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.

Note to foreigners: get a clue before commenting on U.S. health care

In the comments to one of T. Mo's previous posts, reader jtl (who claims to be a Canadian) makes a series of singularly ignorant remarks about the quality of U.S. health care.

T. Mo addresses some of this below, but I would like to address jtl in a little more detail because I have seen similar arguments from foreigners when the U.S. health care system comes up before.

1. We spend a lot of time watching you people down there.

I don't doubt it, but I am consistently amazed at how ill-informed our international observers are.   Unquestionably this comes in large part from watching our media, which gets just about everything wrong.  You would do well to dig a little deeper.  I know the U.S. is supposed to have a monopoly on international ignorance, but from my own travels, we are actually much-better informed than the people who constantly criticize us.

2. Your current health care system is the shittiest piece of shit -- assuming you're not rich -- that a country could have.

This is manifestly not true.  Do you know any poor people in the U.S.?  I have a friend who is unemployed, and he has a hernia.   He isn't just broke, he's going bankrupt.  He applied for public assistance last week.  Yesterday they performed his operation.   His cost?  Nothing.

What's the turnaround time for that kind of procedure in Canada?

3. The fact that the US is the only major industrialized country on the planet that doesn't have single-payer health care is *not* something to hold up as a source of pride.

What difference does it make where the money comes from?  Are government dollars more virtuous?  Do they have special healing properties?

There is a recurring theme - tell me if you've heard it before:  A poor person comes into a hospital needing treatment.  He has no insurance. He gets turned away and dies.

It's a myth.  All hospitals are required by law to treat people immediately, without any attempt at getting payment.

I'm sure you can conjure up horror stories and urban legends, but the fact of the matter is, by law if you are sick you have a right to treatment.  Payment is worked out later.

Now if you are not sick, you don't have a right to elective procedures, such as cosmetic surgery, breast implants, etc.

To be fair, I can't fault you too much for falling for these falsehoods, since the Democrats are constantly spreading them.

But they are lies.  They have no basis in fact.  Like with gun control, the fact that the supporters of a policy have to distort, twist and outright fabricate data tells you a lot about the underlying weakness of what they are proposing.

4. It is absolutely shameful that there are more Americans without health insurance than there are Canadians. Health care is not a privilege: it is a right.

Um, how?  What if they choose not to get it?  When I was in my 20s - a single male, young and healthy - I had no health insurance.  That was my choice.  When I wanted some later on, I bought it.

According to our rulers in Washington, I was committing a crime by being uninsured.  Tell me, do Canadians get jailed for failing to exercise a "right?"

5. For your sake, and for your fellow countrymates' sakes, I hope the Senate version of this bill has a public option.

Does single-payer health care make a country "socialist?" I think the question should be, "Does the lack of guaranteed health care for every person in a country make that place a bad place to live should you lose your job?"

John McCain advocated a wonderful solution to this: an individual tax credit.  Right now, employers get a tax credit for providing health insurance.  If this became an individual tax credit, people would contract for their health care directly, and avail themselves of the free market to shop around and get the plan and service that suits them best.

I notice that Canada - that Mecca of great health service - now has a private system precisely because the public one was so bloated and unresponsive.

One other item you left out - malpractice reform.  The "rest of the world" doesn't sue the crap out of doctors merely for trying to do their jobs.  None of the Democrat "reforms" address this massive cost which tells you that the motive isn't to help people - it is to put 1/6 of the economy under federal control.

We need to reform our health care.  No question.  But the reform should actually address the real problem: runaway lawsuit costs, increasing competition, improving quality care.

None of Democrat proposals do any of this.  All they do is put Washington in charge of our lives.

That is what this debate is about.  Dig a little deeper and hopefully you'll see that.

The subversive genius of V

The H1N1 flu has swept through the ranch, which is made it somewhat difficult for the Posse to keep up on blogging duties.

So it was that I didn't get to watch "V" until tonight.

It has been a long time since I enjoyed network tv, but this show looks promising.  It is also remarkably subversive: the Visitors are all about savvy media, and they way the play the network dude was quite amusing - and given how the Obama administration is beating up on FOX, the parallel was striking. 

And they offer free universal health care!

