Obama Looks at Change From Both Sides Now

Yahoo! carries this headline: "Obama defends US Wars as He Accepts Nobel". The Norwegians seem to have taken an interest in US Politics. They gave the once-prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to Democratic Party politician Al Gore, who has gone around the world preaching falsified research in order to encourage adoption of a pollution trading scheme that will benefit himself personally. Now they give it to another Democratic Party partisan, Barack Obama, who lied to his followers and told them that he opposed the wars, and now he defends them, preaching the classical Orwellian saws "war is peace" and "change is stability".

Last year no one would listen to me when I called Obama a cheap Chicago politician with extremist left wing views. Now, that he is president, I will refrain from name-calling. Rather, let us view the Nobel Peace prize as a dead letter, much like the socialism of its administrators.

AP on Yahoo! writes:

"And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours, skipping a slew of Nobel activities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

"Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on the use and prevention of war. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks — at about 4,000 words — were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address."

Support Red Fridays

I just received this message from Sharad Karkhanis.

>As a Company, Southwest Airlines is going to support 'Red Fridays...'

Last week I was in Atlanta , Georgia attending a conference. While I was in the airport, returning home, I heard several people behind me beginning to clap and cheer. I immediately turned around and witnessed One of the greatest acts of patriotism I have ever seen.

Moving thru the terminal was a group of soldiers in their camos. As they began heading to their gate, everyone (well almost everyone) was abruptly to their feet with their hands waving and cheering.

When I saw the soldiers, probably 30-40 of them, being applauded and Cheered for, it hit me. I'm not alone. I'm not the only red-blooded American who still loves this country and supports our troops and their families.

Of course I immediately stopped and began clapping for these young unsung heroes who are putting their lives on the line everyday for us so we can go to school, work and home without fear or reprisal.

Just when I thought I could not be more proud of my country or of our Service men and women, a young girl, not more than 6 or 7 years old ran up to one of the male soldiers. He kneeled down and said 'hi.'

The little girl then asked him if he would give something to her daddy for her.

The young soldier, who didn't look any older than maybe 22 himself, said he would try and what did she want to give to her daddy. Then suddenly the little girl grabbed the neck of this soldier, gave him the biggest hug she could muster and then kissed him on the cheek.

The mother of the little girl, who said her daughter's name was Courtney, told the young soldier that her husband was a Marine and had been in Iraq for 11 months now. As the mom was explaining how much her daughter Courtney missed her father, the young soldier began to tear up

When this temporarily single mom was done explaining her situation, all of the soldiers huddled together for a brief second. Then one of the other servicemen pulled out a military-looking walkie-talkie. They started playing with the device and talking back and forth on it.

After about 10-15 seconds of this, the young soldier walked back over to Courtney, bent down and said this to her, 'I spoke to your daddy and he told me to give this to you.' He then hugged this little girl that he had just met and gave her a kiss on the cheek. He finished by saying 'your daddy told me to tell you that he loves you more than anything and He is coming home very soon.'

The mom at this point was crying almost uncontrollably and as the young soldier stood to his feet, he saluted Courtney and her mom.. I was standing no more than 6 feet away from this entire event.

As the soldiers began to leave, heading towards their gate, people resumed their applause. As I stood there applauding and looked around, there were very few dry eyes, including my own. That young soldier in one last act of selflessness, turned around and blew a kiss to Courtney with a tear rolling down his cheek.

We need to remember everyday all of our soldiers and their families and thank God for them and their sacrifices. At the end of the day, it's good to be an American.

RED FRIDAYS ----- Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the 'silent majority'. We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers.

We are not organized, boisterous or over-bearing.. We get no liberal media coverage on TV, to reflect our message or our opinions. Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops.

Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday - and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that.. Every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar will wear Something red..

By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers.

If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, co-workers, friends, and family. It will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once 'silent' majority is on their side more than ever; certainly more than the media lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked 'What can we do to make things better for you?' is....We need your support and your prayers.

Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example; and wear something red every Friday.

HBO's Taking Chance

Nancy Razik sent me this url for the trailer to HBO's upcoming movie Taking Chance starring Kevin Bacon. It will air on Feb. 21. HBO's movies and series are often first rate--need I mention John Adams, the Sopranos and so many others (John from Cincinnati was an unfortunate exception)?

