The Noble Pundit

A Death In Vain?

Over the coming weeks we will be seeing more and more photos like this:

A horsedrawn caisson carries the body of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Brian Buesing, 20, to the Cedar Key Cemetery, during funeral services in Cedar Key, Florida April 5, 2003. Buesing was one of nine Marines who died in a confrontation with Iraqi troops near Nassiriya March 23. REUTERS/Joe Skipper

The worst death is one that is in vain. So what will Lance Cpl. Buesing and his comrades have paid the ultimate sacrifice for?

For scenes of goodness:

Iraqi men crush together as try to grab food packages handed out by British troops in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan March 31, 2003. Badly needed food, water and other humanitarian aid has begun flowing into southern Iraq through the secure port of Umm Qasar where a U.N. and World Food Program team arrived on April 4, the U.S. military said. (Russell Boyce/Reuters)

And

I lost the caption to this one, but basically it is a child just outside of Halabja- a much different scene than the one in 1988 when we saw children murdered with poison gas. The photo is either Reuters or AP and was taken, I believe on 4/2/03.

To avoid more scenes like this from ever occurring:

Human remains, along with coffins and photos of dead bodies, are seen at an abandoned Iraqi base near the city of Basra in southern Iraq, April 5, 2003. British forces said they had found the remains of as many as 200 people in the barracks and they were sending in forensic experts to investigate. (Pool/Reuters)

No amount of goodness will ever bring Lance Cpl. Buesing back. His parents will forever have to live knowing their child’s life was cut short in its prime. We will never know what good he could have brought to the world, but we know what he has helped to bring to a people on the far side of the world. His actions in life helped to bring hope for a better future to the people of Iraq. His death was not in vain.

Someone once told me that immortality isn’t achieved through long life, monumentous accomplishment, or amassing of money or materials. Immortality is achieved by influencing the lives of others. Immortality is achieved by touching the lives of others so that you live on in their memory long after you are dead and gone.

The Lance Cpl. has touched the lives of ordinary Iraqis. His death has been part of the sacrifice to free them from the oppression of Saddam’s regime. They may never know his name or anything about Lance Cpl. Brian Buesing, but they will know that America and the Marine Corps was willing to sacrifice its best for their benefit.

His death was not in vain.

Baghdad Healthcare

I'm not sure what to think about this article. On one hand, I'm not surprised that Baghdad hospitals are running out of basic supplies with the government turning away aid and hiding other supplies. On the other hand, I could just believe the Iraqi Ministry of Mis-Information creating the situation. But on the third hand (good blog by the way), the descriptions of the actions taken by the doctors could lead to either conclusion.

I truly pity the doctors and patients in Baghdad right now. The doctors, by their nature, are going to want to do what is best for their patient. And their making do with less than ideal supplies bears out this fact. It has got to be hard for them when the Iraqi government is deliberately undermining them. And the patients only want to get proper care, which is nearly impossible given the current state of medical supplies in the capital.

I hope that we get in there and get control of the hospitals as quickly as we can. Get the needed supplies in there and start getting these people taken care of right away. We've brought the war to their doorstep, now we need to take care of them.

Fedayeen vs the Minuteman

Jack, from The Horror, thinks that I’m off base some with my Special Ops vs. Fedayeen post (see the comments for what he wrote). All in all his comments were fairly well written even though they made it clear that he has a position that is pretty much opposed to mine. He did make a few comments that I want to respond to – one in particular.

First, the Special Ops guys are not the same as al-Qaida. Yes, they both plant bombs with the goal of creating a feeling of terror. Al-Qaida tries to create terror among civilians; Special Ops tries to create terror among the military and opposition government. The difference is in Special Ops targeting legitimate military targets. There is a distinct difference.

Now he also compared the Fedayeen to the American minuteman of the Revolution. At first glance, the most people’s initial reaction would be to spit back something to the effect of “the Fedayeen are not the same as the minuteman!” On some levels, they are; on other levels they are not.

The basic reason that I will ultimately disagree that they are like the minuteman is that they are not a true grass-roots movement. The Fedayeen is, in my opinion, a warped attempt at disguising military and regime control units. It is the very fact that Baghdad is giving the orders that takes the Fedayeen from the realm of a minuteman type group to a deceitful military unit.

I base my assumption of regime control on the reports coming out of southern Iraq of civilians being “policed” by the Fedayeen. They have forced civilians to take up arms against their will, they have attempted to force civilians to engage in “martyrdom attacks” against their will, and they have executed people who have resisted (or threatened their families). Baghdad has also, before and during the war, spoken of the Fedayeen as agents of the government.

