Can We Talk?

In a free society, rational discussion is an important part of the political and social process. Rational discussion means to be able to present one's views, in a way it is heard by an opposing view, and can be countered by a similar presentation. We may never agree--there are as many opinions as there are people--but it is important to us to let our point of view be heard. Meaningful questions must be asked, and meaningful answers must be presented in a rational manner. If we resort to attacking those we don't agree with, those persons will stop listening to our point of view, and we will end up "preaching to the choir."
Preaching to the choir is usually counter productive to the formulation of new ideas. Rather, it feeds a consensus among those who agree, and shuts out those who disagree. A politician who loses track of a rational discussion and begins preaching to the choir is merely seeking votes based on ideology and not on performance--that politician is no longer an effective representative of the electorate. This is happening way too often these days.
Important issues that desperately need new ideas are basically ignored, except to create headlines and sound bites. Where there is no rational discussion, the end of reaching a rational solution is lost.
There are many issues on which many disagree, and which, in the present state of affairs, have been reduced to sound bites, or worse, ignored, due to an absolute refusal to debate them. Prohibition is one example of this. Anyone who wishes to speak out against prohibition is accused of being on drugs themselves, or otherwise being dismissed as "disingenuous." Yet, without reasonable discussion, the status quo remains, and the results are often not desirable to anyone except the criminals who ultimately get the money.
My policy on "Lift That Torch. Ring That Bell," is to avoid, or to attempt to avoid, digressing into personal attack on those with whom I disagree. There are some bloggers whom I want to flame, but, so far, I have avoided doing that. Instead, I try to present my views in a non-confrontational manner. For example, in my article, “Winning Iraq,” I largely avoided political arguments, and presented my views from a military viewpoint of strategy and tactics. I hope that there would be some who would care to discuss my presentation, without attacking me for my point of view. Otherwise, I would just be preaching to the choir, and, in relation to “Liberal,” “Conservative,” “Republican,” or “Democrat,” I don't think my choir is all that big.

Sandmonkey's Unique Perspective, worth reading.

An engaging,interesting and educational take on the current Israeli/Palistinian conflict was posted on Rantings of a Sandmonkey, yesterday. This is classic Sandmonkey. I have no further comment, just read and enjoy.

What Do We Do With 'Em Now?

The 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court--that the Commander-in-Chief overstepped the bounds of Executive Powers in creating the military tribunal commissions at Guantanamo Bay--has created such reactions as the comment at Daily Kos that "The President is a war criminal and should be executed," to cries of "All is lost." However, the decision also implies that the prisoners at Gitmo can be held indefinitely. At the tremendous cost in taxpayers' money and at the cost of international opinion, that is not a desirable option.
The reason the Guantanamo Bay military commissions were desirable is many fold. Classified evidence and means of gathering evidence would remain secure. Witnesses could testify without publicly revealing their identity, which would leave them or their families vulnerable to kidnapping, torture, and death at the hands of the enemy. The entire process would be quicker and less expensive to the taxpayers, than it would be in a Courts Martial or Civil Court, mainly because, though the defendents are allowed defense council and appeals, the tribunals would not be tied up in countless motions and heavy case loads, as would be Civil Court. This option could still be on the table--many feel that all is needed to comply with the Supreme Court decision is for Congress to pass a law authorizing the President to commission the military tribunals. However, it may not be possible to make such a law retroactive, so it would include the current POWs at Gitmo, so it could apply only to future POWs.
Another option is Civil Criminal Court. It took four years for Civil Court to reach a verdict in the Zakarias Mousawi case, so multiply this by approximately three hundred and thirty defendents and imagine the cost and burden this would put on the courts. Not only that, but it would be more diffucult to protect the witnesses, and more innocent women and children would lose their lives at the hands of Al Qaeda. It would be years, in each case, before prosecution could even begin, do to lenghthy debate over admisablity and safeguarding of evidence. This is the option we may end up going to, along with Courts Martial. Since both options are acceptable under the Supreme Court decision, they should both be used to speed up the process, at least a little. Still, it is unsafe to the general public, and not the most desirable means of procecuting the war criminals.
The former NATO Supreme Commander, General (Ret) Wesley Clark has suggested that the criminal cases be abjudicated by International Court. He actually makes a very good case for this, including some strong language for those countries which say that they are at war against the terrorists, but have, as yet done little or nothing for the war. Indeed, terrorism is a concern for all nations, he argues. He makes some credible points in favor of this option--for instance, that the United States may write the rules as to protection of classified evidence may be presented, and as to the method of prosecution. On the surface, this seems to be the best option we have, outside of the military tribunals, but assembling a fair judiciary for the court would be difficult. Many countries, due to the reporting of partial truths in the world wide media, would not be able to supply a judge who dioes not have some bias, and many of the criminals at Guantamano Bay could be set free to hijack planes or ships, to take hostages, to behead innocent civilians, and to commit other acts for which they were imprisoned in the first place.
A very weak option would be to turn the prisoners over to the custody of the country in which they were captured or of their national origin. Some wouldn't even be imprisoned, most wouldn't receive a trial, and many would experience what real torture feels like. The US has laws against torture, and, though the prisoners incarcerated in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan wouldn't any longer fall under the jurisdiction of the American law, by turning custody over to establishments which do practice torture, the United States would be indirectly violating its own law.
The bottom line is this; that the alledgedly criminal POWs must be prosecuted in some manner. Otherwise, they must be held, indefinitely, without trial, until the War on Terror has reached a conclusion.

