Friday, July 09, 2010
War! What Is It Good For?
Bill Kristol said that Steele should resign; Ann Coulter then wrote a column declaring that Kristol should resign and raised the seemingly-verboten question whether "permanent war" had become a conservative precept.
That column has triggered requests for open discussion on matters of war and peace -- Afghanistan in particular, but the broader question of foreign policy interventionism. Conservatives Matt Lewis and David Freddoso discuss the lay of the land.
In the past, it's been said that a slip of the lip can sink ships. It would appear that Steele's slip of the tongue (if one can charitably call it that) may actually spark a conversation within the GOP that leads to the ships, planes, tanks, etc., returning home.
And here's an interesting irony: The fact that this debate is breaking out in the Republican Party is one more indication that Ron Paul's 2008 campaign (and its war-skeptic rhetoric) may prove to be one of the most influential efforts by a presidential also-ran ever.
Stay tuned.
Labels: Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, conservatism, Michael Steele, war on terror
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Totally Shocking!!!
Labels: 9/11, George W. Bush, war on terror
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Leader Of The Opposition
Labels: Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, war on terror
Friday, March 27, 2009
Change We Can Bereave In
It looks like we can wake Green Day up: "September" has ended.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced Thursday that the 1,776-foot edifice that was to replace the World Trade Center will no longer be called the "Freedom Tower." Instead, it will have the less ornate appellation, "1 World Trade Center."
Nice.
The timing couldn't have been better. It follows on the heels of the Pentagon's ending the War on Terror. You didn't hear? You must have missed the memo. No, seriously. In a memo, following a request from the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense declared that foreign military and strategic ventures associated with various Muslim-world nations will no longer be called the "War on Terror." It is now Overseas Contingency Operation."
Cool.
This, in turn follows Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's statement to a "Der Spiegel" journalist earlier this month that she prefers to call terrorism, "man-caused disasters."
Wonderful.
And, lets not forget that the Obama administration no longer refers to opponents in the Conflict-Formerly-Known-As-The-War-On-Terror as "enemy combatants." Haven't quite figured out a proper replacement on that one.
Neat.
Now, this is real change -- a seismic cultural shift that not too many people might have expected.
The cumulative effect is clear:The symbolic, rhetorical and strategic signifiers of America's post 9/11 world are being airbrushed away.
"Freedom Tower?" Gone.
"War on Terror?" Gone.
"Enemy combatants?" Gone
"Terrorism?" Gone.
Three-thousand Americans? Gone?
Oh, right.
Well, at least they got the memo early.
Labels: 9/11, Freedom Tower, war on terror, World Trade Center
Friday, August 17, 2007
Aye, Aye, Captain
Andrew addresses the more disturbing issues related to Padilla's lengthy detainment and "non-torture torture."
Previous RT thoughts on the whole Jose Padilla mess can be found here and here.
Labels: civil liberties, Jose Padilla, war on terror
Monday, June 25, 2007
Free Speech Wins...And Loses
By partially overturning McCain-Feingold restrictions on advocacy ads right before an election, the SC -- basically the five conservative justices -- got it correct. It upheld the right for anti-abortion groups to run ads urging listeners to "call their senator."
The Bush administration filed briefs in support of the restrictions (not surprising, given that Bush signed the bill into law, but sad nonetheless).
Unfortunately, the conservative majority got it wrong on the other case -- ruling against a student who unveiled a sign that said"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- off school grounds (though on the other side of the street) during a rally for the Olympic torch relay. The principal of the high school saw her students with the sign, ripped it away and suspended the student who came up with the idea. The student claimed that this was a violation of his free speech.
The court basically said that students do not have a free speech right to say something that constitutes support for illegal drug use:
Roberts said that Frederick was indeed at a school sponsored event and his sign while cryptic" could reasonably be defined by Principal Morse as "promoting illegal drug use."Note the language that SC Chief Justice John Roberts uses, "when [the student] suddently and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, [the principal] had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot."
Roberts wrote: "School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one. When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent agreed that the principal should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner but that the school "cannot justify" it's punishment of Frederick for an "ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more."
Lawyers for Morse had argued that she was responsible for "maintaining order and proper decorum" at a gathering outside of the school. In briefs her lawyers argued, "She responsibly took the appropriate action to ensure that the Olympic torch relay event was not further disrupted by Frederick's pro-drug banner."
The principal is described almost like a law-enforcement or military officer derailing the actions of a terrorist. As if an Olympic torch relay event could somehow be "disrupted" by the appearance of a seemingly pro-drug banner.
