Posse Incitatus

Pearl Harbor Day in the age of amnesia

Each volume of Winston Churchill's epic Second World War has its own theme.  The theme for the sixth and final volume, Triumph and Tragedy is:

How the Great Democracies Triumphed, and so Were able to Resume the Follies Which Had so Nearly Cost Them Their Life

And so they are again.  Iraq is becoming steadily more peaceful.  The daily catalog of violence is now more indicative of criminal syndicates than a government-threatening insurgency.

Afghanistan teeters on the brink, but thanks to improvements in the U.S. security posture and the achievements of American arms, it is taken for granted by the political establishment that major terror attacks simply aren't likely any more.  Indeed, Al Qaeda is so beaten down we are permitting ourselves the luxury of civilian-themed show trials for select captured unlawful enemy combatants.

Of course the analogies are never exact.  History repeats itself, but always adds a new twist.  For 60 years, we waited for waves of Soviet bombers to serve as the "next Pearl Harbor," but instead we got civilian airliners hijacked by Islamofascist terrorists.

So it will be with the next attack.  Already we are dulling our readiness, absorbing ourselves in internal debates and beginning to wonder how we can spend the money that should go to strengthening our military (health care?  More stimulus? Cap and tax?).

Santayana got it wrong: those who don't know history are never condemned to repeat it, because they don't know it in the first place.  Rather it is the fate of those who study the past to endure the same follies again and again.  A.A. Milne's phrase keeps coming to mind:

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

Actions and deeds

The Posse yields to none in terms of pure hawkishness.  Even when I considered myself a Democrat, I was part of the (now-extinct) Harry Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson wing. 

 

That being said, I’m tempted to turn dovish on Afghanistan simply because it isn’t clear that we are in it to win it.  We can define victory in a variety of ways, not all of them militarily, but it makes no sense to engage on conflict without some larger purpose – other than preserving one’s electoral viability, I should add.

 

I didn’t watch the president’s speech – not because I had better things to do (though I did), but because I’ve learned at this point that nothing he says really matters.  There is no reason to pick apart what he said because it is abundantly clear that he says a lot of things that he doesn’t really mean.

 

This is why I’m rethinking our involvement.  It all boils down to the Yoda Doctrine:  “Do or do not.  There is no try.”

 

Right now, we’re trying, which probably won’t be enough.  In Iraq, we most emphatically Did.  George W. Bush had many faults, but he was in it to win.  No one had any doubts.  Is Obama similarly committed?  No one is sure.  The months it took him to make up his mind do not provide much encouragement on this.

 

Victor Davis Hanson compared Obama to Stanley Baldwin, the politically brilliant but strategically disastrous British prime minister who preceded Neville Chamberlain.  Like Baldwin, Obama seems more interested in fighting elections than fighting wars.  Hopefully we will avoid the end result of this myopic strategy: fighting for our lives against a vastly stronger opponent.

Return of the Twilight War

The news that the Obama administration is going to conduct a show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed is perhaps the clearest evidence yet that the president wishes to de-escalate the Global War on Terror and essentially wish it out of existance.

This is not surprising; the administrated famously tried (and failed) to "reset" relations with Russia, but the American judicial system will perhaps be more pliable.

History is repeating itself, though as always, the parallels are not exact.  In 1940, Great Britain replaced the vacillating and dilatory wartime leadership of Neville Chamberlain with that of the formidable Winston Churchill.  Though the American public wasn't aware of it, a year ago they voted to do the reverse:  essentially removing Churchill and instating Chamberlain.

There can be no question that we are now advertising our weakness to the world.  No crime is too heinous, no affront to insulting - we will always turn the other cheek (unless you are a domestic opponent or an ally - then the gloves are off!).

Veterans Day 2009

Traditionally, the Posse has confined its Veterans Day message to a simple "thank you" to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

But the Fort Hood massacre raises new - and disturbing - questions about what it means to serve in this nation's military.

Make no mistake, the shooter was a traitor, pure and simple.  He betrayed his nation of birth, his fellow soldiers, and his profession as a medical officer.

