. Hussein has the PR and spin machine of the same quality as the Clinton administration. It’s a wondrous thing to behold, like an elephant with diarrhea… impressive but oh so disgusting.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/28/2003 02:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Clinton, check out the book I’m reading right now… it’s called Dereliction of Duty and it’s written by an Air Force colonel who had the responsibility of carrying around the nuclear launch codes during several years of Clinton’s second term. Since he often had to be close by the president, he had the opportunity to observe many things. Things like Bill’s putting off the decision to launch air strikes (we’re talking planes on the runway and ships standing ready and all waiting on a simple ok from the prez) because he was too busy watching a golf tournament. My favorite story thus far was about a young aide who was spearheading the plans for a presidential visit to the Phillipines. He seriously wanted to divert an entire carrier battle group from Australia for the sole purpose of giving Bill a good photo op with the sailors on the carrier’s flight deck because it would be “awesome.” It took several days before the aide could be convinced that this was a bad idea from economic, military, and diplomatic standpoints. Not a direct Clinton story, no, but indicative of the crew he ran and just how well they understood things, especially military things.

Ok… no, that’s not my favorite story, this is, and I’ll just quote:

“The Clinton staff could be publicly embarrassing as well. During the May 1997 presidential visit to Holland, our Dutch host rolled out the red carpet. Each Royal Palace room was stocked with food and a complete liquor bar for every staff member. A very thoughtful gesture, I thought, since we getting in so late—a snack and a drink sounded great. The next morning, as we were leaving for Air Force One and our next country, the Dutch military aide pulled me aside to complain. ‘Your people took all of the liquor,’ he said under his breath, obviously embarrassed for me. ‘And they stole crystal and china, too,’ he added. He was completely floored by the audacity of the Americans from the White House. I apologized for the White House staff. But I’d seen it before. This presidency was about them.”

Classic! You can check out details of the book here and here. It’s a pretty quick read and has all sorts of amazing (in a bad way) anecdotes.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:55:00 AM (Archive Link)
By all accounts, the war is going well, although not as well as hoped. This isn’t too surprising, but many liberals and Europeans are pouncing on it as proof that we miscalculated. What they don’t realize is that our incredible restraint is what’s keeping things from moving faster. The politics of this war have mandated that we can’t be as loose with our use of force as would be most efficient. In other words, we can’t just bomb the hell out of the enemy… doing so would increase the number of civilian casualties which is something we’re trying to avoid. The military is also being prevented from attacking mosques, hospitals and the like which is where the enemy is cowardly hiding out. It’s truly a damned-either-way situation. If we apply the necessary force for a shorter war, then we get slammed for over-zealousness. Instead, we hold back and get slammed for taking too long. When people complain that we are killing innocent Iraqis, I hope they realize just how much we’re putting our own troops at risk in order to keep as many of those civilians alive as possible.

The war is also going a little slower than hoped because of the aftermath of Gulf War I. Saddam was decimated in that war and we likely could have taken Iraq without too much trouble. Instead, we held back and settled for a cease-fire and an incomplete war. Hussein learned his lessons, though, and isn’t using the same ineffective strategies this time around. For example, he’s no longer massing his forces which made them easier to be destroyed. The psychological impact of the first war, though, is perhaps causing us even greater problems. Scads of Iraqi troops surrendered during the conflict 12 years ago. Saddam was determined not to let that happen again. Even if forces want to surrender, they have a tough choice. They can fight and risk being killed by the Americans or try giving up and be killed by their own Iraqi forces. We’ve already heard reports of people masquerading in coalition uniforms who gun down Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to them. And as I recall, Hussein set up two rings of defenses around Baghdad. The outer ring was the regular army and the inner ring was the hardcore Republican Guard. This means that if the regulars try surrendering, they’re sure to get some “friendly fire” artillery from the rear. Also, while I haven’t read anything saying so, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Saddam had scattered intelligence officials or political officers of the Stalinist variety among his army units to help ensure the soldiers’ loyalty. The potential of getting snitched out, tortured, and killed is a sure way to ensure vassal status among the troops.

Anyway, there are yet more reasons why we should have finished the job in 1991. If you leave an aggressive government in power after a war, then you have only postponed hostilities. Eventually, the time will come when you must fight the enemy again. The problem lies in the fact that the enemy learns a great deal about its adversary and itself during the first conflict and adjusts so as to make the second fight much more difficult.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:48:00 AM (Archive Link)
As you know, Mark Fidel Kools, aka Asan Akbar, threw grenades into the tents of his superior officers in Kuwait. The fact that he did so, no matter the cause, should warrant the death penalty… let’s be clear on that. His was a murderous, treasonous act in a combat zone. So while the cause should have no bearing on the ultimate punishment, it’s interesting nonetheless to examine what it might be. While it hasn’t been revealed by the Pentagon, Akbar’s family says that it was racially motivated.