During the American Revolution, we had no central government to give orders to the minutemen. There was no control exercised over the minutemen, except when he showed up to fight. They were not forced to fight; their families were not executed when they refused to join the battle. Plus the minutemen generally, but granted, not always, fought in the same formations as the “official” American military. Most of the time, they were clearly combatants, even if they were out of uniform. That’s not to say that there weren’t deceitful attacks by the minutemen outside the battlefields, there were, but there was an understanding that if you were caught alone fighting the Crown you were as good as a dead man.

If the Fedayeen was a grass-roots movement affiliated with, but not controlled by, Baghdad I would buy the “defender of the nation through necessity” argument. But they are, for all intents and purposes, part of the Iraqi military. That puts them in a different class than the American minuteman who was fighting to defend his home of his own free will, not through the direction of Philadelphia.

The Al Jazeera article I referenced basically was asking why it was ok for Special Ops to operate out of uniform and why it was against the rules for the Fedayeen to do so. Out of uniform, a member of either group, SO or Fedayeen, should lose the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are operating outside the rules of the Convention; they should not be afforded its protections. If we expect the rules to be enforced as written, we need to be able to suck it up when the rules go against us.

The Fedayeen is a government controlled military organization that uses tactics against the rules of the Geneva Convention. If they were a true grass-roots organization, I would agree that they are worthy, if somewhat suicidal, adversaries. But as a branch of the Iraqi military, I think that they are fighting dirty. They are not spontaneous defenders of Iraq. And that is why they are still different than the American minuteman.

Special Ops vs. Fedayeen

Al Jazeera has another interesting article today about the use of non-uniformed troops by both sides. They attempt to equate the coalition Special Ops guys with the Fedayeen on a tactics level (they don't approach the moral equivalency question). They correctly point out that both organizations use deceit and deception to approach their target without being detected. Both groups wear civilian clothes in carrying out their missions. And they basically ask why it's OK for the coalition to do so, but not for the Iraqis.

At first glance, my reaction was along the lines of "they might be right." I had to take a few minutes to examine the differences to find why one tactic is legit while the other is illegal. I was about to get really ticked at the military for being grossly hypocritical.

But then it hit, while both sides use deception, the goals are different. And the goal makes the difference in the legitimacy.

Coalition Special Ops use deception to get close enough to gather intelligence, to plant explosives to go off later, or to illuminate a target for someone in uniform to attack. They are essentially acting in the roles of spies during these missions. They are not looking to directly attack a military formation or group of enemy soldiers. During those operations where the will directly take on the enemy (rescue missions, etc.) they do wear uniforms.

The Fedayeen, on the other hand, use deceit and deception to directly attack our military men. If they are operating under the control of the Iraq military command structure, that would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. If they are locally organized and controlled, it would not be a violation (but the prisoners taken would not be POWs and would not be subject to the Geneva Convention -just like our Special Ops guys wouldn't be if captured out of uniform).

I've always felt the Fedayeen attacks were controlled and directed by the Iraqi military command and were therefore a form of fighting dirty. I had never even thought about the possibility of someone being able to question our Special Ops. Every once in a while it’s good to occasionally re-examine deep held beliefs, even when you know that they’re right.

The UN and The Rebuilding of Iraq

Nice little article over at FOXNews.com describing the state of diplomacy in the establishment of the new Iraqi regime. It talks about how Rummy isn't having much influence and how Powell and Dr. Rice are more directing this aspect of the show. They then go on to discuss European reaction to the discussions and this is where it gets interesting.

France and Russia are of course opposing the US and Britain taking the lead role in the reconstruction of Iraq. This isn't terribly surprising given their pre-war opposition in the Security Council. But de Villepin came up with a statement that is incredible in its ignorance of reality.

He stated "the United Nations is the only international organization that can give legitimacy to this." Does he not realize what he and Chirac did to the legitimacy of the UN? Does he not realize that legitimacy is derived from the consistent and fair application of rules- something that the UN has failed at exceedingly well.

For the UN to have legitimacy it has to back up its resolutions. When the time came for the Security Council to step up - France and Russia shirked their duty. They allowed the very legitimacy about which they now speak to be wasted.

If the UN wants to have legitimacy again, it needs to start rebuilding itself. It can do this by refocusing itself on humanitarian missions. Nation building is outside its scope of capabilities.

