Archive for June, 2004
Apparently the Iranians have seized three small British patrol boats and their crews.
Although I’m not really up on the details, hasn’t Britain been a lot softer toward Iran than the US has? Generally speaking? I recall reading some thoughts a month or two ago that there was tension between the British and Americans over Iran policy, and that those tensions were a potential trouble spot down the road.
This isn’t going to help the Iranians, whatever the case.
Or, as Bill Hobbs puts it:
How Stupid Are They?
Our enemies seem to think that little “shows of force” like seizing little patrol boats, beheading satellite dish installers, and blowing up reconstruction workers or Iraqi police stations is going to drive us out.
This ain’t your father’s war on terror. This isn’t Beirut in 1983. This isn’t Mogadishu in 1993. This isn’t even Iraq in 2003. June 30th will symbolize the beginning of the next phase in World War 4. The road will be rough, and there will be mistakes.
If we maintain our focus, if we maintain our drive, and if Iraqis take this opportunity and make the most of it, one day people will look back at the summer of 2004 as a major turning point in world history.
Our enemies think that we’re toying around with an idea to pester them. For all the seriousness of kidnappings, roadside bombs, and beheadings, they are mostly playing games with us. Their biggest victory in the past year was the prison abuse issue. We did that, to our shame. They didn’t. They are the ones tiptoeing around. Of course they might be marshalling their strength for something major, but for all their fervor and their righteous indignation they’re don’t really seem to be making effective decisions.
They just don’t seem to understand that we are dead serious about putting them out of business.
Election Projection has updated its numbers to reflect recent polls.
Currently Bush and Kerry are tied at 269 electoral votes apiece, with the Kerry holding a 50.2% to 48.0% popular vote edge. Go check it out.
All that being said, I still believe that Bush is going to score a comfortable EV victory.
I’m going to be on the road today and tomorrow. Weather’s real nice here, so go play outside.
If not, check out all the great sites in my links and blogroll sections.
See you Monday.
Steven Den Beste led off a post with a reference to and a quote from my earlier post about my confusion over the inevitability of the USSR’s collapse.
In particular, he mentions a point about contradictions in Howard Zinn’s A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. Several years ago I was given the book by my mother-in-law, who had returned to college to earn her teaching degree. “I know you like history,” she told me when she gave it to me. “There was a LOT of stuff in here that I had never heard of.” The book had been a textbook in an American history class she took at Western Michigan University.
That right there is a little scary, folks. First of all, the book was a textbook in a college history course. Second of all, a future teacher was taking the class.
(Remember at the end of THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK when they open the Ark of the Covenant and that energy shoots out, first hitting one German, then splitting out and hitting two Germans? The beam from each of those two splits out and hits two others and so on and so on and so on. Pretty soon they’re all wiped out. This is sort of like that, except this ain’t the power of God we’re talking about.)
I have a softcover edition of the book, ISBN 0-06-092643-0. The cover says
REVISED AND UPDATED EDITION
I’ve always been amused that this is a “revised” edition.
To support my earlier claims about statements concerning the military power of the Soviet Union, I refer you to page 404. In a chapter entitled “A People’s War?” that mostly tries to make the argument that our part in World War Two was unpopular with the American public, Zinn writes
And, at the same time, the Russian victories over the Nazi armies (the Russians, by the time of the cross-Channel invasion, had driven the Germans out of Russia, and were engaging 80 percent of the German troops).
And on page 406 he writes
But the U.N. was dominated by the Western imperial countries–the United States, England, and France–and a new imperial power, with military bases and powerful influence in Eastern Europe–the Soviet Union.
The reason I quote this is to provide reference for my claim that Zinn wrote that “the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany, since the American, British, and Canadian forces that invaded the Continent were so small compared to the masses on the Eastern Front. The Soviets, through the superiority of their system and motivation of their people, beat the Nazis. The USSR was the true military power on the planet.”
Pages 416-428 explain how the threat of the Soviet Union was really just American aggression, with a fair amount of the expected “MacCarthy was a madman blah blah blah” (I’m paraphrasing). Although I was just plain wrong about the use of the term “agrarian”, on pages 428-429 Zinn explains how the US military budget ballooned and the US arsenal expanded greatly despite
a false “bomber gap” and a false “missile gap”
And he goes on to explain how we had 10 pounds of TNT for every man, woman, and child on earth. Coupled with the claim on pages 413 and 414 that using nuclear bombs on Japan was not necessary, I think my interpretation of Zinn’s intended message was pretty close.
