Hitch nails it again in A War to be Proud of:

The more temperate anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . .

One thing is absolutely certain, the war in Iraq was a war of choice. It was either war now, or war later.

In 1871 Germany left France defeated but basically intact, sans a few square miles real estate.

Was it any surprise then that in both 1914 and again in 1940 Germany's main concern was her Western neighbor. The cause was basically irrelevant, be it encirclement or retribution.

In 1953 we left the communists in power in North Korea after a blatant disregard for international law. I seem to rememeber that once, invading sovreign neighbors over a supposed corridor was reason to destroy that regime.

In 1991 we left Saddam in power, despite the very same naked aggression towards a neighbor over an equally spurious claim.

And we are none the wiser. Another "forty years later" (1914-1871 = 43 years) and North Korea is once again a major concern, this time over nuclear weapons. UN inspectors and former presidents only confirm international impotence. The problem remains intractible today.

Twelve years after driving Saddam from Kuwait, we found ourselves with the same dictator, an unchecked weapons program, a supporter of terror, and one of the worst offenders of human rights. His UN imposed shackles were soon to expire, and those that were still in place were flagrantly violated.

Ask the Romans about leaving an enemy intact. Hamilcar made his son swear a blood oath for revenge as did Arminius of his fellow tribesmen. Was that any different than "Revanche" or the "traitors of Versailles". Just as Adrianople would follow Teutoberg, so too would Verdun follow Sedan, and so too would Desert Storm be followed by Iraqi Freedom.

You'd think we start making better choices.

hat tip BlackFive

The military is cracking down on milblogs, concerned over security breaches and the enemy gaining information.

I hope they also are looking at the obvious benefits as well. I'd hate to censor the milblogs, and not even the ones crtiical, but considering the overwhelmingly negative press coverage, milblogs provide an, and maybe the only, alternative. The fact that the re-enlistment goals, even among combat units, is over 100%, morale is high, and commitment to the mission solid, would be lost without those there telling us.

As Sgt. Roche writes in today's Washington Times Oped, 'Wonderful time to be a soldier'

Yes, recruitment is lower, but the caliber of those who are signing up and the rates of re-enlistment are both extremely high. All 10 of our major combat divisions are ahead of expectations for retention of soldiers. In my unit, there are soldiers who specifically went active duty from the reserves because they want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.

That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.

Now, those who are enlisting want to go, and they know what's at stake. And perhaps, and very probably, they read the milblogs and decided that media version A was entirely oposite milblog version B. And maybe, just maybe, they want something else as well.

Read the milblogs and you know what it is.

Another installment in the series, this time titled "Boycot buying gas day".

Recently I was asked about the supposed "boycot gas day" which I was told is to be September 3rd. I can neither confirm nor deny this, and if anyone does know for a fact, please let me know.

When asked, the reply was simple, it a falacious argument. In fact, let me rephrase that, I actually replied "it's a stupid argument". Now, the reason I feel safe calling it "stupid" is this: it's based on poor logic and complete ignorance.

Why?

The most basic of economic principles is scarcity, the concept that our needs and wants are unlimited while what we need and want is limited, sometimes very much so. Gasoline is no exception. We simply don't have enough gas.

The reason we have high gas prices is that there are far more people demanding it than the supplies can meet. Whether that demand comes in the form of electrical power plants, SUV's, or Chinese drivers is irrelevant. We have a classic economic problem, a shortage. Ask any NFL team about left tackles and what they are willing to pay for them for a good lesson in scarcity and shortages. (Hint: left tackles protect the quarterback's blind side. i.e. Where Peyton Manning is not looking.)

Demand is a function of (in other words, dependent on) income, tastes, complementary goods, substitute goods, and unplanned for events, like weather. In most cases, when a good becomes too expensive, we will substitute for it with a less expensive equivalent. Gasoline is a unique good in that there is no substitute. You can put all the water or whiskey you want into your tank, but it still goes nowhere. The only real substitute to gas is not driving, i.e. not using it.