They also need to decide how to approach the fair creation and application of rules. If there is going to be a standard set of rules for everyone, they need to be declared - along with penalties for their violation. If rules are going to be created according the needs and situations encountered, that needs to be stated also. But there needs to be clarity in where the rules come from. And the rules need to be enforced - no exceptions.

de Villepin needs to realize that his government's actions have undermined his current stance. It's time for him to pack it in and to fight another day, he won't - he can't - win this fight. His work is cut out for him in helping to rebuild the credibility of the UN in its humanitarian mission.

The coalition will rebuild Iraq. The UN, of course, will have an important role to play. That role is still yet to be assigned by the coalition and I'll guarantee that we will watch the UN closely to make sure it fulfills its role competently.

If de Villepin is so gung ho on rebuilding, he needs to start at the UN. Leave the real work of rebuilding a nation to people that can handle it.

Al Jazeera, Shi'as, and revolts

Hey, cool! Al Jazeera let me back into their website (my IP had been banned ever since they were taken down by hackers). And what do I find but a fairly interesting and well written, if slightly anti-American in tone, article about the Shi'as and the non-revolt that has occurred since we entered Iraq.

The article goes into some detail about why the Shi'as have not revolted as expected and gives some insight into the train of thought that is guiding many of the Shi'a Iraqis.

For instance, I was aware that the Shi'as were concerned, and rightly so, about our true level of commitment to the removal of Saddam. After the way we hung them out in 1991, they had every right to question our resolve (and still have the right for that matter).

But I hadn't realized the historical aspect of their resistance to outside invaders of Iraq. I didn't know that the Shi'as had fought against the British in the 1920s in order to protect the Ottoman regime that oppressed them. So their resistance on behalf of on oppressor regime is partially grounded in their history as well (this is why I always plead ignorance on the finer details of Middle Eastern history).

It is without surprise that I read that the Shi'as are waiting for us to completely control a major city before they decide to join us. It is also a good reason why we need to go and join in with the Brits to get Basra secured as soon as possible. Getting the Shi'a on board with us with help immensely with the securing and reconstruction of southern Iraq. As we show more and more resolve, they are showing more and more willingness to help us. If we can get them to buy into and contribute to the idea of new Iraq they will quite possibly be some of our biggest supporters in the next phase of the regime change – creating a new government and governmental structure.

I know I ripped Al Jazeera before, but this article is a wonderful example of how they can bring the Arab side of the story to light here in the US. Hopefully they can keep up with solid, educational reporting like this and can avoid, to a large extent, sensationalism like the POW video.

And hopefully, they won't ban me again.

Schroeder's Stand

I was just over on Free Republic reading a Reuters article about Gerhard Schroeder changing his tone towards the US and the war. I also learned a little something more about Schroeder that makes me view in a slightly more positive light.

I find it interesting that both the German and French governments have had to come out with explicit statements voiced their desire to see the coalition win the war in Iraq. The fact that those statements had to be made is very telling of just how far relations have fallen between those two nations and the coalition nations.

I also believe that Schroeder’s real purpose behind his statement expressing desire that the war end as quickly as possible was political. Two days ago Joschka Fischer expressed a hope that the war would end quickly with the demise of the Iraqi regime. Fischer is the lynchpin of the current German government. If Fischer pulls the Green Party out of the government, and the government has to reorganize, the Germans will lose any chance of being able to potentially gain from the reconstruction of Iraq. Fischer has been a voice of reasoned opposition during this conflict (never thought I would ever say that about someone from the Green Party!), trying to balance his anti-war position with maintaining good relations with the coalition nations. By making his public statement, Fischer put Schroeder on the spot. Schroeder had to make a similar statement to show that he also is interested in maintaining good relations – otherwise he risked losing the Green support and therefore his job.

I’ve never been a fan of Joschka Fischer, but like I said he has acted as a voice of reasoned opposition in this war and I can respect his position – even as I disagree with him.

But Schroeder, up until now, has sounded like a Chirac shrill. He has screamed and pouted and whined about the coalition deciding to do the right thing. He has complained about the decline in importance of the Franco-German axis before it ever became important. He has railed against our military might as it exposed his own nation’s impotence.

And yet, his opposition always struck me as different than Chirac’s. It wasn’t reasoned like Fischer’s, but it wasn’t as vile and repugnant as “Iraq” Jacques. After reading this article, I believe it is because Gerhard actually believes in the righteousness of his position. His anti-war sentiment isn’t a political tact, it is a deep seated belief based on the death of his father during WWII. I believe that is why he never went to the theatrical extremes of Chirac; and I believe that is why his position was never as repulsive as the unprincipled Chirac.