I think you'll agree after watching the trailer and interviews that this one is not to be missed.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Counter battery fire against insurgents. H/t Jim Crum.

The Greatest Similarity Between Barack H. Obama and George W. Bush

I just blogged about the many similarities between Barack H. Obama and George W. Bush. There are so many similarities it is difficult to keep them straight, so I omitted one of the biggest. George W. Bush could not articulate a strategic vision for the Iraqi War. It took him four years to oust Donald Rumsfeld. It was difficult for me to understand what was going on at the time because the media so utterly lacks competence with respect to discussion of military strategy. Today, five years after the Iraqi War began, Barack H. Obama is clueless about (a) appropriate military strategy, (b) the best way to handle Iraq, (c) what the strategic options are (see Charlie Foxtrot's and Instapundit's blogs on this, h/t Larwyn). The eerie similarity: It took President Bush four years to grasp the strategic issues in Iraq. After five years, Senator Obama is still clueless.

Four Terrorists Blown Away

Tom, a former Marine, just forwarded this video of four terrorists being blown away. Tom writes:

>What surprises me most about this A-10 attack…the pilot did not kill any of our people!

>This is a video taken inside the cockpit of an A-10 by the pilot and it was a night view. What you see is from 9700 feet away (almost two miles). The four terrorists had no clue there was someone watching them from almost 2 miles away. The A-10 was using a 30 mm cannon WITHOUT injuring the dog nearby who escaped unharmed. You can see the gun camera shake a bit as the pilot fires; then count about 4 seconds for the rounds to travel 2 miles. Every tenth round is a tracer, so the bullets you actually see are every tenth; they are getting hit with hundreds of rounds, but the dog is unscathed. Muzzle velocity on the 30mm is 2430 feet per second. Four fewer guys to blow up women and children!

I'll throw in my two cents: These guys are awesome!

Media Silence on Iraqi War Success

The Belmont Club (hat tip Larwyn) notes that:

"The sudden and precipitous drop-off in the media coverage of Iraq is largely due to the reluctance among pundits to advertise the fact that they were wrong. Iraq is unmentionable because things are going well. Well for Iraq means not so well for pundits who staked their reputations on failure. Abe Greenwald at Commentary Magazine writes: "After years of telling us the war on terror was creating more terrorists, the mainstream media has mysteriously woken up to the fact that Islamic extremism is on the wane. Newsweek is the latest publication to run a support-for-jihad-is-fading piece.". The Washington Post has quietly and recently done so as well. Better to concede past mistakes in judgment quietly the better to deliver more judgements of the same quality in the future. But it comes at the price of clinging to the same false premises and ignoring the most glaring lessons. Greenwald writes:

"'there is an important omission in the sudden coverage of moderate Muslims: No one talks about the effect of the Iraq War. The MSM can dodge the issue all they like, but the fact remains that the Coalition’s toppling of Saddam facilitated the first organized rejection of fanatical Islam in the Middle East. Back in November 2005, while everyone stateside was crying fiasco, a group of Sunnis in Anbar province joined forces with a clutch of U.S. Marines and began to wrest their country back from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers.'"

In 1921 Walter Lippmann enumerated the reasons why the press could not be expected to provide reliable information needed for public deliberation. One is the need to sell newspapers. However, he was mildly sanguine about the technical ability of the media at that time to execute its news-providing mission competently. Things have turned out worse than Lippmann expected. Groupthink and political correctness dominate the media. The progressives of Lippmann's time had varying philosophies. Some were more or less socialist or conservative. The post-Depression New Deal liberalism resulted in two philosophies: (1) a moderately conservative progressivism that has mirrored social democracy and (2) social democracy. However, the media are almost all in the latter camp. One of the characteristics of social democrats is the inability to tolerate dissent and deliberation. Even in areas where their qualifications are weak, such as military strategy and foreign policy, the left looks to leadership from a few elite newspaper analysts. The result is a policy debate that is emotionally driven but poorly conceived.

Let us celebrate that things are going well in Iraq. General David Petraeus's fourth generation warfare strategy has worked. Rather than discuss why and begin to think about ways to improve it, the media react stupidly and public policy debate continues to be inarticulate and foolish.

Iraq and the Terror Threat

The New York Times (paid access) writes that a new intelligence report indicates that the terror threat from the Islamic world has grown in response to the Iraqi War, Guantanimo Bay and Abu Graib. The Times also indicates that prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was a similar report which argued that the invasion might increase support for political Islam and terrorism.

