Dangerous Dan

I’ve been considering lately what it is that makes people stick to a particular point of view so doggedly that they refuse to acknowledge facts, produce untenable arguments, concoct wild conspiracy theories, and go against normal ethics and values. You see such things all the time: anti-war protestors say it’s all about oil and that the CEO of Exxon is orchestrating events, the same folks say Bush is a new Hitler, PETA compares the Holocaust to skinny cows on factory farms, etc. Now certainly, you can’t count out sincere belief. But that doesn’t explain why PETA would petition Yassar Arafat to not blow up donkeys but refuse to take a similar position about blowing up people (it’s not their place to get involved in political matters, they said) or for Jesse Jackson to say Jeb Bush was visiting the Holocaust on Florida Jews “once again” during the 2000 election conflict. After some thought, I have a theory that such behavior is a sort of manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Syndrome, of course, got plenty of mentions during coverage of Elizabeth Smart’s rescue from her lunatic kidnapper. It’s the notion that in a hostage situation, the captives will come to love and defend their captors, even beyond reasonable logic when confronted with it. Something like that could be at play with many causes’ supporters. There may actually be an existing term for this sort of thing, but it wasn’t immediately available. Just as people are held hostage by captors and the hostages come to love them, so do people become hostage to certain beliefs. These beliefs or causes take such primacy in the lives of their supporters, all else is secondary. Worse than that, the cause becomes an almighty, righteous end that is never wrong. What results is that anything that runs counter to the cause, resists the cause, threatens the cause, or fails to advance the cause is necessarily incorrect and must be quashed. The supporters become so committed to their narrow, focused belief in animal rights, environmental protection, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or any number of causes, that the advancement of that particular belief supercedes any other considerations, even common decency or ethics. That’s why their opposition will be attacked with the most vile slander and invective. That’s why the breaking of laws, the destruction of property, and the endangering of lives is allowed and encouraged; whatever furthers the cause and/or hurts the cause’s opposition is holy. Supporters come to love their causes so much and base so much of their lives around them that nothing else may penetrate.

Perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome isn’t the best was of looking at this. It’s really more cultish behavior in a way… it certainly brings up thoughts of Scientology (that’s a fascinating subject of its own and I’ll probably blog about it at some point… look at www.xenu.net if you would like more info.)

One of the things I keep reading from the anti-war crowd is that their demonstrations are patriotic. Barbra Streisand loves to crow about how her dissent is just that. Problem is… I don’t think it is patriotic. Most definitions I’ve come across define patriotism as a love of one’s country or a feeling inspired by the same. In that sense, then sure, you could maybe describe some dissent as patriotic. It’s rarely put in those terms, though. Instead, the act of dissent itself is supposed to be patriotic which is absurd. The exercise of a legal right doesn’t equal patriotism. Some guy could start a communist newspaper that denounced everything American and called for everything short of armed rebellion but The New York Times is still in print. Ha, ha… joke! The point is is that such a paper would be perfectly legal in the U.S. and would be exercising its First Amendment right, but you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who would describe it as patriotic. Back in my hometown of Topeka, KS, there’s a raving lunatic named Fred Phelps (if you want to see how nutty he really is, gird yourself and go here) who says all sort of outlandish things about America, but nobody would consider him patriotic. In fact, the loonball would probably be insulted if you did. Anyway, the exercising of rights is not patriotic. If it were, then I’m patriotic for going to church, owning a gun, not owning a slave, voting, and paying my taxes as enumerated in various constitutional amendments. So no, dissent is not necessarily patriotism.

Given that, most of the current dissent we’re witnessing in the country is not patriotic either. Seeing as how most of the demonstrators view American power (political, economic, and military) and American leaders as evil, love of country doesn’t seem to be their primary motivation. Doing or saying anything that would be complementary to America, even generally, would be tantamount to similar adoration of its hated institutions, policies, and even the blessed rights they are exercising. So to good ol’ Babs, let the message go out… dissent? Sure, go for it! Just stop calling yourself a patriot when you’re doing something unremarkable which is protected by law.

