Morning Coffee (105)

I woke up this morning to about 4 inches of light, fluffy white stuff on my truck. No, a Cessna filled with Colombian cocaine did not explode over my house. It was snow. And it was coming down. Of course, the city hadn’t yet bothered to mobilize the legions of snow plows, so the drive into work was like being a lone merchant vessel in the North Atlantic circa 1940; just waiting to take one to the keel. It never happened though, thankfully.

Delusional Change Someone Else Can Believe In (Revisited):

Talk about beating a dead horse. I was fortunate enough to hear the Obama commercial again this morning. The cute-girl-sounding announcer nearly has me convinced to vote for Obama on primary day. “Obama has a way of brining people together.” How? Where’s the proof? Give me an example. Alas, they do not. She says, as to why one might vote for Obama, “Maybe you want to end this war.” Then some teenager kid says to me, as if to illustrate the burning desire of all young people to end this “illegal, immoral war,” “Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning.” Great. Wow. Can you put that into context for me? For what reasons was he against the war? Was he against it for being against its sake? Would he support any war? In what ways would war be a valid option for Mr. Obama? I have a lot of questions for the freshman Senator from Illinois on foreign policy and war. None have ever been answered. (Of course us proles don’t get sit downs with Presidential candidates, even the ones who have a way of bringing people together.) Then Obama comes on, and I’m reminded of a portion of his ad that I forgot about yesterday. He says, in closing out his ad, “Believe in the dream we call America!” America’s a dream? Nobody told me! I’ve been living in a dream world my whole life and just now I find out about it. What’s worse, I’m told to believe in this “dream” in the same breath. Must America be merely a dream? Can it not be something far more substantive? I’m clearly being facetious here, but I hope you get my point. Flowery rhetoric is Obama’s forte. But what substance does he have? Is he any more substantive than the dreams of which he speaks? Obama wrote a book called, “Dreams from My Father.” Dreams is a prevailing theme in his speeches and one might think that dreams make up his entire political persona. No substance, just dreams. Dreams might make us feel good, but the do not solve or assuage reality. Sure, I like a forward thinker as much as the next man, but a man who dreams and doesn’t do…is that who we want as President? Flowery rhetoric and feel-goodery is just that.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, is apparently proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Go ahead, read it if you want. Barack’s excuse for her is…lacking. Hers was a poor choice of words.

McCain’s 100 Years War:

I don’t even want to talk about this whole thing, because it’s stupid. Obama’s campaign has unleashed the rhetoric-monsters on a fairly old McCain bit in which McCain made mention that it doesn’t matter how long we’re in Iraq so long as we succeed and we aren’t suffering casualties; even 100 years if necessary. I’ll be the first to admit that McCain’s phraseology was stupid. First of all, if we are, as McCain states, to “maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world,” we’d be suffering casualties, probably right up until the time we left. They may be minor, but we’d still lose men and women over there. I do see his point, that being that a secure Iraq is an important goal, and a set timeline is not something that is necessarily conducive to success. But the statement was dumb. And the Democrats seized on it. Now all you read about from the spokesmen of their campaigns is how McCain wants more than 100 years in Iraq, no matter what the topic is. He doesn’t “want” 100 or more years in Iraq. And they should remember, as McCain pointed out, that we’ve been in South Korea and Japan and Germany for quite a long time. There is an overwhelming precedent for long-term deployments of US troops overseas. What annoys me so is the misleading characterization that these political campaigns make on a daily basis, and on virtually every issue (tax cuts, anyone?).

Here’s the deal. McCain wants there to be a secure, stable Iraq, no matter the timeline. Success is the measure of success. Clinton wants the measure of success to be the withdrawal of all troops within 60 days of her election to the office of the President, no matter what that might mean for Iraq or the region. Obama would like to enact a “phased-redeployment” wherein all US forces are removed from Iraq by 31 March 2008. Getting involved in Iraq may have been a poor choice, but now that we’re there, we should make every effort to finish the job. I’ve written a great deal on the reasons for doing so, as some of you might remember. Not only are the pragmatic reasons, such as Iraq being secure from outside forces (Iran), important, but the more esoteric reasons like how we are perceived by the rest of the Muslim world are important as well. I’ve contended that leaving Iraq to its own fate after having annihilated its army, economy, and infrastructure and sewn the seeds of ethnic and religious violence is a terrible idea. A terrible one. If leaving Afghanistan to its own devices in 1991 was a bad idea that netted us 9/11, imagine how Iraq might turn out for us.