What is more alarming is how many people knew there was something wrong with him.  We are now watching a parade of fellow officers come forth and say they suspected bad things would happen, but were afraid to speak out.

Why were they afraid?  Because they understand that to raise even legitimate fears might result in them being labeled racist or "Islamophobic."  Either way, they could face a whole slew of adverse consequences.

More importantly, nothing would change.  The military is chock full of people with tremendous courage, but courage is based upon the idea that running huge risks has a reward - whether defeating the enemy, saving lives, or simply remedying a bad situation.

No, what gave these soldiers pause was the very real possibility that their own careers would end and nothing whatsoever would be done about Maj. Hassan.

Right now, there is a crisis in our military - a crisis of confidence in its command.  This dwarfs any of the minor skirmishes during the Clinton years, when liberals were so worried about the future of military-civil relationships.  The president's continued dithering over Afghanistan is causing everyone, from the junior ranks to the Pentagon to question whether Barack Obama really wants to win.  The suspicion is growing that he is either uninterested or incapable of mustering the will to do what is needed to secure victory.

Fort Hood now adds a second doubt: about whether even the mid-level command is willing to listen to legitimate concerns about threats to the lives  of our troops and their families.

The foundation of the military culture is trust.  Leaders can only function when they can trust the troops under them - and those troops will only follow leaders they in turn trust to look after them.  When that bond weakens, the foundation of the military is undermined.

Gen. Casey's remarks about diversity are not helpful in this respect.  Diversity is a means to an end - not an end of itself.  The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.  It is not a social networking organization.  Maj. Hassan's treachery puts this issue into the starkest possible light: political correctness killed 13 people and wounded scores of others.  Diversity has a price.

This is not the first instance where a radicalized Muslim killed his fellow soldiers.  Sadly, it will probably not be the last.

Fort Hood

Awful news out of Fort Hood.  As is usual in these situations, there are literally dozens of conflicting versions - one shooter, three shooters, policemen killed, etc.  Until the facts are made known, there can be no analysis, thus the Posse will refrain from clueless speculation.

Our prayers go out to the families of the victims.

Stop me if you've heard this one...

The internet is abuzz with the startling rise of the British National Party.  Pajamas Media has one good piece (by Richard Fernandez aka Wretchard) and a much weaker one by Mike McNally.

I've noted before that Europe is a deeply fissured society.  There are the flawlessly moralistic elites, but the great masses are not so easily categorized.

Mark Steyn likes to point to shrivelling birth rates as evidence for Europe's impending doom, but I am not as convinced.

A few years ago, I was firmly in Steyn's camp.  Since then I've come to know more about Europe's social fabric and I've also actually been there.

The birth rates aren't evenly spread.  Of course Steyn brings this up often to prove that the ethnic Europeans are doomed because most of the babies being born are to non-assimilated Muslim immigrants.

But there are other groups within Europe.  I talked about this over a year ago and I stand by what I wrote then.

In fact, after visiting Europe, I remain even more convinced that there are portions of the ethnic European populations that are quite willing to do the dirty work their parents' wouldn't.

These people make up the professional long-service military cadres of the continent.  Call them the "military caste."  They hate the politicians who tie their hands and have quite a bit of nostalgia for the Good Old Days.  While I was in Germany, I was surprised at the prevalence of the old Imperial eagle.  Nazi nostalgia?  Not so much, but quite a bit of Kaiser nostalgia.

The German military types I spoke with seemed only slightly less zealous than Marines in terms of being seriously squared away and ruthlessly competent.  The Prussian pride and tradition is still there.  The same goes for the Brits, French and so on.

Our military is deeply devoted to the Constitution.  Europe's military caste is different.  Yes, they are bound to uphold the rule of law, but what if that rule breaks down?  France has had five republics.  If you are a French military professional, your loyalty is to France, not the current dusty piece of paper the politicians are using to enrich themselves.

My point is that the guardians of the current political order are increasingly less invested in that order and have more to gain by overturning it than in maintaining it.