I still find the theatrics employed to be offensive and I am disappointed that Schroeder was not able to be reasonable in his opposition like Fischer has been. But now that I know the reasoning behind his position, the position itself is understandable – if not commendable for its steadfastness to his principles. It’s too bad he couldn’t find a better way to present it.

John Kerry's Regime Change

John Kerry is getting slammed by Republicans for the comments he made in New Hampshire about us needing a regime change in Washington. Tom DeLay and Denis Hastert are jumping on Kerry like Saddam has been jumping onto the floor of his bunker. They are accusing him of everything from partisan politics to undermining the coalition military effort.

You know what? They're right about this being partisan politics. Kerry is a Democrat; Bush is a Republican. Kerry needs to raise money and awareness in NH. The way for him to do that is to offer an alternative to President Bush. To be an alternative, he has to be different.

So, yeah- he's being partisan. So what? That's what he's supposed to do.

But is he undermining the war effort? I don't think so. He's hasn't renounced support for our men in the field; he's stated that he thinks differently than the President. He hasn't attempted to hamstring our ability to fight (in the short term war planning- long term you've got an argument that he has hamstrung them, but that's another post for another time); he's only stated his disappointment that we didn't make more of a diplomatic effort.

I know many people who are thinking along the same lines as Kerry. There is some disappointment that diplomacy didn't work. There are people that don't think that the Administration made a good case for invading Iraq. Those are reasonable and normal thoughts that are shared by many Americans.

The difference is in the way the feelings are expressed. Had he said, "I don't agree with the way the pre-war diplomacy was handled. But now that we're in the fight, we need to give our troops everything they need to win,” I think that most people would have been OK. He stated an opposing position without demagoguing the issue or damaging moral with the troops. But instead he said we need a "regime change in Washington." He's still stating that he has an opposing position, but he demagogued the issue.

And people don't appreciate that in a time of national stress. We want leaders who will debate the issues. We want leaders who will propose alternative solutions when appropriate and who have the insight to understand when it is not appropriate. With his comments, Kerry showed that the insight into appropriateness is still lacking. In demagoguing the issue, he showed a disappointing level of naivety in diplomacy - the very topic he has chosen to use against the President.

With his comments Kerry reduced his stature as a Presidential candidate. He has exposed the need for him to work on his decision-making skills. Would we really want someone this undiplomatic running our national diplomacy? I wouldn't.

Do We Treat Iraqis Different?

So we’ve all seen the pictures of the despair in Iraq. We’ve seen orphaned children and women serenely looking to a more positive future. But there is more going on than just the heartbreaking pictures show. There are positive and happy scenes also:

Handing out food in Nasiriyah

Marines and sailors from the 4th Civil Affairs Group hand out food and medical aid to provide relief to local Iraqi civiliansin Nasiriyah, Iraq, on Monday, March 31, 2003. Photo was made available, Wednesday, April 2 2003. (AP Photo/Central Command, Cpl. Matthew 'Aussie' Orr)

Playing games with Iraqi kids

David Toughill, a soldier with Britain's 7th Armored Brigade (Desert Rats) plays with a local girl in Zubayr, southern Iraq April 2, 2003. Britain has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships to the war. Photo by Pool/Reuters

Members of the team from Juliet Company of the British Army's 42 Commando play local Iraqis in a friendly game of soccer in Basra, Iraq, Wednesday April 2, 2003. The marines lost 9-3. (AP Photo/David Husbands, Pool)

Talking with the locals

Navy Corpsman Romualdo Humarang, right, assigned to India Co., 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, talks with Iraqi civilians while on patrol in Numaniyah, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, April 3, 2003. Officers of the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines are to meet on Thursday with local leaders in Numaniyah, worrying that destruction and confiscation of weapons will leave them unable to maintain security in the town. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch)

Is there a vast difference between how we treat the Iraqis and how we treat each other?

A U.S. Marine with the 15th Expeditionary Unit Jim Panagakis, left, from Albuquerque, N.M., holds a baby as Marine Bryan Waide, from Mariville, Ten., checks a bag of the baby's mother at a check point at the Saddam Hospital in the city of An Nasiriyah, southern Iraq on Wednesday, April. 2, 2003. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

I don’t think so

Capt. Eric Puls of Bangor, Maine, kisses his 2-year-old daughter Katherine at Fort Hood, Texas, USA, before leaving for Kuwait, Thursday, March 27, 2003. Soldiers of Task Force Ironhorse, led by the 4th Infantry Division, are being flown into Kuwait 24 hours a day from U.S. bases, primarily from the 4th Infantry Division home of Fort Hood, and being processed in a coastal Kuwait camp, and from there to camps near the Iraq border. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das)

Saddam International Airport?