Cancer, Bacteria, Whatever:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends get their blights confused. Last week, one of his lackeys described Israel as a cancerous growth. Today, Mahmoud has described it as bacteria. Not just any bacteria, but filthy bacteria. He says, “The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.” I love propaganda. Such beautiful prose. Like a wild beast. Lashing out. Filthy bacteria. As humorous as his bloviating sounds, we should remember that most people attempt to eradicate such things as cancer and filthy bacteria. Hell, one of the chief methods of eliminating cancer is radiation. You know where you get radiation? Enriched uranium. Know what you can do with uranium? Make nukes. Nukes kill cancer. I’m unaware as to whether or not the Iranian regime is working on antibiotic-tipped missiles, but they may be doing just that. If so, we know what their intentions are, don’t we?

Ahmadinejad later says that Israel “uses terror as a threat every day, and afterwards is happy and joyful.” This in response to the actions against the pink mist that was Hezbollah chief Imad Moughniyeh. Iran doesn’t do terror. Nope. No way. Not on your life. Unless of course you consider a little thing like bankrolling Hezbollah as, I don’t know, supporting terror every day. Or kidnapping British Marines right off the Persian Gulf. Twice. Nah, Iran does not support or condone any form of terrorism. And if I get cancer, I know where I’m going: Bushehr.

Castro Steps Down:

After nearly 50 years of rule, Fidel Castro has stepped down as the President of Cuba. Castro had been in power since 1959. I haven’t really anything remarkable to add to this event, as it doesn’t appear that much will change in Cuba right away. Castro’s brother Raul will take over. There’s hope, as Raul has indicated that things need to change in Cuba, but I doubt much will happen while Fidel is still alive. Anyway, I just figured I’d mention it if some of you only get your news from the MC (which would be a bad thing).

A hearty Happy Birthday to our US Postal Service, which celebrates its 215th birthday today. The Postal Service Act was signed by George Washington in 1792. Let’s test your unofficial motto and see if I get my mail today.

Word of the Day: Ersatz (adjective): Being a substitute or imitation, usually an inferior one. We are presented with ersatz Presidential candidates.

On This Day in History: Congress proposes the Twenty-First Amendment, which will end Prohibition (1933). Good idea Congress. Movie studio executives agree to allow the Office of War Information to censor movies (1943). John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the earth (1962). Marilisa Xenogiannakopoulou, a Greek politician, and current record holder for the person with the longest name to receive an MC mention was born (1963). Kurt Cobain was born (1967).

“It is possible to provide security against other ills, but as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls.” – Epicurus.

Morning Coffee (91)

Welcome to Friday, which is two days before Monday. The year is flying by so fast, isn’t it? It’s like a blur. I can barely remember January 3^rd, it seems like so long ago.

The Masturbating Debaters:

I had the opportunity to see the last third or so of last night’s Republican debate. Watching these things is painful for me for a number of reasons, but I figure that I must put myself through the agony in order to make informed decisions about the Presidential candidates. I’ll watch the next Democratic debate when that comes on too. A few observations in a shot gunned manner:

Ronald Reagan’s name was invoked so much, I almost thought they were presenting him a lifetime achievement award and any minute he would saunter on stage, at which time all the candidates would take a knee while gazing upon him with divine adulation. Look, Reagan was great and all, but can we possibly look towards making the future as great as we all seem to think the past was?