“His stepfather, William Bilal, who was once married to Akbar's mother, Quran Bilal, said that his stepson was resentful toward the military and had complained several years ago that it was difficult for a black man "to make rank" in the military.

“’Asan was pushed to this. We've got that clear,’ William Bilal told WBRZ, ABCNEWS' affiliate in Baton Rouge, La. ‘Everybody's got a breaking point, to put it that way. Everybody's got a breaking point. If he did this, he was driven.’”

This is hardly a justification for murder. Assuming that there was bigotry in the military, it doesn’t give clearance to anybody to go around killing their fellow soldiers. Everybody may have a breaking point, but you have problems if reaching it makes you murderous.

His father also said, “All I'm saying is that Islam has been misrepresented, and a lot of people don't understand the religion of Islam. And the problem is, the stereotyping and the discrimination, I can't say exactly, directly, if that was Asan's case.” He may not have said it directly, but he did everything short of it. Again, not a justification. Also, I have serious doubts that either racism or anti-Islamic feelings within the military had anything to do with it. Most soldiers will admit that the military is the least discriminatory environment they’ve ever been in. It’s the purest meritocracy among all American institutions. This isn’t at all to say racism or religious discrimination doesn’t exist there, just that it is comparatively small and certainly not big enough to be a factor here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:44:00 AM (Archive Link)
Now I’m not so sure that those on the left would agree with the above assessment about discrimination in the military. It’s an institution they don’t understand, don’t respect, and don’t like. Liberals are also often all aflame about how minorities make up the majority of the army and are always the ones who die, etc. Problem is, it ain’t really so. Ignoring the fact that America’s is a volunteer military and nobody is there who doesn’t want to be, a further investigation of the numbers show that minorities make up a… well… minority in combat units. Their representation, percentage-wise, in these high risk units is below that of the general population and of the army itself. Many minorities choose other non-combat roles in the military. This isn’t a comment on their bravery, it just shows that the government isn’t hurling a bunch of minorities at the enemy as some would have you believe. Even when the draft was in effect during the Vietnam War, minority fatalities kept pace with their representation in the general American population and armed forces.

As stated, though, the military is a foreign thing to most liberals. Compliments are only to be paid to it if it advances your particular cause. This is best illustrated by the folks who had been saying that only those who had served in the military, preferably in combat, had the authority to decide whether or not we should go to war. This was in stark contrast to years of ranting that soldiers and generals were war-mongering Dr. Strangeloves and that the military is to be kept firmly under civilian control. At any rate, the liberal viewpoint is very much on display in this woman's post in an online forum. Maybe not so much in the notion that the Iraqis are swell captors, but in this idea that soldiers have been brainwashed by the army and are incapable of thinking on their own. She thinks that the POW’s removal from the rest of the military will suddenly enable them to think independently. If you’re a Star Trek person, it’s like the army is the Borg and these fortunate souls have been separated from the collective. Soldiers are not automatons. They are capable of thinking and forming opinions and there are many who, while still doing their jobs and upholding their oaths, still disagree with the war. The brave men and women fighting right now will largely move on to be civilian members of society; many will go to college, some will become doctors, lawyers, professors, a few will even be congressmen and senators. When you go into the military, you don’t check your brain at the door.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:39:00 AM (Archive Link)
Few things are more frustrating than the attempts of Democrats to win at all costs. As seen in this article, the Democratic National Committee is urging its supporters to stand up for Democrats opposing the war and Bush. When the war has already started, when American soldiers are risking their lives and, frankly, when pulling up short in the war would be infinitely worse than total victory, it’s embarrassing that these folks would still seek to so publicly hamstring the president. These e-mails weren’t coming from your average shout-in-the-street demonstrators, mind you. They were from the big dog DNC.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:38:00 AM (Archive Link)
This is really quite amusing. You know how the French love Jerry Lewis, right? Well, their president is apparently no exception.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:37:00 AM (Archive Link)
This is a frightening article. You may recall the episode from several weeks ago in which Jacques Chirac showed his true colors and said that the eastern European countries supporting the U.S. on Iraq would do well to shut up. That and other comments were a not so veiled threat that everybody needs to fall into line with France and Germany when it comes to foreign policy. Now the EU’s secretary/minister for such issues (his official title is a quintessential EU bureaucrat moniker: Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy), Javier Solana, is saying that the split in recent European opinion (UK and Spain vs. France and Germany) could have been avoided had the EU been represented by just one seat in the UN Security Council. He’s basically saying that under such a scenario, the UK and Spain wouldn’t have been allowed to go their own way and cause problems for the rest of them. They would have been forced to toe the line. “According to the Treaty of European Union, all EU member states have an obligation to refrain from doing anything that goes against a common position in foreign policy. ‘It is regrettable that precisely this was not followed by some member states.’” This is yet another example of how France and Germany feel that they are Europe. Tony Blair and the UK would do well to steer away from that organization as much as possible. It’s clear that it will lose its autonomy if it does. After keeping Germany out in WWII and keeping the French at bay ever since that pesky Norman invasion in 1066, it would be a shame if those two countries ultimately succeeded in conquering proud England through weasel diplomacy.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:31:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Jacques Chirac, it’s not surprising that he isn't in favor of the U.S. and the UK administering post-war Iraq. He’s already on the record as saying he’d veto any such resolution in the UN because it would legitimize action he opposed in the first place. What’s really at stake here is that he doesn’t want France to be left out of the rebuilding. You can read some about that here. The country is actively trying to figure out how to get French businesses in the Iraq door. Says the article, “Some French are concerned that a U.S.-led administration in Iraq will favor companies from the United States and other pro-war countries while penalizing companies from France and other war opponents.” I certainly hope things favor allied countries over France. Considering that France did everything possible to keep Iraq from being liberated, I see no reason why they should benefit from the inevitable liberation. Here’s what’s truly galling, though, and I’ll quote liberally:

“Officials in Paris say French firms' experience in working in Iraq would be an advantage.

“French companies — many with ties to Baghdad stretching back decades — have established themselves as the largest suppliers of goods to Iraq since a U.N. trade embargo was partially lifted in 1996.

“In 2001, France exported $705 million worth of goods to Iraq within the framework of the United Nations (news - web sites)' now-frozen oil-for-food program. Communications equipment maker Alcatel clinched a $75 million contract to upgrade Baghdad's phone network, and Renault sold $75 million worth of tractors and farming vehicles to Iraq.

“French oil giant TotalFinaElf probably has the biggest stake. It spent six years in the 1990s doing preparatory work on two giant oil fields and has signed two tentative agreements with Saddam to develop them.

“Munier said he believes American companies will have difficulties in Iraq because of widespread anger against the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

‘I don't see how American executives can work when their lives will be at risk,’ he said. ‘There will be such hatred toward Americans.’

“Munier criticized French companies for negotiating with American companies for a piece of their businesses in Iraq, saying that such "collaboration" would damage the image of French business among Iraqis.”

Here is where the French truly don’t get it. They feel that French companies’ experience in Iraq will work to their advantage. What they don’t see is that the entity with which they were dealing was the Saddam Hussein Baathist regime. As noted above, they worked out all sorts of deals with a tyrannical dictator. The new post-war Iraqi government will be opposed to all things Saddam and will be made up of elements that suffered tremendously under him for the past 25 years. They won’t see the French as great guys, they’ll see them as the enemy. The French will be the folks who happily did business with their oppressor and who went to great lengths to prevent his overthrow. In contrast, the Americans won’t be hated by the Iraqis as the gentleman suggests, they’ll be loved and respected for doing what virtually everybody else in the international community refused to do. In fact, many of the people helping to rebuild the country will be former Iraqi exiles who have spent years the States.

The French simply don’t understand what’s going on here. They perceive the situation only from their narrow point of view that if the country is bombed, then the people will hate the bomber. They look only at the means. They can’t comprehend that an oppressed people would feel any different when the resulting ends come about. The Iraqis will love the liberators and they will hate those who aided and abetted the dictator. The French are making a horrible miscalculation here… one they deserve to make.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
There are elements in the UN Security Council and the General Assembly that will be bringing up debates on resolutions mandating that coalition forces should pull out of Iraq, immediately and unconditionally. This is funny in a way. The UN couldn’t keep forces out of Iraq and now they want to pull them out once they’re there. Thank heavens morality isn’t based upon a majority. Keep in mind that the UN is the organization with Libya heading its Human Rights committee.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you haven’t yet had enough proof of the sheer evilness of Hussein’s regime, then let me refer you to this article from Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, you say? It concerns Iraq’s Olympic program and how it was brutally presided over by Saddam’s son, Uday. Let’s just say that Uday used the same motivational methods on athletes as his father used on those with suspicious loyalties. It’s chilling.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:22:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you would like more info on how Iraqis truly see Saddam, check out this this account from a former human shield. He recounts some of his experiences in Iraq and how truly naïve he was concerning the situation there. I believe my favorite part was when he asked a taxi driver what he thought of everything. The driver’s response? “’Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?’ he said. ‘Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam.’” There are other great parts to it. Do read it. It exemplifies how the average Iraqi really feels about Saddam and about the U.S. It also reinforces what I said about French business interests above.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may have watched the Oscars on Sunday night. Never have they seemed so hallow. This was likely due in part to the war, but I can’t imagine that they would have been entertaining even in the war’s absence. Performances were flat and Steve Martin was awful. Bruce Villanch must have written most of those jokes because that wasn’t Martin’s schtick or timing at all. The monologue consisted of numerous disjointed jokes with no flow whatsoever. At any rate, when there’s real life and death fighting going on on the other side of the globe, it’s hard to watch a ceremony in which a ridiculous industry full of highly overpaid rich people pats itself on the back. Gosh, I always like to see people honor themselves.