Jesse Jackson, what a guy. Seems he’s calling for a truce in the Iraq war so humanitarian aid can get through. Is there no headline for which this guy will not grab? And on whose side is he working? Who thinks that the Iraqi forces would just sit back for awhile while aid was distributed? These are the same people who are using civilians as human shields and are firing mortars into the Basra marketplace. They didn’t seem overly concerned about humanitarian notions then and they aren’t likely to have a change of heart when Jesse rolls into town.

Jackson also says he wants to take a delegation of religious leaders to visit American and Iraqi POW’s “to be convinced they are alive and well.” It’s hard to know whether that comment is directed more at the U.S. soldiers held by Iraq or at the Iraqis being held by American forces. We’d all like to think the former but with Jesse, you can’t be sure. One thing is for sure… if he ever did make it to Baghdad to see the American POW’s, it would only be turned into so much propaganda by Iraq. And don’t be surprised if Saddam’s lackeys start saying an aid-justified cease-fire is a great idea and then blame America for not also agreeing to it. Hussein has the PR and spin machine of the same quality as the Clinton administration. It’s a wondrous thing to behold, like an elephant with diarrhea… impressive but oh so disgusting.

Speaking of Clinton, check out the book I’m reading right now… it’s called Dereliction of Duty and it’s written by an Air Force colonel who had the responsibility of carrying around the nuclear launch codes during several years of Clinton’s second term. Since he often had to be close by the president, he had the opportunity to observe many things. Things like Bill’s putting off the decision to launch air strikes (we’re talking planes on the runway and ships standing ready and all waiting on a simple ok from the prez) because he was too busy watching a golf tournament. My favorite story thus far was about a young aide who was spearheading the plans for a presidential visit to the Phillipines. He seriously wanted to divert an entire carrier battle group from Australia for the sole purpose of giving Bill a good photo op with the sailors on the carrier’s flight deck because it would be “awesome.” It took several days before the aide could be convinced that this was a bad idea from economic, military, and diplomatic standpoints. Not a direct Clinton story, no, but indicative of the crew he ran and just how well they understood things, especially military things.

Ok… no, that’s not my favorite story, this is, and I’ll just quote:

“The Clinton staff could be publicly embarrassing as well. During the May 1997 presidential visit to Holland, our Dutch host rolled out the red carpet. Each Royal Palace room was stocked with food and a complete liquor bar for every staff member. A very thoughtful gesture, I thought, since we getting in so late—a snack and a drink sounded great. The next morning, as we were leaving for Air Force One and our next country, the Dutch military aide pulled me aside to complain. ‘Your people took all of the liquor,’ he said under his breath, obviously embarrassed for me. ‘And they stole crystal and china, too,’ he added. He was completely floored by the audacity of the Americans from the White House. I apologized for the White House staff. But I’d seen it before. This presidency was about them.”

Classic! You can check out details of the book here and here. It’s a pretty quick read and has all sorts of amazing (in a bad way) anecdotes.

By all accounts, the war is going well, although not as well as hoped. This isn’t too surprising, but many liberals and Europeans are pouncing on it as proof that we miscalculated. What they don’t realize is that our incredible restraint is what’s keeping things from moving faster. The politics of this war have mandated that we can’t be as loose with our use of force as would be most efficient. In other words, we can’t just bomb the hell out of the enemy… doing so would increase the number of civilian casualties which is something we’re trying to avoid. The military is also being prevented from attacking mosques, hospitals and the like which is where the enemy is cowardly hiding out. It’s truly a damned-either-way situation. If we apply the necessary force for a shorter war, then we get slammed for over-zealousness. Instead, we hold back and get slammed for taking too long. When people complain that we are killing innocent Iraqis, I hope they realize just how much we’re putting our own troops at risk in order to keep as many of those civilians alive as possible.

The war is also going a little slower than hoped because of the aftermath of Gulf War I. Saddam was decimated in that war and we likely could have taken Iraq without too much trouble. Instead, we held back and settled for a cease-fire and an incomplete war. Hussein learned his lessons, though, and isn’t using the same ineffective strategies this time around. For example, he’s no longer massing his forces which made them easier to be destroyed. The psychological impact of the first war, though, is perhaps causing us even greater problems. Scads of Iraqi troops surrendered during the conflict 12 years ago. Saddam was determined not to let that happen again. Even if forces want to surrender, they have a tough choice. They can fight and risk being killed by the Americans or try giving up and be killed by their own Iraqi forces. We’ve already heard reports of people masquerading in coalition uniforms who gun down Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to them. And as I recall, Hussein set up two rings of defenses around Baghdad. The outer ring was the regular army and the inner ring was the hardcore Republican Guard. This means that if the regulars try surrendering, they’re sure to get some “friendly fire” artillery from the rear. Also, while I haven’t read anything saying so, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Saddam had scattered intelligence officials or political officers of the Stalinist variety among his army units to help ensure the soldiers’ loyalty. The potential of getting snitched out, tortured, and killed is a sure way to ensure vassal status among the troops.