Ron Paul was completely and utterly marginalized by the rest of the candidates, and this is frankly to his benefit. They continue to attack him, all of them, despite the fact that he’s nowhere near a front-runner; it’s as if they see him as a threat, which legitimizes him. So a lot of the attention ends up being on Paul, who’s asked some of the tougher question, but who fields them pretty well. He makes good points, even if some of them are tinged with unrealistic expectations and goals. I will admit, he is masterful on the defense. I think he is perfect for the role of victim, and the rest of the field is playing into his strong suit. They assaulted his “Republican-ness” last night and he handled it deftly. I think that the pack thinks of him as weak, that he’s just a nut job and that attacking him will give them a few easy wins, but every time they tried to sink their teeth into the wackiness of Paul last night, they found nothing but air. And the man had some loud supporters in the crowd. One of the others might make an excellent point and receive no crowd applause; Paul on the other hand would receive loud cheers and a shrill scream from the audience. Interesting. Side note: The mainstream media is finally reporting on Paul’s interesting little newsletter, a mere week after other media reported it. You can read it on CNN now. It’s about time.

Thompson was billed by some South Carolinians as the winner, and they said many good things about his performance. Having not seen the whole thing, I am not an authority on the matter. But remember, the man’s supporters are conservative southerners, so it stands to reason he’d poll well after being remotely eloquent. He did alright from what I saw, but he didn’t win the last third of the debate in my view.

Huckabee and Romney were the most fluent speakers. Both had served as ministers in their respective churches (well, bishop for Romney), so it should come as no surprise. Romney’s business acumen carried him in policy issues. Huckabee had perhaps the best overall response to a question when he was asked about something he said about (paraphrasing) “women submitting to their man…etc, etc, and how women from both parties think poorly about that sort of thinking.” His response was basically, “We all agree that religion is off-limits but I always get the religious questions. Since I’m going to preach, I’d like to pass around the collection plate because we could really use the money.” He then went on to absolutely crush the question. He pretty much put a saddle on that question and rode it around for a few minutes. He said, “the scriptures say that a woman must submit to her man, but a man must also submit to his woman and marriage being 100% effort from both parties, not 50-50.”

McCain had the best one-liner of the night. In regards to Paul wanting to “trade with everybody…” McCain replied that the terrorists, “only sell burkhas and only travel on one-way tickets.” His delivery was fantastic. He was pretty regularly assaulted by the rest of the field as well, but he handled himself expertly (no surprise since he’s been doing this for a long time). I also read that he’s got himself a “truth squad” to combat negative allegations. I guess he learned his lesson from the 2000 election cycle.

Giuliani probably performed the least admirably, I thought. I thought that Paul easily bested him, whereas most people had Paul losing. Giuliani constantly ran over the allotted time; at the end, speaking last, he just kept on going. The moderator kept trying to get in, but Giuliani kept going, repeating the same garbage. I found it arrogant. “America’s Mayor” didn’t do so hot in the first three primaries, so I guess he feels he needs to be more aggressive.

Overall, I think all the candidates did fairly well, but that’s to be expected since they sort of train for this. Some of the rhetoric that was spewed I thought was utterly void of insight and substance, but I neglected to take notes so I can’t remember specifics. For the next debate, I am thinking of setting up a new blog in which I’ll make posts during the debate as thoughts come to me. They’ll be time stamped and it might be neat.

I hate that the MC has turned into another political commentary blog. But I feel it’s my duty to at least monitor the situation for my dear readers. This is very important stuff, despite the fact that it bores most people to tears.

US Sends a Clear Message to Iraqi Date Palm Groves:

The US Air Force dropped 40,000 pounds of ordnance on date palm groves in the southern outskirts of Baghdad yesterday, in the largest air strike since 2006. The groves were suspected of harboring al-Qaida fighters. The fireworks were courtesy of two B-1 bombers and four F-16s. There has been no word on al-Qaida casualties, but the date palms were hit hard; suffering from severe burns, shrapnel wounds, and various internal injuries from the concussive force of the bombs. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said of the strike, “This is a blow from which the Iraqi date palm will have a very difficult time recovering. We sent a message to them that you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. I don’t expect that al-Qaida will find the date palm receptive to their jihadist message after this, and hopefully the date palms can be reintegrated with greater Iraq.”

That was a poor attempt at imitating the Onion, I know. But cut me some slack…Have a good weekend. I will try to deliver to you some steaming hot, bitterly delicious Coffee at least once during our respite from servitude.

