re: "Douglas Murray: 'Will They Actually Prosecute and Outlaw Seditious Behavior?' "

Secure Freedom Radio at Big Peace relays some good news from across the pond.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he British government has changed their modus operandi when dealing with subversive organizations. They are cutting off access and funding to groups that either support violence against the British government or foreign governments, while supporting organizations that follow British law and norms as well as speak out against violence towards foreign governments. But Douglas questions if the government, “will they actually prosecute and outlaw seditious behavior,” which is the only truly effective way to combat such an enemy."

re: "Boehner: The War in Libya is About to Become Illegal"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") has read both the Constitution and the War Powers Act and hasn't been happy about this "from day one."

Money quote(s):

"I said it was illegal from day one. I supported the idea, policy-wise, of doing something there. We had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to kick that dictator and terrorist down. But there is a right way and a wrong way to start a war, and one of the wrong ways is by unilateral presidential action."

It's the obvious lies that I've found offensive, wholly apart from the contempt being shown our Constitution. A little diplomatic gloss is one thing, but blowing smoke up the entire American people's collective butts is a bit much.

"The War Powers Act doesn’t allow you to make war at all, unless we are attacked (or faced with an imminent attack). (And don’t say the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution provides even less support for this action.)"

If you've read it, you know he's right about this.

re: "President Obama To Congress: War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply To Libya"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") considers the question.

Money quote(s):

"Taking a position that is certain to raise eyebrows, the White House sent a response to Congress today regarding the request for further information about the military action in Libya that argues that the War Powers Act is inapplicable to current American involvement there"

Curious. Mr. Mataconis quotes from the New York Times article explaining this position before continuing.

"The question then is whether United States United States military forces are still involved in “hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” There seems to be no real contention by anyone that American forces, or NATO forces for that matter, are actually on Libyan territory or in Libyan territorial waters. The Administration seems to be arguing that since there are no American ground troops and no American fighter planes involved in action over Libya, then the answer to that question is no. As John Cole notes, though, we are using Predator drones to launch missiles at Libyan target on an as-needed basis, so the idea that we’re completely off the grid on this mission isn’t entirely true."

&

"(F)or the Obama Administration it’s not just a question of how Congress reacts, but also how the public reacts. A response like this could potentially be spun as the Administration trying to get around the requirements of the law by means of a technicality. The fact that we are still engaging in offensive action in Libya, albeit in a limited fashion that doesn’t endanger American forces, makes this kind of legal argument hard to sell — it’s a war they’re saying, but not a war war. That doesn’t strike me as something that’s going to play very well with the public, especially given how unpopular the Libya mission is to begin with."

re: "Tom Ricks Mistrusts Germany"

Joerg Wolf at Atlantic Review ("A Press Digest for Transatlantic Affairs") exposes a puzzling mindset.

Money quote(s):

"(M)ost US experts -- with the notable exception of Tom Ricks -- do not worry about a war with Germany or a return of militarism and Nazi ideology in Berlin. Instead they are concerned that Germany (and many other European countries) demilitarize so much that we are not of use to the US anymore."

SecDef Gates recent speech to this effect has been much remarked-upon.

"Tom Ricks, however, has a totally different view of Germany. Mr. Ricks worries about "Germany's resurgence" "

Yeah, that Kaiser could just be waiting around until our suspicions are lulled.

Seriously, any Mr. Ricks looked at Germany's current military strength. Has he missed to demographic meltdown that most Western European nations, including Germany, are undergoing? Ralph Peters thinks the Germans still have it in them (along with other Europeans) to put the boot to the colonizing underclass that's already within their borders, but Mark Steyn and Tom Kratman are less "optimistic" (for values of "optimism").

"It seems that Tom Ricks is of the opinion that Germany (or the German people, culture etc) have not substantially changed since 1945 and is still a threat."

By all accounts, Mr. Ricks is a very bright guy. His recent SF-1001 form was absolutely brilliant, parodying not only the American military's mania for checklists, the bureaucratic impulse to require a written form, and the demonstrated strategic ignorance of Washington policy and decision makers.

"There are still quite a few Germans, who use our violent history and crimes against humanity as an excuse for the lack of burden sharing in NATO missions. Tom Ricks' blog posts support their claim that our allies still don't really trust us and that we should therefore not support their military missions... "

re: "Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya"

Pamela Geller (who had a birthday this week) at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") isn't crazy about the plaintiffs, but likes the suit.

Money quote(s):

"Finally, elected officials are holding a runaway President to account. Does anyone know what the hell we hope to accomplish in Libya? What is Obama's endgame in Libya, aiding al qaeda? On May 20th, the 60th day of Obama's war in Libya, Obama was requird by law to get Congressional approval to continue his ops in Libya. The war he consulted no one about, the war he did not go to Congress on, the tyrant's war.

He is now engaged in four wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a secret war in Yemen, and his strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in the highest US military casualty rates, year over year, since these engagements began (in July 2009, I called it -- Obama's Afghanistan strategy: target US military). He refuses to identify Islamic terror, jihad or religious motivation. His counter terror adviser, John Brennan, says, "jihad is a legitimate tennt of islam," so what exactly is Obama fighting in these four wars, and who is he fighting for?"

U.S. participation in the Libyan action has been troubling me as well, but I'm of a somewhat literalist turn of mind when it comes to things like the powers of government, including the presidency.

re: "President Sued For War Crime"

DMartyr at The Jawa Report ("you know, sand people") has some breaking news.

Money quote(s):

"No, the loony democrats are not suing George W. Bush for going into Iraq to kill Islamic terrorists (at least, not yet). Republican Bipartisan lawmakers are suing President Obama for illegally going to war against Libya"

I suppose they've got standing, after all, given what the Constitution actually says. It'll be quite interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.

re: "The march of Ruritania"

Richard at EU Referendum ("To discuss issues related to the UK's position in Europe and the world") relayed some Royal Wedding-related commentary.

