It seems to me that we aren’t making much progress in securing Iraq. In fact, one could argue that we are losing ground. For quite some time now a lot of people have thought that Donald Rumsfeld bears most of the responsibility for our lack of success there. In the last few days talk of his incompetence and/or stubborness has reached a crescendo. I have no way of knowing which is the most stubborn about making some changes in Iraq, the President or Rumsfeld. It doesn’t really matter though, because I see fault in both: Bush for not firing Rumsfeld if he thinks Rumsfeld is not getting the job done, and Rumsfeld for not resigning in protest if Bush is constraining him too much. Based on what they both say publicly it would seem that they both fall short in achieving our objectives in Iraq.

With or without Rumsfeld, the most important question is: What should be done to turn things around in Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question let me set the stage.

There are only three valid objectives in taking military action against a sovereign nation: to punish, to conquer or to conduct a short-term special operation. Punishment of a nation can range from isolated brief attacks to complete destruction, and does not involve occupation of the nation. Conquest of a nation consists of the defeat of the nation’s military, the overthrow of its governing regime, and the temporary or permanent occupation of the nation. Special operations can take many forms but usually are covert operations to capture or kill antagonists, to rescue hostages or to conduct surveillance.

The objective in both Afghanistan and Iraq was to conquer. The occupation of these countries is temporary, but with no specific date for withdrawal. I could argue that this was the wrong objective in both countries; that instead we should have chosen to punish them severely and then let the people of each country determine their own future. If they then choose wrongly and continue to be a threat, then punish them again. But that is water under the bridge. We chose to conquer and now we are bogged down.

We are bogged down because our leaders chose to occupy and let the people determine their own future. Or rather, they chose to kind of let the people determine their own future. Our leaders mistakenly believed that the people of those countries would welcome our assistance in determining their future. It has turned out that the few people chosen to lead the countries are somewhat cooperative, but the vast majority of the people are anything but.

What our leaders should have been prepared to do, after making the decision to conquer and occupy, was to lock down the borders and principal cities and rule with an iron hand. That, of course, would have required a lot more troops than what we had on the ground when the regimes fell. This shortage of troops is the key to what needs to be done to rescue our missions in the two countries.

The size of our active duty military forces needs to be dramatically increased. We need to double or triple our troop strengths in Afghanistan and Iraq. We may need troops to go into Pakistan to shut down the Taliban and al Qaeda in its Waziristan territory. We are threatened by Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations.

When we have sufficient troops in Afghanistan and Iraq we need to secure the borders and sweep those countries to eliminate the armament of the insurgents and terrorists and capture as many of them as is possible. As each country is swept it should be locked down with troops and strict curfews. Then the people should be given time to build and train their police and miltary forces and to establish their government. When that is done we should withdraw and let them succeed or fail on their own.

And, if they again become a threat, we should punish severely this time, not try to conquer.

Bob Woodward is still looking for the next Watergate. It has been over thirty years since he and Carl Bernstein uncovered the Watergate burglary cover-up that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation. He would love for his next trophy to be George W. Bush.

CBS News reports that Woodward’s new book charges that the Bush Administration is keeping secret the fact that coalition troops in Iraq are attacked every 15 minutes on average. (If Bush is keeping it secret, how does Woodward know it?) He said: “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces.”

Apparently arithmetic is not Woodward’s strong suit. Four attacks per hour is 96 attacks per day. That’s fewer than 100 per day, not more than 100. And 96 per day is 672 per week, not 800 or 900. But that’s nitpicking.

Is Bush trying to keep all this secret? Not according to an MSNBC report:

“U.S. military officials have stated publicly that the level of violence in Iraq is on the rise, and confirm the number of attacks in Iraq is about 120 per day – nearly 900 per week – but that also includes attacks against Iraqi security forces and civilians, not only U.S. forces.

In fact, the Pentagon’s quarterly report on violence in Iraq publicly released last month shows nearly 800 attacks per week from May to August 2006 against all targets.”