So, if we get control of the airport do you think that we will change the name to Bush Intercontinental? Oh, wait. Houston already did that. How about Dubya International? Or maybe Air Force One's Eastern Home.

No matter what we do, it sounds like the the last flight has now officially left Saddam International Airport. One more baby step in the final push into Baghdad.

Time To Come Home, Martin

Martin Savidge of CNN has obviously been away from America too long if he doesn't know where we "get young men like this." All that he needs to do is to go talk to some of the kids that don't have mental problems. Instead of looking for the next Columbine kid, he should spend more time paying attention to the normal kids.

What these four Marines did is no surprise to me. Their action shows an understanding and compassion for the human condition that can only come about from having been raised the right way.

It is men like these that make our military great. These guys are a team. Any one of them could have asked to call his parents or family, but they all chose to give to someone else.

Someone needs to slap Savidge. These are normal kids in extraordinary circumstances. The only special part of this exchange was that the media caught it. It's about time they reported that some kids are good.

(Hat tip: Donald Sensing)

The Good That Lies Within

I read Donald Sensing’s post this morning about bringing home our dead from France. The gall of the French is beyond comprehension and their vandalism of the British cemetery is absolutely unacceptable behavior for citizens of a “civilized” nation – especially one that owes so much to the men whose memory they desecrated.

But I don’t think that we should bring the men home. Those men died in France fighting tyranny and oppression. They died fighting intolerance and hatred. They died to promote and protect freedom, virtue, and life. To remove them en masse at this point in history would be to admit defeat to the evils of intolerance and hatred.

What is needed here is diplomacy. Yes, diplomacy.

(Note: From here on, when I refer to America or American, I actually mean to include the British, the Canadians, the Australians, and anyone else who joined the Allies in WWII in making the liberation of France – and then the rest of Europe – a possibility. This is in no way meant to marginalize the incredible contributions of everyone with us during that time.)

But not the kind of diplomacy that we normally think of. This is not the diplomacy of give and take. This is not the diplomacy of sitting around a large wooden table negotiating. This is the diplomacy that Colin Powell is perfect for. This is a time for the diplomacy of take and give. As in take Chirac and de Villepin out to the cemeteries and give them a piece of our national mind. This is take them to a memorial and give them a history lesson. This is take them to each individual grave and give, no make, them understand the debt that France will most likely never repay.

Powell needs to take Chirac out to the cemeteries of Normandy and have a discussion about “American Imperialism;” they need to have to Powell discussion - about asking for the land in which to bury our dead.

There needs to be a discussion about what the American people have asked for in return for the lives of our men.

We haven’t asked the French government to maintain the cemetery at their expenses – we hire Frenchmen to do so at our expense.

We didn’t ask for compensation for having helped to liberate their nation – we asked to give money to help rebuild it.

And we never asked the French to do anything but be French – with all the good and bad that that entails.

France couldn’t repay America’s sacrifice in a thousand years. And we don’t expect them to – it is too much to ask of any people. Our willingness to sacrifice our youth for the freedom of others is our most pure virtue as a nation; we seek not to keep liberty for ourselves, but instead seek to give the gift to anyone who wants it.

We should not take our dead out of their final resting place. It should be just that final. In a sea of French hatred and intolerance towards America, those rows of crosses and stars are a symbol of all that is good and right with America. They represent a standard that the current French government will never aspire to, much less ever reach.

Powell needs to make a demand of the French, in the midst of all those silent heroes. He needs to demand that the French government recognize the special debt it owes to America and to ensure that our men get to spend their long slumber in peace in their little piece of holy land.

God blessed France to exist in a time and era where other men would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice while asking nothing in return. There are thousands upon thousands of Guardian Angels for the French resting in their soil. To desecrate a memorial like was done is to desecrate the evidence of God’s purest love.

Chirac will have a lot of explaining to do about how this was allowed to happen. Before he has to answer to a higher power, he should probably start with either Powell or Jack Straw.

The men should stay. Even in death they fight a silent battle against the same forces they died to defeat over half a century ago. And as they did in 1945, they will be victorious again, because their cause is pure.

It's Starting To Sink In

The war seems to be going pretty well again. The Republican Guard seems to have been decimated - and now they're finding out the true meaning of shock and awe. The Baghdad division has been crushed and the Medina division is operating at less than 50%. But out of the entire article the most telling line for me was:

British officials said two would-be suicide attackers had turned themselves in to troops in Umm Qasr. "They didn't want to be suicide bombers any more," said British Col. Steve Cox.