Word of the Day: Mimetic (adjective): 1. Apt to imitate; given to mimicry; imitative. 2. Characterized by mimicry; applied to animals and plants; as, “mimetic species; mimetic organisms.”

On This Day in History: First recorded lottery in England (1569). First day of Carmentalia, celebrated primarily by women, in honor of Carmenta, the goddess of childbirth and prophecy. If you were to visit her temple, you were forbidden to wear leather or other dead skin. Carmenta also invented the Latin alphabet, so thank her.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili. Better known to the proles as Stalin.

Morning Coffee (87)

I hope that everyone is relatively warm. The map indicates that it is certifiably frigid throughout our nation. But do you know what is not frigid? That’s right. Your Morning Coffee. I wonder though, how the cold will affect the turnout for the hugely important and greatly interesting caucus in Iowa…you know our citizens. If voting is in any way inconvenient, you can forget it.

Edwardian Politics:

John Edwards, he of the flashy smile and expensive hair, has revealed unto us his plan for Iraq. Should he become President, he will withdraw virtually all US troops from the country within 10 months, including those who are training the Iraq military and police. In this, Edwards defeats his rivals in one way that will be appealing to Democratic voters; his withdraw plans are far more thorough and will be accomplished in a far shorter time period than either Clinton or Obama.

Edwards’s plan consists of the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and then the withdrawal of the rest within 9 or 10 months. He would leave 3,500-5,000 in place to protect the Embassy and maybe humanitarian aid workers. To combat any increase in sectarian violence, which he acknowledges as a possible side effect of such a rapid withdrawal (or “redeployment” as some Democrats call it) in a nation so thoroughly addicted to US troops, Edwards would keep a quick reaction force (QRF) in Kuwait or Jordan. That sounds good, right? Even reasonable. We could rapidly redeploy troops a few hundred miles to another country that doesn’t want a large contingent of US troops in order to rapidly redeploy them should the initial redeployment prove ill-advised, or cause genocide. I wonder though, if Edwards has bothered to speak with Jordanian or Kuwaiti officials, or if he just assumed that they’d be okay with hosting an undetermined number of redeployed troops.

Which leads me to further wonder, since Edwards’s figures seem pretty specific already, if he has an idea as to many troops he would keep in Kuwait or Jordan? Or would he defer to the judgment of the military on that one? I would find that interesting, since he’s ignoring what most senior military officials (and an NIE) are saying regarding the unfeasibility of such rapid and comprehensive troop withdrawals. Wouldn’t that be ironic? The military deciding on the numbers of troops to maintain in the region which would be there for pretty much the sole reason of saving Edwards’s skin should his plan, which is the complete opposite of what the military suggests, not produce results? Basically, we’ll keep ‘em close by just in case we shouldn’t have took them out in the first place.

Whatever the numbers, it doesn’t sound like Edwards has much faith in his plan, the main crux of which is that we must leave Iraq to force the Iraqi leadership into finally doing things for themselves. How benevolent of us. We’re like parents, kicking out our children because they’ve become too much of a burden, and doing so will only force them to clean up their act and become responsible adults. Except that it doesn’t really work that way. Because we’re not parents and the Iraqis are not children. In this case, they’re grown men, and each separate group in Iraq has a different set of agendas, all of which will be contrary; not only to each others’ interests, but our interests. If we leave prematurely, it will not be the nice, friendly, peace loving Iraqis that inherit power; it will be the brutal, power-hungry types who will do anything who will secure power. If we are going to leave just to let a brutal, anti-US regime take power, then why did we topple the previous regime, which in the end might actually turn out to have been LESS brutal and anti-US than a new one? If we’re beholden to our mores of spreading democracy, we would simply be forced to remove another regime in a few years, otherwise we’d be cast as hypocrites. It matters not what the true reasons we demolished Saddam’s regime were, we later billed the endeavor as an opportunity to spread democracy to the Middle East, thus it can be argued that this is where our obligation lies.

