Posse Incitatus

Field Marshal Obama

It is increasingly obvious that Barak Obama’s military knowledge is limited to family games of Risk – and even then I doubt he wins much.

I’ve been trying to figure out what strategy he’s advocating, and as near as I can figure, his grand plan is this:

1. Pull out of Iraq.
2. Deploy more US troops into Afghanistan and take our “tired, worn-out” military into the “hills of Pakistan.”
3. Having thus invaded a nuclear-armed ally in the most inhospitable military terrain on earth, we will then reinvade Iraq because Al Qaeda is there.
4. Oh, and piss on Canada, Mexico and Columbia over free trade.

Someone explain to me how this will win America renewed respect abroad?

Amateurs talk tactics; professionals deal with logistics, and it is clear that in terms of grand strategy, Obama is a rank amateur.  If fighting in Iraq - which lies at the ancient crossroads of civilization - is beyond the reach of the US military, how are we to support fighting against Pakistan over thousands of miles of the most rugged terrain in the world?

Through what ports would our supplies move?  Over what roadways would they pass?  How would we sustain all of those mouths at the end of a daisy-chain supply line that would have to rely on air transport at a time when our the Air Force is using antique planes?

I don't fault the junior Senator from Illinois for his military ignorance; but I do fault whatever staff he has for letting him spout off this nonsense.

William F. Buckley, Jr. R.I.P.

Reading through the many tributes to William F. Buckley, it is clear that many conservatives were personally motivated, inspired or otherwise touched by the great man.

I haven’t read any of his books; rarely watched him on television; my (gift) subscription to National Review lapsed long ago – so I have little to add to the many heartfelt testimonials.

One thing I will say is that upon my own conversion to Catholicism, he took on a greater significance.  Many Catholics tend to become obsessed with notions of “social justice” and take an otherwise laudable concern for the poor into an indictment against capitalism and free markets.  It is an all-too easy path to go from extolling the apostolic life to full-blown liberation theology and Marxism.

Buckley stood squarely against it, and I have come to value his defense of freedom in a Catholic context.  When you get down to it, American conservatism is a very Catholic ideology.  It has a profound respect for tradition, is centered on the rights of the individual, but perhaps most importantly, is based upon the notion of original sin.

Humans are fallen creatures.  We can achieve redemption, but not in this life – and any attempt to build paradise on earth is ultimately a futile gesture – and likely will result in mass graves.

This core Catholic (and Christian) belief is essential to understanding conservatism.  Buckley got it, and it has largely been something that informed and inspired my decision to embrace both.

Buckley did a great many things, and other sites are overflowing with the honors he has earned and tales of his wit and influence, but to me his natural blending of logic and religion is what had the most significance.

Democrat Diplomacy: snub your friends, suck up to your enemies

I’ve tried to understand how liberals come up with this kind of stuff, and in most cases I can with some effort at least understand how they built their argument.

For example, there is a (flawed) logic to gun control.  Basically it runs thus:  guns scare me, guns kill people, thus:  no guns = I am not scared, less people are killed.

It’s playground logic, to be sure, but there is something you can at least get a grip on.

But why Barak Obama has decided that we need to engage Iran whilst giving South Korea, Columbia, and every other developing democracy the finger over free trade is beyond me.

The nearest I can come to is that liberals look to the personal as a guide (hence the slogan “the personal is political”).  In this case, in their personal dealings, they try to placate people who are stronger, people they fear, people they believe mean them harm so that they will leave them alone.  The raging lunatic smashing things in their living room needs to be calmed down and he can take whatever he wants if he will just leave and chill out.

But friends are different.  Friends just have to take you as you are.  They have to accept your ideals, your goals, your virtues and especially your flaws – otherwise you are being “fake.”  And as we know, liberalism is all about “authenticity.”