Several years ago, SUV's were rather rare, whereas today, they make up a sizable percentage of the automobiles. Millions of new drivers in China are demanding gas for their new cars, the wonders of free market capitalism introduced into "communist" countries. This creates a huge increase in the demand for gas. Roughly translated, this results in a greater quantiy demanded at every price, even high ones.

The last concept is one of price elasticity, or the effect that price has on what people buy. Gasoline, being without substitute, is if anyone should have doubts, highly inelastic. In other words, changes in price have a small impact. Now, this can be deceiving, as the elasticity curve is not always a straight line. For example, increases in price have little effect, but cheap prices do. We will purchase roughly the same at high prices, but go hog wild when prices are cheap.

Now, let's summarize: gas is scarce, demand has greatly increased, there is no alternative, and price has little effect on how much we purchase. Market forces would clearly force down prices if such was possible. Coordination in any collusory act is complicated by information deficits and inability at enforcement of compliance. This is as true for the gas stations as it is for the boycotters. Even if the gas stations had conspired, it would not last this long. It's a classic oligopolistic model.

The idea that boycotting the gas stations will force down prices just displays faulty logic and reasoning compunded by ignorance. We will buy gas the day before or the day after, and the gas stations know it. We have no choice about it, nor honestly do they.

I wonder, did this boycott idea originate with a certain NY Times econo-columnist?

What is the solution? Just simply increase the supply of energy. And no, hybrid cars don't count. Electricity is generated by power plants burning...oil. We need to either drill for oil in new locations (increase supply of oil) or use nuclear, solar, hydro, etc. power (substitues for oil).

And that is how economists think.

Vietnam redux

I admire Chuck Hagel for his service, and on most things I agree with him. Fine.

The senator has to know that even more than the 58,000 brave men the greatest loss in Vietnam was the respect and prestige of the US.

For the left, respect means submission to the UN and international agreements, prestige means ceding national sovreignty. Nothing the US could ever do is just or noble, and is in fact hegemonic, banal, or driven by greed.

After Vietnam, the confidence of our allies, and worse, of our enemies, to "bear and burden, pay any price" was reduced considerably. It took us years to regain the lost ground, something we won't be so lucky to do should a similar fate happen this time.

Even now, the press, the left, and their willing accomplices in the democratic party (or is that the other way around, as if there's a difference) have done yeoman's work instilling the defeatist mentality in many Americans. They have also done us enormous, perhaps irreparable harm, encouraging the enemy to be strong, resilient, and patient.

The only way Iraq could or would compare to Vietnam is the terrible consequences it would have on our friends' faith in us, coupled by the great boost in morale to the enemy. And unlike Vietnam, there will be no recovery.

The Senator's words, however well intentioned, are a huge disservice to the service of the men and women in Iraq, not to mention the millions of brave Iraqis.

Worse still is that this plays right into the hands of the domestic enemy (long since chronicled here) who strives to separate Iraq from Afghanistan from the War on Terror. This was the same argument that the anti-Vietnam war crowd made back in the day. Vietnam was not a "domino" nor a Soviet satellite, but was much more a civil war. We learned all too well, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were not just tribal thugs but hardcore communists who yearned to spread marxism worldwide. We also learned the depths of their animus towards humanity in the killing fields and the re-education camps.

If we feared, and rightly so, the effects of the fall of Saigon, the fall of Baghdad will yield even more ruinous returns. As much as the fate of the middle east hinges on Iraq. Will it be, as it was once the locus of civilization, the wellspring of democracy and reform or will it be the cespool of extremism, clerical barbarism, and terrorism?

Vietnam? Hardly. The end is far worse.

Maybe I've been a little busy lately, with school starting, the kids getting older, etc., but I just can't quite seem to get the gist of the Able Danger story. Here's what I think I know.

Apparently the DoD had some information that identified Atta long before the attacks. Apparently, there was some controversy about how to relay the information, then act on the information.

I think I've written about this earlier, but let me sum up a few points here:

1) 9/11 was almost 4 years ago. Fighting over who or what is to blame is fruitless. We're fighting a war now, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places. That is where we should focus attention. Truth is none of it matters. It isn't going to change one thing, bring back one life, alter the past.