In the same article, Edwards asserts that we (he) must restore our moral standing in the world. I’m not sure I see how leaving Iraq and sparking widespread conflict and chaos does this. In 1991, we ceased providing aid to Afghanistan. We had no further use for them, since our only goal was to provide them with the means to defeat the Soviets. You may think this is apples and oranges. Surely, our intent there was not to spread democracy or even leave the Afghans with a stable government or economy. But since this was not a priority, and we gave it hardly a thought, leaving Afghanistan unstable and in the hands of warlords turned out to be a bad idea. It embittered a generation of Muslims against the United States, which they felt simply abandoned fellow Muslims after their use had expired. We didn’t create al-Qaida and its knockoffs by providing them with money and training during the Soviet-Afghan War, we created them by leaving Afghanistan to poverty and a dozen years of war and chaos. The situation in Iraq has the potential to be even worse. We did not support the Iraqis in some proxy war with our chief rival, which left them impoverished and war-stricken. Instead, we obliterated a stable (albeit brutal) regime, conducted non-stop combat operations against an insurgency which ravaged Iraq’s infrastructure and economy, helped create an un-bridgeable gap in the demographics of the country where there had previously been few and then abruptly redeployed troops. We do this because Mr. Edwards (or whoever else) believes that it’s time to make the Iraqis stand on their own because we’re tired of shouldering the burden on their behalf. We were directly responsible for their situation, unlike in Afghanistan. This does nothing to improve our moral standing. I would argue that this accomplishes the opposite of what Mr. Edwards intends. Surely, we’ll continue to pump money into Iraq’s infrastructure even after we redeploy troops because it has oil, so unlike in Afghanistan, there’s a more practical reason for providing aid. And if we don’t do so, the Chinese will. So economically, the outlook, at least temporarily, is better than it was for Afghanistan. But how long will conflict there continue after we leave? And will this conflict make any potential aid moot?

I, frankly, do not care about the spread of democracy as an end, nor about the use of the military as a means to that end. I care about Iraq for far more practical reasons. We were involved with helping Japan regain its footing after WWII longer (seven years) than we have been involved in Iraq, and we didn’t even have an insurgency with which to contend. We helped the Japanese despite the fact that they actually attacked us. We did the same for Germany (four years). So committed to stabilizing Japan were we, that we banned a religion (Shinto). We stayed and helped these two nations because we learned this lesson once before. Germany and Germans, not feeling militarily beaten, were bitter and resentful of the crushing repatriations and military limitations of the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed upon them by the Allies. Hitler brought to the Germans hope and a chance for redemption. Perhaps much like Salafism and bin Ladin. For practical reasons, we have an obligation, if not to the Iraqis then to ourselves. For prematurely “redeploying troops”, i.e. abandoning Iraq, will likely cause us more problems in the future; potentially worse than our abandonment of Afghanistan. Staying in Iraq and helping create a stable, secure Iraq is a propaganda win; a moral win. Showing people that we clean up our messes and do not abandon people is valuable. I’m surprised that Iraq is not seen as an opportunity for a moral victory by Democrats, especially considering that they generally paint themselves as more idealistic than Republicans (role reversal anyone?). But the demand for an end to what they call an “illegal war” (authorized by Congress) is more about political expediency, which in our nation is always more important than idealism, even for idealists, who generally prove to be politically practical enough to abandon ideals when necessary. If only their political practicality could inform their policies on this occasion.

Edwards’s policy on Iraq will change a great deal once he were to see the situation through the lens of the Presidency, of this I’m certain. But as it stands right now, I view his policy as even less appropriate and more ridiculous than his Democratic rivals. He’s simply trying to be more “hard core” in order to pander to the anti-war crowd and others who are disillusioned (and who will fail to realize that this plan still requires an unknown number of troops to be deployed overseas), never mind that it’s simply a bad policy. But who cares when all you’re trying to do is win the office? But does this manner of thinking surprise anyone? Aren’t they all the same? I wish I could discuss Iraq policies free from the soft, fuzzy glow of Presidential politics, but unfortunately that is impossible right now.