This also illustrates that liberals actually do believe there are some limits to diplomacy.  With terrorism, nuclear weapons programs and so forth, they think endless amounts of talk can somehow provide a mutually satisfactory non-violent solution between mortal enemies.  But protecting union jobs?  Non-negotiable.

If Democrats could take the same hard line on protecting US interests and national security that they do on toadying up to the union bosses, I might still be a member of their party.  Alas, the only things they seem really willing to fight for these days (besides their own political power, of course) are their various rackets.

At last! A (second) homeland for Albanians!

Several years before the Posse was formed, I would debate with people in various online forums.  One of the recurring themes was Middle Eastern politics, and in particular the existence of Israel.  Time and again, my mostly European opponents would argue that Israel had no right to exist as a nation-state - that the Palestinians were the ones who needed a "homeland" and that this should be done immediately.

I always thought that strange - why should the Jews of all people be not allowed to have a sovreign nation?

After all, the Arabs have at least 22 "homelands" - why do they need another?

Not only that, but the United States went to war to carve out a second Albanian homeland - which today apparently will become fully independent.

What is interesting about Kosovo is that it unquestionably is Serbian - both by history and legally.  The only reason it isn't a core part of Serbia today is that demography shifted.  Over the last 40 years, Albanians emigrated into the area and once there, had more kids than the natives.  Thus the "facts on the ground" shifted so that the native Serbs found themselves a minority in an area the Albanians had no historic claims to - a far cry from the situation in Israel.

The Serbs figured out the way the wind was blowing and so dealt with it in the typically brutal way they do things in the Balkans - they tried to drive the "wrong" people out.  Bad move.  Not nice.  So we bombed them.

And now the thing we said would not happen - a second Albania - is in fact happening.

The lesson is clear for those who are paying attention:  Within a couple of generations you can build up the demographics to carve out your own mini-state - and the former owners have no right to stop you.

Question:  How long before radical Muslims decide that Iraq is too tough a nut to crack and that Kosovo, with its tiny population and (presumably) soon to be withdrawn American garrison is a better bet for a launching pad?

Gun-free zones claim more victims

The Posse is saddened (but not surprised) to learn that there has been yet another public shooting in a “gun-free” zone.

Bill Quick (via the hated Instapundit) has the relevant passage of the Northern Illinois University handbook.  Apparently the shooter overlooked that little detail as he plotted his mass (and ultimately self-destructive) mayhem.

There are two lessons to take from this – two lessons that anyone with a shred of logic must embrace and immediately move to implement.

1. Gun-free zones are nothing more than preserves for easy victims.  Their abolition is an immediate, overriding necessity. 
2. Responsible media organizations must develop policies that omit the name of the shooter in the same manner that they protect the privacy of rape victims.  The practice of “delving into the mind of the killer” must cease, as it provides a powerful incentive to other disturbed individuals.  Want fame?  Kill enough people and you will get it.

I feel terribly for the victims – may God rest their souls – and their bereaved families.  This horror need not have happened.

The “tragedy” in this is in the traditional sense of tragedy – that hubris (on the part of liberal gun-fearing administrators) – led them to create a disarmed and helpless pool of victims.

Like all formal tragedy, there have been countless warnings.  The audience is veritably screaming to the stage for the hero to change his ways – all to no avail.  Thus, this tragedy – like classical ones – is inevitable because those who could stop it are simply too proud to do so.

Enough already.  I will not send my children to a school where they cannot lawfully protect themselves.  I ask other parents to make the same pledge.  The market works, and we need to use it.

And now...University of Michigan basketball

Congrats to the Wolverines on their upset win over Penn State.  Of course at this point, any win they get is an upset.

What "broken" really looks like

The Posse has commented many times upon the pervasive (and false) notion that the US military is in some way “broken” as a result of ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The latest contribution to this ignoble (and ignorant) parade of idiocy is the Wall Street Journal’s Mark Helprin, whose rant against talk radio contains this gem:

The Democrats' advantage in 2008 is that the costs of the war in Iraq have been highly disproportionate to its effects, not least in the decline of the American military, when it could have been otherwise.

