Too often our University trained military officers and State Department employees overlook the lessons of WWII and buy into the myth of diplomacy. By conceding ground to Muqtada al Sadr in an effort to have him 'buy in' to the process of creating a nation, we have let a dangerous man create a radical Islamist fiefdom. From NRO:

Not long after, Sadr was implicated in a massacre in the gypsy village of Qawliya. His Mahdi army tried to abduct a woman accused of prostitution in order to try her in SadrÂ’s kangaroo religious court. When the men of the town resisted, 20 were killed and the town nearly leveled with machine guns, mortars, and RPGs, after which the survivors were beaten and tortured.

Sadr’s victims are not only his fellow Iraqis. The Mahdi army often attacks Coalition forces, on one occasion turning a Sadr City marketplace into a “300-meter-long-kill-zone” in a battle that claimed the life of Sgt. Yihjyh (Eddie) Chen. Many more Americans have died fighting his goons in Najaf and Karbala.

Sadr is accused of being a pawn of TehranÂ’s mullahs as well, helping them subvert the progress of Iraqi democracy. If military action is taken against IranÂ’s nuclear weapons program, SadrÂ’s Al-Mahdi militia could counterattack within Iraq.

One can only imagine how the restive Sunnis in central Iraq fear the prospect of SadrÂ’s growing influence. Why would they support a new Iraqi government that, favoring the Shiite majority as it must, might eventually make Sadr their de facto ruler?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:38 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Heh. My son went to Iraq to die for the Neocon-Zionist-Halliburton Conspiracy and all I got was this lousy shirt.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Confederate Yankee has an interesting analysis where he comes up with a ratio of the number of people liberated divided by the number of American soldiers killed in various U.S. wars. America's wars, though, are not fought to liberate other peoples--it is just a side-effect that we leave freedom in our wake--our wars are fought to protect our national security. That is the ultimate measure I am interested in.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

When I heard that Pat Robertson said that maybe we might want to assassinate Hugo Chavez, my first reaction was, Wow, did he say that out loud? You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.

What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?

Good point. But

a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.

b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.

This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.

All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.

c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.

Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.

I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.

In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.

So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.

Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.

UPDATE: Jeff from The Shape of Days agrees. Check out his post in which he recounts the crimes of Hugo Chavez. Even though Jeff makes the claim to fame that he was first since he wrote his post eight ago, I'm going to have to remind you that my server was down. I thought this post up nine hours ago. I swear. No I can't prove it.......

UPDATE II: Brian B. makes an excellent point here.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:58 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I'm sure they've got the "keeping your traps shut" part worked out already. And you can never be quite sure who's reading, unless you're paying close attention. Someone in the DOJ drops in and reads my blog from time to time, I've learned from the server logs. Someone in the NSA dropped by once. I also have regular readers all over the armed forces, including in the Pentagon. You just never know, when you put your words out on the net, who's going to run across them.

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 23, 2005 07:25 PM (HaVXj)

2 Good. Follow my recommendations and then find some sort of plausible deniability.

Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 07:37 PM (JQjhA)

3 This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail. This instantly shuts the moral equivocators up. Their jaw drops and they don't even know what to say. They actually think everybody believes we should treat America and Iran the same and that we should be "consistent". Morons. Yes you assholes, America and Israel can have nukes-- Iran can't. End of discussion.

Posted by: Carlos at August 23, 2005 08:22 PM (8e/V4)

4 Good to see you are back up and running.

Posted by: Jay at August 24, 2005 01:27 PM (2FcUc)

5 Some people just need killin.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 01:29 PM (sknEY)

6 Carlos, sometimes you just make me feel redundant.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:30 PM (0yYS2)

7 And you too Howie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)

8 While I have no problem with seeing Hugo leave office in a pine box, I'm not convinced it's somehting the government could do without severe domestic repercussions, given the current political climate. Having said that, I wish the people, including my fellow conservative bloggers, who are screaming about "Religious Intolerance" just because this came out of Robertson's mouth would just shut up. Robertson wears two hats, one as a religious figure and one as a political pundit. You'd do well to pay attention to which one's on his head when he's talking. Furthermore, there's a world of difference between espousing the view that the assassination of a brutal dictator is in the strategic best interest of the United States, and calling for Jihad against all unbelievers. Hyperventillating about "Fatwahs" just make you sound like a n overreacting schoolgirl.