Is 800 attacks per week a surprising or alarming number? Not if compared to shootings in Philadelphia. Fox News reports that 317 people were shot in Philadelphia during the first two-and-a-half months of this year. That’s not 800 per week but it’s just one city and no war is going on — at least not a declared war.

According to Fox, a trauma surgeon in Philadelphia says: “The military sends its surgeons to inner cities to learn about trauma surgery because we have so much experience dealing with multiple gunshot wounds every day. We can prepare Army surgeons for what they will face on the battlefield.”

Woodward also decries the fact that Bush is getting advice from Henry Kissinger, who believes that the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will. Well, that was exactly the problem in Vietnam. And Woodward and his ilk would love to make it the same problem in Iraq.

Dear Mike,

Today I received your letter asking me to send more money to the Republican National Committee. Please see my recent Open Letter to Ken Mehlman. In it I explained why I won’t be giving any more money to the RNC.  In your letter you said:

“If we fail to implement our aggressive Get-Out-The-Vote strategy of identifying, contacting and turning out GOP voters to help elect more Republicans, we run the risk of losing control of Congress to the Democrats — who are poised to roll back our accomplishments we’ve achieved (sic) over the past six years.”

Does this mean the Democrats aren’t interested in rolling back the accomplishments you didn’t achieve?

If you read my letter to Ken Mehlman you will find that I believe a lot of your accomplishments should be rolled back. Nevertheless, I agree that the Democrats don’t have a plan for America, at least not one I like, and assure you that I won’t be voting for any Democrats.

Sincerely,

Carson Sasser

Tony Blankley and others have reported that a battle has been lost in the war on terror. He says that the Pakistani government has “signed the terms of the Waziristan Accord with the northern region of its country called North Waziristan. It was, effectively, the terms of surrender by Pakistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda, which dominate North Waziristan. Pakistan has negotiated a separate peace — the eternal danger to any wartime alliance.” The accord allows the Waziristan region to operate independently of the Pakistani government and would appear to relieve President Pervez Musharraf of any responsibility for its security.

I’m not as convinced as Blankley and his sources that this is all bad news. Consider the possibility that this move is designed to allow Musharraf to save face when the US invades the region to capture bin Laden and/or shut down the Taliban operations in that region. Musharraf has publicly opposed large scale operations by the US military in his country. Now he can say that since they asked for autonomy he is not obligated to protect them.

I realize that this supposition might appear to contradict one that I made in Hunt for bin Laden? about two weeks ago. Then I raised the possibility that our government didn’t want to capture bin Laden because they have him under surveillance. Perhaps they have decided that it is time to shut him down and bring him in.

I believe that it is time to impose term limits on members of Congress — on both Senators and Representatives. It’s time to get rid of the career politicians and return government back to the people. This is certainly not an original idea. People have been pushing term limits for years.

Paul Jacob is a strong advocate of term limits for local, state and federal legislators. He is a Senior Fellow of the US Term Limits organization. Other organizations, and web sites, that advocate term limits are Florida, Stop the Politicians and Citizens for Term Limits. And there are many others. As with any political issue there is a lot of support and opposition. See the references at the bottom of this post for a sampling.

I believe that the best, and sufficient, reason for term limits is that it will make Congress more responsive to the people. A member who believes that he or she is vulnerable to replacement is a member that will work a lot harder to represent the views of his or her constituency. Another good reason is that it will get more people and more ideas involved in the legislative process.

The most prevalent argument against term limits is that it will create a Congress of amateurs and effectively shift the legislative process to congressional staffers. It appears to me that staffers already do most of the heavy lifting and if it takes more than a few months for a new member to learn the ropes, then we shouldn’t have sent that person to Congress. Another argument is that lobbyists will have their way with the short-term inexperienced members. From what I read lobbyists hate the idea of term limits.

I have followed Jacob’s work for several years, mostly through his opinion pieces on Townhall.com, and I generally agree with his views on term limits. His organization has made a lot of progress at the local and state level but not much at the congressional level, mainly because there are huge hurdles to get over. The main hurdle is that a constitutional amendment is required to impose term limits on Congress. There are only two ways to amend the constitution:

• Congress passes an amendment by a two-thirds majority and then three-fourths of the states ratify it.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures apply to congress to hold a national convention; the national convention passes an amendment; and then three-fourths of the states ratify it.