As a side note, I heard a political ad from Hillary Clinton this morning, proclaiming that it is time to take a new path, one that is different from the path we’ve been on for the previous seven years. Hillary is a master of the obvious, considering this is an election year in which the incumbent cannot run, and thus it must be time for a new path no matter who wins. I get her point, but I still find this commercial absurd. Apparently though, it needed to be said, and she paid for it to be said. Oh, and each vote in Iowa costs $200, based on the amount of money candidates have spent there and predicted voter turnout. Neat.

Word of the Day: Arcanum (noun): 1. A secret; a mystery. 2. Specialized or mysterious knowledge, language, or information that is not accessible to the average person (generally used in the plural, which is arcana). Reminds me of the specialized knowledge that politicians have, which is not accessible to the average person.

On This Day in History: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator, philosopher, lawyer, political theorist and politician, was born (106 BCE). Leonardo da Vinci fails in his tests of a flying machine (1496). As discussed previously in the MC, Pope Leo X excommunicates Martin Luther (1521).

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.”

“Even if you have nothing to write, write and say so.”

“Next to God we are nothing. To God we are Everything.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero. I find the last quote interesting considering monotheism wasn’t exactly en vogue in Rome while Cicero lived. Sounds like someone revised Cicero’s statement somewhat…revisionism at its finest.

Morning Coffee (79)

Welcome to another weekend edition of the Morning Coffee. Weekend editions of the MC are like that coffee made from the beans that have gone through the digestive track of the palm civet: rare, expensive, and delicious. Also, it's not bad for something that you have to wade through the mental feces of other media in order to get it.

The Mitchell Report – Fingered by McNamee:

I had no real intention of discussing the Mitchell Report on the Morning Coffee, despite baseball being the only sport I watch. For those who don’t know, the Mitchell Report was commissioned by Major League Baseball to investigate the use of performance enhancing drugs by players, former and present. You can read the entire thing HERE. It’s actually somewhat interesting.

I love baseball, and I was a little worried about how I would feel about it after reading the report. I likened it somewhat to the strike of 1994 when fans abandoned the sport in droves. Luckily, after reading it, I still consider myself an avid fan. The sport has a problem, and hopefully the leadership and players are able to come to grips with that and make an effort to fix it.

Anyway, my point is not to get into a huge, long discussion about the Mitchell Report. I could, but I won’t. The Morning Coffee is not the place; maybe the City of Dis, but not our beloved MC. But I wanted to point out to you something that if found supremely hilarious: the main witness and/or informant that Mitchell used is a man by the name of Brian McNamee. The man who “named names” is named McNamee. Does anyone else think that is ironic?

More Political Politicking by Pencil-Necked Politicians:

I know I said I’d try to keep politics out of the MC for a time, but this one is simply too good to pass up. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal wrote an article recently called “The Pulpit and the Potemkin Village.” You can read it HERE. I recommend it. She talks about how religion has become something of a defining factor in today’s Presidential politics and some other interesting things (if you do not know what a Potemkin village is…find out). Anyway, one passage struck me, as I touched on it in previous editions. In it, she talks about illegal immigration, specifically, but I think the gist can easily be applied to any issue.

“Hillary Clinton is not up at night worrying about the national-security implications of open borders in the age of terror. She's up at night worrying about whether to use Mr. Obama's position on driver's licenses for illegals against him in ads or push polls.”

This is precisely the point. Not one of these Presidential “hopefuls” actually worries about much of anything other than how to spin someone else’s “opinion/beliefs/ideas” and use them against them. I wonder if any of them, save perhaps Ron Paul and maybe Mike Huckabee (the former, crazy; the latter one shade shy of being a fundamentalist Christian), have any beliefs/opinions/ideas at all that aren’t provided to them by the latest polls or political strategists; Hillary may just be the worst offender.

You may point out the aforementioned Paul and Huckabee as having beliefs, and this is true. But beliefs alone do not make policies, and in both their cases, I think they are dangerous to that for which our country stands.

There are 300 million Americans in this country, and maybe 50 million illegal immigrants, and the best we can muster is the group of troglodytes that make up the Presidential Hopeful Class of 2008?