2) We couldn't have prevented the attacks. Imagine for a moment Ashcroft said on 9/4/01, "We've just rounded up over a dozen terrorists who were plotting a massive attack on the US". Now, imagine the every newspaper and television station and what they would be saying. The democratic party leaders would be shrieking about Nazi Germany, the ACLU would file numerous lawsuits, and the protestors would fill the streets. (Well, not much changed there, eh?) Do you think they would have believed for a moment what was going happen?

3) It is long since time for us to "get over it" or for want of a better term "move on". We can't expect the democrats to take national security seriously, and fortunately, most of the public doesn't either.

4) The public is basically unwilling to do what really needs to be done. We need to a) close the borders b) bar immigration from nations with terroristy ties c) monitor those already here from such countries d) racially profile and stop apologizing for doing so e) monitor mosques, and if necessary, expel anyone inciting terrorism, and lastly stop handcuffing law enforcement from performing its duties. Maybe the public is ready some argue. But our legislators aren't, and if we're not willing to vote them out, then we aren't willing.

I have no desire to score cheap political points anymore. The bombers in London certainly don't care whether Blair gains or loses popularity.

The Clinton administration dropped the ball in the 90's on terrorism. So what? It does nothing constructive, and isn't even going to help if Hillary runs. Don't tell me what they did wrong, tell me what we're going to do now. If there was a failure to communicate, then fix it. If there was a failure to follow leads, then make sure there are supervisors who will follow them.

They decimated our armed forces and few said a word. Too many clamored for their stars and allowed the military to deteriorate. Where were the generals? Too many pols saw a huge dividend to laish on their constituents rather than perform their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. So what are we to do? Retroactively impeach them?

Franky I am long past caring about what the Clinton administration or Congress did or didn't do. Sure they failed miserably, but go back and read Clinton's speeches in 1998 on Iraq. I beleive had he been able to get public support, he'd have gone to war then. But he couldn't, and he didn't. And I'm no fan of him, but I can only blame him as far as the public was willing. He was a follower of polls, not a leader of men. We get the "leaders" we deserve.

Sometimes I jsut want to scream.

Hat tip powerline

Once again the left is trying its best to rwrite history. Anyone remember the Enola Gay display?

So, here's my proposal for a freedom center.

It would have:

1) a musket
2) a mast and sail
3) a chain
4) a top hat, a wheel chair, and a cigar
5) a steam engine
6) a dollar bill
7) a loaf of bread
8) a model of the statue of liberty
9) a pint of blood
10) a flag

1) The musket repesents the Revolutionary war, the belief that men will fight for their inalienable rights and that the only way to secure those rights is willingness to risk everything.

2) A mast and sail represent the fact that we have gone around the world in order to defend freedom. It also represents those that left behind everything and came to America to make a new start. They came for freedom. They still do.

3) A chain would represent slavery, the most greivous crime that can be commited against people. All nations, all races, all peoples are guilty. Few would have gone to war to destroy the institution. We did.

4) A top hat is what Lincoln wore, the wheel chair what FDR rode, the cigar what Churchill smoked. Need any more explanation?

5) The steam engine represents the freedom to innovate, coupled with the industrial might and economic power of a free society. It specifically powered our way across a continent and across the world. Even today, nuclear reactors on ships power steam engines that patrol the world.

6) The dollar bill would represent the treasure we have spent to protect, defend, and expand freedom. Our current military expenditures are more than most every other nation, combined. Imagine a world without that. Not a pleasant thought.

7) A loaf of bread represents the food and aid we send around the worl to feed, cloth, and treat. When an earthquake, tsunami, famine, or other natural or man-mande disaster strikes, it is US food and care that save lives. We give away more food every year than most nations produce.

8) The statue of libery represents the open arms with which we greet all freedom loving peoples. Even today, people risk anything and everything to come here. We must be doing something right.

9) A pint of blood is a reminder of the millions of pints of blood that have been spilled on every continent by US soldiers. Many nations have shed blood when invaded. Many nations have shed blood invading others. We are the onyl nation ever to shed blood to return the lives and property of the invaded. And we never ask for a dime in return. Freedom is its own reward.