I don't have the polling facts, but let's say that popular dislike of the United States among Germans increased in Germany after Germany declared war against the US in 1941. Should we not have declared war on Japan in order to avoid the decline in popularity in Germany? The New York Times appears to think so.

The problem with the Times's reporting in this article ("Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat", Mark Mazzetti, September 24, 2006) and in general is its imbalance. In this article Mark Mazzetti examines only Type I but not Type II error. Type I error is the probability that the null hypothesis is true given a finding that it is false. Type II error is the probability that the alternative hypothesis is true, given a finding that the null hypothesis is true.

In plain English, you need to be aware of and control for the effect on terrorism of both invading and not invading. While it may be that the risk of terrorism has increased following the invasion of Iraq because of increased Islamic support for terrorism, it may also be that if we did not invade Iraq the risk of terrorism would have increased even more because terrorists would have perceived us as weaklings. Popular opinion is not the only necessary condition for terrorist threats. The ability and willingness to engage in terrorism are also important. It is entirely possible that these have been deterred while popular dislike for the US has increased. Better a hobbled terrorist infrastructure with hatred of us than a robust terrorist infrastructure with the entire world in love with us.

For example, we did not invade Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and that was followed by the attack on the Cole in 2000. We did not invade Iraq after the bombing of the Cole in 2000, and that was followed by September 11, 2001. It is clear that the trend toward shorter time intervals between major terrorist attacks that evolved during the Clinton administration has been reversed. It was seven years between the World Trade Center I and the Cole. It was less than two years between the Cole and 9/11, but it has been five years since a major attack against the US outside of Iraq.

The intelligence report may be completely correct, but that might speak well for President Bush. Would the Times have liked to see the German people have more positive feelings about the US in 1945 than in 1935?

Ommission as per Charles Ellison of the University of Denver

Charles Ellison of the Center for African-American Policy of the University of Denver points out three additional major terror strikes during the Clinton years, namely Nairobi Kenya in 1998 and the car bomb explosion at the United States embassy in Dar es Salaam. In addition, there was the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Ellison writes:

>You may have inadvertently omitted the U.S. Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya in 1998 that killed 257 people and the car bomb explosion at the United States embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. These two explosions also resulted in he wounding of 4,000 people. In addition, we shouldn't forget the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

It was the 1998 Kenya bombing that attracted serious international attention to bin Laden for the first time and put him on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

Regards,


Charles D. Ellison
Senior Editor/Producer
Blackpolicy.org
Center for African American Policy
University of Denver

Fifth Generation Warfare: 4GW No Longer Applies

The model of 4th generation warfare as enunciated by Thomas Hammes and others is rooted in the insurgencies that Mao led in China and Ho Chi Min led in Vietnam. As Hammes depicts it, such insurgencies depend on the insurgents' willingness to withdraw and attack; to govern and develop loyalty in territory which they control; and to refrain from orthodox warfare until they control sufficient territory. Hammes does not dissect the interaction of ideology with 4th generation warfare tactics. However, the insurgencies he describes are mostly communist or leftist and prevailed in the age of radio and television. Such insurgencies were not Islamic, and pre-existed technological innovations that have occurred since the days of the Vietnam War, namely, the internet and cellular phones.

It is obvious that Islam plays an important role in the Middle East, and the Iraqi War cannot be understood outside of Sunni-Shia relations and Islamic value systems. Sunni-Shia relations are only beginnning to be understood in the popular American mind, notably via Vali Nasr's Shia Revival.

New technology, Islamic values and relations radically change the implications of Hammes's strategic model. In some ways, Islamic culture makes fifth generation conflict more like pre-modern warfare. Categories such as the Islamic ummah and historical beliefs about the role of religion in government need to be understood and utilized. Such understanding is not only a matter of public relations and propaganda, but also of management of conflict within target populations. The notion of an insurgency that has national parameters is not applicable to the Middle East. Also, evaluations about attitudes and loyalties need to be made in the appropriate historical context. It is as naive to think that fighting a terrorist enemy is like fighting the Vietnamese as it is to think that fighting the Vietnamese would be like fighting German General Eric Ludendorff in 1918. In particular, the interactivity of Islamic belief with military action means that a more total approach to war might be necessary than it would be with insurgencies that are built on shorter term loyalties to the personalities of specific leaders. 4GW may be passe.