(Helprin earlier establishes his bona-fides as a fool by arguing that we should have driven into Baghdad in three days, stayed for three weeks and left behind a puppet strong man – perhaps like Musharraf, only less controllable or stable – to clean up the mess.  But I digress.)

The point here is that once again we are seeing the trope that a battle-hardened military is somehow defective because its deployments are longer than usual and its equipment has more wear and tear.

We cannot address the question of how “broken” our military is unless we first establish a bench mark – something to compare it with.

The one that most observers seem to be using is that of a peace-time military.  Now this is not just any peace-time military, it is an idealized one that apparently does not exist and never has.

During the 1990s, we had a peace-time military that was characterized by low morale, lack of mission focus, high turnover, equipment shortages and manpower shortfalls.  Arguably, that military was more “broken” than the one we have now.  Unlike that military, the one we have now has historically high retention rates, is boasting newer and more powerful weapons, and its morale is amazing.  Despite waging wars in two theatres simultaneously, we still have the luxury of rotating troops home – not just for a week or a two of R&R – but for months at a time.  This is without precedent.

The military in the 1980s looks better, but it was also configured for a totally different kind of fighting.  We simply don’t need 60,000 troops in South Korea or an entire Army corps in the Fulda Gap.

When it came down to it, it performed well in the first Gulf War, but was denied total victory by the political leaders who left Saddam in power – a mistake we are still paying for (but one that Helprin and company no doubt still think was the right idea).

Perhaps the best comparison is between our military and the people it is fighting.

Via the hated Instapundit, I found this article to be fascinating.  Of particular import is this link to the terrorist “diary” found during a raid.   Take the time to read through it – it isn’t very long.

One thing that is clear is that this is an organization that is completely disintegrating.  Note what is happening: battalions are deserting en masse with their commanders.  Military units are going from 600 effectives to 20.  Note how much time this commander is spending simply trying to find a working truck.

Now compare this with the American military as chronicled by Michael Yon or Michael Totten.  Not everything is easy forthe American forces there, but the biggest complaints for many units are that the toilets are icky and they are tired of Hot Pockets for dinner.

Replacements?  Adequate.  Supplies?  Ample.  Surrenders?  None.  Defections?  Unthinkable.

In previous wars, some American units took so many casualties that they had to be disbanded or amalgamated into a different organization.  Some divisions lost more men than they started with – and yet they were still able to prevail and maintain their élan.  This is not even close to happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.  To put it another way, the attrition the terrorists are experiencing is simply beyond our imagination.  We cannot conceive of our own units losing half of their men and still remaining anything close to operational.

Now there is a strain of thought that basically holds that the terrorists have a superhuman tolerance for casualties – that they are immune to fear, laugh in the face of death and can leap tall buildings in a single bound.  Basically they are unbeatable.

Events are showing just how false this is, but it is also worth pointing out that other organizations had the same aura of invincibility.  Yet the numbers do not lie.  Even the vaunted SS were reduced to fielding half-trained teenagers using shoddy weaponry by the spring of 1945.  The losses added up.

So it is with the jihadists.  Instead of ruthless, skilled commandos they are duping mental cases into being unwilling bomb carriers.  The enemy is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It is true that our equipment is wearing out – but this is a function of the age of much of it.  The Air Force’s fleet is the oldest it has ever had – and long overdue for replacement.

It is also a function of heavy use – which also happens when troops actually have the money to train hard and often.  The only way equipment isn’t worn out is when it is sealed in storage – and thus no one is proficient in it.

This diary more than anything else demonstrates what a broken army really looks like – no money, no men, merely growing list of enemies that they have no power to harm.

The US military may be under some strain, but this strain also gives it a potent edge – a reservoir of combat and logistical experience that it will draw upon for years to come.  It would be nice if more commentators – particularly conservatives – looked at the facts and cracked open a history book once in a while before opining on the state of our military.

