Archive for August, 2005

I was passed this link by a reader: Aid and Comfort. He wrote:

Is the American Legion providing aid and comfort to our enemies?

This is a valid question, I guess, since the link notes this story about the American Legion voting unanimously to “stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples”. Then we see a letter written to the President with a list of four points that the American Legion feels must be met before using military force and this admonishment:

It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions have not been met

after beginning with

The American Legion, a wartime veterans organization of nearly three-million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of American troops

Quite a contradiction, no?

Well, yes and no.

You see, the letter to the President was written in 1999 regarding Operation “Allied Force” in the Yugoslav region. So while these two positions taken by the American Legion may appear to be contradictory IF VIEWED IN AN UTTER AND COMPLETE VACUUM, I humbly suggest that perhaps a thing or two has changed in the world since 1999.

(Yes, there will be those who maintain that 9/11 didn’t “change the world” but only “changed America’s view of the world”, but you gotta admit that changing America’s view of the world changes the world.)

Another difference between 1999 and 2005 is the fact that providing “aid and comfort” to our enemies today in Iraq runs the very real risk of endangering our people due to the nature of our presence on the ground among the population. In 1999 our fighter and bomber pilots were not nearly as exposed to backlash from locals or at risk from enemy militants aided by a potentially-hostile citizenry.

Regarding previous military action between Desert Storm and 9/11, I was just talking recently about how I had been opposed to the use of US Marines in Somalia when deployed there by the first President Bush in 1992. I saw it as an African problem and not worth our time, money, effort, or lives. I didn’t see how, had it been the mission or indeed even possible, that a stable and friendly Somalia really helped us in any way. But as I became more aware of what was really going on there, I began to see that “with great power comes great responsibility” and that sometimes you need to help people simply because they cannot help themselves.

By the time of the Battle of Mogadishu, I was firmly on the side of using our strength to do right for those who were weak. And I stood slack-jawed as we retreated after the street brawl.

I was skeptical of some things about the whole Kosovo/Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Wherever situation, but I fully supported the removal of Milosevic and peace-keeping missions in various places. Although some of the “wag the dog” arguments seemed compelling, I never put a whole lot of stock in them. I figure it was hyping something that was real to draw attention away from other more unsavory news, not creating a situation out of thin air.

As far as Haiti and the ever-unpopular nation building exercises in various places, I wanted at the time to have military-ish types of organizations to do that sort of work, not front-line combat troops. I think we’re seeing the value of that approach as we struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan to accomplish what we’ve set out to do. I was never against “nation building” as such, and I also noted some remarks by Michael Kinsley of Slate in September of 2003. Kinsley had wanted to know when Bush was going to apologize about his disparaging remarks regarding “nation building” during the 2000 election campaign. I cut and pasted a remark I had made earlier that year, and I’ll do so again this time:

But in 2000, remember, we were all looking back at Haiti, at Kosovo, and at a humiliating withdrawal from Somalia after many lost the stomach to win. We weren’t looking ahead toward four hijacked airliners and thousands of dead American citizens in September of 2001. President Bush, and the rest of America, has learned some hard lessons in the past year and a half, and our eyes are opened to the possibilities, even the probabilities, of more terror in the years to come. Bush would probably have used different words if he had known then what he knows now. Regardless, the question doesn’t explain anyone’s opposition to the war in Iraq. It’s merely partisan, which is just politics, and petty, which is just pedestrian.

The world has changed a lot. Even since September of 2003. It continues to change and won’t ever stop.

So while pointing out this apparent flip-flop by the American Legion is certainly fun for pundits and wanna-bes, I guess I just don’t see how it really applies to what’s going on today.

(Click for better look)

This story has been running for a couple of days now in the Dilbert, but it’s suddenly so clear. Their project is the OICW Increment 1 program. As always, check out Dilbert.com for legal access to the cartoons.

U.N. touts efforts after Saddam ordered wetlands drained

Just out of the blue marshlands are reappearing:

New satellite imagery shows a rapid increase in water and vegetation cover in just the past three years, with the marshes rebounding to about 37 percent of the area they covered in 1970, up from about 10 percent in 2002, the United Nations Environment Program said in a report describing a multimillion dollar restoration project funded by Japan.

Well done, United Nations.

Saddam drained much of the Mesopotamian waters between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers by building dams, dikes and canals to punish the Marsh Arab inhabitants for supporting a Shiite Muslim rebellion following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He also ordered thousands killed.

All but 40,000 of the 450,000 locals fled or were killed.