Mitchell Langbert Podcast Interview on www.blackpolicy.org

Charles Ellison of www.blackpolicy.org and the University of Denver interviewed me about Iran, Iraq and North Korea on podcast on Blackpolicy.org

http://www.ascentperspectives.blogspot.com/ at www.blackpolicy.org

Phil Beckman on Fifth Generation Warfare

Phil Beckman writes:

>"In a recent post Mitchell mentions that 4GW may be passe and that many of the things that Hammes writes about aren't necessarily relevant to fighting an extremist enemy. I agree. I've used the term 4GW within the framework of our discussion out of convenience, but I think the phenomena we are dealing with have yet to be adequately described and are much larger than what 4GW theorists are talking about. Over the past several years there have been many discussions of 4GW, 5GW, asymmetric war, unrestricted war, media war, idea war, meme war, etc. Not only do the Islamists present us with a different kind of threat that challenges our existing categories, but these theories allow us to review the left's success in achieving "cultural hegemony" in our universities, media, government and generally throughout our society, as well."

Phil Orenstein had written in a recent post:


>"To win the war of ideas that is central to this debate we need to put partisan politics aside and refresh ourselves with the spirit of the American Revolution and our founding fathers who fought the battle of ideas before winning the revolutionary war against the British Empire."

Beckman continues:

>"I agree that this is exactly what should happen, but it's not going to happen. We can't put partisan politics aside because the left's ideology is not only not rooted in the ideals of the American founding, but is inherently inimical to them. Remember that we live in a time where if you are a judicial candidate and you believe that the federal gov't should exercise only those powers that have been delegated by the Constitution, then you will be attacked as a right-wing extremist. Our goal should be to have the ideals and spirit of the American founding be generally accepted across all political differences. This is what we would be championing in a 4GW, media war, idea war campaign etc. But we have to accept that this is going to bring us into direct conflict with the left.

>"Around July 4th, the LA Times published an Op Ed in which the liberal writer asked, was the American Revolution really worth it? After all if we had remained part of the British Empire slavery would have been abolished in 1830 rather than 1865 and chances are we would have established the same socialist welfare state that the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have. The reality is that the left has no use for the ideals and spirit of the American Revolution.

>"The recent ISI study revealing the disastrous ignorance of American history and government shows us just how real our challenge is. We can't expect people to be inspired by the ideals of the American founding and be willing to risk their lives in defense of these ideals if they don't know what they are. This ignorance creates a population that is susceptible to the idiocies of Chomsky, Moore, et al. So promoting these ideals and educating people about them needs to be a central component of any pro-liberty, pro-American campaign.

>"While partisanship is inevitable, at the tactical level setting aside partisanship is important. For example, the Kelo decision created an opportunity to run a campaign against against eminent domain abuse and offered an opportunity to educate people on the importance of private property rights to the free society. People of all political persuasions own property and thus this kind of a campaign can appeal to everyone.

>"What we are talking about is creating a movement in which people are inspired by the ideals and a vision of the American Experiment to take action on their own, independent of any centralized control and guided by their ideals and values. The specific kinds of non-violent action available to us are many and varied. Any type of media, technology, activism, rhetorical technique and organizational form is there in the tool box. What I would like to see is a proliferation of dozens perhaps hundreds of organizations all promoting pro-liberty, pro-American ideals and working to counter the postmodernist left and Islamic fundamentalism. How do we inspire people to do this?

>"I keep coming back again and again to ideas, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and interpretations because that seems to me to be the primary battlefield. Alinsky references the well-known statement of John Adams that the revolution had taken place in the minds of the people before the war was fought. Something like that needs to happen now. This is the kind of thing that operates at a more fundamental level than electoral politics. This is about what people believe about their country and ultimately what they believe about themselves. We need to be striving to create this kind of a revolution in the minds of the people. So whether we call it 4GW, meme war, media war, culture war, whatever, I don't care, but it needs to be done."

My comment:

Phil Beckman's points are well taken. There needs to be more assertiveness and more discussion of laissez faire ideals. Individualism and the spirit of the American revolution have been attacked for ten decades by leftists, progressives and the acolytes of JP Morgan and rationalized markets, e.g., the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party and the New York Times. Groups like ISI are critical, and I am delighted that my student Pini Bohm has started an ISI group at Brooklyn College.