Russian Secret Service Ordered to Iraq?

I was wondering how the Russians would react to the murders at the hands of the Islamofascists in Iraq. According to this article, Putin wants to capture the murderers by sending his own Secret Service to Iraq to do the job.
Or does he? He didn't specifically mention that that was his plan. Russia hasn't been involved militarily in Iraq, at all, and, consequently, the Russian military has no idea of who the enemy is in Iraq. The only information they seem to get is the propaganda about why the terrorists are in Iraq, as reported in American newspapers, which still deny that Al Qaeda would be in Iraq if it weren't for our presence there. Read the article hyperlinked above to see what I mean.

Update: Additional Scary Thoughts:
This is the same organization that got all the hostages killed in a hostage situation in Russia last year, and, in another, gassed the terrorists and the hostages in a Russian theater. It is not likely they will be cooperative with the Coalition Forces in Iraq. Their presence could mean trouble.
Russia doesn't hide the fact that it is cozy with Iran, which hasn't been secretive about wanting to subsidize Iraq and its oil fields. What would happen if there were a fire fight between the Russians and the Iraqi Security forces? Would this mean a bigger war? I would like to see more discussion of this in the Media. It deserves attention.

Ali Is Safe and Blogging!

I don't know that many of you have come across the blog "A Free Iraqi," but its author, "Ali" has not posted anything for a while, and we feared the worst. You see, Ali is a resident of Baghdad, and his brother, a doctor, was killed by terrorists a few months ago. His blog posts give us an idea of what life is like in Iraq since April 9, 2003. I am relieved that he is alive and well, and I am glad he is back.

Winning in Iraq

To those who disagree with my point of view: I know I can not change your mind on the subject of the war in Iraq any more than you can change mine. However, I hope you take the time to read this post, because it is in response to questions you have raised, in my mind, in your own blogs. Yes, it's true, I read your blogs with an open mind. Even if you feel that you have heard all this before, please try to return the courtesy I have afforded you. Maybe I can stimulate some thought from this presentation, and we can have a meaniingful dialogue. Comments are more than welcome, either here or at my forum. Please try to refrain from name calling or personal attacks.

It is, perhaps, my military training and experience that makes me think this way, but I have a deep conviction that, once a mission is begun, it should be continued to full accomplishment. No matter what the initial reason for being on the mission was, the need for victory, in the situation as it exists today, is vital.
Don't talk to me about Saddam's genocide, wmd's, threats against the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Jordon. Don't make an issue, now, about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israelis, or his dealings with al Qaeda. That war ended three years ago, with the end of Saddam's reign.
Those reasons mean nothing now, that mission was accomplished.

The conflict we are engaged in now is against a different enemy. When Saddam's government fell, the very same Islamist extremists who engineered the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States, took the opportunity to try to extablish their own government in Iraq, one which would give them the power of having their own country with its resources and people. It is against those people we are fighting and the defeat of al Qaeda is our mission.

Al Queda's stated mission--and this is from the mouth and pen of Usama Bin Ladin himself--is to create a Jihadi Caliphate in what he calls "Mesopotania." Once established, the goal of the Caliphate would be to spread the Jihad world-wide, and to destroy the Infidels of Western Civilization.

Bin Ladin deployed part of his military forces in Iraq with full confidence that he would be able to easily take Iraq--precedence set in Somalia told him that the Americans would leave as soon as the situation got difficult, as he told his generals, or "Emirs" in Iraq.

Admittedly, there were mistakes made. If the coalition forces had gone on to remove Saddam from power in 1991, the Iraqis would have been ready to take over the government, and we would not have had the problems we are experiencing now. There would still have been a Baathi insurgency, but the majority of Iraqis were united against Saddam. Our failure to follow through at the time created anti-American sentiments among some Iraqis, who felt we had let them down, especially since they had to suffer under Saddam for the next twelve years.

Furthermore, when Saddam was removed from power in 2003, we made the mistake of disbanding the Iraqi Army. This created resentment among the former army members, and gave Bin Ladin recruits and resources, as well as giving measure to the Sunni insurgency.

Should we have provided enough troops to secure the oil fields and oil production facilities? Assuredly, if we had done so, it would have been percieved by the rest of the world that America was there to steal the Iraqi oil resources. In that case, we would have been looked upon even less favorably by the rest of the world than we are now.

There have been atrocities. Those in the American military who abused their positions as prison guards and interrogators have been arrested and convicted, and are now in prison themselves. It has been made clear that their methods are not the methods of the United States Military Services. There are soldiers in detention now, facing charges of murder. It must be made clear that we are not there to murder innocent Iraqi citizens.