Also interesting is the fact that I cannot find any reference to “D-Day”. It’s always “cross-Channel invasion”. Although I may certainly have missed it somewhere, “D-Day” is not present in the index. I find it amusing that he chose not to use the term. It tells me a lot about what he thinks of the event.
And, though it’s been quite a while since I read the book, I keep it on my bookshelf. As a reminder. Also, Matt Damon’s character in the film GOOD WILL HUNTING expresses his belief that the Zinn book is an important text.
As I flip through the pages again, I’m reminded of why my mother-in-law didn’t remember learning about a lot of what’s written on them. Sadly, she will probably remember learning this history more clearly than she remembers the history she was taught in the 50s and early 60s.
Madonna compares Bush to Saddam
Esther (nee Madonna) speaks:
US President George Bush and ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein are alike because “they are both behaving in an irresponsible manner”.
So, when my six-year-old daughter behaves in an irresponsible manner, she is also like George Bush and Saddam? There must be more to this quote that the Beeb is reporting.
UPDATE: There is. Here’s more of the quote:
“I don’t want to equate George Bush with Saddam Hussein. But I believe that George Bush and Saddam Hussein are both behaving in an irresponsible manner. So, in that respect, they’re alike,” Madonna said.
Is it just me, or does the “I don’t want to equate George Bush with Saddam Hussein” part of the quote pretty much invalidate the headline and angle of the story on the Beeb? You know, the headlines and write-up about how she’s equating George Bush with Saddam Hussein?
(Actually, if history is any indication, Esther probably really does mean to equate the two. Not that I care what Esther says, but that doesn’t let the BBC off the hook for reporting it the way they did.)
UPDATE 2: Wait a minute. Saddam is IMPRISONED. How is he behaving in an irresponsible manner? WTF is she talking about?
She actually seems to make more sense when kissing other girls than when she’s talking about politics…
Steven Den Beste has another good one up.
He points out the pictures of the Chernobyl area taken by that motorcycler that I’ve mentioned before. He then comments on the archeological value of the Chernobyl region, how it reflects on how life in the 1980s USSR was similar to life in the 1950s USA, and how the European Union seems to be currently balancing between Western and Eastern approaches to things.
One thing that has always bothered me, and has certainly come back to the forefront since the death of Ronald Reagan, is how so many people have assured me that the USSR was doomed from day one and that the Cold War, the arms race, and Reagan’s policy toward communism were all so unnecessary. I remember, as a very young student in the late 1970s and early 1980s, being exposed to a lot of pro-USSR talk. A lot. In the malaise (for want of a better word) of the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, post-Oil-Crisis, post-Hostage-Crisis America, I’m sure that many really believed that the Soviet system was winning, and maybe even better than ours.
What I don’t understand is: Where did all those people go?
Reagan “beat” a Soviet Union doomed to fail on its own anyway. The arms race was a waste of money. Central America wasn’t a row of dominoes ready to fall. There was no good reason to put those nuclear missiles in Europe. It’s so obvious, people. Right? Right?
But that’s not what I remember. Am I wrong? I was just a kid, so maybe I’ve really blown it. Was the ghost of McCarthy haunting me?
In A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES by Howard Zinn, he explains how it was really the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany, since the American, British, and Canadian forces that invaded the Continent were so small compared to the masses on the Eastern Front. The Soviets, through the superiority of their system and motivation of their people, beat the Nazis. The USSR was the true military power on the planet. I’m actually not arguing with that, though I believe he overstates the case pretty badly and leaves out a lot of pertinent details. My problem is that only a couple of pages later he argues that the US had no business waging a Cold War against the USSR because it was an agrarian society that presented no threat.
I’m working from memory here, so I might not be 100% on the money about the Zinn book. But I’m close, and the arguments WERE only separated by a few pages.
Gorbachev thinks that Reagan was incidental to the outcome of the Cold War. Gorbachev ended it on his own, I guess. Reagan and Thatcher were mere observers.