Beckman continues:

>"I believe that if any generation deserves the title 'Greatest Generation' it is the founding generation. The more I learn about what they achieved the more I admire them. But we can't be constantly looking backward to them and using their words to express our beliefs. We have to drink deeply of the ideals of the American founding, make them a part of us and articulate them in our own words in a way relevant for our own time. Future generations should look back to our words and deeds and be inspired. The challenge that we face is to create a vision of where we as Americans are going together in the future. A vision of the American Experiment for the 21st century. One sign of our success will be when the American-born children of immigrants from Vietnam, Ghana, Ecuador, Korea, India, El Salvador, and Ethiopia adopt the ideals and vision of the American Experiment and root their identities there and reject the multiculturalism and cultural relativism propagated by the left. If we can't out-compete the left with people who made great efforts to become Americans then we are screwed. Our vision is what they came to pursue; the left's vision is a recipe for failure and dystopia.


>"We need to stoke the hearth-fire of liberty. If 300 million Americans are filled with and inspired by the vision of the American Experiment then the Jihadists have no chance in disrupting our society. But if half the populace ranges from ambivalence to hatred of America then we are in trouble. And it is the left that is responsible for that ambivalence-hatred."

Military Strategy and the Bush Administration

Warren Buffett once said that he likes to buy stocks of companies that are so well strategically situated (have such a good "moat") that even if they are run by idiots they will be profitable. Buffett's goal was to find such companies and then make sure that they were staffed by competent executives like Roberto Goizuetta or Kathryn Graham. In today's New York Sun Andrew Ferguson has a story about the new Bob Woodward book, State of Denial, which is about the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.

The journalists who write for the media are probably capable at what they do (no more or less capable than say the managers who run US corporations or the politicians in Washington, after all they are educated by the same universities and likely have about the same SAT scores) yet rarely have been exposed to a broad range of literature through a core curriculum and even more rarely have taken the time to seriously study subjects like management, strategy, economics and military history. Hence, it is not surprising that journalists' discussions of strategic issues lack the breadth that would have resulted from their completion of a competently executed liberal arts education that includes a grounding in the classics, philosophy and history, and lacks the sophistication that would result from relevant technical training in business or military strategy. In an earlier post I discussed the evolution of Thomas Friedman's "thinking" about Iraq. There is little doubt in my mind that the lack of perspective in his work and the acclaim that his work has received have resulted from a general failure of our education system, a failure that has debilitated America intellectually.

Criticisms about President Bush may be correct, and the Republicans may have engaged in five years of self-indulgent over-spending and cronyism. In this, I doubt that they are very different from the Democrats who, for example, run the New York State Assembly whom Mr. Friedman and the New York Times never criticize. (Mr. Woodward writes for the Washington Post, and it would be interesting to trace his coverage of government competence in Washington, DC, to include stars like Marion Barry.) In any case, the issue of the administration's competence is not quite the same as the issue of strategy in the Iraqi War.

Larwyn has forwarded some interesting links about paradoxes in the media's coverage of the Iraqi War, and the incoherence with which the press has discussed the strategic implications and even facts about the war. First, though, The Economist has written a report on the leaked intelligence report in its United States section which is short on facts and analysis but long on sneering about President Bush("These blunt conclusions...are hard to dismiss by any but the willfully dim sighted") following Thomas Friedman's tone and similarly short on intelligent discussion.

I wrote the Economist the following letter in response:

"The US intelligence community that was brutally inept with respect to anticipating September 11, 2001 now informs us that fighting terrorists on their own soil is unpopular with terorists and is therefore a mistake ("Stating the Obvious", September 30). There were similar arguments about nurturing terrorists' happiness concerning sanctions preceding the Iraqi War. Indeed any action taken to confront terrrorism will become a cause celebre among those who view themselves as part of the terrorists' community of belief. Hence, your response to the report amounts to a call to do nothing. That is a foolhardy bargaining strategy. Might have the fire bombing of Tokyo during World War II caused the Japanese to dislike the US and so increased the probability of kamikaze attacks? If so, was this a reason not to fire bomb Tokyo? Moreover, the leaked intelligence report assumes that fighters who commit acts of terror would not have in the absence of the Iraqi War (for otherwise their feelings are moot). Isn't such an assumption, that the Iraqi War alone generates terrorist acts absent fertile psychological soil, silly? And might not encouraging terrorists to fight and die in Iraq be helpful to the rest of the world by ridding us of those most likely to commit terrorist acts?"