No doubt I'm reading too much into it, but it was still fun to watch.

I expect the show will go downhill because that's what good shows do.  Those that don't get cancelled (see Firefly).  Still, for a while at least I'll be watching.

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?

Sweet home, Chicago

So Chicago will not get the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.  The President took a lot of time out of his busy schedule, personally lobbying the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen.

Below is a portion of his pitch – the best, smoothest and most persuasive argument he can muster.  Read the whole thing, but here are some key paragraphs:

I know you face a difficult choice among several great cities and nations with impressive bids of their own.  So I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reason I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago -- the reason I fell in love with the city I still call home.  And it's not just because it's where I met the woman you just heard from -- although after getting to know her this week, I know you'll all agree that she's a pretty big selling point for the city.

You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot.  I was born in Hawaii.  I lived in Indonesia for a time.  I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group.  And then I came to Chicago.  And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion.  I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.

 

The arrogance of this thing is breathtaking.

This is supposed to be persuasive?  This is a supposed to win people over?  Basically, he told the IOC that they should choose Chicago because Obama did. 

There is a term for this kind of pitch: a testimonial.  In advertising they use it when the person “testifying” has some sort of qualification that the public finds compelling.

Some testimonials are just average folks saying “This worked great for me, you should buy it, too.”  Others use celebrities who are presumably experts on whatever they are selling to reassure prospective buyers that the product there are pitching works and has value.

Examples?  Think sports figures selling athlete’s foot powder or race car drivers pitching gasoline additives.

What standing is Obama supposed to have before the IOC?  Did this clown really think that they would say “Oh, well The One likes it, so I guess we should, too!”?

No wonder they dumped Chicago first.

Tom Maguire has more on the First Lady’s similarly narcissistic sales pitch.

So now the French think we are wimps

You know things are bad, when the French start calling on the Obama administration to show some backbone with Iran.

I don't usually have a lot of nice things to say about France, but they are making us look bad.  President Sarkozy - not President Obama - spoke up in support of the Iranian people without hesitation.

Now Sarkozy is warning that Iran's nuclear ambitions may require more than diplomacy.

So let's review: the French are now showing us up on both moral and strategic grounds.  Hope and Change!

Meanwhile, still no word on whether we are fighting or leaving Afghanistan - getting the Olympics into Chicago was more important.

I think it is clear that above all things, Barack Obama is parochial in his outlook and priorities.  His governance is about paying off his buddies and getting what he personally wants.

I do not believe, as some have theorized, that he would respond forcefully if challenged.  He can be a bully, but bullies as a rule prey only on the weak.  Thus far, he has avoided taking on a hard target.

Iran and Al Qaeda are both hard targets.  They will not allow themselves to be boxed in by a sycophantic media, nor will rhetoric phase them.  One cannot simultaneously be a transcendent peacemaker, committed to negotiation above all and a warrior determined to achieve victory.  This is the paradox which binds the Obama administration.

The president would just as soon turn the page on Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest and focus on his sweeping domestic agenda.  I honestly am not sure if he truly buys into the concept that other countries lack free will and will only act if we provoke them, but he is demonstrating the fallacy of this worldview.

In by October of 1939, Poland was crushed and an uneasy pause settled over Europe.  It was the period of the Phoney War, or what Churchill termed "the Twilight War."  While Hitler perfected his plans and prepared his armies, France and Britain held committee meetings and focused on building their wartime productive capacity.  What few offensive plans that were put forward were vetoed on the grounds that antagonizing the Germans would only bring reprisal.

He described the scene thusly in The Gathering Storm, the first volume of his epic The Second World War: 

On the one side [the Allies] endless discussions about trivial points, no decisions taken, or if taken rescinded, and the rule "Don't be unkind to the enemy, you will only make him angry."  On the other, doom preparing - a vast machine grinding forward ready to break upon us!

The enemy is still active, and while the Obama administration struts and preens, they plan and prepare.

And we know what the administration thinks of Churchill, because one of their first acts was to return the bust of him presented to George W. Bush.  (Followed up of course with a slew of other insults to our British friends).

Maybe it would do them some good to actually read the great man's writings. They certainly couldn't do any worse.

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.