Money quote(s):

" "The Edwardian braid and sashes worn by Princes and Dukes emphasised that our Armed Forces are shrunken remnants – lots of big hats, not many planes, ships or soldiers", writes Peter Hitchens. "Never have they looked so laughably Ruritanian".

And more or less the same point is made by Booker as he writes of politicians hiding their plans to put French jets on Royal Navy carriers. The Royal Navy won't be flying Anglo-US Joint Strike Fighters, but providing a platform for French Rafales as part of an EU force, he tells us."

I remarked to the Madame-at-Arms, when we watched some of the wedding pageantry (CAA is partial to all things protocol-y), that the two princes in their honorary colonels get-up looked like kids wearing their great-uncle's uniforms.

(Which is unfair to both of the gentlemen, being qualified and serving officers in their own rights.)

"Thus does Booker write that the magnificent military pageantry of the royal wedding coincided, sadly, with yet another humiliating instance of the precipitate decline in Britain's military power. Soon, all we will have is lots of big hats, as we hand over operational control over our few remaining assets to an Anglo-French consortium, where the one operational carrier that we will have will be used as a platform for French aircraft.

The point that must be emphasised again and again is that this has always been the plan, ever since 1996, under the last Tory government. The carriers have always been earmarked for a joint Anglo-French project. Their purpose has been to serve as the main Anglo-French contribution to the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed by Tony Blair at Helsinki in 1999.

That is what makes our pageantry and the military splendour a hollow charade. It had some meaning when it was a reflection of our power and status, but when we have more admirals than ships, more generals than battalions, and our sad little navee goes to sea with iPods and EU flags, earmarked to further EU grandiosity, then the splendour takes on a Ruritanian character. It is all show and no substance.

That is what it has come down to. That is why there can be no pride in watching a celebration of something that no longer exists - just overwhelming sadness. We have sold the substance of Great Britain on the altar of European integration."

Color me Euro-skeptical. And I like Europe. I've served there in and out of uniform as both soldier and diplomat. But I've always felt that the EU was a bit of a put-on, for show, and not really serious. Unfortunately, lots of European governments seem to feel the same way about NATO and defense in general.

re: "Bin there, Killed That..... "

Thanks to No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit") for the mention.

Money quote(s):

"Consul Leslie Slote over at Consul at Arms II followed up with a "money quote" (as he calls them) that I'm pissed I never thought of myself:

Violence never settles anything except for those things that only violence will settle.

How hard does that line rock?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

"Let's get to it: let's not kid ourselves; the Mutterer is a man of principle. I've argued as loudly as anyone that we should not reciprocate the bad behavior of our enemies by compromising our core principles. But I was pretty steamed at the self-flagellating response of the Left to the glee average Americans expressed at Bin Laden's killing."

Thusly does NDS neatly encapsulate civilized modern man's dilemma: how to respond to and deter violence and aggression from barbarians without becoming one. It's a topic worthy of discussion and one, I should note, that serves as something of a self-diagnostic: if you're still asking the question, than you're not a barbarian yet.

"You have got to be kidding me. Mike Hayes over at "Googling God" actually believes that there's some sort of moral equivalency between Afghans dancing on the streets at the news of 9/11 and Americans' rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden.

Let's get something straight: there hasn't been a single misfortune that has befallen the United States that Bin Laden and his ilk didn't celebrate. Why it is I am supposed to show him some sort of deference simply by virtue of having died is beyond me."

Too right. Either UBL was an anomoly, someone who had so twisted the peaceful teachings of Mohammed that he was no longer truly Islamic, or he was a martyr to the cause, a holy man worthy of memorials and emulation. Answers to this question should be chosen carefully.

"Bin Laden and his ilk hate us for who we are, regardless of what we do. And they'll always concoct some conspiracy to explain it all away.

The mistake that the Bushies made was concluding that all Arabs view us this way.

And that is decidely not true, as the absence of a significant Islamic influence in the ongoing "Arab Spring" attests.

Good riddance, Osama Bin Laden. It may very well be that you were unarmed, that you begged for mercy, and that my countryman put a bullet in your eye, anyway.

Tough shit.

You had it coming."

I rather thought Bush (and his ilk, the "Bushies") went to considerable trouble to make it clear that they were not acting as if all Arabs viewed us with hate, that this was not a Clash of Civilizations, and that if we'd responded as if it was that would have given UBL exactly what he wanted.

But yes: UBL had it coming.

re: "(Video) Muslims Demand to use Catholic church in Cordoba as a Mosque"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs highlights one aspect of the salami-slicing strategy.

Money quote(s):

"The Muslims want Cordoba back. You knew that was coming. Based on that, the Christians should get the Hagia Sophia back, the Jews should get the Dome of the Rock back, and the Hindus should get back the tens of thousands of temples that were destroyed and turned into mosques. And that's just for starters.

Their premise of co-existence is a slap in the face. There is no peaceful co-existence in Muslim countries under Islamic law. Ethnic cleansing and the suppression and persecution of non-Muslims is commanded in the sharia. But they will use our freedoms to kill our freedoms."

This is an aspect of "what's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable" diplomacy.

Old heads will recognize this from Soviet times; new heads are constantly astonished to learn that Putin's Russians still do this.

For many Americans, world history begins in 1776. Or 1624 (or 1607). Or 1492.

1492 was also the year that the Spanish completed (in January) the Reconquista, finally taking back the last of Spanish territory (Granada) that remained a Moorish possession. Of course, if you're of a "Moorish" disposition, you view that from a somewhat different perspective.

re: "A Gutsy Post"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") analyzes the gutsy call.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he left has decided the word for Obama’s is “gutsy.” That’s kind of weird since he made a call that most Americans would have made, so what’s gutsy about it? If you told a regular American, “So, do you want to get Osama or not get Osama?” they would think that’s a trick question. But for Obama, going with the obvious answer was gutsy."

On the face of it, Frank's assessment is valid. But let's drill down a little bit. You see, approving the operation is a little bit more than just deciding to take down UBL. And I'm not even talking about the diplomatic and political repercussions involved in going into Pakistan in order to do it.