Anyway, there are yet more reasons why we should have finished the job in 1991. If you leave an aggressive government in power after a war, then you have only postponed hostilities. Eventually, the time will come when you must fight the enemy again. The problem lies in the fact that the enemy learns a great deal about its adversary and itself during the first conflict and adjusts so as to make the second fight much more difficult.

As you know, Mark Fidel Kools, aka Asan Akbar, threw grenades into the tents of his superior officers in Kuwait. The fact that he did so, no matter the cause, should warrant the death penalty… let’s be clear on that. His was a murderous, treasonous act in a combat zone. So while the cause should have no bearing on the ultimate punishment, it’s interesting nonetheless to examine what it might be. While it hasn’t been revealed by the Pentagon, Akbar’s family says that it was racially motivated.

“His stepfather, William Bilal, who was once married to Akbar's mother, Quran Bilal, said that his stepson was resentful toward the military and had complained several years ago that it was difficult for a black man "to make rank" in the military.

“’Asan was pushed to this. We've got that clear,’ William Bilal told WBRZ, ABCNEWS' affiliate in Baton Rouge, La. ‘Everybody's got a breaking point, to put it that way. Everybody's got a breaking point. If he did this, he was driven.’”

This is hardly a justification for murder. Assuming that there was bigotry in the military, it doesn’t give clearance to anybody to go around killing their fellow soldiers. Everybody may have a breaking point, but you have problems if reaching it makes you murderous.

His father also said, “All I'm saying is that Islam has been misrepresented, and a lot of people don't understand the religion of Islam. And the problem is, the stereotyping and the discrimination, I can't say exactly, directly, if that was Asan's case.” He may not have said it directly, but he did everything short of it. Again, not a justification. Also, I have serious doubts that either racism or anti-Islamic feelings within the military had anything to do with it. Most soldiers will admit that the military is the least discriminatory environment they’ve ever been in. It’s the purest meritocracy among all American institutions. This isn’t at all to say racism or religious discrimination doesn’t exist there, just that it is comparatively small and certainly not big enough to be a factor here.

Now I’m not so sure that those on the left would agree with the above assessment about discrimination in the military. It’s an institution they don’t understand, don’t respect, and don’t like. Liberals are also often all aflame about how minorities make up the majority of the army and are always the ones who die, etc. Problem is, it ain’t really so. Ignoring the fact that America’s is a volunteer military and nobody is there who doesn’t want to be, a further investigation of the numbers show that minorities make up a… well… minority in combat units. Their representation, percentage-wise, in these high risk units is below that of the general population and of the army itself. Many minorities choose other non-combat roles in the military. This isn’t a comment on their bravery, it just shows that the government isn’t hurling a bunch of minorities at the enemy as some would have you believe. Even when the draft was in effect during the Vietnam War, minority fatalities kept pace with their representation in the general American population and armed forces.

As stated, though, the military is a foreign thing to most liberals. Compliments are only to be paid to it if it advances your particular cause. This is best illustrated by the folks who had been saying that only those who had served in the military, preferably in combat, had the authority to decide whether or not we should go to war. This was in stark contrast to years of ranting that soldiers and generals were war-mongering Dr. Strangeloves and that the military is to be kept firmly under civilian control. At any rate, the liberal viewpoint is very much on display in this woman's post in an online forum. Maybe not so much in the notion that the Iraqis are swell captors, but in this idea that soldiers have been brainwashed by the army and are incapable of thinking on their own. She thinks that the POW’s removal from the rest of the military will suddenly enable them to think independently. If you’re a Star Trek person, it’s like the army is the Borg and these fortunate souls have been separated from the collective. Soldiers are not automatons. They are capable of thinking and forming opinions and there are many who, while still doing their jobs and upholding their oaths, still disagree with the war. The brave men and women fighting right now will largely move on to be civilian members of society; many will go to college, some will become doctors, lawyers, professors, a few will even be congressmen and senators. When you go into the military, you don’t check your brain at the door.