The national convention method has never been used to successfully pass an amendment to the constitution.

Since making congressional term limits the law of the land is not likely to happen any time soon, we, the voters, need to impose them directly. We need to limit members of the Senate to one six-year term and members of the house to three two-year terms. We can do this by taking a personal vow not to vote for an incumbent who will exceed six years in office if reelected, and to never vote to return that person to Congress in the future.

I understand that this might be difficult to do considering that many of the other voters haven’t taken the same vow or that they might break the vow. As a result their members of Congress will likely have more seniority and more power than yours. But we have to take a stand and start chipping away at the present system that practically guarantees that all un-indicted incumbents are re-elected. Perhaps, as more and more incumbents lose, those remaining in office will start to get the message and clean up their acts. And those that realize they are going to get only six years in office might become inclined to support mandating term limits.
_______________

Cato Policy Analysis — Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever by Doug Bandow

The New American — Term Limits Temptation by George Detweiler

Cato Policy Analysis — What Term Limits Do That Ordinary Voting Cannot by Einer Elhauge

Keith Olbermann has a post on his Bloggermann site that demands an apology from President Bush. He claims that President Bush said publicly that “it’s unacceptable to think.” Of course the President said no such thing.

What the President actually said, and this is from Olbermann’s post, is: “If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic,” Bush said. “It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Bush said this in responding to a letter written by Colin Powell in which Powell said “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” Powell wrote this letter to state his opinion about Bush and the Congress’ efforts to clarify what constitutes acceptable interrogation techniques under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Olbermann extracted the phrase, “it’s unacceptable to think,” from Bush’s statement and made his claim that Bush had proclaimed to the world that he actually believes that thinking is unacceptable. Geez! How could this guy have an hour-long show on national television?

Aside from the fact that he took the phrase completely out of context, apparently he doesn’t realize that there is more than one definition of the word ‘think’. One definition is: to believe to be true of someone or something. So, using that definition, Bush’s statement translates to: It’s unacceptable to believe that there’s any kind of comparison…

Any reasonably objective adult knows that Bush meant that he, himself, cannot accept that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. No reasonably objective adult believes that, by Bush’s statement, he believes that the act of thinking is unacceptable in general.

Using Olbermann’s thought process I could take him to task for something he said in his post. He said “all of us agree.” Obviously, Keith, all of us don’t agree. And many of us especially don’t agree with you.

Apologize, sir, for your egregious attack on the President. Anything else, Mr Olbermann, is truly unacceptable.

There has been a lot of talk recently about how the United States should seek the moral high ground in its foreign policies. I’ve heard it in regard to waging the war on terror. I’ve heard it in regard to President Bush’s desire to clarify what constitutes acceptable interrogation techniques under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It’s most always discussed in terms of how other peoples of the world will react to our words and actions, not in terms of how we will regard ourselves.

Those that want to claim the moral high ground don’t seem to understand that this goal is both arrogant and absurd. It is arrogant to think that we can defeat a determined enemy without committing devious and heinous acts — at least devious and heinous in the eyes of those we seek so assiduously to impress. It is absurd to think that what we define as the moral high ground will be accepted as such by others. The only reasonable dividend to expect from attempting to conduct our foreign policy from the moral high ground is that we will feel better about ourselves when the dust settles.

There are millions of people who believe that what the radical Muslims did to us on 9/11/01 was wrong. There are also millions of people who believe that it was right, some of which even celebrated the attack. And, opinion is similarly, but inversely, divided over what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. One person’s right is another person’s wrong.

Earlier this week President Bush told the United Nations that we respect Islam. Of course we respect Islam. We also respect rattlesnakes, but it doesn’t mean we like them or dislike them. It means we are aware of the danger they pose. I wonder if this was one more attempt to appease the Islamists, or did he choose that word very carefully? Anyway, it’s time for straight talk with some of our potential enemies without a lot of posturing over who’s right or wrong or who’s good or bad.