A few short decades ago there was this thing called "Desert One." Google it, if you don't already know. The president is of an age, as I am myself, to remember Desert One from late-adolescence/early-adulthood. Desert One was where Operation Eagle Claw went wholly pear-shaped and the predecessors of what became "Delta Force" took a number of casualties. And that was before they'd even gotten to their objective in Tehran.

So there are consequences to be considered. Missions are not always assured of success, even if things don't go disasterously wrong (as they did at Desert One); what if the intelligence is wrong? What if UBL picks that particular night to sleep over at a friend's house? The list of what-ifs and what-could-go-wrongs is limited only by the imagination.

So I'm un-troubled, upon reflection, by those who give props to the commander-in-chief for making a "gutsy" call. The call was his to make, he made it, and it went well for the troops who executed it, went well for the president, and went quite badly for UBL.

"Obama will get a little bit of a bounce and deservedly so for taking out Osama, but I wouldn’t expect too much of it."

Happy Birthday U.S. Army!

re: "Historical Revisionism [Part 3]"

Bill at Castle Argghhh! finishes off the Big Lie about Iraq's WMD.

Money quote(s):

"Right after we captured Baghdad, there were a *lot* of PAO-type pix appearing in SIPRNET mail to various units (all combat arms outfits, as far as I could tell), showing US and Iraqi equipment, battlefield shots of blown-up tanks and people, etc., and some stuff highlighting the technology we used. Our S-2 knew I'd think that was real neat, so he called me in to show me. Among the goodies were two AWACS radar screenshots labeled "Iraqi truck convoys converging on Syria" -- lines of little glowing dots on the highways heading north, then turning northwest. They gave a timeline, but all I remember was it happened the night before we jumped.

Next day, there was a recall of the mail with the pix, citing OPSEC violations on the AWACS pix because they showed US positions -- bear in mind that the pix were a full week old, and that US units had already reached Baghdad by the time they were released. Our S-2, being a good S-2, promptly deleted the stuff without a thought. So did everybody else, as far as I can determine, including the military intel types OCONUS with SIPRNET access. Later, I heard the oblique AWACS screenshots were compared with satellite overhead photos and were matched to a gnat's eyelash.

Some time later, the Dems in Congress began screaming that Bush was a war criminal because we hadn't found Saddam's WMD -- we had found a lot of WMD and WMD-related stuff, but the Dems kept screaming "That's not the WMD Bush said they had."

Which morphed into the pre-election Talking/Screaming Point “We went to war in Iraq for a lie, because there were no WMD!” that continues to this day.

Now, let’s recap.

Did we find chemical weapons that Saddam had hidden from the UN inspectors? Yup.

Did we find biological warfare labs and delivery systems? Yup.

Two out of three, so far, and either one standing alone exposes “There were no WMD” as a lie."

It helps if you have no real understanding of the meaning of WMD in the first place. Then it's easier to be that stupid. (Ignorance is like that.)

That being said, I never saw any of that sort of "take." But then I didn't see much else in that line of intelligence collection: as intelligence collectors, we were just too far down in the weeds ourselves.

"Did we find a nuclear weapons program? Well, yes and no.

Yes, we found the evidence, but was it an ongoing program? Saddam himself lied about stopping and starting so often, that, if it wasn’t ongoing during the weeks before the invasion – and Saddam *knew* it was on the way -- chances are very good that he would have cranked it up again had we *not* jumped in.

Was the program stolen from under our noses while we were in the process of restoring some semblance of normalcy to Iraq?

Or was it just on hiatus until Saddam – or his designated heir – could open up for business in a new location? *Something* was on the convoys going into Syria, which the Iraqis, sources in at least two of Iraq’s neighbors, and the CIA's ace advisor have confirmed."

Bill then goes on to explain some basic facts about the party politics of Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria (which remains true today).

He concludes:

"Dick Cheney had the pix, he had the background info, he had the ear of the President, and he had enough personal authority to release them to shut the Dems up.

Those of us who knew about the pix kept expecting a dog-and-pony show from the White House which would stop this particular Big Lie in its tracks and reveal the Dems for what they were.

Any day, now... any day.

When he was asked (in 2010) why he didn't at least advise GWB to go public with the pix and their probable significance, Cheney just blew the question off, and said "we had other concerns at the time."

Swell. Thanks so much for being midwife to this particular Big Lie, Dick -- you gave us Barack Obama in 2008 and the resulting cascade of Big Lies we've been bombarded with ever since."

This is the most original reason for disliking Dick Cheney I've ever read. It bears thinking upon.

re: "Free-Thinkers and Unchained Intellects All Over the World Decide, Simultaneously, That We're All Supposed To Feel Rather Ashamed That Usama bin"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ explains why intelligentsias aren't always very intelligent.

Money quote(s):

"It is truly remarkable how all these maverick minds, these unshackled brains, these members of the Vanguard of Free Thought, nearly always manage to fall into line with what a few of their more mouthy members are saying at any particular moment.

Are we supposed to feel bad that we used lethal force to incapacitate a murderous force for evil? Are we to feel guilt that, having exposed so many of our troops to great risks to preserve innocent, and not-so-innocent life, on this particular mission we told our troops, "Don't worry about bin Ladin's life"?

Are we really supposed to regret this?"

Author Tom Kratman opines that this sort of thing isn't really a conspiracy, but rather a consensus based on a particular, and wide-spread, consensus. (My apologies to The Good Colonel if I've mis-paraphrased him. - CAA)

"This is the primary psychological drive of the bien pensants. If you understand this about them, you understand everything about them.

Everything they say, and everything they do, is calculated towards one specific purpose, one unchanging goal: To differentiate themselves from their "common" fellows, and, by differentiating themselves, in conspicuous demonstrations of anti-common sentiment, declare and affirm themselves to be members of the New Aristocracy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

My experience to date is that doesn't actually require a great deal of higher education to cause one's native rational faculties to be over-ridden by politically correct dogma, although that does trend towards the likelihood of same.