Fortunately, there weren’t too many anti-war outbursts. Susan Sarandon restricted her protest to self-righteously flashing a two-fingered peace sign before taking the podium. Honestly, that was probably more annoying than anything else. The gentleman introducing the nominated song from Frida opined that if Frida Kahlo were alive today, she would be “on our side, against war.” Good to know, but unless Frida was God, and she wasn’t, her opinion matters no more to me than the rest of them. I also think the verbiage is very telling, “our side.” It implies you’re not a good Hollywood celebrity if you support the war.

There was Michael Moore, of course, with his absurd outburst. He was obviously preaching to the choir on that one. It’s amusing that he complained about fictitious this and that considering that his “documentaries” have always played fast and loose with the truth. The thunderous standing ovation he initially received for his win also illustrates the utter hypocrisy present in that town. Moore won for his film that was anti-gun and anti-violence. Don’t forget that many a movie has made many a dollar based upon guns and the glorification of violence.

Adrian Brody’s speech was interesting. He stated how his experience filming The Pianist helped him realize the horrors of war and that’s why peace is good. This goes far to show another fallacy on the left. They believe wars are all bad and exist in some sort of vacuum. If nothing else, The Pianist, about a gifted young man caught up in the horrors of the holocaust, shows what happens when early action isn’t taken. The evils portrayed against the Jews in the movie wouldn’t have taken place had the international community lived up to its responsibilities and its words during Germany’s military build-up. World War II was a direct result of stunning inaction in the face of aggressive evil. It’s a perfect illustration for the justness of the present conflict in Iraq. It’s a shame that Hollywood liberals are incapable of seeing that.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/27/2003 01:18:00 AM (Archive Link)
After giving it some thought, I have decided to remove The Onion from my favorite links. While it’s still a good humor site, its humor of late has been skewed very far to the left. I don’t at all mind poking fun at conservatives, the Bush administration, etc. I’d be disappointed if they didn’t. Their one-sidedness, however, has made them go from good, quality humor to loud liberal cynical ranting. One note jokes get tiring after a while and they lack creativity.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 10:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
It has begun.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:54:00 PM (Archive Link)
We all know and love Sheryl Crow, right? Of course we do (since we always trust celebrities)! And not just for her music, but also for her enlightened thoughts on world politics. Thus, I must direct you to a posting on her website concerning her latest elucidation for the masses. Actually, I like this treatise as I think it fairly well lays out almost every point that the anti-war movement likes to make. Where to begin in commenting? There are so many places, so let’s dive in.

"It is my philosophical belief that we are at this point in history not
because of any great leadership or because of any great evil. I believe
history has brought us to this point and that the matter at hand is that we
be armed with truth."

As my wife noted, somebody should point out to Sheryl that history is something that happens. It’s not some magical thing that creates world events and situations. Great leaders and great evil tend to be two controlling forces in history and we didn’t just come to this point suddenly or accidentally.

"It is time for us to decide what it is, as people, that we stand
for. Are we a nation that was founded on imperialistic ideals? Or are we a
nation that is part of a fabric made up of all other countries existing on
the same planet, respecting this organism that sustains our lives?"

I grow very weary of hearing about the “imperialistic” designs of the American government. If we were truly interested in empire, we could right now be directly ruling most of Europe and a few other places. And let’s not forget our latest jewel, Afghanistan. The second section about being part of a fabric is just nonsense. Or maybe not… let’s run with it. We are part of a planetary fabric. However, there are some very nasty stains and since they’re threatening to spread to the rest of the cloth, we’re bringing out the bleach.

"Do we ignore the relationships we have worked hard to build with our allies and do
we try everything in our power to rid the planet of evil using nonaggression,
or are we a country that will use force and in the meantime, be responsible
for the loss of innocent lives in the name of freeing oppressed people and
insuring our own security, when this war is not solely based on those ideals
but on the ideals of controlling the oil industry and our interests in
Israel. We did not go in to Rwanda, Sierra Leone, or Angola when these
countries were suffering catastrophic genocide and human rights infractions
beyond our understanding. Where was our humanitarian nature then?"

Those on the left always accuse America of jeopardizing and damaging its relationships with allies in Europe. They never entertain the possibility that it is those countries who are damaging their relationship with us. Considering that they have embarked on a campaign directed toward purposely frustrating and embarrassing the U.S. while our campaign involves removing a tyrant, I rather think that’s how things have worked out.