War is never desirable. Any politician, statesman, or military person will tell you that.There will be innocent civilian casulties, especially when the enemy is using them as human shields. We are fighting an enemy which does not wear uniforms. Not that this would, by any means, justify civilian deaths during the course of battle, but the wholesale murder of innocent civilians is the order of battle for Al Qaeda.. This is why they are called "terrorists," and their method "terrorism."

We want the Iraqis to be on our side. Al Qaeda wants to pit Iraqi against Iraqi, to create a civil war, and to make a failure of the new government. We know this not only from the notes of the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but from his actions, framing the Sunnis in the bombing of the Golden Mosque, using Iraqi Army uniforms to put blame on the Iraqi government when kidnapping and murdering Sunni Muslims.

As I write this, US and Iraqi security forces are rooting out insurgents in Ramadi, where two American soldiers were kidnapped, tortured, mutilated and murdered. Abu al Masri, the Egyptian al Queda general who replaced al Zarqawi in Iraq, publicly took full credit for that atrocity. The Iraqi Army has established a base in that city. Al Qaeda is in danger of losing another base of operations. What needs to be done now is for the Iraqi government to establish Martial Law in Ramadi, to step up the fight against the enemy.

Al Qaeda is losing. Bin Ladin has shifted many of his troops back to Afghanistan, to fight alongside the deposed Taliban forces to try to gain some kind of base. The absence of attacks in the US and Europe by Al Qaeda is proof that the enemy is using all their resources in Afghanistan and Iraq. The enemy has been forced to change its tactics, because they are running out of resources. From the view of military history, the tactics now being used in Iraq,
by Al Qaeda, are indicative of desperation on the part of the enemy.

Iraq is a winnable conflict. To win, we only need to make sure that Iraqi security forces are able to protect the people of Iraq and their government. We don't have to stay until there is no longer an insurgency. Once Iraq has a strong and stable army, we will be able to withdraw our combat forces. Granted, there will still be a long term need for logistical and intellegence support, but, hopefully, soon, we can pull our combat troops and bring them home.

This war should not be about politics. It has been made a political issue by people wanting only to "prove" that they are not like the President, to try to grab votes for their congressional faction. They are playing a game of popularity. What they should be doing is reminding people of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, enacted by President Clinton, and proudly proclaiming, "This war was our idea."

Losing Our Vote

This is a true story:

In a Democratic country, where each citizen gets one vote, and the majority rules, a teacher is put on trial for speaking of concepts which are detrimental to the well-being of the country. The entire citizenry is entitled to vote on the teachers guilt or innocence, and to set the penalty. The majority rules that the man is guilty, and the penalty is death. Thus Socrates, one of the greatest teachers in history, is forced to drink poison to carry out the penalty by majority rule.

The Framers of our Constitution in the United States of America did not believe that the majority should be given totalitarian rule over the minority. To protect the weak from the strong, they wrote several provisions into the Constitution. Some of these include the sovereignity of the individual states, the representation in the Federal Government of districts within these states, the representation in Federal Government of each state, the separation of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government, and, in national elections, the establishment of the Electoral College These provisions essentially even the odds between highly populated states and states with have smaller populations, and ensures that every citizen has a voice in government. This is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy.
Today, there are some in both factions of the Demopublican Party who wish to silence the voice of the weak. Each faction feels that they had an election "stolen" from them; one, in 1992, when William Jefferson Clinton won the Electoral vote, giving him victory over George H.W. Bush, who had garnered the larger popular vote, the other in 2000, when the Electoral College gave the Presidency to George W. Bush over the popularly elected Al Gore.
Six states, including my own state of Colorado, have legislation pending that would award the states' electoral votes to the presidential candidate who has the most popular votes nation wide. If enough states adopted such measures, the voice of the individual states would be silenced in national elections. If the majority of Colorado voters were to vote for Candidate A, for example, and the national totals favored Candidate B, then the votes of the Coloradans would be stripped from them and given to Candidate B. The Colorado voters would have no voice in the selection of the President. Not that it would matter, for the candidates would ignore Colorado and other states in their campaigns, catering only to the states with the larger populations. The city of Houston, TX, alone, has a population more than twice that of the entire state of Colorado, and four times that of the entire state of New Mexico. There would be little reason for any candidate to campaign in more than the twelve states with the largest population centers. The rest of us don't even need bother to vote, for our votes wouldn't matter anyway.
The sovereignity of the individual states would be greatly compromised, the voice of the citizens, as a state, silenced, and the entire Nation would, for the purposes of the Presidency, become a Majority ruled Democracy.
Not that any of that would matter. Every state, district, and precinct would become the venue of endless ballot recounts, delaying the results of the popular vote, until the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to choose the President and Vice-President, rendering the presidental election moot.
The Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. Even if it was 225 years ago that the Constitution was ratified, it was meant to endure through countless changes in demography, both anticipated and unforseen. To prevent tyranny of the many over the few, the strong over weak, the electoral process must be preserved.