It certainly requires a certain flavor of higher (and not-so-higher) indoctrination to make a bright person this stupid.

"This isn't thinking. This isn't reason. This is simply the automatic, reflexive contradiction of anything a commoner might happen to say. Even if the "commoner" happens to be right.
Because the whole point is to have a different opinion, one the commoners do not share. And the commoners, being, generally, a reasonable and sound-thinking lot, unfortunately have the tendency to think the right things a distressingly large amount of the time.

Forcing the New Aristocrats to often, and more and more, take increasingly unreasonable positions simply to signal their uncommonness.

And hence: Increasing stupidity from the supposedly smart.

As the saying goes: Only an intellectual can believe things this stupid." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

re: "You Can Have a Welfare State, or You Can Have Open Borders, But ."

Kenneth Anderson at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") shows how Europe's experience parallels our own.

Money quote(s):

"This opinion piece addresses the same general concern as that book, updated to today: immigration and borders in Europe. In many ways, after all, at least alongside the sovereign debt crisis in Europe is the startling re-introduction of border controls in Continental Europe, and a call by Sarkozy and Berlusconi for a revision of the famous Schengen agreement removing border controls among twenty-two European states (not including the UK and Ireland)."

Be sure to read the quoted passages from the cited article. One slice of that:

"The Schengen agreements, signed in 1985 and 1990, permit
passport-free travel within 22 continental countries of the European Union (Britain and Ireland are among the exceptions), as well as non-Union signatories. Along with the euro, Schengen is Europe’s symbol, a milestone in its integration — on a continent long hemmed in by nationalism and bureaucracy, an Italian can travel to Paris without showing papers or changing money. And it’s growing: the European Parliament this week voted overwhelmingly to recommend extending Schengen to the European Union’s two newest members, Bulgaria and Romania."

re: "Girl POWER! (DS and Otherwise)"

Thanks to A Daring Adventure ("I write this blog. And I am not a State Department employee. So everything you read on here is mine and mine alone, and is filtered through my own experiences.") for the mention, quote, and the linkage.

(Everybody loves a little snarkiness, it seems.)

To recapitulate:

"Obviously, the thing to do is require unmarried FSOs to chose English-fluent spouses from one of the BRIC countries until further notice."

re: "Historical Revisionism [Part 2]"

Bill at Castle Argghhh! revisits a personal pet peevasaurus (in other words, a Jurassic peeve of brobdingnagian proportions) of mine.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat were some of the WMDs we found?

Well, for starters, we found 550 long tons of unrefined yellowcake (for the metrically-impaired, that’s 1,212,541 pounds of the stuff Joe Wilson *said* Saddam had no interest in acquiring). The Dems squeaked that it didn’t count, because Saddam had no centrifuges to use in enriching it to weapons grade – and then when we found the centrifuges, they squawked that the centrifuges (the exact same model Siemens centrifuge Iran used at Natanz to enrich its uranium, by the way) were for pharmaceutical purposes – even though they were found buried in the compound of the chief of Saddam’s nuke program.

By the way, the 606 US tons of yellowcake remained stockpiled in Iraq for anyone curious enough to want to look at it until 2008, when it was quietly shipped to Canada for refining." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

This is part of the "moving the goal posts" strategy of the previous administration's enemies.

Check out some of what the ISG found. Scary stuff.

"(T)hen the Dems changed “Where are the WMDs?” to “Those aren’t the WMDs we’re looking for!”Well, all righty, then, folks, just what *are* the WMDs you’re looking for?They wouldn’t say – they just kept repeating that, whatever we found, it wasn’t what they were looking for, and their Greek chorus in the MSM dutifully echoed them without even pausing for breath."

One-word snip.

"Now, exactly what were the WMDs that the Dems were looking for? Nobody’s saying, but the answer may lie in what happened during the countdown to the invasion. "

Stay tuned for the next installment.

re: "Visa Adjudicators Needed? We Have the Best Suggestion Ever - Unmarried FSOs Pay Attention, Please"

Thanks to Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") for the link, quote, and the mention.

What she said:

"(A)fter I posted this, I got the best suggestion ever from Consul-at-Arms that I felt darn compelled to pass along"

What I said:

"Obviously, the thing to do is require unmarried FSOs to chose
English-fluent spouses from one of the BRIC countries until further
notice."

Her response:

"Oh, yeah! I am so looking forward to a BRIC-dating service sponsored by the Consular Affairs Bureau ...

Well, aren't you?

Didn't you know that these four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population? Apparently, Goldman Sachs has argued that, since the four BRIC countries are developing rapidly, by 2050 their combined economies could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world.

So, if Goldman Sachs is right on this, a BRIC-matching/dating service now, would be an excellent investment for the future of consular affairs!"

re: "Muslim Rape Culture and Lara Logan"

Daniel Greenfield at Right Side News ("The Right News for Americans") puts the assault on Lara Logan into cultural and historical context.

Money quote(s):

"When Lara Logan traveled to Egypt to cover the Tahrir Square protests, she was unaware that she was going to be working in a country where sexual harassment rates of women and especially foreign women are so high as to be universal. In a politically correct profession, such truths are politically incorrect. And even now all of the coverage studiously avoids mentioning one dangerous word. Islam.

Muslim rape culture did not begin in Tahrir Square and it won't end there. Not when it actually began in the year 624 when Mohammed came up with an ingenious means of rewarding his followers. In addition to the trophies of war, he made it legal for them to capture and rape married women.

Previously that would have been considered adultery. Now it was an incentive to become one of Islam's Holy Warriors. It doesn't take much to imagine how ugly and awful the camp of Mohammed's followers was for a woman. That's why the Burka was invented."

Sex slavery. It's not a bug: it's a feature.