Sheryl doesn’t think we’re doing everything possible on the nonaggression route. I’m sorry, I thought 12 years was long enough. Aggressive evil wasn’t responding well to rhetoric and a Swiss professor.

I suppose freeing oppressed people isn’t a good war reason for Sheryl. I also guess that the loss of innocent lives is ok as long as it’s Hussein who’s doing the purposeful killing of innocents as opposed to the accidental and far rarer killing on our part during a war.

The oil industry. Heard this before. You know, though… for all the times I’ve heard this argument raised, I have not once heard it in a clear cogent presentation with evidence and logic that demonstrates just how this works out. It’s almost like some Gilgamesh myth or Asian rhino-horn potency medicines… nobody can say how it’s supposed to work. It’s just an empty mantra. As for the mention of Israel, I’ll get to that later.

Did we go into these places she mentions? Nope. No pressing national interests. Really, this was more of the UN’s department. They actually were involved in the Rwandan crisis and failed miserably. They essentially stood around while horrible genocides were taking place. Let’s not forget, though, that we did go into Somalia for humanitarian purposes and were richly rewarded for our efforts. We also went into Bosnia long after we should have because the UN and NATO dickered around for so long. More on Bosnia later.

"It is my dream that the arrogance that represents us as a nation can be
changed in the eyes of the world and that we will rise up as a nation of
peaceful people who will work at finding other ways of eliminating
enemies....perhaps by consciously not creating enemies in the first place,
after all, we have distinct ties to Saddam in his becoming leader of Iraq."

The language in this section is humorous in itself… “rise up as a nation of peaceful people.” “Rising up” generally isn’t peaceful. At any rate, a nation that’s unwilling to fight is going to get run over. Can you imagine a country populated entirely by the Amish lasting for long? Or the French? (Frog joke!) Also, enemies usually aren’t eliminated very well by non-violent means. You see, they tend to be your enemy because they violently oppose you. A soothing voice won’t accomplish much. As for consciously not creating enemies… well, I’m glad she’s here to tell us these things. We should have ended our Anti-American Enemy Training Program years ago. If only we had known it would backfire on us like it has.

"There are many questions that beg to be asked. Some are being asked
rhetorically by many journalists, including a great writer at the New York
Times by the name of Daniel Friedman. For example-if we are claiming that we are
going into Iraq to save it's people from such an oppressive regime and such
heinous human rights infractions, then why are we not addressing these
situations in other Middle Eastern countries that are our allies? What is
the standard? Is there a way to justify the human loss that we can expect
from this war....our own as well as innocent Iraqis?"

If celebrities want us to take them seriously, they should at least try to get a few things right. The columnist’s name isn’t Daniel, it’s Thomas. He has two Pulitzers to his name. If you get such a basic detail wrong, it makes me doubt you’ve ever read any of his work that wasn’t summarized and truncated.

Ok, what if we did decide to go into all these countries with human rights violations? Do you think Sheryl would approve? She and others accuse the U.S. of not being genuine about human rights but they would have a fit if we tried to solve it everywhere. And besides that, if you’re surrounded by evil, that’s not an excuse for doing nothing. Just because there are similar human rights issues elsewhere, that doesn’t mean you don't liberate anybody. You take out some evil and move on from there.

Tragically, and I do mean that, I must stop my analysis there. It appears that between last night and today, Sheryl’s thesis was taken down. Since I didn’t copy it over and I can’t find it elsewhere on the internet, I can do no more. Well… perhaps I can. There are a few points I can dig up from memory.

There is some very subtle, but implicit anti-Semitism in Sheryl’s piece. There are several places where she mentions the war in Iraq is due to “our interests in Israel.” No, she doesn’t say “the Jews,” but most Israelis are Jews and this point is never far from anybody’s mind. And the fact that she uses our Israeli interests as a bad reason for war, I think it can be assumed she’s pretty solidly on the Palestinian side of things. At other points, she mentions the centuries old Christian-Muslim conflict. No mention of the much more potent and active Muslim-Jewish conflict. Let’s not forget that many in the middle-east have a visceral hatred of the Jewish people. And finally, she also says something about Paul Wolfowitz drawing up a secret plan of world domination while in the first Bush administration. Wolfowitz is Jewish and is frequently the target of anti-Semitic barbs tossed at the government. The fact that she says he was the leading force in this secret imperial plan and nobody else… well… we’ve seen these insinuations concerning Jews before, haven’t we?