Posted by: Brian B at August 24, 2005 02:12 PM (CouWh)

9 Rusty, for some reason, with regard to Pat Robertson, I can't help but remember your recent comment that the right has its crazies under control. Regarding the substance of your post: a) There is such a thing as international law, it just only applies when the U.S. desides it should, which means it is more show than substance. Exactly the recipe for draining American moral authority (soft power) around the world. International law could exist in a real way if the leading superpower in world history got behind it by supporting the UN (similarly to the way the states legitimized a central power by supporting the Constitution - the prominent states were crucial in gaining legitimacy), joining the International Criminal Court, and lending objective support to the Declaration of Human rights and other established international codes. This is the project we should be involved in. b) You're suggesting that the U.S. be allowed to employ any means, including the use of nuclear weapons and assassination, to enforce its will. This is precisely the sort of arrogance that has spawned radical Islamic terrorism. And, it is precisely the course of action that Osama bin Laden would love for us to (continue to) take. c) The problem is, your do not leave any room for the idea that your definition of the American national interest might be profoundly wrong. I would think that the history of how radical Islam rose in the first place would suggest that military options do far more short term and long term harm than good. It also suggests that you think that American institutions always justify an anything goes approach (since it makes us the good guys), which is extremely dangerous. You are simplifying the way the world works to the extreme and your Saddam assassination suggestion is really quite telling; the result of such an act would have resulted in either a) another strong man similar to Saddam taking power, or b) a civil war, not unlike what we see right now happening in Iraq (capturing Saddam has not lessened this in the least). Your Godfather reference is far more appropriate. As long as we can all see very clearly that your aspirations for American foreign policy amount to little more than thuggery, then we can dispense with all the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 02:22 PM (BueBw)

10 Oh, come now. Without leaders like Chavez, Castro, Jong Il, and the Ayatollah, life would be very boring for neocons.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 02:24 PM (dbxVM)

11 lol...and now Robertson's apologizing for his remark.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 03:00 PM (dbxVM)

12 Is it a crime to threaten a foreign nation? For example, if someone went to the Chinese embassy website and threatened a Chinese interest would that be a crime under American law?

Posted by: Hedgy at August 24, 2005 03:20 PM (A8rF5)

13 Peter, Sorry, but I'm a realist at heart. I'm not sure you know the history of radical Islam, which has been around since, er, Muhammed's day. We did nothing to cause it, it has always been there.

Posted by: Rusty at August 24, 2005 03:59 PM (JQjhA)

14 I'm afraid I'm with Feisty Republican Whore on this one. (See the post that got her fatwa'd.) Even if we were to bump off Chavez, that would probably just hand the reins of power over to one of his lackeys, and who's to say he won't turn out just as bad, or worse, than Hugo himself? No, we really would need a full-scale invasion to get rid of him and the mess he's made of Venezuela. Trouble is, of course, the U.S. military is just a tad preoccupied at the moment. Bigger fish to fry, don'tcha know.

Posted by: Joshua at August 24, 2005 04:32 PM (XPnN/)

15 duh. we can't do assassinations. the Clinton adminstration passed a law against it.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 24, 2005 06:56 PM (DsETa)

16 Rusty, "I did not call for the assassination of that man."

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 24, 2005 08:06 PM (HaVXj)

17 Robertson has been around for a long time. If you note the first sentence of his statement. He did it on purpose. He has a history of making, well wild statements. He knew exactly what he was doing he needed/wanted attention for Pat just as much as he wanted attention for the Chavez issue. He won on all fronts no better publicity than bad.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 08:50 PM (D3+20)

18 They can shout death to America. They can kill Americans. They can scream death to our President. (By they, I mean Chavez and his friends, Castro, Irans leaders and such). But when one over zealous American says the same its a big deal. Liberal crybaby assholes. If you're on the other side move there.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 08:53 PM (CBNGy)

19 Rusty, I don't think you're a realist at heart. I think you're a neocon at heart, which is really something quite different, unless you want to make the argument that neoconservatism is a radical form of realism. Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, so it is pretty strange (not to mention counter to much of your rhetoric on this site) that you'd agree with Robertson on this. Or do you join him in apologizing today? Also, I do not see how eliminating Chavez would serve U.S. national interests. Could you explain that to me? If you do take this up, I think it will become clear that the "U.S. national interest" you favor actually benefits a small minority of American citizens and corporations (i.e. very few of the readers of The Jawa Report). Regarding radical Islam: You are correct to note that it has been around since the early days of the religion, but this is a minor point (The U.S. government might as well base its entire approach towards Mormonism on the fact that there are still radical Mormons marrying 13 year olds by the dozen in Utah and northern Arizona). You should know that I was referring to the rise of radical Islam as a political force significant enough to support 9/11 style terrorist attacks and garner sympathy from those otherwise moderate Muslims upset with U.S. policy. If you don't see the U.S./European role in prodding the development of that sort of radical Islamic terrorism I really don't know what to tell you other than that you should read Mark LeVine's excellent new book Why They Don't Hate Us.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 09:00 PM (BueBw)

20 IM: you're indispensable.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:03 PM (D3+20)

21 Oh one other thought. If Robertson really approved of this policy and thought it was possible he just made it about as improbable as it can possibly get.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:17 PM (D3+20)

22 Sigh.... I miss my trolls....

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:23 PM (D3+20)

23 Professor Von Nostrand: Is international law positive or natural? If positive, what is the legislative body? If natural, what ethical theory does it derive?

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at August 24, 2005 09:51 PM (SNKfY)

24 Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela,..." hahahaha. Sure he is. Jimmah said so.

Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2005 10:06 PM (YudAC)

25 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. No, we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way. Have operatives pose as locals and foment a coup. ;-)

Posted by: ArmyArtilleryWife at August 25, 2005 09:39 AM (14kpv)

26 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. The problem with this logic is that it assumes that other countries never have, are not, and never will attempt to use assassination, and that it's only some code of ethics that stands in their way. The only problem is, we KNOW that other countries have and are and will try it. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Depends on who you mean by "we". If you mean "We, the People", my response is, why not? It's not like Iran is waiting for our permission anyway. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. No, the US is expected to play by a set of rules much much stricter than that by which everyone else DOES play. And while the rest of the world commits the most egregious of offenses, even the most minor of infractions by Americans is greeted with howls of indignation. Let's face it -- nothing we do, no matter how far we bend over, no matter how much we could grovel and prostrate ourselves, would make a dent in the demonization of the US. So I am left wondering why we keep worrying about international opinion when it's obvious that it's prejudiced to begin with. We're the Great satan? Fine. Just don't be surprised when we actually start wielding that pitchfork. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. I don't trust ANY administration with ANY power unless there's some sort of checks and balances. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted by: Brian B at August 25, 2005 10:58 AM (CouWh)

27 Professor Von Nostrand, I really must question your grip on history as well as reality. 1. There is no international law. Period. Law without an enforcement mechanism is merely a suggestion. The UN has shown repeatedly that it cannot and will not enforce anything. See, e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq. What the UN does do is allow murderous and undemocratic regimes (Iran, Syria, China, etc.) a forum to bash us accusing us of violating "international law" as they define it, setting up a moral equivalency between us and them, which is unacceptable in theory as well as practice. The US "throwing its weight" behind international law has no effect if the real violators of it continue to define it and prevent its enforcement against themselves. 2. Radical Islam, in its present strains, dates from at least the 19th century, with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, well before the US or even Western Europe was involved in any meaningful way in the Middle East. If you want someone to "blame" for that aside from the supremecist elements within Islam itself, take it up with the Ottoman Turks. 3. Hugo Chavez was indeed elected democratically -- for the first election. The recall election last August, however, was rife with fraud noted by nearly every single independent international observer (including the OAS) except for Jimmy Carter. The fraud was perpetrated by the election officials picked by Chavistas who counted the votes and may have just reversed the percentages. If you think Hugo Chavez was democratically elected last August, you must also think that Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, not to mention the thug in charge of Iran right now.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 11:45 AM (bfkgE)

28 Uh... news flash... "our enemies" are "justifying assassinating our President" and "justifying" targeting women and children.

Posted by: DANEgerus at August 25, 2005 12:35 PM (J8yxJ)

29 Pat helped point out what the Washington Post and all other media ignores: Hugo must go. He is a thief and a liar, hum sounds like the devil.

Posted by: John Morrison at August 25, 2005 02:25 PM (ZETBb)

30 To equate Hugo Chavez to Saddam, or to any of the other tyrants we've supported around the world is just assinine. Chavez is a democraticly elected leader who enjoys widespread support among the populous of Venezuela (59% according to last year's recall vote endorsed by the Carter Center and the OAS as fair). Chavez may be less than perfect, but to see Rusty call for his assassination only demonstrates the degree to which any ethical standards he ever had have been flushed down the toilet. And to hear what I can only assume to be a bunch of Bush Republicans suggest that Chavez' victory in the recall election were tainted is beyond hypocritical. When you want to deal with Florida 2000, or Ohio 2004 then I'll listen to your complaints. Otherwise, you have no moral standing at all.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 08:33 PM (BueBw)

31 If we allow the murders of political leaders all over the world it would bite us in the behind. The markets of the world would become so unstable that it would wreck our economy.

Posted by: social rob at August 25, 2005 10:23 PM (tXv5y)

32 Oh, Professor, your comments sound like those of a "useful idiot" in the failed Marxist-Leninist tradition, of which the last bastions are Castro's Cuba, Chavista Venezuela and, not surprisingly given your opinion, American university campuses. But I'll play If you actually think that last year's recall "election" was fair, perhaps you should visit Daniel's blog (http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/) can tell you how much of a sham last year's election was, how Jimmy Carter sold out the people of Venezuela just to hurt the US in the true Carter anti-American tradition. Msybe he can give you an idea of the hell Chavez has created, the dictatorial power he has assumed, the aid he has given to murderous narco-rebels in Colombia, the mullahs in Iran and, yes, al Qaida; and the threat he represents to the US. That is, the people here who read this blog who don't want to be killed or made to suffer just so you can maintain your sense of moral superiority. Maybe, if you're willing to listen. But your kool-aid comments suggest you are not. Now, I could say that on a practical level, you are correct in that the Venezuelan recall "election" last year was comparable to Ohio and Florida, the chief difference being that the attempts of the leftists to cheat in Venezuela to "elect" Chavez were successful, while the leftists' attempts to cheat in Ohio and Florida to get the traitorous John Kerry elected failed. And I could go one step further and suggest that if you want election fraud in the US, you have far better places to look than Florida and Ohio. May I suggest Washington state's gubernatorial race? How 'bout the presidential race in Milwaukee? How 'bout other races in East St. Louis and East Chicago? But I'll just settle for stating the obvious that anyone who insists that Hugo Chavez runs an election more fair and honest than the US surrenders all moral and intellectual legitimacy. I'd tell you to book your trip to Jonestown, but you're already there. Your academic institution and your students have my sympathies, but we've come to expect that from our universities today. Please say "Hi!" to Ward Churchill for me.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 10:32 PM (6krEN)