The story Larwyn sent me is a blog by Tigerhawk which compares an article in the Washington Post about the dire fighting in Anbar, western Iraq. In contrast, the Guardian points out that much of the fighting in Anbar has involved tribes in Anbar fighting directly with al Qaeda (where are the arguments that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda?) and the Guardian states that "The clashes erupted after a new grouping calling itself the Anbar Rescue Council - which claims to represent a large number of Anbar tribes and sub-clans - said it intended to clear the province of the terrorist group." The fighting also involves in-fighting in al Qaeda where Osama bin Laden was angry with Zarqawi for killing Sunni religious scholars. According to the article "It is these issues that have been at the heart of the rift between al-Qaida and the tribes, many of whose members support the nationalist resistance". Such issues escape coverage in the Economist, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The Left's Plan to Stop Terrorism?

In his book The West and the Rest (ISI Books) Roger Scruton contrasts the evolution of the European nation state, attributable to such historical developments as Roman Law, where "strangers are expressly included in the web of obligation", with tribal rule and theocracies. Scruton reminds us of the importance of public spirit to democracy.

One of the interesting questions that is facing America is whether it is capable of facing up to a realistic military threat, or whether the media and liberal establishment are committed enough to anti-Americanism and a chimerical belief in world citizenship that they will ultimately succeed in tearing apart the nation by crippling our sense of citizenship.

For instance, although there has been considerable criticism of the Iraqi War, I have not heard any suggestions from the left as to how to stop terrorism. Instead, there seems to be an implied argument that terrorism does not exist, or that radical Islam poses no threat. This is easily refutable, ignorant nonsense.

So if liberals argue that the Iraqi War is wrong strategically, the question must be what is the liberal plan to stop terrorism? Indeed, a failure of the Bush administration has been to soft-peddle this obviously important objective (of fighting terrorism via the Iraqi War) to the point of denying it.

I do not believe that we are worse off with regard to fighting terrorism because of the Iraqi War. It might be arguable that the loss of American life isn't worth the strategic accomplishments of the Iraqi War. However to prove this would require facts that do not appear in the New York Times or elsewhere.

Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq. If we were not accomplishing important strategic goals there, why would al Qaeda be deploying so much of its resources to Iraq? It would be nice to know everything, like the folks at the Times, Seymour Hersh, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the long list of left-biased journalists and academics. Unfortunately, they are unschooled buffoons with respect to this question, and their views are, well, dumb.

Many liberal and left-wing Americans delude themselves about the nature of the terrorist Islamic threat. This is not new for the left, as the Stalinist left aligned itself with Hitler in 1939-1941, and Walter Duranty of the New York Times promised us that all was well in Russia during the Stalinist 1930s. Similarly, Arthur Hayes Sulzberger recommended to his Jewish relative that he remain in Germany in 1938. The Ochs-Sulzbergers have a long history of making idealistic recommendations that harm others. Now this crew assures us that Bernard Lewis is wrong, and there is not a thing to be concerned about. So what that Christians are lynched in Palestine; that Christians are lynched in Turkey; that Christians are murdered in Nigeria; that there is an ongoing Islamic-Christian conflict in the Phillipines; that there is a five-decade-old Islamic-Hindu conflict in India; that there is an Islamic-Russian conflict in Chechnya; that the Arab-Israeli conflict is six decades old; that we have been repeatedly bloodied by Islamic attacks? So what? Islam is a peaceful religion and anyone who disagrees is biased.

It may not be that liberal factionalism has prevailed. The most interesting race in the recent election was in Connecticut, where the anti-war Ned Lamont lost to a pro-war former Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Yet, the ceaseless anti-American propaganda coming from the left-dominated media is bound to take a toll.

The liberal-left's factional anti-Americanism can be seen in its attacks on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The media demonized Rumsfeld, but the liberal borg's arguments lacked grounding in fact or theory and contradicted parallel arguments that it had made about Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the 1960s.