Few things are more frustrating than the attempts of Democrats to win at all costs. As seen in this article, the Democratic National Committee is urging its supporters to stand up for Democrats opposing the war and Bush. When the war has already started, when American soldiers are risking their lives and, frankly, when pulling up short in the war would be infinitely worse than total victory, it’s embarrassing that these folks would still seek to so publicly hamstring the president. These e-mails weren’t coming from your average shout-in-the-street demonstrators, mind you. They were from the big dog DNC.

This is really quite amusing. You know how the French love Jerry Lewis, right? Well, their president is apparently no exception.

This is a frightening article. You may recall the episode from several weeks ago in which Jacques Chirac showed his true colors and said that the eastern European countries supporting the U.S. on Iraq would do well to shut up. That and other comments were a not so veiled threat that everybody needs to fall into line with France and Germany when it comes to foreign policy. Now the EU’s secretary/minister for such issues (his official title is a quintessential EU bureaucrat moniker: Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy), Javier Solana, is saying that the split in recent European opinion (UK and Spain vs. France and Germany) could have been avoided had the EU been represented by just one seat in the UN Security Council. He’s basically saying that under such a scenario, the UK and Spain wouldn’t have been allowed to go their own way and cause problems for the rest of them. They would have been forced to toe the line. “According to the Treaty of European Union, all EU member states have an obligation to refrain from doing anything that goes against a common position in foreign policy. ‘It is regrettable that precisely this was not followed by some member states.’” This is yet another example of how France and Germany feel that they are Europe. Tony Blair and the UK would do well to steer away from that organization as much as possible. It’s clear that it will lose its autonomy if it does. After keeping Germany out in WWII and keeping the French at bay ever since that pesky Norman invasion in 1066, it would be a shame if those two countries ultimately succeeded in conquering proud England through weasel diplomacy.

Speaking of Jacques Chirac, it’s not surprising that he isn't in favor of the U.S. and the UK administering post-war Iraq. He’s already on the record as saying he’d veto any such resolution in the UN because it would legitimize action he opposed in the first place. What’s really at stake here is that he doesn’t want France to be left out of the rebuilding. You can read some about that here. The country is actively trying to figure out how to get French businesses in the Iraq door. Says the article, “Some French are concerned that a U.S.-led administration in Iraq will favor companies from the United States and other pro-war countries while penalizing companies from France and other war opponents.” I certainly hope things favor allied countries over France. Considering that France did everything possible to keep Iraq from being liberated, I see no reason why they should benefit from the inevitable liberation. Here’s what’s truly galling, though, and I’ll quote liberally:

“Officials in Paris say French firms' experience in working in Iraq would be an advantage.

“French companies — many with ties to Baghdad stretching back decades — have established themselves as the largest suppliers of goods to Iraq since a U.N. trade embargo was partially lifted in 1996.

“In 2001, France exported $705 million worth of goods to Iraq within the framework of the United Nations (news – web sites)' now-frozen oil-for-food program. Communications equipment maker Alcatel clinched a $75 million contract to upgrade Baghdad's phone network, and Renault sold $75 million worth of tractors and farming vehicles to Iraq.

“French oil giant TotalFinaElf probably has the biggest stake. It spent six years in the 1990s doing preparatory work on two giant oil fields and has signed two tentative agreements with Saddam to develop them.

“Munier said he believes American companies will have difficulties in Iraq because of widespread anger against the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

‘I don't see how American executives can work when their lives will be at risk,’ he said. ‘There will be such hatred toward Americans.’

“Munier criticized French companies for negotiating with American companies for a piece of their businesses in Iraq, saying that such "collaboration" would damage the image of French business among Iraqis.”