"In a tribal society, rape is a crime against property and honor. To a father, his daughter's virginity is a valuable item that increases her market value. Marrying her off is way to build a relationship between two families. To a husband, his wife's chastity maintains the value of his property and insures that the offspring is his. To assault a woman is to commit a crime against the communal property of a family. But a woman herself has no rights over her body that any man is bound to respect. As Lara Logan discovered in Tahrir Square."

Once upon a time I held to the theory that the Old Testament was a useful cultural survival manual for a herding and farming culture a couple of thousand years ago. And by "cultural survival manual" I meant that it was a manual which, if followed by a culture, would enable it to survive as a culture.

The Koran, in some respects, is a similar work. Only the type of culture whose survival (and expansion) it instructs is somewhat different.

Of course, since most of the West trends (or used to) towards the Christendom end of Judeo-Christianity, the New Testament's supercession of the Old Testament frees the Western world from an outdated model that would encourage cultural stasis.

(But I'm no theologian.)

"Like all social rules, they don't apply equally. The daughter of a wealthy and westernized urban family will enjoy an immunity from them, that the daughter of a poor family in a village will not. The wealthy daughter will attend the London School of Economics, use Twitter and serve as an example that her country and Islam are really very liberated. The poor daughter will be a second wife to some bored fat merchant and be considered lucky if he doesn't beat her to death when she loses her looks.

Meanwhile the young men will roam the streets bored and frustrated. They will steal anything not nailed down, join protests and sexually harass women. When Western reporters poured into Cairo to report on a pro-democracy movement, they surrounded themselves with what they thought were pro-democracy protesters. What they were actually doing was walking into one of the largest overcrowded cities in the world, where gangs of protesters had smashed the police, and created an open state of anarchy. Muslim rape culture did the rest.

As far as her attackers were concerned, Lara Logan had no rights they were bound to respect. She wasn't the wife or daughter of anyone they knew. She wasn't even a Muslim. They had no bond of kinship with her. Which meant that just like the uncovered in Mohammed's camp, she didn't belong to anyone. And that meant she was fair game."

Political correctness blinded media personalities like Lara Logan (and others) to the real dangers to be found in a Middle Eastern city during an uprising. I'm just glad she wasn't more badly injured.

"In Muslim rape culture, a woman cannot actively decline a man. She can only passively demonstrate that she is off limits by defeminizing herself. Lara Logan hadn't done that. But even if she had, it wouldn't have done much good. Previous gang assaults on women in Cairo a few years back had targeted even those covered from head to toe. To add fuel to the fire, came the chants of, "Yahood, Yahood." "Jew, Jew". Mohammed's ruling had made it legal to capture and rape Jewish women. The association may not have been directly made, but indirectly it was there. Lara Logan had been marked as a member of an enemy tribe.

The reasoning is awkward, but Islamic jurisprudence is the product of such awkwardness. It derives from the will of Mohammed whose only consistent principle was to do whatever he wanted. As a prophet he frequently made and broke his own laws, and then made new ones. Four witnesses are required for an act of sexual immorality, because at one point three witnesses accused Mohammed's own wife of such an act. Prior to that Mohammed had taken action based only on a single witness.

Mohammed modified the law to allow him to marry his son's wife and to shift the turns of his own wives. After Mohammed had received another urgent 'revelation' allowing him to do as he sexually pleased, his wife Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." There you find the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. It was a code that existed only to please Mohammed's sexual impulses."

_____

Hat tip to Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!").

re: "Historical Revisionism [Part 1]"

Bill at Castle Argghhh! takes on a Big Lie.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne of the most effective techniques the losers use in their all-consuming scramble to displace the current winners (or to retain their power as current winners -- but regardless of whether they're the Outs or the Ins, they're still losers) is the Big Lie."

Be sure to read the part where he explains where Cloward and Piven sourced this technique.

"There’s been one particular Big Lie going around that’s now so entrenched that even people who know better are accepting it as truth, and I got so tired of correcting individuals who spouted it that I promised myself I’d go full auto the next time I heard it.

Yesterday, I heard it – “We went to war in Iraq for a lie, because there were no WMD.”

Now, let’s start with the basics. WMD is an acronym for the old Soviet term for nukes (“Weapons of Mass Destruction”), which they distinguished from chem and bio agents (“Weapons of Mass Casualties”), while we lumped everything together, first under the acronym CBR (“Chemical, Biological, Radiological”) and later under NBC (“Nuclear, Biological, Chemical”). Somehow, probably because the boffins in the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace thought it was cool to use Sov terms for everything, WMD replaced NBC in MilSpeak, and the civilians in 1600 Pennsy thought it was cool to sprinkle their public pronouncements with MilSpeak terms (thus accruing Warrior Status Points without the onus of actually having to do, like, Warrior Stuff), WMD morphed into meaning *all* classes of unconventional weaponry, not merely nukes. The Russians are still pretty amused at that, by the way.

So, because Saddam had chemical weaponry and had a history of using them on his enemies, and because he let it be known that his bug guys were working on weaponizing germs of varying nastiness, and because he had a known on-again, off-again nuclear program, politicians who wanted to be in with the cool kids began referring to “Saddam’s WMD.” And they referred to them a lot – all through the ‘90s (and as late as 2003), every Democrat who got face time with a microphone talked about Saddam’s WMD and how unacceptable the situation was.

After the novelty of having waxed a modern army (albeit one with a thoroughly incompetent C-in-C) in a few days wore off, the Dems suddenly realized that George W. Bush had attained rock star status in the eyes of the voters. They panicked, and seized on the fact that Saddam hadn’t hit us with anything unconventional as the genesis of a new talking point for the 2004 election campaign.

“Where are the WMDs?”

They demanded that the troops stop whatever they happened to be doing and scour Iraq until they found Saddam’s stash."

To be fair, although WMD were connected with some of the Iraq War Resolution's 23 writs, they were the ones you heard the most about during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And not just the media, actual Administration spokesmen and high officials kept beating this drum.