For the past 25 years I have taught my students David Halberstam's version of the management errors that Robert McNamara made during the Vietnam War that appear in Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam argued that McNamara had allowed the military to manipulate him into sending excessive numbers of troops given the nature of the Vietnamese insurgency. In other words, Halberstam argued that McNamara was too willing to be manipulated by the military. This is a valid argument if fourth generation warfare necessitates a complex of propaganda, political and surgically targeted actions for which the military is unprepared.

Now, the media's criticism of Rumsfeld is that Rumsfeld did not listen to the military and so failed to send more troops.

In short, I don't think the criticisms can be correct because they are equally ungrounded, contradictory criticisms. If McNamara has been criticized for being gullible (and establishing statistical decision systems that did not screen for accurate inputs and so listened to a biased military too much), then why would Rumsfeld be criticized for not listening to an unbiased military? What theory or body of knowledge do the Times, New Yorker, and television networks rely on to make such criticisms? What delusions lead them to imagine that they know what they are talking about?

The other criticism of Rumsfeld that also strikes me as nonsensical is that he encouraged torture at Abu Gharaib and Guantanimo Bay. In the January 2005 issue of City Journal Heather McDonald published an analysis of the left media's torture accusations and thoroughly debunked them. Yet, the media has not addressed McDonald's facts.

The main vision of the Iraqi War ought to be that to stop terrorism a conflict in a Sunni nation was necessary and that democracy might be installed that will institutionalize resistance to terrorism. However, the main point is to stop terrorism. It might be that the Iraqi War can be criticized, but it does seem to me that, if al Qaeda has sent 12,000 troops to Iraq and is attempting to base an insurgency in Anbar (opposed by Sunni tribes), the United States has pursued an intelligent strategy and needs to grapple with the insurgency using fourth generation warfare, not traditional military warfare.

Perhaps the left and the media disagree. Then it is up to the left and the media to inform us as to what their plan to stop terrorism is. Do nothing and let them explode dirty bombs? Please tell us, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Friedman. What is your plan to stop al Qaeda? If the left, the Democrats, Seymour Hersh or Thomas Friedman don't have a plan, then the question becomes: why are they so unhappy with the Bush administration?

One possible reason, which is probably true of the far left, is that there is hope that America will be harmed. Many on the far left are outright anti-American and aim to sabotage legitimate attempts to stop terrorism because they, far left Democrats, dislike America.

Because of the danger of faction; and because of the threat that the extreme left potentially poses, conservatives must insist that the left explain: What is the left's plan to stop Islamic terrorism?

John Kenneth Galbraith on the Iraq Study Group

Baker's and Hamilton's Iraq Study group exemplified the clichés and inept analyses that have characterized popular discussion of the Iraqi and Vietnam wars. The idea that a committee of many uninformed former politicians could arrive at an informed military strategy was as silly as the report's media attention.

David Farber's excellent book, Sloan Rules: Alfred P. Sloan and the Triumph of General Motors (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), explains the Hamilton-Baker phenomenon. Farber writes very well. He and I do not agree politically, but I appreciate his historical knowledge, competence and fine writing. Sloan's own book, My Years with General Motors, also is a fascinating, brilliant book, but dull as dust because of Sloan's writing style (Sloan was an MIT-trained engineer whose vision created the mid-twentieth century "concept of the corporation", and is of course forgiven for dry writing). Farber adds to Sloan's book by providing considerable historical context, detail and rich writing. For example, in John Kenneth Galbraith's classic Great Crash 1929 Galbraith writes of the role of John J. Raskob, and Farber gives us wonderful detail about Raskob's role as GM treasurer and "pal" of the staid Alfred P. Sloan.

On p. 138 Farber reminds us of Galbraith's "acerbic" assessment of the series of White House meetings that Herbert Hoover called concerning the downturn in the stock market in late 1929. Sloan attended one of these meetings of "business, farm and even labor leaders" on November 21, 1929. Farber notes Galbraith's phrasing, that can easily be applied to the Iraq study group almost exactly 77 years later about "one of the oldest, most important--and unhappily one of the least understood rites in American life.":

"This is the rite of the meeting which is called not to do business but to do no business. The 'no-business meeting' Galbraith explained, served to create the impression that business is being done...'Even though nothing of importance is said or done, men of importance cannot meet without the occasion seeming important. Even the commonplace observation of the head of a large corporation is still the statement of the head of a large corporation. What it lacks in content it gains in power from the assets back of it...'"