As many have observed in the past, the war on terror is the fraternal twin to the war on drugs: Two invidious siblings happily destroying the American family's rights.
UPDATE: Ryan Sager collects a number of responses to the McCain-Feingold pushback (i.e. Wisconsin Right To Life)
Labels: free speech, McCain-Feingold, Supreme Court, war on drugs, war on terror
Friday, May 18, 2007
Ron's Right Stuff
He also points to Slate's John Dickerson (not a conservative) who puts forward basic common sense reasons why Paul shouldn't be jettisoned from future debates. Dickerson, by the way, raises a question that's been bothering me for a while: It seems OK to "heed" Osama bin Laden's words when it supports the stay-in-Iraq position -- during the presidential debate, McCain said (about the 2:21 minute mark in the first part of the Fox debate video), "You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda; they'll tell ya: They want to follow us home." (Like a puppy?). However, given the response to Paul, it would appear to be verboten to listen to what bin Laden actually said with regard to his declared "fatwah" on America.
As Dickerston reports:
Here's just one instance, from 1996, in which Bin Laden in one of his declarations of war said exactly what Paul claims: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime, are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, whatever treaty you have with our country is now null and void."In short, Paul wasn't crazy in articulating one of bin Laden's declared motives for wishing to attack the United States. Paul's not offering an excuse for an horrific crime -- or suggesting that America deserved to be attacked (anymore than a murder victim "deserves" to be killed because of various jealousies and hatreds on the part of the murderer). He is, however, saying that American foreign policy is a reason stated by bin Laden and al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Besides, there are any number of foreign policy experts on the right and left who point to the America's pre-9/11 problematic relationship with various Arab regimes as one reason why "we are hated."
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Iraq War, Ron Paul, war on terror
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
When A Miller's Tale Is A Political One
One of those was the Sin City series which produced a very well received film two years ago (co-directed by Miller). Another such venture comes to theatres this week -- The 300.
Unlike Sin City, this one has spawned a political debate:
“Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?” one of them asked.While the Times story ultimately dismisses the "debate" as a false one -- a marketing ploy for the movie -- one counsel not sought is Miller's. While it is true that the graphic novel was originally created in 1998, the movie has been brought into reality in a decidedly post-9/11 world.
The questioner, by [director Zack] Snyder’s recollection, insisted that Mr. Bush was Xerxes, the Persian emperor who led his force against Greek’s city states in 480 B.C., unleashing an army on a small country guarded by fanatical guerilla fighters so he could finish a job his father had left undone. More likely, another reporter chimed in, Mr. Bush was Leonidas, the Spartan king who would defend freedom at any cost.
Mr. Snyder, who said he intended neither analogy when he set out to adapt the graphic novel created by Frank Miller with Lynn Varley in 1998, suddenly knew he had the contemporary version of a water-cooler movie on his hands. And it has turned out to be one that could be construed as a thinly veiled polemic against the Bush administration, or be seen by others as slyly supporting it.
At last year's New York Comic Con, Miller was one of the star attractions. In addition to discussing the making of The 300, he declared that his next project would be "Batman vs. Al Qaeda." He made no bones about the fact that he saw al Qaeda as pure evil and that a la the comics of the 1940s, today's popular culture had a duty to "take sides" against the threat to the American way of life. He noted how, in World War II, many super-heroes (not just Captain America) battled the Nazis as much as they did common criminals.
After Bush's annual address in January, Miller was one of several creative individuals asked by NPR to assess the state of the union through their unique lens (Miller's segment begins around the 30:50 mark). He decried the failure of Bush to get the entire country (not just the military) to buy into the reality that our civilization is at war with an enemy wanting to destroy us. This wasn't a simple recitation of neoconservative talking points. Miller, politically, is probably more liberal in his basic beliefs.
Frank Miller of 1998 might not have seen The 300 through a political lens, but the one of 2007 certainly does. That doesn't mean he sees Bush as Leonidas; but he sure as hell doesn't see him as Xerxes either.
Miller is a Manichean: He believes that democracy -- whether that of the Greek city-states or that of the United States is a good, in and of itself -- and it is responsible for much more good in the world than evil.
Labels: Comic Books, Frank Miller, The 300, war on terror
Friday, March 02, 2007
Liberal Arts Torture?