"To be continued…]"

re: "Quick Takes, June 02, 2011"

Mike M. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") makes a fairly damning assessment.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: AG Eric Holder continues to investigate CIA personnel, who, acting on the specific advise of the Department of Justice, protected American lives during the Bush Administration. John Hindearaker at PowerLine (here) suggests that the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Obama is at war with America’s intelligence community. I agree. See if you do."

re: "An Overfilled Heart: Usages And Abusages"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road is laudatory towards Mark Steyn and assesses politicians and policies.

Money quote(s):

"They who go into politics are generally persons of weak conscience. Two centuries of the demotic incentive -- the need to please 50%-plus-one to gain or retain power -- have produced a sub-race of Mankind almost completely free of moral qualms. All that matters to them in any situation that requires a decision is the utterly pragmatic determination of the currently relevant constituency: just who those 50%-plus-one are to be "this time." " (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

"It has been clear since 732 Anno Domini that the Western world, once better described as Christendom, is at war with Islam. Clear, that is, to anyone with adequate knowledge of the dictates of Islam whose intellect isn't fettered to an irrational desire to appear "tolerant" and "inclusive." "

Mr. Porretto has this precisely reversed. Islam has been at war with Christendom, indeed with all its neighbors, since its inception. (It's hardwired into the programming, after all.)

"Denunciations of the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim have been widespread. Suffice it to say that we'd rather not believe that 53% of American voters did such a stupid thing. And perhaps, in the sense of having disclaimed the Shahada and accepted Christian baptism, Obama is at least formally not a Muslim. However, his behavior since his inauguration to the presidency speaks otherwise. At the very least, in any clash between Muslim and non-Muslim interests or sensibilities, he prefers to take their side against ours. He's even said so, publicly."

If you're of the opinion that having a Muslim father suffices to make one a Muslim (as many do believe), then that's going to be your opinion. If you're of a more Christian mindset, you believe (as I do) that an individual's professions of faith are what matters.

(Think of it as an extension of our Constitutional principle forbidding "corruption of blood.")

He concludes:

"Ugly language can be abused -- and abusive. However, as I've written before, there are times when nothing else will suffice. If we're not at such a point today, we're awfully damned close to one.

But at the ultimate cusp, the "WTF macro" will not suffice. Present trends in mealy-mouthed, insincere international diplomacy continuing, we'll soon reach a nexus at which the options will be two: to surrender to Islam, root and branch; or to "cowboy the fuck up!" and acknowledge the true dimensions of this war. At that point, no amount of profanity, however employed, will adequately describe the horrors before us. More, the longer we take to get to that nexus, the worse the sequel will be, no matter which course we choose to follow." (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

This is indeed the quandary. Was Pres. Bush (#43) correct in directing us to painstakingly avoid the very Clash of Civilizations that UBL wished to incite? Or is such a global conflagration inevitable, with delay only increasing the bloodshed, body count, and likelihood of victory.

These are the sorts of questions that serious people should be thinking and talking about, not this ridiculous "Wiener-gate" nonsense.

re: "What If the ObamaCare Mandate Isn’t Struck Down?"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") worries about Constitutional over-reach by Congress (and the president).

Money quote(s):

"(T)he 11th circuit is discussing Obamacare and whether it’s constitutional for the government to force people to buy things.

That answer is “No”, by the way. Not just “No”, but “If you even contemplated allowing this, you should go to the nearest mirror, stare yourself in the eyes, and punch yourself really hard in the face.” This is just insane in a free country to think the government can force you to buy things, so much so that we really need to start deporting people for completely not understanding the concept of America." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

That's what I love about IMAO and Frank J. He never beats around the bush, letting you guess at what he really thinks.

The problem is one of ideological orientation. If you think government exists to do stuff, whatever stuff you think needs doing, then requiring people to do what they don't want (this is known as coercion) is fine. After all, you know best.

If, on the other hand, you think that the purpose of government is to do those things for The People (who are, by the way, sovereign) that they can't better do for themselves and that you've helpfully listed those things, as well as the methodology to be employed in their implementation (this is known as a Constitution); well, you can see where there'll be some disagreement.

"Not sure what to do if the courts don’t strike it down. We’d need to get an amendment in place immediately. Otherwise, Republicans will just have to make liberals choke on it by forcing people to buy things like gun and ammo, gas guzzling SUVs, and bacon. Maybe all our money will be spent, but at least we’ll have cool stuff."

re: "Why diplo-spouses can't get real love at the State Department - they are headaches, especially when they are heard and seen"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") expands on the problems related to FS family-member employment.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he screener probably thought you were a foreign born spouse who speaks English learned from Sesame Street."

The old joke is that you can tell where a (male) FSO had his first assignment by the nationality of his wife.

This is true just often enough that it remains funny today. For values of "funny."

"Some years ago, we were at a dinner hosted by one of the Rising Stars in the Consular Bureau, who by the way, is now an ambassador over there. Anyway, one of the guests was an FSO with a spouse who was formerly an FSN with considerable experience in consular work. Now the FSO wanted to know if his English-speaking, embassy veteran wife, may be allowed to take the ConGen course. The Rising Star then also insinuated that most EFMs can't pass the basic English skills tests and that most EFMs at ConGen quit or flunk the course. In not so many words, the answer was like ... don't bother dude, find her a hobby instead.

It was most shocking to the FSN-EFM who had worked for a consular section for some dozen years, shocking to her husband who had at that time, far less experience in consular work than the wife, and shocking to us the poor audience, who had the misfortune of observing firsthand a bureaucracy that saw numbers rather than individuals."

Not being a "rising star," and having both worked side-by-side (as a junior officer) with EFM consular associates and as a supervisor of EFM consular staff later in my career, what I take from the perceived scarcity of English-language proficiency among EFMs that not that they should be discounted. Rather, my lesson-learned is that where they exist they should be exploited!

(But then, I'm not a "rising star.")