That seems patently unfriendly, but then I’m not a patent lawyer.

Of almost 3,600 square miles of marshes in 1970, the area shrank by 90 percent to 304 square miles by 2002. As recently as 2001, some experts forecast the marshlands would disappear by 2008.

But restoration efforts since the fall of Saddam reversed much of the damage, bringing the current area to 1,400 square miles.

The experts forecasting the disappearance of the marshes by 2008 shouldn’t feel too bad. Very few forecast the disappearance of Saddam by that time.

I also like how it’s the “fall of Saddam”. It’s like he slipped or something.

I came across a great article on the efforts to restore the marshes a couple of months ago in, I think, Discover Magazine. It wasn’t available online, and I couldn’t find it anywhere else. At the time, experts weren’t nearly as optimistic about the efforts as this article makes it seem. Hopefully things are just plain going better than thought at first.

Also, I noted Saddam’s drainage of the marshes when excerpting Steven Vincent’s “In The Red Zone” a couple of months ago:

Mohammad was a staunch supporter of America and the liberation of Iraq. Those peace activists who took to the streets were fools,” he remarked, referring to the world-wide protests that took place before the invasion. If they saw for five minutes what went on this country under Saddam, they would not have tried to stop the war?

As if to prove his point, he leaned forward from the back seat and pointed out my window. “We’re on the outskirts of Fallujah,” he noted. “See the greenery around us?” It was true: although I hadn’t noticed before, I now saw on both sides of the highway bluish-green palm groves, hedges, shrubs and dark green grasslands. “This area should be desert, like everything else we’ve seen. But Saddam diverted irrigation waters from the Euphrates River in order to turn it into a new Garden of Eden for his supporters. But at the same time, he turned thousands of acres of fertile marshlands in southern Iraq into desert in order to punish the rebellious Shia. In this way” Mohammad concluded, settling back into his seat, “Saddam turned a wasteland into a paradise–and a paradise into a wasteland. He corrupted even the geography of Iraq.”

Well, thank goodness that the United Nations is finally straightening things out.

Steven Vincent Case

Juan Cole reposts his original article with footnotes. Which isn’t really a reply or a response or really much of anything, actually.

He points out what he said and basically plays the “I didn’t make up the rumors, I just asked about them” game.

To be honest, I’m not personally interested in running down the list of claims and counter-claims and counter-counter-claims. I believe that Steven Vincent was doing what he thought was the right thing, I believe that he was correct most of the time, and I believe that he was honestly trying to do what his wife says he was trying to do.

Cole doesn’t really remark on anything in Lisa Ramaci-Vincent’s letter, he simply dismisses it as “mischaracterization”. And he notes that he never said that Vincent was sleeping with Nour Weidi, and then a bit later writes:

We American men aren’t dishonored in particular if our sisters sleep around, though I suppose in high school it can’t be pleasant for a guy to have everyone taunt him that his sister is a slut. But in Arab culture, a brother can’t show his face in public if his sister is known to be a slut.

It’s beyond me how anyone could ever have gotten the idea that he was suggesting that there might be sexual relations between those two. I’m such a “Clueless American”.

Then there’s:

By the way, the US military in Iraq understands all this perfectly well, and has forbidden troops from fraternizing with Iraqi women, and has punished some who did. That is, if you asked a US officer in Iraq about this issue, he will tell you the same thing I have. So how can I be criticized for articulating it?

He continues to not get the fact that it’s what he’s articulating about it that’s the problem here. He’s playing the “I’m just asking” game. And he apparently thinks everyone will just play along.

I would like to repeat once again that Juan Cole did not start the rumors of an improper relationship between Steven Vincent and Nour Weidi. And, taken at face value, it’s not even what he wrote about it that’s the problem. It’s how he wrote about it, and especially how he wrote about it when you consider the rest of what he’s written.

So his reply is simply more windbaggage. Which is too bad.

What I’d like to see (not necessarily from Juan Cole, though…) would be a definitive summary and explanation of the current situation regarding conversion to Islam, marriage, and emigration as it applies to the situation Steven Vincent and Nour Weidi were in according to Lisa’s letter.

Comments are full of “he couldn’t marry her unless he divorced Lisa”, and “oh, yes, he could”. And then there’s the “but you don’t need to be married to leave Iraq” and the “oh, yes you do”. And the “but she couldn’t get a job in the UK anyway” along with the “sure she could”.