Born in Chicago to restless parents (his father worked for a chain of hotels), Lagouranis guesses he attended 10 or 11 schools before graduating from high school in 1987 in New York City. After a year of college he took off, picking up construction and short-order cook jobs as he traveled the country. He kept coming back to Santa Fe, however, and in 1994 he enrolled in its St. John’s College, whose curriculum is based entirely on the Great Books, read in roughly chronological order. Lagouranis discovered he had a facility for languages: he enjoyed ancient Greek and found Hebrew easy. He tried to learn Arabic on his own, but without a class and a regular teacher he found it more difficult. [Emphasis added.]He relates how he joined the Army, mastered Arabic and eventually became an interrogator -- and confessed torturer:
I don't think Lagouranis and I have ever met, given that he was at SJC many years after me. Then again, I've met many students as the years have gone by as I've been involved informally and officially with alumni program. It shouldn't really be a surprise to run into someone who attended one's alma mater -- and more than a few Johnnies have joined the military over the years. But, it is still a jolt to read about it in this context. However, the sense of internal conflict he had about his actions seems very Johnny-esque.Asked how he explains himself, Lagouranis says, “It’s tough. I can say I was following orders, and that is partly true. I was wondering, ‘At what point do I put my foot down?’ and there were definitely times when I said I wasn’t going to cross this or that line.” Lagouranis refused, he says, to engage in sexual humiliation, electric shock, or mock execution (though he admits that he once failed to assure a blindfolded prisoner he was escorting past some soldiers at target practice that this was not a firing squad). He also says he never hit a prisoner, though he admits that hitting someone “might do less damage to him than hypothermia or stress positions or things like that. It just seemed like that was completely taboo. I didn’t really think that through—it seemed to me like that was where the line was legally and morally.
“But there are other answers, too. You are in a war zone and things get blurred. We wanted intelligence. It really became absolutely morally impossible for me to continue when I realized that most of the people we were dealing with were innocent. And that was tough. So it made it easier if I thought that I was actually dealing with a real-life bad guy. Another thing that made it easier was that I felt—and I think this is a flawed argument too—that it was all environmental things that were happening to this person. Like it was gravity that was making his knees hurt, it was the fact that it was cold outside that was making him uncomfortable, it wasn’t me, you know what I mean? As I said, those are flawed arguments, but it makes it easier to do it if you think of it that way.
“Then, also, you’re in an environment where everybody is telling you that this is OK, and it’s hard to be the only person saying, ‘This is wrong.’ And I really was, even as I was doing it, I was the only person saying, ‘We’ve got to put the brakes on. What’s going too far here?’
“You might think this is not a good defense either, but the things that I did weren’t really that horrible. I mean, I saw some really horrible torture. And I’m sure like every torturer would say this—‘Other people are doing worse things.’ I didn’t carry the things that I was doing as far as I could have. Like the guys that we were leaving out in the cold, I was always the one who went out and checked on them all the time. Most of the other people would just sit in the office and watch DVDs while these guys were out in the cold. I was bringing them in and warming them up. So I didn’t go as far as I might have.
“I don’t think people can imagine what it’s like. In Mosul we were wide open. There was [only] concertina wire separating us from the town and we were getting mortared all the time. You’d be laying in bed and mortars were going off all over the place. The infantry brings you somebody and they tell you that this is the guy who’s shooting mortars at you. Scaring him with a muzzled dog doesn’t seem like the worst thing in that situation. . . . I mean I was willing to try it. I didn’t know that it wasn’t going to work.”
Read the entire piece, as most of it is in Lagouranis' own voice.
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for catching this.
Labels: St. John's College, torture, war on terror
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
To Surge, With Love*
In fact, Roberts is only partly right: Iraq is, in many ways, already in the administration's rear-veiw mirror: Iran is the central policy concern right now -- as the recent military leadership changes suggest. Thus, the surge is not really a "distraction," as such. But by committing only 20,000 troops (as if there were more to send out), it is a temporary band-aid while broader strategic moves are put into place, as Ralph Peters explores here).
Furthermore, as the ongoing developments in Somalia show, a commander-in-chief has remarkable options at his disposal. The Democratic Congress had better realize what is going on here. Ted Kennedy can give his full-throated opposition to the surge all he wants. There is greater U.S.-sparked movement on the "War on Terror" chessboard than, arguably, at any point since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq invasion. It is Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan and more.
As far as the Iraq portion goes, I can't say that I am exactly optimistic. I'll be listening closely to the president's speech tonight, but from the early details leaked, it seems that there is definite decision on how to get the Sunni and Shiite forces to agree to run the country together.
As long as Prime Minister Maliki chooses to take orders for Moqtada al-Sadr (rather than the other way around), U.S. forces will continue fighting with one arm tied behind their backs -- trying to figure out which way the bullets are coming from and where all the IEDs are planted.
*Sorry it took me so long to drop that awful pun.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Ted Kennedy, war on terror