Some people point to the Crusades and seem to argue that what the Islamists are doing now is just payback for what the Christians did then. Perhaps this is a valid viewpoint, but does Jack, who holds that view, gain any comfort from knowing that the reason Jim is threatening to kill him is that one of his ancestors raped one of Jim’s ancestors a hundred years ago? No person living today bears any responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Crusaders. The United States did not exist until several centuries after the Crusades. There is no moral high ground to be gained from guilt over the Crusades.

We don’t engage in war to be highly regarded. We engage in war to ensure the long-term survival of our country, our culture and our relatively high standard of living. We should just announce loudly and clearly that we like what we have here in the USA and we will fight fiercely to keep it. We should feel no need to justify our right to defend our way of life or our life itself.

The only considerations in crafting our policy toward irrational or fanatical threats to our national security should be the extent and imminence of those threats. No consideration should be given to their moral basis or claims. Neither should we take great risks in order to be viewed in a favorable light by the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong with selfishly defending yourself when harm is threatened.

I read recently about an art exhibit in Los Angeles by a British artist named Banksy. He spray-painted an elephant as a prop in his campaign to raise our awareness that “many people live below the poverty line.” He handed out cards that read, “There’s an elephant in the room. There’s a problem we never talk about.” I’m sure that Banksy really wants to help people in need, but do you suppose he doesn’t realize that there will always be people living below the poverty line? Governments guarantee that because they keep moving the poverty line.

Anyhow, Banksy fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. Someone did see the elephant in the room. That someone was an animal lover who felt that spray-painting an elephant was abusive.
_______________

Senators McCain, Warner, Graham and others are opposed to President Bush’s push to clarify the rules about what constitutes ‘outrages upon personal dignity’ (Common Article 3 from the Geneva Convention) when interrogating captured enemy combatants, thereby legalizing ‘alternative interrogation practices’. One of the reasons they give is that doing so will cause our enemies to torture our soldiers when they are captured. Of all people, John McCain should know better. That is, he should know that our enemies will torture our soldiers regardless of any law that we pass. We don’t go to war against nations that are guided by high moral principles. We go to war against despots, lunatics and angry radical factions that have proclaimed their intent to destroy us.

I know that severe torture is inhumane and I agree that we should not do it except under rare critical circumstances. But it is incomprehensible to me that people, judged by their reaction, seem more strongly opposed to subjecting a captive to cold temperatures and rock music than to killing combatants on the battlefield.

I wonder if the people creating all this commotion over our treatment of detainees ever consider that this might influence our soldiers when they have to make quick kill-or-capture decisions on the battlefield.
_______________

I highly recommend that you read Head-in-the-Sand Liberals authored by Sam Harris and published today in the Los Angeles Times. Harris is an avowed liberal and the LA Times definitely leans left, but I agree with everything he says — except the part about raising taxes and allowing homosexuals to marry (actually homosexuals are free to marry, but I’m sure he meant same sex marriage). The essence of the article is that the threat from radical Islam is very real and liberals just refuse to see it. He says that the liberals misunderstand the motivations of the Islamists and are misguided about how we should address the threat that they pose.
_______________

Why do we never hear about ‘first world countries’ or ’second world countries’? All we ever hear about are ‘third world countries’. Well, actually we do hear about them; they just aren’t called that. But they do turn up in an internet search. I wonder if the UN has rules that define what constitutes a third world country. And do they have criteria that when met allow a third world country to move up to second world status? Are there fourth world countries?

Before taking the inaugural oath,
I would dismiss the staff from my campaign.
I’d trust my words and actions both,
To lead the people to vote for me again.

To be loved by all I would not strive.
For pride and patriotism across this land
Is something that I want to revive.
So for these matters I would firmly stand.

I would never feel that I should make nice
With the nations that refuse to see the danger
Posed by radical elements who won’t heed advice
From their brothers not filled with the same anger.