As I understand it, existing marriages between Muslim converts and Christian or Jewish women are not automatically nullified. I don’t know Lisa’s religion, though.

And the question of unmarried women leaving Iraq without family members should be easy enough to answer, though I haven’t had any luck.

The job issue is a fairly non-starter, as far as I can see. I have no doubt that things would be worked out one way or another.

Cole basically dismisses Vincent as a sort of “martyr” to the cause of Bush’s war. I’d expect a more informed comment from someone so learned, I guess.

Could it be that he just simply sees himself as existing several orders above the teeming masses of Clueless Americans, sitting on his throne dispensing his wisdom as he sees fit in an effort to enlighten us mere mortals?

I’m just asking.

And, being a Clueless American, I’m having trouble leaving a comment on his post. I’m not familiar with his blogging software and can’t figure out how to leave one. Help me out, folks.

UPDATE: This came in from Lisa Ramaci-Vincent in the comments section to my follow-up post to “It’s Called Courage” and addresses the questions I raised:

Nour’s job offer came from The Guardian newspaper, one of the biggest of the British dailies, and their ability to get her work papers is unquestioned.

As to Nour’s ability to travel alone, it is not permissible under current Iraqi law. A woman must travel with a male family member.

Finally, Steven was not going to divorce me – his conversion to Islam would have allowed him to take Nour as his second wife and bring her to England (not the United States), an arrangement allowed under British law. He would have divorced her in England, thereby negating any bigamy problems he would have had if he came back here, but remained Muslim for the rest of his life, to prevent any threat of apostasy.

She posted it in response to a commenter who pretty much spent the evening watching the comments sections on these posts and immediately contradicted anything any Vincent supporters wrote. It’s nice to hear a bit more about exactly what the plans were, and it pretty much seems to effectively shut down the arguments of the troll. You’ll notice no one is trolling Juan Cole’s comments sections.

UPDATE 2: Exactly.

UPDATE 3: Last night, after originally posting this, I went to bed. I told my wife that Cole, by posting what he posted in the way that he posted it, was playing right into the hands of his critics. I know that he probably doesn’t personally care about that sort of thing, but it’s what he’s doing when responding to Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent’s letter with a repost of his original article and comments showing us how he was right all along. There are going to a ton of bloggers noting his lame excuse of a response because, admit it, it’s just plain fun.

Like this one at Dean’s World:

When you read this, remember that this is a college professor. This is a spokesman for the Left. This was a grown man.

Give him credit. That’s funnier than snot.

UPDATE 4: Oooh…look who stopped by “It’s Called Courage”:

Click to enlarge. Maybe a friend of the Prof? Or a student? One can hope.

In the past two and half days MO has had over 33,500 visits. This is compared to a typical 1,500 per day during the week. I initially tried to keep track of everyone who linked to “It’s called courage”, but there’s simply no way for me to keep up with everyone. So, for now at least, a blanket “thank-you” is going to have to suffice, though Winds of Change, Little Green Footballs, Jonah Goldberg at NRO, and Instapundit deserve special mention as the ones who sent the most traffic.

As any blogger knows, it’s incredibly gratifying to be linked by big sites and the fact that thousands of people are reading your words is a pretty big ego boost. And, whether they admit it or not, most bloggers watch their traffic counters like hawks.

But the words in “It’s Called Courage” were not mine.

They were the words of Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, the widow of freelance writer Steven Vincent. And I believed that they needed to be heard. Steven is no longer with us to speak for himself, so it fell to his bereaved wife to respond to the rumors and innuendo about the relationship between her husband and his Iraqi translator Nour Weidi.

The letter was written in response to Juan Cole, the professor at the University of Michigan who took the rumors and ran with them. (He did not start the rumors, as some seem (or want) to believe. But he certainly helped them gain attention.) While Mr. Cole is no doubt very knowledgeable about the Middle East, he certainly seems to have overstepped his bounds when writing about Steven and Nour. And Vincent himself wondered how it was that Cole could reach the conclusions he did regarding Iraq knowing what he does.

I do not know when the letter was sent to Cole, but it was published on my site Saturday afternoon by Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent. According to her, Cole has not responded either publicly or in private.

While it’s all fun and good to see Juan Cole knocked around a bit for his pompous and heartless article, I truly believe that the real value of this letter is the look it gives us into the reality of the murder of Steven Vincent.

If you haven’t read it, I encourage you to do so.

The rumors Cole wrote about were, in part, true. But the conclusions he reached were not all that accurate. And when you read what was really going on, I don’t see how anyone can help but admire the Vincents and Ms. Weidi even more.