Foundations of sand

In the comments to our post on the Arch-dhimmi of Canterbury, Childe Roland mentions the mega-churches, which seem to be flourishing despite (or, as he argues, because of) their lax teachings and "come as you are" attitude.

To this there can be only one answer:  Get back to me in 20 years.

History is replete with movements that rise seemingly out of thin air to garner massive attention - and then vanish without a trace.  One need look only as far as the televangelists of the 1980s to see how quickly those empires can rise and fall.  Building a cult on a self-help book and making a fortune isn't particularly difficult (just ask L. Ron Hubbard).  The trick is making it stand the test of time.

I do not believe the "feel-good" faiths have any staying power, and history has borne this out.

I'd also be very cautious about taking anything on "60 Minutes" at face value.  I seem to recall some documents a while back that caused a bit of a fuss.

The Arch-dhimmi of Canterbury

One of the most fascinating theological developments of the last few years is the way the Anglican Church is steadily dismantling itself.

Long time readers will recall this story from a few months ago about the Anglican priestess who also claims to be a practicing Muslim.  What made this even more noteworthy was that the woman had the full support of her bishop.

Now comes word that the Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has come out and said that sharia law is pretty much inevitable in the UK – and that this may not be a bad thing.

The mind boggles.

I always thought that the point of choosing a religious vocation was that you actually believed in it – and that this belief was so searing, so overwhelming that you had to devote your whole life to spreading the Good News.

A lot of Protestants, however, seem to think of the thing as just another career – one in which they feel free to gripe about the boss, argue about company policy – and of course to take a second job if they want.

Part of the problem is that modern society has made many of the traditional beliefs seem outmoded and outdated.  Let’s face it – there is nothing hip or trendy about High Church Anglicans (or dour Presbyterians or upright United Methodists), and faced with a world where people arrange trysts on the Internet and bigamy is now increasingly considered to be a “lifestyle choice,” the impulse for many is simply to fit in.

But that’s exactly what morality is there to stop.  Sin is almost by definition seductive.  If it wasn’t, no one would bother with it.  That is precisely why it is essential for Christian leaders to take a hard line and uphold the eternal truths of the Faith.

Yet this “go along to get along” mentality has become so pervasive that very few are able to resist its siren song.  That’s a big part of why I converted to the faith of my ancestors, Roman Catholicism.  Benedict XVI isn’t backing down, he isn’t seeking to curry favor or modify the Catechism – except to the extent that he wants to make sure that many ancient traditions are reinstated.

Catholic clergy that openly defy Church teachings are excommunicated, pure and simple.  If you had a Catholic priest who claimed to be a Muslim, both he and his bishop would face dismissal.  It isn’t about punishing dissent, it’s about remaining true to the teachings of Christ.  The whole point in being part of the Church is that you buy into it.  If you don’t, well, try somewhere else.

A faith that accommodates everything ultimately believes in nothing.

The funny thing is, the more “modern” churches have become, the less people go to them.  I’m sure a lot of the few remaining Anglicans in England are thinking “Well, why not just become Muslim and be done with it then – even the Archbishop figures it’s the way to go!”  Not only that, you’ll get special new treatment by the government.  What a deal.

Because when it comes down to it, no one wants to join a faith so feeble that it can’t even stand up for its own beliefs. 
The other aspect to this is that now the expectation has been created that England will institute some form of sharia law.  Radical Muslims will take this to mean that even the spiritual head of a rival faith believes that they will ultimately triumph.

If the Archbishop isn’t removed, he may well end up destroying the unity of his church.

In fact, given the schism over homosexuality, he may already have.

In the meantime, he’s managed to give a huge boost to Islamic radicals everywhere, and raised their hopes that England may fall to the Crescent sooner rather than later.

New look

I've been doing some design work to make the Posse look a little different.  Let me know what you think.