Now, I EXPECT Gorbachev to say something like that. The poor guy has got to save some face. And he WAS instrumental, of course, despite that fact that his claim that the Soviets could match any American weapons program are delusional. My problem is with so many people who AREN’T former Russian leaders who seem to agree with him.
Today. Now. After the fact.
(And please remember that hindsight, despite conventional wisdom, is far from being 20/20.)
I’ve had very smart people tell me to my face that everyone knew all along that the Soviet Union would collapse under its own weight.
SDB links to a quote from Arthur Schlesinger, made just after the historian and author returned from a visit to Moscow:
“I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street — more of almost everything,” he said, adding his contempt for “those in the U.S. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink.
This was said in 1982.
This all reminds me of those that tell me that they understand and support the invasion of Afghanistan, since the 9/11 attackers originated there, but not the invasion of Iraq. The problem is this: I distinctly remember many of those same people telling me in 2001 that invading Afghanistan was the wrong thing to do. (Apparently, the best way to improve poll numbers supporting the invasion of Iraq is to invade someone else so the critics can claim that Syria (or Iran or North Korea or Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan) is way out of line, unlike Iraq, which will then become “understandable”.)
I wonder if there are any Schlesinger quotes about the status of the Soviet economy and standard of living from 1992. How about 2002?
UPDATE: Hell in a Handbasket comments on the SDB post and has an interesting story about integrating Soviet defectors into American society.
Local Stryker brigades get boost
The House Appropriations Committee has approved money to fund an additional Stryker Brigade to be based in Europe. The medium-weight unit will be closer to probable hot spots and might be the main American ground force on the continent if plans to pull two Army divisions back to the US go through.
The Pentagon has been considering reassigning to Germany one of the six Stryker units now based in the United States or on the drawing boards. Two of those units are based at Fort Lewis [Washington], and the others will be stationed in Alaska, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.The Army has indicated it wanted one of the brigades in Europe so it would be closer to the Middle East and the Balkans. The brigades are a medium-weight, highly mobile force that use the eight-wheeled Stryker armored vehicle.
The new, seventh Stryker brigade would be based in Europe, meaning the existing six units would remain in the United States, said U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Belfair), a senior member of the appropriations committee.
On the surface, the Strykers look to be a good choice for stationing in Europe. Designed to be quicker-deploying than heavy units, this will allow them to arrive even more quickly to the front. I’ve got to think that deployment to Africa or the Middle East would be pretty fast.
But do we really know how well the Stryker has performed so far in Iraq? The results have looked good so far, to be sure. But they haven’t really been in the line of fire very often. I personally don’t know that we should be planning on expanding the original plan for six brigades only a few months after the initial deployment of the first and before four of them are even activated.
Not specified is whether this would be a new unit or a refit of an existing brigade. Also, this is just the first step in approval for the plan. There is a long way to go before the budget is approved.
What If McCain Is In The Race?
Found this over at The Command Post:
It’s their poll, but they’ve invited others to post it. So here you are. I’ll pop it onto the sidebar for a while, as well.
Granted, we haven’t really heard enough from McCain to really know where he really stands on a lot of current issues, but I’d certainly be willing to listen.
This is a two-week-old post on Lead and Gold, but I missed it then and saw it now. And I’ve just got to point it out.
Craig notes that the Instapundit thinks Kerry overplayed his “I was in Vietnam” card because it’s rankling a lot of veterans. He also notes that Kerry is benefitting with the moderates who would otherwise only see GW as a viable wartime leader. And it’s working.
Did Kerry vote against key weapon programs? How dare you question the patriotism of a man with three Purple Hearts. Is he too willing to defer to France and the United Nations? How dare you doubt the loyalty of a man with a Silver Star.
On a different site, a commenter on a post about body armor claimed that the Republicans were “lying. Period.” when they said Kerry voted against money for body armor.
Think the former Swift Boat Commander who pulled a comrade out of the water under fire and while wounded would deny protection to the troops?
I replied that I wouldn’t think so, but that his voting record spoke for itself. It went downhill from there.
http://movies.apple.com/movies/fox/avp/avp-trailer3_480.mov
I’m not terribly optimistic. But I’ll probably check it out. (hat tip to the reader who sent me this link)