So while words like “emasculated”, “eviscerated”, and simply “ouch” are plastered all over posts and comments about this letter, I hope that we don’t lose sight of the larger picture and realize that it’s not just about slapping around an opponent on the other side of the aisle.

Revenge and defense of honor are Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent’s territory. The rest of us can watch if we want but this isn’t a sporting event.

Steven Vincent did many incredibly brave things to try to get at the heart of matters in Iraq, and we all owe him. The least we can do is read his book and try to keep it in mind when forming opinions or making policies about Iraq and larger conflict that it’s a part of.

I want to help make sure that his legacy is not tarnished by those uncomfortable with the things he had to say. I want to help make sure that the truth gets out there. I want to help make sure we can all do the best we can in these trying times and carry on in a way worthy of admiration.

Two final points. First, a number of commenters here and elsewhere have pointed out “his wife said that he was in love with the translator but that they weren’t ‘romantically involved’…yeah RIGHT”. This is obviously the first conclusion that many will reach, but keep in mind that Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent did not say that her husband was “in love” with Nour. She said that he “loved” her, which can be very different. As I responded in the comments, I happen to love both of my brothers very much. That doesn’t mean that we’re ‘romantically involved’. You don’t have to be siblings to share this sort of bond, and you know it.

Secondly, when I originally posted the letter I was pretty sure that it was genuine. I would not have posted it otherwise. After posting it I contacted the given email address pointing out that I had published it and asked if anything needed to be changed. A few emails convinced me even further that the sender was, indeed, Steven Vincent’s wife.

Later, a manner of obtaining independent confirmation of the writer’s identity occurred to me, and it turns out that she’s the real deal. I felt that I had known it already, but final proof is nice to have in a pinch. I’ve got it, though publishing it here wouldn’t really help, as non-believers would simply assert that I forged it. So I guess you’ll have to take my word for it.

In her emails to me Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent has said several times that she’s “honored” that I’ve published this and drawn attention to it. She wrote that one of her greatest fears is that Steven’s work will be ignored or forgotten, especially if smear tactics harm its credibility. I, too, fear for that and it is exactly why I published the letter.

But it is I who am honored, Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent.

My five minutes are just about up, so I’d just like to take this opportunity to say “thank-you for reading Murdoc Online” and encourage you to keep fighting the good fight.

UPDATE: Juan Cole replied. Well, he really only reposted his original article and then told us about how he was right all along, but that’s probably as close to a reply as Mrs. Ramaci-Vincent is going to get. Links and more here.

In May of 2004, I noted a column by former Denver Broncos running back Reggie Rivers in the Denver Post. I didn’t have any luck finding a working link to the story in the Post, but luckily for us Common Dreams has it: Keep our Slaves Safe. Rivers wrote:

Our military is one of the last bastions of slavery in the United States. At the moment, our slaves are stuck in a combat zone, getting killed and maimed, and there’s nothing they can do about it except hunker down and pray.

Yes, our slaves signed up of their own free will, but most of them were as misled about their job as the rest of us were about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And I don’t think “slave” is too strong a word to describe someone who is not permitted to quit his job no matter how dangerous it becomes or how much he hates it. For most of us, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and guaranteed that we have the right to withhold our labor. It doesn’t protect soldiers.

The story ran on May 28th. Yep. Memorial Day weekend.

Anyway, I’ve been noticing a number of incoming Googles for Reggie Rivers lately. I’m not sure what that’s all about, but earlier today I received this:

I am a veteran of the first Gulf War. A soldier, sailor or airman cannot get out of service once he signs up. Yes, it is a contract but it seems that the military is the only group that cannot renegotiate a contract. In essence, you are a slave.

First, I would like to thank the commenter for his service to me and mine. Secondly, I wonder what actual slaves think of the silly equivalence game being played here.

Shortly after, this comment was posted:

Let us military men and women take a trip down memory lane.

We all signed up. That is, we all voluntarily signed up. Some did our homework when it came to understanding all facets of what was involved, others signed up rather than do something else like going to jail or getting a civilian job (which requires more effort than signing your name to a contract).

The statement made by Paul in that it “seems that the military is the only group that cannot re-negotiate a contract” begs the question, in what way would he re-negotiate? Because he makes the statement that “in essence, you are a slave” I have to assume by re-negotiation he would end it completely. True or not Paul? What would you re-negotiate if not to get out when you wanted to?