Thus, the rise of the BNP illustrates that within the UK, there is a substantial group than wants the nationhood of the UK reasserted.  They want the immigrants to assimilate or get out - and the same ugly authoritarian impulses that currently are used to harry the foes of the current multi-culti elites can be turned around in a heartbeat to round up the new enemies of the state.

Political will waxes and wanes, and as the world economy deteriorates and public safety weakens, expect these radical nationalists to become more popular.  I would in turn expect the authorities to try to break them up.

But here lies the rub: many of police and paramilitary types probably believe in what the nationalists believe.  Maybe not as stridently, but if you can point to four or five generations of soldiers in your family tree, you may not be all that excited about annihilating your national heritage because a suit-wearing bureaucrat tells you to.

So thus you have the potential for the police to join the people they are supposed to be persecuting - the military as well.

And let me be clear - given the huge overreach that many of these governments are already making, the police would likely be fully justified in refusing to enforce the diktats of their masters. 

Whether we are talking about the enforced re-vote in Ireland or the harassment of Geert Wilders, the EU and the British government have each forfeited much of their claim to legitimately reflected the will of the people.  The latest revelations that Labour purposefully imported immigrants to bolster their political fortunes destroys any moral authority the party might have over the BNP.  Both are bigots - they simply favor different groups.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

This is not a hoax

I think it says something about Obama's Nobel Prize that people have to be convinced that it isn't a joke.  I've yet to come across anyone - online or in person - who considers this an obvious decision.

Which is honestly what the Nobel Prizes are for.  When Mother Theresa recieved the prize, people could nod their heads and say "Of course, she's a living saint."  They may not already have heard of the recipient, but when they had, it seemed the right thing to do.

Well, until Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

The world that we grew up knowing is breaking down.  Its institutions are crumbling around us.  The Nobel is only the latest edifice to crumble. 

Thus it is that a man not yet in office for a full year can receive an award for peace - even though he commands vast armies involved in two major wars with no end in sight to either of them.

There are no treaties, no peace proposals, only lofty words.  In a way, I feel sorry for the president.  By the time he is fifty, he will have achieved everything other men needed their entire lifetimes to accomplish. 

What can he possibly do for an encore?

Goodbye to Israel

One thing I'll say for him - President Obama keeps bloggers on their toes.

Every time I try to comment on a particular outrage, he generates another one before I can get to the keyboard.

Today I guess he outdid himself at the U.N.  My esteemed co-blogger has covered most of the major points from the president's big U.N. speech, but the part about Israel left me stunned.

For those that missed it, amidst his flowery moral equivocation, he stated that US policy is now to end the "occupation" of the Palestinian territories since 1967 and to create a contiguous Palestinian state.

Of course, there is nothing magical about Israel's pre-1967 borders.  They have no legal standing.  They actually aren't even borders - they were merely the cease-fire line from Israel's war of independence.

Nor is there any basis for a "Palestinian state."  Were the Middle East to revert to a status quo ante bellum, Jordan would get back the West Bank and Egypt would get back Gaza (and Syria would receive the Golan Heights).

So right there, any rational and knowledgeable observer knows that Obama is simply regurgitating Arab Nationalist talking points.

But he want farther.  A contiguous Palestinian state means that Israel must be dismembered.  I know that the World War II parallels are seriously overdone, but this is the Sudetenland writ large - the willful and deliberate destruction of an ally in an effort to placate hostile powers.

One can only wonder what Israel's penalty will be if it refuses.

I'm honestly staggered that any American president could seriously urge this kind of policy.  I'm not prone to millennial thinking, but selling out the Jews seems like a good way to shove us all toward the Abyss.

"Anything good that happens, I did that"

There is only one word that can now describe the Obama Administration’s policy on Iran:

Incoherent.

Okay, maybe another word comes to mind:

Idiotic.

For almost a fortnight, the people of Iran have faced down tear gas, beatings and bullets in an inspiring uprising against the brutal theocracy that has shackled them for 30 years.

The White House was caught totally off guard, and as the Posse amply documented last week, had almost nothing substantive to say.