Rescued POW, suicide bombers who give up, the Army on the move again - sounds like a good start to the day to me.

Yeah, Saddam Was Good For Iraq

Here is a report from the London Sun detailing the "tools" used by some of Saddam's "police" stations - complete with some disturbing, but clean photos.

How can anyone look at these pictures and say that people are better off under Saddam? We may not be perfect, but we don't need to insulate ourselves before beginning an interrogation.

Saddam is a brutal, vile man. This is simply more proof of that fact. Anyone who sanctions human rights violations like this needs to be taken out of power for the good of humanity.

A Little Good News

CENTCOM has just recently reported that we have rescued a POW from behind enemy lines. The military is not providing any details, but reports are circulating, pretty strongly, that the soldier who was rescued was PFC Jessica Lynch.

As we steel ourselves for the major battle for Baghdad, this is some excellent news. We need to be reminded that our military not only fights to win, but also takes the time to look out for those less fortunate - American or otherwise.

What Can She Look Forward to?

She has just passed the "checkpoint to freedom." What does this woman have to look forward to now?

Should she be happy that:

1.) Her daughter can go to school and get an education?

Afghan children look through the gates of Fordosi school on the first day of the school year in Kabul on March 23, 2003. Ferdosi High School is the biggest girls school in Kabul and there are three shifts of classes every day to accomodate all the students. In rural areas of Afghanistan, many girls are still forbidden to attend school. REUTERS/Jayanta Shaw

2.) Her child can get decent medical care?

A U.S. Army doctor inspects the ear of an Afghan boy in the village Old Salo Kalay, 4 kilometers west of Kandahar, Afghanistan, Wednesday, March 26, 2003. A team of army doctors, supported by American and Romanian Army soldiers, visited the village in an attempt to provide medical and humanitarian assistance. According to U.S. Army Sgt. Bill Hennesey from the Civil Affairs team, coalition forces are providing similar assistance to 73 villages around the Kandahar army base. The team distributed 300 'Humanitarian Daily Rations,' 30 radio sets, candies, toys and school supplies to the village. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan)

3.) Or that her kid can simply be a kid?

Afghan boys pick up flowers from a field in Bagram, about 60kms (37 miles) from Kabul, March 30, 2003 as signs spring arrived in Afghanistan. The emergence of flowers and greens after a rainy season is a welcome news to Afghans after years of drought in the country. REUTERS/Jayanta Shaw

Afghan boys react as they receive toys from U.S. Army personnel, unseen, in the village Old Salo Kalay, near Kandahar, Afghanistan, Wednesday, March 26, 2003. A team of army doctors, supported by American and Romanian Army soldiers, visited the village in an attempt to provide medical and humanitarian assistance. According to U.S. Army Sgt. Bill Hennesey from the Civil Affairs team, coalition forces are providing similar assistance to 73 villages around the Kandahar army base. The team distributed humanitarian rations, radios, candy, toys and school supplies to the village. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan)

All photos first found on Free Republic.com here and here.

Paradise Lost?

Has the world turned on its head? I thought that planes were supposed to be hijacked to Cuba, not to leave the island. Has Castro lost his touch? Is paradise not all that it's cracked up to be?

Actually it is telling that Cubans are now hijacking Cubana aircraft to bring them to the US. They risk air piracy charges and possible deportation, but they are making the decision that it is worth the risk for a chance at freedom in the US.

And isn't it strange that the last two really unreformed communist regimes are both showing signs of failing simultaneously? North Korea is further along on the collapse scale, already suffering mass starvation and is showing the signs of a complete economic implosion. Cuba has better agriculturally land and better relations with Europe, so they're not in as close to mass starvation as North Korea, but I'm starting to see the first signs of a deep resentment on the part of the population against the leadership. The masses are living in communistic poverty, while a few get rich working in or around the Western style hotels in Havana. The growing disparity between the haves and have nots is leading the desperation which is now starting to manifest itself in the form of hijackings.

For years, Cubans have tried desperately to get to Key West using anything they could from kids rubber ducky life rings to boats. But hijackings are telling me that there is a new level of desperation to leave the country. Eventually, without reform, there will be a revolution in Cuba to overthrow the Communist regime.

I wonder how the workers paradise proponents would react to that? I wonder if they'll say that the Cuban people weren't worthy of their utopian society?

I'll tell you what though, if they overthrow Castro's government - they will have earned their freedom.