Honestly, the military is the easy way out. Only when the rubber meets the road do you actually realize what you got yourself into. As it becomes apparent the road is a hard one…boo friggin’ hoo, you want out. Renegotiate my ass. You knew what it was going to be like…if you didn’t, shame on you.

When I signed up, I wanted to go to school. The GI Bill was for me. Even as a reservist in the USMC I got money for school and was going to make a life for myself. And I did. I graduated back in December 2001 with a business degree.

In 2003 I was called up for active duty. Time for me to go to the dance in the desert. Did I balk and say not for me I got my education screw you? No, this whole time I was going to school I knew what my role was. I knew that being in the friggin’ Armed Forces of the United States of America may at some point might require me to go some place I didn’t really feel like going. What did I do? I went as was requested. And do you know what? I too was held under the stop-loss program. The program developed to ensure operational readiness. The program was implemented to ensure experience leads the way.

What is the purpose and function of the Armed Forces? To fight, plain and simple. Not to provide you with an education. Not to provide you the opportunity to see the world. Not to give you adequate job skills to make it in society when you get out. Those are excellent by-products but that’s all they are. If you’re ignorant enough to get lured in for those reasons then yes, I can see how you think not allowing you to get out rather than doing what you told my country you would do (remember your Oath of Enlistment) is slavery in nature. But you already know that this is your mind set and not the truth!

I can’t really think of anything to add.

UPDATE: But a reader thought of this. It was left in the comments but I think it’s too good to miss:

I am always amazed at people’s ability to bitch and moan when life doesn’t just give them sparkling french lemonade in glass long-neck bottles.

I was a slave to my parents for eighteen years.

I was a slave to liberal Democrats’ choice of President for eight years.

I am currently a slave to my employer, having freely signed a nine-year contract that lays out my responsibilities on a quarterly basis.

Fiona Apple is a slave to her cranky record label.

Lindsay Lohan is a slave to the public eye.

I am a slave to my landlords, having signed a lease.

I cannot re-negotiate my employment contract, my lease, or my life. I do not get everything I want. Sometimes things that people are supposed to do for me never happen, or they come late. Men I fall for do not always love me back. I was not genetically handed a perfect body.

But I will do what I am called to do when my time comes. Although my employment contract is with the US government (non-military), I do not pretend that they somehow OWE me a free education and I should be able to change my mind if they ask me to do something unpleasant later on. I committed to serve. And serve I will — happily and gratefully. As we all will serve one master or another — princes and paupers alike.

I like it when my readers write the posts for me…

Hollywood Nation
Left Coast Lies, Old Media Spin, and the New Media Revolution

Looks like something I want to read:

Millions of Americans are outraged by the radical politics of self-appointed celebrity pundits like Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, and Susan Sarandon. And actually, these stars’ public pronouncements could be the least of our worries, as New York Times bestselling author and media critic James Hirsen reveals in Hollywood Nation.

Read an excerpt (which I haven’t read) here.

Ribbon cut for stealth bomber hangar

A two-plane Stealth Bomber hanger is open for business at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam:

The hangar project includes 13,000 cubic yards of concrete, 1.6 million pounds of steel and a state-of-the-art, push-button firefighting system that can cover an aircraft with fire retardant foam within 4 minutes.

Besides being able to house two B-2 “stealth” bomber aircraft, the hangar also can accommodate the nose of a C-5 galaxy aircraft for docking.

The hangar is along the airfield’s flight line, allowing aircraft that need to be in the hangar for repair, storage or maintenance to drive through.

Seems like they’re serious about basing B-2s on Guam.

As I Please notes that Fred Kaplan’s latest at Slate leans on Juan Cole as an expert opinion. Yes, that Juan Cole.

While Juan Cole is certainly no idiot (despite his best efforts to convice us otherwise) I’m thinking his credibility may have taken a hit to the body of late.

Dave of The Glittering Eye made this remark in a comment on an earlier post:

Saddam’s rule of Iraq interrupted the civil war there that was already in progress.

Now, I’m not in favor of an Iraqi civil war, but as I’ve said previously it’s already going on at a certain level. That level is the tribal level, and that’s the level that really, truly matters in Iraq.

I’ve argued many times in discussion that one of the best things that ever happened to America was our savage Civil War. As bloody and brutal as it was, as close as it came to destroying us forever, you know that it’s true. It defined us as a nation.

Iraq needs to find a definition as a nation. If terrorist forces and Baathist dead-enders can be the enemy that unites greater Iraq, so much the better. But that’s only one possibility.