Here’s a side tidbit of information for you: Huckabee says that “American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out.” Probably true to a large extent. But then he goes on to say, “My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.” Has he never heard of the People’s Republic of China? What about a newly wealthy Russia re-equipped with long-range nuclear aviation patrols and a carrier battle group tour of the Mediterranean? India perhaps? What about Iran? The European Union? Africa? Saudi Arabia and Syria and Venezuela? All of these nations and entities would prefer American power be eroded and our influence marginalized. While I agree with Huckabee that the application of American power and influence (what little we have anymore) would be more effective if used in other ways, it really does sound like it’s, well, us pitted against the world. Thus is geopolitics, which Huck may or may not actually comprehend. I understand his point; that being playing to the fears of Americans, but it would be nice if someone spoke with some candor for once about the real threat to American power and our way of life: virtually everyone that isn’t us…okay, and us too.

The Surreptitious Success of the Surge:

With glacial speed, mainstream media outlets have begun to report on the successes of the American fighting man and President Bush and General Petreaus’ Surge in Iraq. It sort of snuck up on us. Bad news upon bad news, and then, BAM, the news became kind of good; real good, in fact. Violence all throughout Iraq has plummeted. Imagine that the numbers are so staggeringly good that it’s become almost impossible for the media or liberals to refute it. Indeed, they say that it cannot last or is a fluke or is only etc, etc. But almost none of them actually have the gumption to suggest that the 30,000 troop increase has not been effective.

Many people might, however, think that this success is merely the nefarious efforts of al-Qaida; a sly way of undermining American politics and policies. However, al-Qaida, as indicated by their statements preceding the 2004 election, would prefer a Democrat as President. This is not to say that a Democrat would necessarily abandon the ridiculously named “War on Terror” once he (or she) was privy to the realities of the office of President, but al-Qaida would still prefer to not see a Republican in the White House in 2009. It is in al-Qaida in Iraq’s (AQI) interest to continue to inflict deaths upon our military, lest they appear weak. I will tell you what many are afraid to: AQI and their ilk are being broken. Iraqis are tired of them, and they’re being reported. Fallujah, once a haven, is now a very bad place to be an insurgent. They may or may not make a surge for themselves in the future, but right now they’re being slapped around pretty good. This is why it is imperative that the Iraqis have a strong military and police force of their own, or our efforts will have been for naught. Eventually, we will have to leave and they will stand or fall on their own.

Even Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has been one of Congress’ most vocal critics of the war, has said of the Surge, “it’s working”; said after he made a visit to Iraq in November. This comment has been latched upon by Republicans who are overjoyed that the Surge has won over such a critic. Murtha addressed the press after he returned from Iraq, and those two words are the only bit from the whole thing that Republicans cite. He said much more. He was still critical of the Bush administration and said that the Iraqis must begin to take care of themselves, no matter how well the Surge works. Converted to the Surge, yes, but he’s still adamant that we need to be out of there as soon as possible.

I am not privy to the inner workings of the Bush mind, but I don’t think that he believed that the Surge would work as well as it has. I think he was just throwing some numbers at the problem and got lucky. His luck might have been to the detriment of our Armed Forces, but that’s an issue for another time…and for another President.

Word of the Day: Draconian (adjective): 1. Pertaining to Draco, a lawgiver of Athens, 621 BCE. 2. Excessively harsh; severe. One of my favorite words.

On This Day in History: The infamous Nero was born (37 CE). One of the greatest Byzantine Emperors, Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer” died (1025 CE) (imagine a US President with a moniker like that.) The US Bill of Rights becomes law after being ratified by the Virginia legislature (1791). General Douglas MacArthur orders that Shinto be abolished as the state religion of Japan (1945). Abolished. Can you imagine? The US has actually abolished a state religion of another nation (admittedly, a defeated one).

The Roman festival Consuales Ludi was held, which honored the god Consus, the god of counsel and the protector of the harvest which is being stored. Additionally, the Rape of the Sabine Women took place on this day. Romulus, seeing the need to increase the population of Rome, authorized each Roman male to forcibly abduct and take as his wife a woman from the visiting Sabine tribe. This story is likely apocryphal. The Book of Judges has a similar story.

“There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity.” – General Douglas MacArthur