33 Why stop with hugo chevez lets include fidel castro in that list as well

Posted by: sandpiper at August 27, 2005 05:37 PM (qMAo+)

34 Pat Robertson apologizing for a remark against an enemy of America and the moonbat liberals think it a big deal. Clinton apology for getting blow jobs in the White House and lying to the American public on television is small deal? Von Nostril, Vemon how one sided and stupid can you get? You two are beginning to remind me of the Sheehan bitch.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 27, 2005 11:04 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Glenn Reynolds, this from Michael Yon. It's sad that our military does not understand how to handle the flow of information from Iraq. For all the great stories Yon brings us, I was surprised to learn that many more are suppressed. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:25 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Organizations and institutions have cultures. Cultures set boundaries for acceptable behavior. Who do you blame when an institution's culture directly led to 9/11? The Clinton Administration and Jamie Gorelick are too easy targets. Cultures are not created overnight. They take years to develop into routines that are followed without a second thought. To claim that a single memo and a new Adminstration could change a culture is to overlook mountains of research on bureaucratic behavior.

Clinton and Gorelick should both be blamed for reinforcing and bolstering an institutional culture that limited the sharing of intelligence with law enforcement, but that culture has deeper roots. Its foundations are in the institutional design laid by Congress dividing intelligence gathering from enforcement and in the Carter Administratian's over correcting of perceived Nixon era abuses.

Even so, the Clinton Administration and Jamie Gorelick did nothing to correct this culture. In fact, all indications are that they made things worse. But making a dysfunctional culture worse is a far cry from claiming that they are responsible for creating the culture.

This story, told by an veteran Intel. operative over at Captain's Quarters, is precisely the kind of thing one would expect to hear from a bureucrat working in any number of government agencies. For some reason, though, we expect this kind of behavior at the DMV, but not the FBI, CIA, or DIA. We all hope our Intel agencies are run by characters resembling 'M' from the James Bond movies. Unfortunately, it seems, our Intel agencies have been run by those who have more in common with Patty and Selma Bouviere, the twin sisters of Marge Simpson who man the window at the Springfield DMV, than MacGyver. Captain's Quarters:

"Yeah," the head DIA guy said, a bit sheepishly, "they are DIA, but theyÂ’re a different part of DIA and we canÂ’t talk to them." [That's the only quote from the meeting where I recall actual words spoken.]

We blinked a few times, and then all consideration of terrorism was dropped from the task. But not before it was pointed out that we and DIA werenÂ’t really counter-terrorism experts [although we were threat assessment experts], that the problem was probably being worked by so-&-so and such-&-such, and that they probably had better data, more experience, more resources than we did.

That is what Clinton and Gorelik's Wall culture did. It just didn't just prevent more effective cooperation and data sharing; it prevented the whole question of terrorism being addressed in a coherent fashion at all. No one was working the problem effectively, but I bet they all thought -- just like we were told – that someone else was. That’s the "I thought you brought the matches" school of intelligence analysis, and that was the end effect of Clinton's intelligence policy: it turned the whole process of intelligence into one big game of "Who brought the matches?"

And on 9/11 we found out who: Al Qaeda brought the matches.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

American Soldier has frequently linked us as we have linked him. Congratulations on your first book. I hope it is a great success!!

SOLDIER LIFE: A DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN SOLDIER

(Pssst--don't expect the book to be promoted by the NY Times......)

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Muslim scholar gives big thumbs up to murdering children. Here's what he said on a TV station run by the terrorist organization Hizbollah in Lebanon. Yes, terrorists actually have their own TV stations in Lebanon. MEMRI:

"Islam is the religion of life in general, and not a blind religion. Islam does not surrender to foreign aggression. So stating categorically that Islam is a religion of love that rejects violence – This is a big lie. 'Take them and kill them wherever you find them.' This is taken from the words of Allah [the Koran]. About whom? About Allah's enemies. This is violence....

Who said that violence is futile? What happened in Spain?....He brought his people to war. He had to be hit over the head with a large hammer in order to wake up [the Spanish PM]....

If we lose in Iraq, we put the world in mortal danger or collapsing into a kind of chaos that has not been seen for a thousand years. Isolationists on the Right and internationalist utopians on the Left should heed this warning now before it is too late. Terrorism against the U.S. would certainly be reduced in the short run. However, the dark ages that will certainly emerge in Iraq if we withdraw has no chance of being isolated. It will spread, and with it ignorance, violence, and repression, until 1/3 of the world is consumed by it. In one or two hundred years, when this cancer has fully taken control of its host, it will look outward again, and our great-great-grandchildren will curse us for not eradicating it while we had the chance.

This is our choice: pay with our lives the price of keeping Iraq out of the hands of Islamic fascists now, or pay with a war on a Civilazational scale later--World War III which has the potential of making the last two World Wars seem trivial.