Here is where the French truly don’t get it. They feel that French companies’ experience in Iraq will work to their advantage. What they don’t see is that the entity with which they were dealing was the Saddam Hussein Baathist regime. As noted above, they worked out all sorts of deals with a tyrannical dictator. The new post-war Iraqi government will be opposed to all things Saddam and will be made up of elements that suffered tremendously under him for the past 25 years. They won’t see the French as great guys, they’ll see them as the enemy. The French will be the folks who happily did business with their oppressor and who went to great lengths to prevent his overthrow. In contrast, the Americans won’t be hated by the Iraqis as the gentleman suggests, they’ll be loved and respected for doing what virtually everybody else in the international community refused to do. In fact, many of the people helping to rebuild the country will be former Iraqi exiles who have spent years the States.

The French simply don’t understand what’s going on here. They perceive the situation only from their narrow point of view that if the country is bombed, then the people will hate the bomber. They look only at the means. They can’t comprehend that an oppressed people would feel any different when the resulting ends come about. The Iraqis will love the liberators and they will hate those who aided and abetted the dictator. The French are making a horrible miscalculation here… one they deserve to make.

There are elements in the UN Security Council and the General Assembly that will be bringing up debates on resolutions mandating that coalition forces should pull out of Iraq, immediately and unconditionally. This is funny in a way. The UN couldn’t keep forces out of Iraq and now they want to pull them out once they’re there. Thank heavens morality isn’t based upon a majority. Keep in mind that the UN is the organization with Libya heading its Human Rights committee.

If you haven’t yet had enough proof of the sheer evilness of Hussein’s regime, then let me refer you to this article from Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, you say? It concerns Iraq’s Olympic program and how it was brutally presided over by Saddam’s son, Uday. Let’s just say that Uday used the same motivational methods on athletes as his father used on those with suspicious loyalties. It’s chilling.

If you would like more info on how Iraqis truly see Saddam, check out this this account from a former human shield. He recounts some of his experiences in Iraq and how truly naïve he was concerning the situation there. I believe my favorite part was when he asked a taxi driver what he thought of everything. The driver’s response? “’Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?’ he said. ‘Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam.’” There are other great parts to it. Do read it. It exemplifies how the average Iraqi really feels about Saddam and about the U.S. It also reinforces what I said about French business interests above.

You may have watched the Oscars on Sunday night. Never have they seemed so hallow. This was likely due in part to the war, but I can’t imagine that they would have been entertaining even in the war’s absence. Performances were flat and Steve Martin was awful. Bruce Villanch must have written most of those jokes because that wasn’t Martin’s schtick or timing at all. The monologue consisted of numerous disjointed jokes with no flow whatsoever. At any rate, when there’s real life and death fighting going on on the other side of the globe, it’s hard to watch a ceremony in which a ridiculous industry full of highly overpaid rich people pats itself on the back. Gosh, I always like to see people honor themselves.

Fortunately, there weren’t too many anti-war outbursts. Susan Sarandon restricted her protest to self-righteously flashing a two-fingered peace sign before taking the podium. Honestly, that was probably more annoying than anything else. The gentleman introducing the nominated song from Frida opined that if Frida Kahlo were alive today, she would be “on our side, against war.” Good to know, but unless Frida was God, and she wasn’t, her opinion matters no more to me than the rest of them. I also think the verbiage is very telling, “our side.” It implies you’re not a good Hollywood celebrity if you support the war.

There was Michael Moore, of course, with his absurd outburst. He was obviously preaching to the choir on that one. It’s amusing that he complained about fictitious this and that considering that his “documentaries” have always played fast and loose with the truth. The thunderous standing ovation he initially received for his win also illustrates the utter hypocrisy present in that town. Moore won for his film that was anti-gun and anti-violence. Don’t forget that many a movie has made many a dollar based upon guns and the glorification of violence.

Adrian Brody’s speech was interesting. He stated how his experience filming The Pianist helped him realize the horrors of war and that’s why peace is good. This goes far to show another fallacy on the left. They believe wars are all bad and exist in some sort of vacuum. If nothing else, The Pianist, about a gifted young man caught up in the horrors of the holocaust, shows what happens when early action isn’t taken. The evils portrayed against the Jews in the movie wouldn’t have taken place had the international community lived up to its responsibilities and its words during Germany’s military build-up. World War II was a direct result of stunning inaction in the face of aggressive evil. It’s a perfect illustration for the justness of the present conflict in Iraq. It’s a shame that Hollywood liberals are incapable of seeing that.