Another part that I can recall is a paragraph where Sheryl brings up her USO trip to Bosnia. She talks of how the land was scarred and ravaged and how the Bosnians had to be escorted by troops just to ensure their safety while they voted and that these same troops protected their villages. She brings this up as a way to describe the horrors of war, but it actually serves as a shining counterargument to everything else in her essay. That devastation was wrought by a genocidal terror campaign on behalf of the Serbians under Slobodan Milosevic. The ground was scarred because of him, the people required protection because of him. Had we acted far sooner than we did, none of it would have happened. Instead, Europe sat around trying to contain Milosevic through diplomacy. The miserable state of the Bosnians was the result of a war not taking place sooner that would remove the dictator. It seems, though, that Sheryl is perfectly willing to let the misery of the Bosnians be shared by that of the Iraqis. Oh… and when she whines about the war in Iraq being a crusade against Muslims, let’s keep in mind that we saved Bosnian MUSLIMS from the aggressive Serbian CHRISTIANS. Yeah, we’re real Crusaders.

That’s all for now since the story is gone from Crow’s site. I’ll keep checking, though, to see if it pops back up.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:51:00 PM (Archive Link)
Given the previous post, one of my concerns about post-Saddam Iraq is fundamentalist Islam. Right now, Islam isn’t terribly extreme in Iraq since the government has such strict control of all activities and extremist groups would be a threat to Hussein’s rule. With Hussein out of the picture, though, I imagine that religious groups in next-door Saudi Arabia will take the opportunity to move in and start preaching their own brand of Islam. If that happens, I fear we will have only traded one threat for another.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:51:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve been giving the topic of Islam some thought lately. I’ve stated in the past that I don’t particularly trust Islam because of its history and especially its invocation in recent terrorist activities. Now, there are good Muslims out there, to be sure. There are Muslims who believe the extremists are morally bankrupt and that their version of Islam is baseless and theologically heretical. These Muslims will go to their grave declaring Islam is a religion of peace. I have no reason to doubt them since I’m no Islamic scholar. My concern, though, is not theological. If some say Islam truly is a peaceful religion, then I’ll believe them; I’d rather like to think that it is. Islam in the real world, though, is increasingly non-peaceful. Despite what the religion’s true nature is, the form that’s taking hold and growing in influence is militant and dangerous. You have imams declaring Jews to be pigs that are fit for the slaughter and that tragedies against the U.S. are divine acts of Allah; you have Saudi Arabia outlawing churches and Bibles and enforcing the death penalty for those who convert away from Islam. There are known radical elements in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Even here in the U.S., we have a respected professor who stands accused of supporting Islamic terrorism.

You may say these are only the voices that speak loudest and are therefore the ones being heard. Very well. But if that’s the case, then I’m not the only one hearing them. The young, the masses, and the easily influenced are hearing them also and hearing them more; voices of moderation are drowned out. As such, worldwide Islam and especially middle-eastern Islam is becoming more and more militant. This isn’t accidental. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the official religion inside Saudi Arabia and the country has been aggressively exporting it around the world. Wahhabism is a sect that developed in the early 1700’s and it advocates (among other things) the killing of men, women, and children (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) in pursuit of true, i.e. it’s own version of, Islam. Using oil money, Saudi Arabia sends their clerics to other countries or brings clerics from other countries for training and sets up organizations in other countries defending Islam in general. And here is where I think there’s a big problem.

Islamic groups in America and elsewhere, whether they be extremist, moderate, Saudi-funded, or not, go to great lengths to defend Islam carte blanche. There is a denial about what is happening to their religion. This is expected of the extremist groups, of course, but moderates are joining in as well. Instead of speaking out against the growing militancy of Islam and Saudi funded Wahhabism, they denounce critics who would dare to do so. Such people are accused of being bigots and intolerants who are trying to incite anit-Arab or anit-Muslim violence. These condemning Muslims are only concerned with criticism and ignore the growing threat in their own religion. Instead of denouncing critics, they need to say that there is a problem in Islam. They need to speak out against fundamentalist Islam and the Wahhabi front groups. They need to preach true, peaceful Islam and use their dollars to combat Saudi influence in the world.