Hat tip: Beth at My VRWC who has more.

(Oh, and my meetings got out early.)

Posted by: Rusty at 02:16 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Wow, bout time one of em just comes out and says it. We should send him a nice shiny new buttplug, just because.

Posted by: tyler at August 19, 2005 02:27 PM (Y9Lwb)

2 Rusty, read Michael J. Totten's piece dated 8/12. He spells it out very slowly for the dummies who think if we just leave all will be well and they'll stop bothering us.

Posted by: Oyster at August 19, 2005 02:30 PM (fl6E1)

3 The only thing better than no meeting is meeting over.

Posted by: Howie at August 19, 2005 02:33 PM (D3+20)

4 ...or pay with a war on a Civilazational scale later--World War III which has the potential of making the last two World Wars seem trivial" As Conan O'Brien said once, (...Euro coin from Finland. Finland 'our Muslim extremists are too cold to go crazy', so... not my problem. In case someone gives a damn, I'm not against the war in Iraq, I'm against dragging so many other countries in it with you. Now they're being targeted by fanatic monkeys because you didn't tell them to stay out of your war.

Posted by: A Finn at August 19, 2005 02:43 PM (lGolT)

5 I'm afraid, Finn, that the war is on your doorsteps already, but that you just don't realilze it yet. Today Iraq, tomorrow Sweden (huge problem in Sweden as we speak) tomorrow Finland. It's not a matter of 'if' only of 'when'.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 19, 2005 04:26 PM (JQjhA)

6 Why would they want Finland? No one else does. Our war Fin? Our war because countries like yours don't have the courage to stand up. Screw Finland. The trouble with Finland is that its full of fins. Things that mullets use to get around.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 20, 2005 01:59 AM (CBNGy)

7 Rusty: I on your team on this one. May as well get it over with. Or should we wait until Iran and Syria have nukes?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 20, 2005 02:02 AM (CBNGy)

8 That descent into chaos is exactly what the "liberals" want. The ones who were part of the Communist movement in the US, anyway. Remember "The worse things are, the better they are"? They believe that society has to collapse into violent chaos. When things get bad enough, "The Rapture" will occur, and the "workers" will turn on the "oppressors" and massacre them. And, of course, after that, everyone (still alive) will live in a secular utopia, etc. Singing Kumbaya to the sound of secularly made harps. Sooo, proving what you warn of and proving what we see over in http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/ will encourage the dedicated. "Hurray, we're winning!" I hope it will have an effect on the uncommitted and those who have not yet become useful idiots.

Posted by: Phillep at August 20, 2005 09:44 PM (zNjIG)

9 Dangit, missed another chance to face The monogrammatic male chicken in real-time Verbal Combat... Oh well, whatever. Alias of Dale Grib(b?)le: Our Muslims won't go crazy since it's too cold to riot all year and the racial equality laws work both ways around here, and they are based on "treat 'em like they treat you", so if they start getting jihady, getting all crusadey on them stops being a hate crime, so lynching, ethnic cleansing etc... until UN or Amnesty starts bitching about it and then we'll just ship them to Sweden. Male chicken of unusual color for a chicken: The philosophy of participating in wars that are none of Finlands business: "Pay up or fight your own war", so why the heck should we fight your war if we get absolutely nothing from it and UN peacecorps already employ all the people who voluntarily fight other peoples wars?

Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 02:54 AM (cWMi4)

10 Fins: Things that mullets swim with don't have enough insight to see down the road twenty years. I guess the roads are full of snow so they use it for sand and stick their heads in it for safety.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 06:29 PM (OvTKg)

11 The ignorant man (the terrorist)who said this is not a scholar,because our scholar know that their is no such thing in Islam tell the people to kill an innocent human being,in fact Islam prohibits this crime. i think that those terrorists are hiding threir bad deeds behind Islam , true islam is not like what they are saying (believe me), i know this because i'm a muslim who knows that Islam advocates tolerance ,sympathy.......,but not killing innocent people, or children. people...we can't just blieve the guys who don't have the authority ,knowledge a bout the religion which says their is only one God.

Posted by: ahmad at September 09, 2005 01:34 AM (vHKs/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When Rusty wrote this:

The Right has no identity phrase to delegitimize left-wing bloggers' anti-war stance equivelant to chickenhawk.

I couldn't believe that he had forgotten THIS.

Surveys are cool, I like surveys, but sometimes, in the schoolyard of socio-political blogging, it's necessary to throw it right back in their face. A little technique known as "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."

"Chickenhawk" is clever, but pales next to "Airmchair Jihadi," don't ya think?

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

It's so surreal that it's almost funny. The reason many in the world hate us--and the reason many terrorists believe they are engaged in a noble cause-- is because they read stories like this and believe them.

People's Daily:

US troops held five children as hostages to demand handover of insurgents near a northern Iraqi town on Tuesday, police said.

"The US forces surrounded the village of Mazraa near Baiji and detained five children under 10 years old, calling on the residents by loudspeakers to hand over several other children showed on TV channels celebrating the killing of US soldiers after roadside blast last week," a police source from Baiji told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

The US troops threatened to sweep the village by Wednesday morning to detain the other children and suspected insurgents, he said.