"The better paying jobs at the embassy are in the Consular Section, of course. Unlike most sections in the mission, the consular folks actually has (sic) money they can tap to request and pay for additional employees. And sometimes, you do get lucky when you have real leaders in the captain's chair. Other times, you get lemons, too, although CA hates to advertise that. But ConGen has always been a tad "complicated." I mean, management often wants the EFMs because they are cheaper, but they really would rather have junior officers if they have a choice. They want EFMs to fill in an empty slot, but they won't pay for you to go back to DC and take the course. Also some well-qualified EFMs can't get consular gigs because managers worry that they'd get bored over repetitive mindless work, go on leave during the peak visa season, take off to take care of kids or school issues, demand their Highest Previous Rate (if previously held a higher pay grade than advertised) and yada, yada, yada."

The Consular Section has (some) money because Congress insists that fees be charged for services provided, both visa- and citizenship-related. Said fees must reflect the actual cost to the State Department for providing said services. Every year or so a "cost of services" survey is conducted by experts in this sort of thing to figure out just what the true costs are. Every time they do this they get a little bit better at ferretting out "hidden" costs and overhead/support expenditures that make it possible to provide consular services. Also, every time they do this, some previously "free" service gets a fee attached to it. Annoucements of updated fee schedules are routinely greeted by howls of indignation from those who depend on these services.

However, since there are not congressmen or senators elected by our citizens-abroad-at-large, after a little bit of chest-thumping and pronouncing, the new fee schedule goes into effect.

"The bottom line I'm told -- there is a need for MANY more low-level visa adjudicators in the so -called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, China and India). Some can be filled by EFMs, but not all, even if all EFMs wanted to do so. They have to be filled by language-qualified applicants, they have to be filled full time, and filling them cannot depend on the availability of EFMs. The word out there is that EFM employment opportunities will not be reduced. Where language-qualified EFMs are available, they will be used."

Obviously, the thing to do is require unmarried FSOs to chose English-fluent spouses from one of the BRIC countries until further notice.

re: "Vampire Slayer: Buffy the Conservative"

Evan Pokroy at Big Hollywood decrypts the secret Conservative themes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."


Money quote(s):


"The fact is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is, at its core, an exceptionally conservative show. There are a few episodes that break this general mold but, as a whole, it is everything that Hollywood is not. There is a main theme that runs throughout the entire span of the show and is apparent in every single episode.

Evil exists and you do not negotiate with it; you fight it."

Never forget what Will Rogers had to say about diplomacy.

(I rather like dogs, and never throw rocks at them.)

"You don’t need special powers to confront evil."

That's why there's a Second Amendment, so everyone can have special powers to fight evil.

"Actions have consequences."

So do elections. And economies. And foreign policies. And wars.

"You are the master (or mistress, if we’re going to stay in context) of your own destiny."

We all have choices, every moment of every day. How we respond to them, how we make them, tells ourselves (and others) what kind of a master (or mistress) we are of that destiny.

"Government is suspect."

Again: this is why, in extremity, we have a Second Amendment.

(But let's keep going with elections in the meantime.)

" No one is so irredeemably evil that they cannot, after much hard work and rebuilding of self, find themselves unequivocally on the side of good."

re: "Immigration; Voodoo Science"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") discusses the problems associated with discussing amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"Any hint that there can be some form of amnesty enormously increases the incentives for others to come here illegally. Even discussing the subject can produce an increase in the flood of undocumented migrants aka illegal immigrants. The system is already saturated, and we should do nothing to worsen the situation.

It has always been the position of Republican -- and some, although lately fewer, Democratic -- politicians that amnesty cannot be seriously proposed or debated until the borders are closed. The problem is that even talking about it can worsen the problem.

Perhaps that should be the position to take: we won't talk about this until the borders are under control. It is the position that politicians ought to take, and Newt's speculations, while reasonable from a political philosopher, are improper for a candidate for office. Of course any move to close the borders will do the same -- get in now, they're cracking down -- but there's not much help for that. A comprehensive immigration policy must be implemented quickly and effectively, with crackdowns on employment and employers as well as illegal workers, along with effective control of the borders." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

&

"The high cost of imprisonment is very much part of the immigration problem. There is little incentive for the recently deported not to try again, and again, and again --- they know we don't want to jail them. It costs too much."

re: "The betrayal of Honduras"

José R. Cárdenas at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") has an update about further attacks on the Honduran constitution.

Money quote(s):

"Only the willfully deluded or the dangerously naïve would believe that the return of the disgraced former president means anything more than increased civic disturbances, more violence, and more chaos in one of Latin America's poorest countries.

Why? Because that is the way Hugo Chavez wants it.

The Venezuelan autocrat has bankrolled the two-year exile of his puppet Zelaya, as well the international campaign to force the oligarch-turned-populist's return to Honduras. Chavez has never gotten over the fact that Zelaya's attempt to replicate the Chavez model in Honduras was cut short by his impeachment by the Honduran Congress and his removal from office by order of the country's Supreme Court for violating the country's Constitution and other illegal acts. (Zelaya's apologists insist on characterizing what transpired as a "military coup.") "

Previously, I'd had a reasonable feeling of respect for the OAS. After all, most of its members were/are (finally!) democracies. But the Zelaya-instigated constitutional crisis in Honduras made me re-think that, when the OAS and its membership made it clear that it was much more interested in protecting the rights and privileges of presidents than in the democratic liberties of its member nation's citizens.

"What is noteworthy is the complicity of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, whose government teamed with Chavez to engineer Zelaya's return. It is now apparent that President Santos cannot run away fast enough from the legacy of his wildly successful and pro-U.S. predecessor Alvaro Uribe. And peace and stability in the region will be the poorer for it.

Santos's foreign minister, María Ángela Holguín, is in Washington this week for a bit of diplomatic back-slapping with Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, another co-conspirator in forcing Zelaya's return who can always be counted on to do the wrong thing. (The OAS is scheduled to vote this week to reinstate Honduras, after they were suspended in the wake of Zelaya's ouster.)