Demanding tolerance is not the answer in fighting anti-Islamic sentiments. Doing so and not condemning the extremist elements that exist within the religion are only postponing problems. As these fundamentalist philosophies are allowed to take a greater hold over Islam, intolerance among the populace will only increase. Considering the violent doctrines that are inherent in these philosophies, and the likely actions that will follow from them, such intolerance will not be unjustified. It is absolutely necessary and essential that the moderates and the true Muslim believers defeat those who distort their religion. They need to defeat them in the school of thought and in the public eye in Saudi Arabia and other countries. The growing power and influence of the extremists is a threat to Islam and it’s time moderates stop ignoring the fact.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
Ah, the Dixie Chicks. This goes under the category of, “What were they thinking?!” Seeing as how the Chicks’ primary fan base is Country and that the majority of Country fans are pro-Bush and pro-war, it was the peak of stupidity for Natalie Maines to say she was ashamed Bush was from Texas. The fact that she did it during a London concert was probably even worse… although imagine if it was during a concert in Paris! If she meant what she said, fine. I can respect somebody voicing their opinion. But when you’re livelihood is dependent upon people liking you, it’s a real bad career move to alienate those folks who most support you.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read so much from the left about multilateralism in the war on Iraq. Of course, the U.S. is being multilateral in its approach. As Colin Powell said, 30 countries are publicly in support of us and another 15 are privately so. It’s still not multilateral enough for the liberals, however. Apparently, war in Iraq is unilateral until absolutely everybody agrees with us. Because of this, I’ve come to the opinion that, for liberals, the end is multilateralism itself. The goal is not to remove Saddam Hussein, it’s merely to make sure everybody is in agreement on his removal. Once the agreeance (that’s for you, Fred Durst!) is reached, everybody can smile and go home happy because of a well-done consensus. Note that no actual action to remove Saddam would be taken… that’s not the goal, agreement is.

Conservatives, by contrast, have a goal and doggedly pursue it. If one approach doesn’t lead to the desired outcome, then another is taken. In the case of Iraq, if France doesn’t support removing Saddam and will veto U.S. efforts in the Security Council, then we will go around France and not use the UN. We can’t afford to have the goal threatened by non-agreement.

The big problem with the liberal goal of multilateralism is that it essentially removes American self-rule. As an independent state, the U.S. has the right and responsibility to act in its own best interests. If that means attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, then that is what it must do. If America doesn’t act in its own best interests because it does not have a world consensus, you have ceded control of the country. In Iraq’s case, you have ceded control to France and Germany. Since they do not agree with action, you allow America to act in the interests of those countries which run counter to those of the U.S. Multilateralism essentially turns into French unilateralism. This is absurd and is one of the worst methods of governance.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/18/2003 11:31:00 PM (Archive Link)
It's been a little while since I last posted, but I should have plenty of stuff showing up sometime Wednesday. Keep an eye out.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:30:00 PM (Archive Link)
Not surprisingly, the good folks at The Nation are in favor of weapons inspectors... for the United States. From this article, a few on the left even made a symbolic attempt on their own. This is another example of how many liberals have completely lost whatever moral compass they once had in that they freely draw an equivalence between a country like Iraq and the U.S. Actually, equivalence may not be the right word since they usually view the U.S. as being far worse than Iraq or any other country. Somehow, the country that preserves domestic freedom, supports worldwide freedom, and allows all and any manner of dissent is more oppressive than places where opposition earns you a bullet in the back of your skull. A nation that stringently tries to limit and eliminate rogue governments that attempt to produce and, more importantly, use weapons of mass destruction is more dangerous and wild-eyed than the rogue countries themselves.