The US military, however, said they had no information about the incident.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:39 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

It's funny, when you realize that they actually make the claim with a straight face and then see the picture of the 'American spy plane'.

You will recall they had made the same claim here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Dan Riehl sent a long this link to me and I think it's worth sharing. It's the story of Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, how he earned the Navy Cross in Iraq, and how the media has ignored his story.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

A friend of mine who works at a prestigious film school recently sent me a WWII cartoon produced by Warner Bros. and starring the voice of Mel Blanc. It reminded me that there was a time when Hollwyood put winning a war at the forefront of its agenda. There was a time when people like Michael Moore would not only have been booed off the Oscar stage and blacklisted--rigthfully so--but they would have also found themselves in a federal prison for incitement to treason.

Today Hollywood is either patently against our troops winning, full of moral equvication between our cause and the cause of our Islamofascist enemies, or full of bad news and defeatist messages.

The name of the film my friend sent to me is Rumors and stars the WWII anti-hero Snafu. The film may be downloaded by right-clicking this link and choosing 'save as' option, thanks to Drew at Conservative Friends. A brief synopsis of the film along with some screenshots and lessons that the Hollywood elite might learn from their glory days are posted below. I have the film in quicktime format, thanks to Bill Dauterieve, if any one would be willing to burn the bandwidth and has the server space (it's not large).

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:00 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Try posting the video at putfile.com.

Posted by: Ariya at August 15, 2005 02:02 PM (noCGr)

2 its funny that you made this post Rusty...ive been seing commercials for the "Victory" war clips on tv, mostly late nite ones...just funny how they are being shown at this time, seems someone else feels just like how must of us do...that the liberals/leftists are trying so desperatly to cause the USA to loose this war, thing is we cant/must noe let them at all and any costs....and Hollywood used to pour out support films during WWII at an incredible rate to keep up the moral of both the American soldiers doing the fighting and the American civies back home to keep supporting those troops, morally and materially...what a shame that HollyWood has fallen into the sewer

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:44 PM (IJ51c)

3 oh, one more thing, i wish someone here would find out what some WWII vets feel about this whole thing...mostly how the soldiers are being treated here back home by the MSM and the liberal population...i know how my dad feels...as a WWII vet he is absolutely disgusted by people like Mickey Moore, Cindy Shennan, Kerry and many others...im would bet a million dollars that if my dad was back in his 20's he would slap the teeth right out of these clows mouths who bad mouth the US soldiers doing the bitter work of fighting in a foriegn country...these liberals/leftists who claim they support the soldiers yet go around and say the soldiers are killing children and women in Iraq, are destroying everything they find,shoot and torture Iraqi civilians and are a bunch of liars...i wont print what my dad actaully said...its not fit to print, and this comes from a 78 year old man's mouth...i would love to see a protest by WWII vets against these anti-war idiots.....what will those anti-war fools do???..hit and push down oldmen???...that would really make the American public see what scum these ant-war people really and truly are...they are the enemy

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:53 PM (IJ51c)

4 Since Thanos asked, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5059864/ It's a little over a year old and not specifically their take on how today's soldiers are being treated here at home (though you can read support for the troops), but it does discuss the current conflict. The veterans in the article make some pretty interesting arguments. One of them is that the reason you don't have the public behind the war is because there is no draft in place (and, as a result, you don't have widespread representation within the military). I don't know if I buy this, since Vietnam had the draft and the public wasn't any more unified then than it is now. Still, it's a good article if anyone's interested in reading it. The last line of the article is a pretty good one, imo.

Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 03:34 PM (dbxVM)

5 Things have changed a lot in 65 years. I think the change started in 1949. They were at best not sure about Korea.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 03:45 PM (03F0I)

6 Remember when Hollywood.... No, in the time I have been alive this has never been the case.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 15, 2005 04:00 PM (jPCiN)

7 It sells Rusty. The MSM is not all about journalism any more. I think some of the people who work there are but the owners are all about $$$$$$

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:31 PM (D3+20)

8 Hollywood was only pro-war during WW2, not so much during Korea, and anti in every war since. Actually, the American left was anti-war until Germany attacked the Soviet Union. So the left was on board with WW2, a Democratic President and allied with the Soviet Union. Hollywood turned anti-war in Vietnam during the LBJ administration, a Democratic so I believe it has more to do with ideology than politics. If Vietnam was a war against right wing, who knows. The left in America is now more aligned with the international left movement than with the US and its goals...that's a sad fact.

Posted by: Kate at August 15, 2005 05:09 PM (r32uj)

9 One big thing happened to our military immediately after WW 2. Can anyone quess what it was?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 15, 2005 07:08 PM (CBNGy)

10 I fondly remember the days when Hollywood offered us a black-and-white reflection of a far more complex reality, and cheerfully led the country to simplistic assumptions about the world so that our nation's young men would march proudly off to war in such morally unambiguous conflicts like Vietnam.