So what we have here is that instead of allowing the Honduran people to move on with their lives following the turbulent and polarizing Zelaya years, they are now forced to accept the anti-democratic fox back into the henhouse just so a few Latin American politicians can preen before the cameras celebrating their diplomatic "victory."

And just what message is this "victory" sending to the hemisphere? That it is perfectly acceptable that an elected president can run roughshod over democratic institutions, undermine separation of powers, and rewrite the constitution to seek indefinite re-election? That co-equal branches of government must remain supine before any president bent on aggressively aggrandizing power? That the Chavez model is a paragon of democratic legitimacy and rule of law and any attempts to legally thwart it are ipso facto illegitimate? "

re: "September 10, 2001: "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after. It's a reckonin'.""

Vanderleun at American Digest ("Dispatches from the New America") reflects on the decade leading up to Bin Laden's death.

Money quote(s):

"I've been trying to remember September 10 but it's no go. I know what I must have been doing, but I don't remember what I did. I kept no notes on that most ordinary of September days. I kept many notes on the day that followed and the days, weeks, months and years that followed that day. What I do know is that whatever might have followed September 10 was taken from us all that day never to be returned or recaptured only avenged. What I do know is that "justice being served" has no part in it, and never did." (Bold type in original. - CAA)

"It was against that background of works and days that the doors of history swung open and we all walked through them forgetting to ask, "What fresh hell is this?"

We were soon to know the nature of the new hell and we were all thrust into it without repeal. The days turned to months and the months turned to years and now we have turned around and a decade is gone. What might have been ours, for good or ill, in that decade was forever stolen from us. Stolen from us not -- never doubt this -- by one man alone, but by a host of savages and throwbacks spread around the world and here among us and dedicated to our destruction. A host that will use any means necessary to destroy this nation while this nation "serves justice" up in spoonfuls and creates "Rules of Engagement" with which to hamper those who would defend it with their very lives."

How might the lives of millions of Americans, and hundreds of millions abroad, would have been different but for the acts of war carried out at UBL's direction?

(CAA would still be an FSO, as he already was one on 9/11, although he'd almost certainly not have spent a year of his life in Iraq not long afterwards.)

Y'know, I get why the civilized West tries to fight wars the way it does everything else these days; i.e., at the direction of lawyers. They, in this Godless age, substitute for the theologians who might have given such counsel in earlier times. It's not yet come to the point where such folks clear out of the way for more Jacksonian policy makers, the sort who spring from America's yoemanry and actually fight its wars.

"Now nearly a decade, "a low dishonest decade," has past since the day after September 10 and the thing that looked like a man, the monster that set the events of the 11th in motion, has been expunged from the Book of Life. Too easily and too quickly for my tastes but my tastes in these matters are rooted in Scots' blood, and that blood demands punishments too severe to write down here or to hold in the mind for long.

Some would say that his death with a bullet to the brain and then the use of the body as food for crabs and worm on the bottom of the ocean means "Debt paid" and "War over" and "Victory." Let that be to them as it will be, but my blood says that it is not paid, not over and not a victory.

My blood says that all of those in his line need to be expunged, and that all of those who emulate and revere his manner of thinking need to be expunged, and all of those in his part of the gene pool need to be drained away and destroyed, root and branch. My blood says, "Carthago delenda est."

From what little I know of history, what little I know of our enemies, I know in the marrow of my bones that there will come a terrible day in which that final judgment will be rendered and that final act shall be done. And as it was on the day after September 10, I remain relentlessly for this reckoning; a reckoning that is still to come, but like September 11 itself, certain to arrive." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

re: "It's A Combined Team Effort"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") shares an instance of giving credit where credit's due.

re: "Sunburned and Buttsore (Or, “How I Spent My Memorial Day Weekend”)"

Diplogeek at Diplogeek ("Geekery in the U.S. Foreign Service") takes a swing at chipping away at the outdated stereotype.

Money quote(s):

"I want to encourage everyone to go here and have a gander at a great editorial discussing Memorial Day, particularly as it applies to people in the Foreign Service. I do this not to pat myself on the back, because my life is relatively cushy in a lot of ways, at least by Foreign Service standards, but because I currently have a number of friends serving in places like Yemen and border towns in Mexico, where they’re putting themselves at very real risk in order to serve our country. Doing this job isn’t about being a striped-pants cookie pusher, sitting around on a veranda drinking G&Ts and hasn’t been for a while."

re: "Four tasks for Petraeus to fix the CIA"

Paul Miller at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") provides some thoughtful advice.

Money quote(s):

"Petraeus is not just smart: he is capable of challenging groupthink, which is exactly what the CIA needs. If Petraeus is ready to rewrite the book on intelligence the way he did, not just for counterinsurgency doctrine, but for the Army's culture as a whole, he could do wonders for the CIA."

"Let me say right off that I do not think the intelligence community is hopelessly broken, it does provide an irreplaceable service to policymakers and I have the highest respect for the folks I worked with during seven years at the CIA. But I do not think the taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck."

Some suggestions:

"The Directorate of Intelligence (DI) has the capability of being a leading foreign affairs think tank in the world. Instead, it has largely limited itself to being a massive, overpriced, secretive magazine staff for a readership of one, pouring most of its resources in to the President's Daily Brief (PDB). Analysts live under a maze of restrictions that bar them from public activities, ostensibly to protect their objectivity and credibility. The restrictions are silly. Instead of enhancing their credibility, the restrictions just isolate them and make contact with other experts in their field difficult, awkward, and sporadic.

Analysts can and should be open and regular participants in the world of academia, think tanks, and conferences, encouraged to publish and speak on their areas of expertise. Their writing may actually have a larger impact if they focus less on the PDB and more on the broader foreign policy establishment, which is where policy is shaped in broad outline before it makes it to the President. Petraeus might even experiment with having the DI publish a regular, unclassified product. It's not like we keep our classified documents secret anyway."

Having gained a little familiarity with our analytical profession in the course of my own professional journey, these suggestions make sense to me. Keeping our analysts apart from the larger streams of thought will only make their analyses more and more detached from reality.