10) The US flag. We are God's gift to the world. We are the shining city upon a hill, the beacon of light and hope for the world. Providence indeed guides our fate. The flag is but a small symbol of that.

The museum would be really small and really simple. It's motto would be simple too:

"Freedom isn't free"

Underneath it would be the subheading:

Welcome the only nation willing to pay the price.

Everyone from Mark Steyn to Jonathan Chait aren't buying MoDo's whole "absolute moral authority" argument.

Doesn't the fact that she's the source of it make it an absurd argument. Arguing over a MoDo point is like arguing with flat earth people. It's akin to finding out what happened at the party last night after your fourth margarita.

You end up asking yourself the same question: "I did what?"

Jim Hoargland offers an excellent perspective about how the Army is being Reshaped by reality in Iraq.

Iraq has also brought into sharp focus the costs of the decision by Vietnam-era generals to embed critical skills in reserve and National Guard units to force the call-up of citizen soldiers in an extended conflict. The commanders reasoned that this would bar political leaders from pursuing wars that did not have substantial public support.

But the effect of this decision was to load into the reserves the civil affairs, psychological warfare and other specialized units important to fighting low-intensity conflicts or nation-building. The debate over how many U.S. troops should be in Iraq is a legitimate and important one. But it obscures the equally vital point that the United States does not have available enough of the kind of troops it needs to deploy in Iraq in any event.

It is a rare thing indeed when a journalist gets it right anymore, and here Mr. Hoagland certainly does.

People remember Pearl Harbor for the destruction of the Pacific Fleet. What they fail to mention most often is that our fleet was still a gunboat navy, even though Billy Mitchell had crushed that dream more than a decadae earlier.

I have written previously about the decimation of the armed forces under the Clinton administration, most notably in The Readiness Paradox.

Hoagland notes that retired General Barry McCaffery is concerned about the state of the Reserves and Guard, as well he should be. Perhaps he could have been a little more vocal, like when he was on active duty and this was all happening.

Lost in all this debate is that the very same people most critical of the president's "handling of the war" are the very same ones who did nothing at best, or voted for at worst, the cuts and reduciton in forces. Maybe Mrs. Sheehan should be protesting in front of their homes instead.

We are always fighting the last war. What is most disturbing?

the decision by Vietnam-era generals to embed critical skills in reserve and National Guard units to force the call-up of citizen soldiers in an extended conflict. The commanders reasoned that this would bar political leaders from pursuing wars that did not have substantial public support.

A national security policy decision was made for purely political reasons. We're paying dearly for that now. If we learn nothing else from Iraq and the entire War on Terror, it is that should never, ever, happen again.

I was listening to Larry Kudlow today on KFI640 out here in LA, and he was interviewing Donald Lambro of the Washington Times. The subject was why, with great economic news from low unemployment and increases in manufacturing, to low interest rates and record home ownership, the president's economic approval numbers are low.

One thing they both noted was how Reagan and Clinton were not at all bashful talking about their economic successes. This was especially true of Clinton.

So what is it about the president that he just simply doesn't talk much about his successes? Something else that he refuses to do is criticize his attackers. The left is fond of saying how divisive he is, how he failed to "unite". But think for a moment, when has he ever been divisive?

The one phrase they cite is "you're either with us or against us" which of course refers to nations that support terror. But keeping in mind the left either thinks we're not at war or actually prefers we lose it, they figure since their not with us ...

But other than that, for a guy who has been called everything possible and imaginable, is there one time when he ever returned fire? I truly can't think of any. In fact, he hasn't any hatchet men either to do his dirty work, like Clinton and Carville.

I imagine it must have to do with two factors, his recovery from alcoholism and his religious conviction. In both instances, selflessness is the key, giving up something, seeking an unattainable goal. Sobriety is always temporary, as in "I've been sober for...", never "I was an alcolholic". Same goes for his religious conviction, the concept of imperfect man, sinner, asking for forgiveness.

So, perhaps it's time for Bush to put aside some of the non-confrontational, selfless, and humble approach. Politics doesn't play well with such. We're at war, and popular support is sagging, while at home, with an economy booming, tough times seem to be the percpetion.

It's time to demand some love.