As the chorus rose to at least match France’s level of moral stature, President Barack Obama spoke again. And again.

Yet there is still no clarity to be found. We stand with the people, but only in a non-interventionist, non-committal way. We deplore the violence, but fully recognize the government. We hate the sin, but will eat hot dogs with the sinners.

Perhaps the most stunning display of this tangled logic is this bit from the Washington Post quoted by Jonah Goldberg over on National Review:

Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach." [Emphasis added]

To review: The popular uprising is entirely something we had NOTHING TO DO WITH, but our president is quietly PROUD that it happened, but DON’T expect us to do anything to help.

Oh, and would the Supreme Leader’s ambassador like some relish with his American weenies?

(Goldberg has some choice words as well.  If you didn't click on the link before, do so now.)

Like the “jobs saved or created” formulation, the Obama White House is setting the stage to take credit for whatever happens, so long as it is good. If it is bad, hey, he had nothing to do with it.

What will be interesting to see is how a successor regime will treat the president if the people of Iran successfully overthrow the mullahs. I don’t expect there will be warm handshakes and smiles from this crowd after they’ve been hung out to dry so often over the last few days.

Long-time readers know that one of the things that really irritates me is how modern liberal “realists” are such colossal wimps. Realism, classically defined, is a set of assumptions about how the international system works.

“Realists” assume that states are run by rational actors who are trying to maximize the power an influence of their state.

One of the weaker criticisms of George W. Bush was that his administration was not run by “realists” but rather neocon idealogues. As a result, they screwed everything up.

But consider what the Obama realists have in mind: they want a grand bargain with a bloody, terrorist-sponsoring theocracy and the moment that government wobbles, they cease putting pressure on it.

This isn’t “realism,” its lunacy.

A true realist, a cool-headed, clear-eyed strategist, would look at the mullahs’ predicament and hammer them 24/7. If not by sending actual arms and advisors to train rebel forces, at least by stridently speaking out for the demonstrators – maybe offering billions in aid, diplomatic recognition, unfreezing assets – there are myriad things we can do for Iran in terms of development.

Would it be “meddling?” Hell yes! It would also be using our “soft power” to utterly destroy a regime that has been implacably hostile to us for 30 years. Otherwise, what the heck is the point of being a superpower?

A true realist would jump all over this situation.

Instead, our incoherent geniuses at State figure that some beans and brats will heal the fissure. This is realism?

Realists don’t figure out how to have picnics with their enemies, they DESTROY them. They can do this through open warfare or by undermining them at every turn. If you look at the great diplomats of history – Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck – they were many words that you could use to describe them, but “squeamish” would not be one of them.

Ah, I can already sense the complaints – “But we need to have a moral foreign policy.” Fine. Let’s start with, oh, I don’t know, siding with people against a brutal theocracy that shoots girls in the street. Is that moral enough?

This bring us back to the incoherence. The Obama Administration is failing here, failing no matter how you want to score it. If they are trying to be brilliantly savvy and nuanced realists, they have blown it, big time.

A moral realist would have supported the people because it was the right thing to do.

An effective realist would have undermined the mullahs because they are geopolitical rivals.

A ruthless realist would have just sided with the mullahs from the get-go, told the people to go home, and offered diplomatic recognition of Iran in return for the nuke facility. I sometimes get the sense that Obama would like to do that, but doesn’t have the stomach for it.

So thus we have these contradictions, which mean we achieve nothing, go nowhere and broadcast to the world that we fear our enemies and cannot be counted on to help our ideological allies. Human rights are a bargaining chip that we will give up in exchange for a vague, non-committal IOU.

And none of it, of course, is Obama’s fault.

Flag Day 2009

Today is Flag Day, so if you happen to have Old Glory on hand, let it fly proudly.

It is also the birthday of the United States Army, a venerable institution that actually predates the country (the Army being founded in 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence).

This historical curiosity makes sense when one considers that our basic rights were secured - as all rights must ultimately be secured - through force.

So happy birthday to our flag and our Army.