Some might say that the people who believe such things live outside of reality. That could be true. I think that abandoning morals, ethics, and the concepts of good and evil can do that. Their own notion of reality exists without such things but it takes them further away from actual reality because there is good and evil and there are there are people who do very bad things whether they see it or not. There’s the idea that morals and ethics are merely props for the false reality humanity creates for itself. I rather wonder if they only help us to get closer to reality as it actually is.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:29:00 PM (Archive Link)
March 5th marked the 50th anniversary of Joseph Stalin’s death. Fewer people have more deserved to die. Uncle Joe, of course, was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own citizens; 20-30 million by most estimates and that doesn't count those who died because of backwards economic or agricultural programs... that's around 100 million. He was a ruthless murderer who violently eliminated any opposition to his regime, whether it was real or perceived. You wouldn’t know it from the obituary the New York Times published in 1953, though. The writer practically drooled over the man and his accomplishments. There’s only about three instances where anything remotely negative is mentioned but they’re glossed over. I especially like the parts that credit him as a great war leader during WWII. Never mind that Stalin’s purging of the officer corps prior to the war left him with no qualified commanders and that his trust in Hitler resulted in his forces getting caught with their pants down. True, in 1953, we didn’t know of all the atrocities Stalin had committed. Still, though, we did know that communism was a threatening, virulent ideology and that Stalin had done much to nurture its development and spread. Given that alone, the Times’ love note to Joe is embarrassing at best.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:27:00 PM (Archive Link)
Ever wonder why Stalin isn’t as vilified as Hitler despite his almost equally horrific crimes against humanity? The Telegraph has a few ideas.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:26:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of dictators, check out this editorial in England's Guardian newspaper. It’s written by none other Fidel Castro. What a guy. I'm glad he enjoys the freedom of speech that he denies to his own people.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:22:00 PM (Archive Link)
Read this article concerning our troop force in South Korea. Rumsfeld is intimating that we may move some or all of our troops away from the border with North Korea or take them out of Korea altogether. The reason for doing so is the increasing hostility from both the South Korean public and the government towards the military’s presence. This is, of course, a bluff. We can’t afford to move soldiers out of Korea when Kim Jong Il is becoming more and more threatening. At the same time, though, Kim’s aggressive stance is providing an opportunity for Rummy to teach the South Koreans a little humility. It’s the old sit-com set up of the little kid insulting his bigger protector but tries to make amends when he sees the bully coming for him.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:22:00 PM (Archive Link)
Last Thursday, I believe, was the day where students all over the country were encouraged to skip school to protest the impending war against Iraq. This is fine and all, but the annoying part was that a few teachers unions in California were advising schools to show lenience to participating students. Why? If you cut class, you knowingly break the rules and should therefore be subject to whatever punishment it would normally entail. People seem to be so proud of openly opposing the U.S. government’s policy on Iraq as if they’re some sort of ideological revolutionaries because they walk a mile or two while yelling and waving signs. At the same time, they want to remove any and all consequences of their civil disobedience. They even try to shout down any arguments or criticism towards them as censorship, fascism, racism, or some other –ism. In short, they don’t have any badges of honor to show for their amazing courage. Imagine if they actually faced serious repercussions for their protests such as in the country led by the man they’re trying to protect.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:22:00 PM (Archive Link)
Several days ago, Colin Powell accused Saddam Hussein of having Al-Samoud missiles hiding somewhere in Iraq and that they numbered in excess of the 100 or so claimed. Powell also said that Iraq still had the capacity to make more missiles despite Saddam destroying the equipment we knew about. For me, this was kind of a “duh” moment. Hussein would never willingly destroy his best missiles and their production facilities unless he still had some stashed elsewhere. That’s been his nature for 12 years and he’s not about to change. What he has destroyed thus far is just another token gesture meant to deceive the world’s fools.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:21:00 PM (Archive Link)
How about some journalistic objectivity? Feel free to search for it in this Newsweek article. I’ll warn you, though… with phrases like, “The raids have caused appalling civilian casualties,” and “Yet Sharon has consistently placed Israel’s security concerns, or his interpretation of them, ahead of United States interests,” it might be hard to find.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:20:00 PM (Archive Link)
Check out highlights of Jamie Lee Curtis’s appearance on The View. Curtis is of the opinion that the millions that turned out in protests against war amount to more than a focus group and that the president is required to follow them. That’s not the case. It’s also illustrative of a big misconception about our government. People seem to think that their elected representatives are beholden to their constituents to do what they say. That’s not the case at all. You might be able to make the argument in an abstract sense but not literal. This isn’t a direct democracy, it’s a democratic republic. That means you elect people who you think will accurately reflect your own views in government. If they don’t, then you vote against them in the next election cycle. In the meantime, however, they may opine and vote in whatever way their own conscience leads them. They follow the will of the people in order to be reelected and to preserve their own political party’s prominence.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
One of the arguments that folks like to make against action in Iraq is that they don’t want to risk American soldiers being killed overseas. However, this seems to me a matter of convenience since these same people also hate the soldiers. They’re the oppressors, the “baby-killers,” etc. They claim to love the troops while really they hate and loathe them. America’s finest stand for values and ideals that are opposed to those of the protestors. The two are naturally antithetical.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/09/2003 09:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
Also, one of the things I always hear is that we should figure out why people in other countries dislike America so or why Muslim extremists hate Americans. I think this should be an academic exercise at best, but is otherwise absurd. My problem with it is that implies two things: America is doing something wrong and whatever is wrong needs to be fixed.

On the first point, the question of “Why do they hate us?” almost always entails that America is messing up somewhere and that we’re the ones who are messing up. The notion that it may be the other countries’ people who are mistaken is rarely considered. It’s this inner American guilt constantly perpetuated by the left that we’re causing hardship to the world and we must rectify our grevious errors. I’d rather start from the point of view that maybe there’s something wrong with the backward nations that have oppressive governments, extremist ideologies, poor educational systems, poor economies, and no native technological abilities. I don’t believe in cultural equivalence. Considering that so much is right with America and that so much is wrong with these other countries, I don’t think it’s wrong to ask “Why do they hate us?” and mean it in the sense that the problem is on their end.

Now on the second issue, once the question is asked and people have tried to identify something that inspires hate, it presupposes that it must then be fixed. This is equally silly. Many Muslim extremists hate us because of our support of Israel. Should we then stop supporting the Middle East’s only democracy because of this? These same extremists also hate us because of our Jewish population. Should we then put all Jews in cozy concentration camps? People hate us because of our political, economic and military power. Should we then cut our influence, outlaw companies, and pare down the army because of this? Others hate us because we hold certain values in our culture. Should we then eliminate all freedoms to accommodate them? Doubtful.