To those that want to inflict on us so much hurt,
I would say that we might bend but will not break.
Though your boasts and slogans you like to blurt,
To think you can defeat us is clearly a mistake.

I would have no tolerance for so-called progressives
Who embrace the crushing of little babies’ brains
But can’t stomach the ‘torture’ of terrorist captives
To extract the information a depraved mind contains.

I would lock down our border with Mexico
To cut off the flow of ‘undocumented workers’.
I would conduct a thorough search high and low
To find and deport all the immigration law shirkers.

I would eliminate the reason the illegals come
By finding and prosecuting those who defy the law.
For documented workers I would raise the volume
To provide a pool of workers upon which to draw.

I would insist on legislation to make it clear
That English is the right language to speak
If a better life in this country is held dear
And becoming a citizen is what you seek.

I would urge the Congress for a bill to clarify
That in taking property through eminent domain,
For ‘public benefit’ the takers cannot justify.
Only for ‘public use’ does the law pertain.

I would terminate all forms of foreign aid.
Instead I would end our tariffs and subsidies,
That handicap the poor nations by stifling trade,
Thereby giving a needed boost to their economies.

The United Nations I would completely ignore
And its funding I would seek to withdraw.
For both its actions and inactions I abhor
And it’s most always led by a scofflaw.

I would kill the funding of the NEA on my first day.
Because commissioned art is not art, it’s design.
Because federal funding of art is lawful in no way.
Because its coerced benefactors it strives to malign.

I would close the Department of Indoctrination
And rely on the state and local governments
To provide their own brand of education
Better suited to the needs of their students.

Every bill sent to my desk would be rejected
Until Congress gives me what I want.
To compromise is not why Presidents are elected,
So I would be extremely difficult to daunt.

I would advocate that taxes be decreased
And eliminate those that I can’t sanction.
Like taxes your heirs pay after you are deceased
And taxes you have to pay on inflation.

I would constantly demand cuts in expenses
And would oppose all hikes in spending.
I would eliminate or combine most agencies
For their number seems to be never ending.

I would most likely be impeached
Before serving my first year in office
By the Congress I have constantly beseeched
To extract its head from its posterior orifice.

(In case you want to use this and you don’t think the ending is appropriate for your purposes, then substitute the following ending:

I would most likely be impeached
Before my first year in office is complete
By the Congress I have constantly beseeched
To legislate without so much deceit.)

Fox News reports that, “In July, a Border Patrol agent who was an illegal immigrant himself was sentenced to five years in prison for smuggling more than 100 illegal immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico near San Diego, some of them in his government truck (emphasis added).” I hope this is not true. Is it possible that our government is hiring illegals to guard our borders? I suppose the was means that he was a former illegal immigrant when hired as a Border Patrol agent. But would the government hire a former prison escapee as a prison guard!?
_______________

Charles Krauthammer has written that President Bush signalled in his 9/11 anniversary speech that he intends to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities within about a year. I don’t challenge this assertion and I don’t disagree that we might see a dramatic increase in the price of oil after an attack. But I do disagree with his assessment of Iran’s possible response to an attack. Krauthammer says:

“Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world’s leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world’s exports flow every day.”

What he seems to overlook is the fact that dependence on oil is a two-way street. Many oil producing nations (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela…) are just as dependent on oil as are many oil consuming nations (USA, China, India…). If the US just bombs their nuclear facilities and goes away, I don’t think Iran will provoke the US, and possibly other countries, into taking further military action against them. They are smart enough to know that, if they retaliate as suggested by Krauthammer, the US will destroy their Navy and blockade their coast. With no way to ship their oil their greatest source of income will dry up.
_______________

Newt Gingrich writes that “House Republicans can create a winning agenda for November with eleven issues.” He calls these issues The American Eleven. I agree with all of them except the last one: “Congress should tie education funding to school accountability.” It should be replaced with: Congress should eliminate all education funding and return the function of education to the state and local governments. As I stated in a previous post, Shut Down Public Education, I further believe that the state and local governments should also get out of the education business, leaving it to private enterprises.