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 15, 2005 07:53 PM (JVdjp)

11 Proff v N - you can kiss my ass you piece of sh---!

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 09:41 PM (03F0I)

12 And now for something completely different... To answer Mr. Greyrooster, since the Second World War, the Executive Branch has simply swiped the right to declare war away from Congress, leading to a series of police actions and quasi-wars, many of which remain horribly unresolved today. Hollywood, surprisingly, actually teams up with the military so that Producers can get resources (ships, planes, base access) and the military changes scripts to attract recruits. Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591021820/103-4292484-1855054?v=glance The American people must always be vigilant to prevent the military from coming to dominate the economy and government of our great land. And now back to your circus...

Posted by: Collin Baber at August 15, 2005 10:16 PM (Xf0ch)

13 No, dumbass, he's talking about the integration of the Army and if you were half as smart in reality as you think you are in your fantasy world with the rainbow sky, you'd know that the President still doesn't have the power to declare war, and can't send troops on a major deployment without the approval of Congress. Congress overwhelmingly approved both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, so STFU moron.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:53 PM (0yYS2)

14 Racist thugmaster Klanrooster! You creep - I bet it was you who ran over the crosses and flags at Crawford.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:50 AM (xNiEv)

15 Goddamit! The Baloney spreading the rumor was no other than GEORGE BUSH and his PNAC FRIENDS! We bought the rumor and look what happened!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:54 AM (xNiEv)

16 Hey, rusty, if it is below 10mb, try www.putfile.com for the hosting.

Posted by: William Teach at August 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Pzlrt)

17 Rusty: We ain't seen nuthin' yet. Check out Jeff Goldstein's The Para(noid)llax View, about the treasonous tripe they're getting ready to foist. They've basically decided that Iraq is Vietnam, so they're now fully justified in pulling out all the stops to oppose it. This is gonna get real ugly. Their PR job is really pretty easy. All they have to do is keep reiterating different versions of the same lie and the natural tendency of the human mind will be to aggregate bad news and ignore good. Over time they just plan to wear down any optimism. It'll take two things to stop them: 1. An institution that provides a level-headed and straightforward assessment of the military/political situation that the public comes to trust more than MSM. 1. A positive vision about where this is all leading, presented in a way that solicits involvement and sacrifice from citizens. Once those take hold the extent and depth of the treason will become obvious and careers based on it will vanish.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 16, 2005 05:56 PM (zzime)

18 I would gladly run over Cindy's crowd of monkeys. Colin Babeler still as stupid as ever. Downing Street Moron still without pride. I have a theory about the Collin babelers and Downing Street Morons of the world. They must be miserable little people. So lonely and miserable that they wish others to join their misery. So lonely and left out by normal people that they would even cheer for American to lose this conflict. Therefore proving them right and the beautiful people wrong. The ones that left them out of all the fun must be proven wrong. Even to the point of aiding the enemy. Sick little minds, without fiends, without pride, without honor. They really need to find a bridge to jump off and save themselves the pain of being nothing. IM still the thinker. Bingo! Now, has it make a difference. That is the question?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 09:54 PM (CBNGy)

19 you know what they say, greyrooster...Misery loves company

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 16, 2005 10:27 PM (IJ51c)

20 We had real patriotic celeberties back then i mean clark gabel and glen ford and all those who sold war bonds all we have in hollywood today are a bunch of filthy mouthed spoiled bed wetting bunch of ungreatful wretches

Posted by: sandpiper at August 16, 2005 10:55 PM (2cLBb)

21 Yea! Remember Bob Hope. And he wasn't even born here. Christ! I just had a horrible thought. Cindy Sheehan running for governor of California. Or as vice president with Hilary (likes to watch BJs) Clinton. Sun burn too bad from yesterdays fishing trip. Charlie says put vinegar on it? I'll try anything.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 11:10 PM (CBNGy)

22 the last patriotic actor in this country, besides Ronald Reagan, was in my mind, John Wayne...now there was a real American patriot

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 17, 2005 09:00 AM (IJ51c)

23 Didn't think anyone would touch my question. That's the problem. Sticking the head in the sand never solves anything. Clinton proved that.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 10:24 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Should we be following the example of the Brits and deporting foreign nationals that support jihad? Steve Chapman says no. Stephen Green the Vodkapundit says yes. Dale Franks of the QandO blog agrees, and takes Chapman to task. And Goldstein agrees. All four are important essays. Read them all.

Which side is right, though? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:42 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 1311 words, total size 8 kb.

Read the whole comic strip here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

The key to winning a war, any war, is to convince the other side that there is no hope for success. Killing the enemy or controlling territory are not enough to win, but are only important inasmuch as they send the signal to the enemy that there is no use in fighting--you cannot possibly win.

As long as there is hope, there is will to fight.

[Below: an image from a recent al Qaeda in Afghanistan video distributed on the internet. The man pictured has a British accent and calls on Muslims everywhere to come to Afghanistan and fight the 'lies' of Blair & Bush.]

Are we winning the war against Islamic jihad? No. Let us step back for a moment and assess the situation for a moment.