Cart Before The Horse?

Articles like this one in Ha'aretz kind of make me worry a little. When combined with articles like this one about the US "warning" certain nations about human rights abuses, I start to wonder if we're not getting ahead ourselves (I do realize that Ha'aretz is Israeli).

So far, we have allegations, but not enough proof in my opinion to justify going to war against Syria or Iran. Now we're close to having proof in both cases, but we're just not quite there.

The Administration needs to focus on finishing the job in Iraq before it starts to even think about expanding the fight to other nations. Should we monitor events? Absolutely. But we need to make sure that we don't get ahead of ourselves here.

If the Administration believes it has proof, it needs to start making the case. But in the meantime, we need to make sure we finish the current fight the right way.

Is The War Justified?

The comments I’ve been getting today have caused me to think some more about the concept of a just war. I’ve always believed that there is such a thing and that the war we are prosecuting in Iraq (and before it, in Afghanistan) is acceptable as such. But is it?

A little background about me first. I am a firm believer in the death penalty, that there is a valid use for military power, and that the Second Amendment is one of the most critical in the Bill of Rights. I believe that the deterrence created by all three of these beliefs has ultimately saved more lives by an order of magnitude than they have taken.

But I also believe that every life is absolutely sacred. I will never be governor in any state because while I believe in the death penalty, I don’t want to be that final judge of who lives and who dies. It’s just not my place in life to decide. Some people deserve to die for their crimes. My conscience just would not allow me to decide who deserves it.

I never joined the military for the same reason. I don’t believe that I could knowingly commit an act that would result in someone else losing their life. I am greatly appreciative of those men and women who can commit that action, in many ways they are better and stronger than I.

And one of my favorite past-times is to exercise my Second Amendment right to annihilate a paper target. The controlled power and fury of a handgun is an incredible rush, but again it is something I don’t think I could ever turn on another human being.

Some might argue that such contradictions are proof that I don’t have very strong principles. I don’t think that that’s true. My beliefs are very strong having been solidified through countless reexaminations. I believe that we all have opposing beliefs, it’s just that most people aren’t intellectually honest enough to admit to them.

Several of my posts in the past have been about different tools and techniques that could be used to help minimize loss of life in this conflict and in future ones. Anything that can protect the sanctity of a human life cannot be bad.

But sometimes, the sacrifice of one person’s life may the catalyst for saving thousands upon thousands of other lives. Is one life more important than a thousand? Never. I don’t care whose life that one is. But there is a steep burden of proof to convince me that even one person needs to die, for any reason.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, the proof was there. He has killed thousands of his own people, simply because they had the audacity to disagree with him. He is actively and publicly supporting the state sanctioned murder of Israelis (Never mind the details of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Iraq has paid for successful suicide attacks on Israeli citizens. Period. Even Saddam admits it. And it is wrong.). The list of atrocities committed by the man is incredible. Would his death save thousands of other people’s lives? Yes.

So I have come to the idea that a war to eliminate Saddam Hussein is justified. The unfortunate part is that we cannot simply eliminate the man, we must eliminate his entire legacy in Iraq. And to do so, more people will die.

But every soldier in this fight, Iraqi or coalition, has to make a decision about how many people die; every member of the coalition military has already made theirs. They chose to volunteer for service. They understand that they have no bone to pick with anyone other than the key members of Saddam’s regime. As a result, we have let POWs go home. As a result, we have provided humanitarian assistance to Iraqi citizens. And as a result, we have left ourselves open to unethical methods of warfare – for which we have paid a price in blood.

But let us not forget that the Iraqi soldiers have a decision to make also. Theirs may be complicated by the fedayeen and the secret police, but they still have a decision. They can choose to melt away, as many of the first units we encountered did. They can choose to not fight, as many of the POWs have done. They can choose. Their choices just may be between evil and sadistic. Their choice may be between putting their life at serious risk on the front line (where they can choose not to kill anyone, but they may be killed despite their good intentions) or guaranteeing the death of their families. One choice leaves open a glimmer of hope; the other slams the door closed. It’s not much a choice, but a person of good conscience could find a way to make the best of it.

Any fight is the result of choices, whether you’re a child or a nation. Once it has been decided that a fight will occur, one has to set a goal for the battle. In Iraq, the Administration did just that. They chose to fight for regime change, the elimination of WMD, and for humanitarian aid. The first goal is sufficient justification for the nation to decide to take Saddam’s life as a regime change will save thousands of Iraqi lives (not to mention other people of the world). The other two goals are merely wonderful side benefits of the war.