We have conquered two countries which fomented jihad. We have killed or captured tens of thousands of violent jihadies. We have recruited the vast majority of world governments in fighting against the global jihadi network. Nowhere on earth, today, can the jihadis openly train for war against the United States. Nowhere.

Every battle we have waged we have won. In fact, on paper, the war is over. We have won. Time to go home.

Yet, in spite of the facts on the ground, the jihad is still waged. We have not lost, but we we are not winning either.

The jihad movement is not shrinking. It is growing. It is as if nobody told the jihadis that they were losing. That they do not know that they have been defeated at every turn. That they are unaware that there is no hope for victory in Iraq. That the global caliphate is a pipe dream.

This is exactly what is happening. The jihadis believe they are winning, or, at least, that they can win.

[Below: An image from a recent jihadi propaganda video distributed on the internet. The video claims that it was made in Sweden. The message in the video is clear: we can build bombs in the West with impunity and we will use them against you]

We have won every battle we have waged, yet we are losing the war.

There is one battle which we have lost. It is the most important battle, yet the one least understood. It is the battle which will ultimately decide the war. It is the battle that we have not yet decided to fight. It is the propaganda battle. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:34 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 3255 words, total size 23 kb.

A new video produced by Iraqi terrorists shows children preparing to join the jihad. The video may be downloaded here or here. (via Doubletap at Vlad's forum). Images from the video are below.

At first I thought the video might be something like jihadi porn. A girl is shown in a burka with slow-motion close-ups of her exposed hands. That'll get your every day camel-humping jihadi terrorist hot and bothered. Show some skin baby!

But then, if you listen to the girls voice, you realize she is just a child. Perhaps in her early teens at best. Ok, so maybe it's just a young sounding shahid on her way to inherit her 72 grapes from the Lord of Moons.

Later in the video, though, another child joins the scene. This one is very young. Definitely a child. Both now carry pistols, praise Allah, and cry for vengance.

Disgusting. I often hear from the Left that the War in Iraq has left thousands of children dead and millions more with no hope. However, what kind of society that would be created if we were to give up and pull out? Just one more reason we must win in Iraq. It's for the children. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:34 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

Perhaps the worst red-herring argument made by the Left against any war (remember, these guys were against Afghanistan every bit as much as Iraq--and the Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Cold War, Vietnam, etc.), is the ol' "Would you send your kids to this war?" As if any parent would volunteer any child to be sent to any war. Palestinian parents, excepted.

Phil Hendrie reminds us that our all volunteer army is not made up of children. They are men and women, and damn fine ones at that:

To call the great professional men and women who serve in our armed forces "kids" is a semantical tactic employed by my Poseur Leftist friends. They know that by tossing this little hand grenade into the mix any hope one has for a debate on fact, as opposed to hysterical rumor, flies right out the window. Who can not, at a moment like that, bow their head, and ponder ever so deeply, the meaning of children dying in a war.

Ladies and Gentlemen, calling these great people, part of the best trained and best equipped military in the history of the world, "kids" is an obscene insult.

And it's intended as one....

Calling professional and very adult American soldiers "kids" is only one weapon in the emotional ammo dump the Poseur-Left keeps rummaging through. Unsubstantiated but oft-repeated and provocative charges of war crime, torture and over-kill keep the easily confused all the more easily confused. The very people who ask for infinitesimal and undeniable proof of WMD's and terror links offer nothing but ludicrous rumor and gossip to bolster their arguments.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:48 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

I just found this story, courtesy of Glenn Beck's program:

At least three people were killed Thursday when a Jewish man dressed as a border guard opened fire on a bus in a northern Israeli village.

The shooter was killed when assaulted by a mob of bystanders on the bus in the town of Shfaram in the northern Galilee region. About a dozen people were hurt.

The shooter boards the bus, shoots the bus driver, and two girls, ages 20-something. A policeman attempts to get the situation back under control. The shooter stops shooting to reload his gun. He is then attacked by others on the bus, who started hurling objects at him and beating him up. Then more people who had been watching the proceedings as the bus passed boarded the bus, and proceeded to kill this terrorist.

The real kicker is that the police had been tipped off about this particular terrorist, 19-year-old Eden Tzuberi. Tzuberi had deserted his post in the military about a month previously.

Guess who tipped off the police that this guy was a threat?

His parents.

This is a sad story. It's sad that it's come to this--civilians getting shot in buses, and other civilians taking justice into their own hands.

Terrorists, be warned. Don't think we'll sit there and just take it...

UPDATE by Rusty: Omri, blogging from Thorley Hall if I'm correct, sums the episode up nicely (via Charles Johnson):

And of course, the biggest difference is that when a Jewish terrorist kills Arabs, Jews call him a terrorist. When an Arab terrorist kills Jews, he's something else.

Posted by: Suzanne at 12:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been on vacation, so I don't know how the rest of the world is reacting to Bob Novak walking off of CNN, but my first reaction--before seeing the full video-- was that it just made him look like a whiny bitch. My second thought was that the ragin' cajun must have really said something outrageous to get Novak to say 'bullshit' on the air and walk off. Then I saw the video. It tuns out Novak is just a whiny bitch.

Transcripts here. Video here.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.