I believe that we are fighting a just fight in Iraq. We have a clearly defined goal designed to ultimately save human lives. We have men and women sacrificing, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice, to ensure that we are achieving our goal with a minimal number of deaths. Our military is conducting itself in a way that makes the pacifist in me proud.

France + Libya = More UN Comedy

It looks like France and Libya may be teaming up to take Sudan off the list of UN human rights violators. If this farce of Libya chairing the human right's committee and Iraq chairing the disarmament committee is allowed to continue, the UN will have no standing to complain about our dismissing them as non-sensical.

I'm not really sure how much credence to put in this article, though. It makes claims like France is doing this for the oil money and that Libya is doing it for political reasons - all of which may be valid and true. But it also claims that the French embassy is stating that they are boycotting the new site - which may be true also, but I think it hurts the credibility of the author's claims.

From all the research I've done, Sudan appears to still be a horrendous human rights violator. It's a shame that a possible collusion by France and Libya - those two paragons of morality - is going to be dismissed as useless ranting because of one throwaway line.

Excellent History Lesson

Bill Whittle over at Eject! Eject! Eject! has an excellent essay looking at Civil War America and how it compares to modern America. It is an extremely well written essay, kind of like a Victor Davis Hanson one, and is definitely well worth the time to read it.

Three More Reasons We Fight

To prevent more pictures like these:

Orphaned by the fedayeen.

Found alone in the exodus from the city.

Both of these pictures are of kids just outside Basra.

And to create more pictures like this:

A child in Umm Qasr.

Three more reasons we will fight and will fight to win.

All pictures found in this post at Free Republic.com.

The Unseen Hand of Allah

Sgt. Stryker has posted excerpts from a Reuters article about the four day battle of Kifl. I'm not terrible surprised that there was fighting in the city. That's what the Iraqi Army and its irregulars are supposed to do - make it as difficult as they can for us to take over a target.

I am really impressed with how we're using our weapons in ways they weren't really intended.

The officers said the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by the tanks.

But can you imagine what has got to be going through the mind of the poor Iraqi sucked into the street. It's almost like the invisible hand of Allah has smacked him out there to see the tank round go into his favorite bar just before he gets involuntarily martyred.

Someone running Psy-Ops needs to exploit this. It might get some of the hardcore religious nuts to drop out of the fight. The first time they see Allah push Ali in front of a tank- they'll be done and the word will start to spread.

It would require a few more Iraqi soldiers dying this way, but it could potentially save the lives of thousands of soldiers as they realize that Allah is on our side.

UPDATE: I've just been notified by someone much more knowledgeable about things like this, Donald Sensing, that this is probably just a case of an overexcited reporter or a tanker having some fun at the reporter's expense. I guess I need to stick to areodynamics (where I have some knowledge) or economic matters. I also need to remember that just becuase it seems theorectically possible, it isn't necessarily true. Theory and reality can be two different things.

Logical Arab Leader?

The Syrian Times ran an interview yesterday that they conducted with President Bashar. Simply trying to muddle through the translation is tough enough, but the logic (or lack thereof) employed by President Bashar, is well - painful.

Bashar employs numerous logical fallacies including, most prominently, circular reasoning and a tendency to change the topic of conversation. Now, all politicians are guilty of using these tactics because they are intellectually easy, but I have noticed over time that Arab leaders in particular have a tendency to rely on them exclusively.

One of my favorite comments:

The President said that the logical thing is to implement the mutual defence agreement. According to this agreement, it is natural that when an Arab country is invaded, all the Arab countries defend this invaded country. Instead of putting this agreement into implementation, some countries provided the aggressors with facilities, at a time when other neighbouring countries refused to offer such facilities.

By this statement, the President is proposing an Arab mutual defense pact, which is needed because some nations chose to violate this defense pact, which has not even been written or implemented. It is needed because it was violated and it was violated because it was needed. I think I'm getting dizzy.

Another awe inspiring line:

He pointed out that Iraq issue is not separate from the cause of Palestine whether in respect with the Americans, the Israelis and the Arab countries.

I'm not seeing the relationship between Iraq and "Palestine." And it's not like the rest of the interview clarifies this point - on the contrary, the statement seems to be totally disconnected from anything else in the interview. Sure, he references Palestine quite a bit, but he never makes a connection between Iraq and "Palestine."

I've been reading with some interest the reports that Syria might be itching to get into the fight in Iraq. After having read this interview, I believe that they are probably just engaging in some heavy-duty saber rattling. But with the logical disconnects in Bashar's thinking, who knows?