All Alone in the Night

Although I currently live in Colorado, I was born and raised in Massachusetts. I was inducted into the cult of Red Sox fandom at a young age, attending games at Fenway with my grandmother and uncle. I have many fond memories of that time: seeing Carl Yastrzemski hit his 300th homerun, watching Jim Rice pick the grass in front of the Green Monster, and scarfing many a Fenway frank (the kind that had been wrapped in foil and stewed in its own juices until the bun was soggy).

This year a family emergency brought me back to New England during the ALCS. I devotedly watched each game against the Indians, wondering how the Sox were going to blow it this time. Even 2004 couldn’t erase the trepidation suffered by most long-time fans. Meanwhile, I kept tabs on the Rockies’ unexpected and phenomenal post-season run.

When it was official that the Red Sox were headed back home, my husband suggested that we try to get tickets to Game 6. After all, how often is it that you get to see the Red Sox in a post-season game at Fenway? A phone call to a ticket reseller and several hundred dollars later, we had our tickets. There’s nothing quite like the energy and magic of Fenway Park, particularly when Curt Schilling is on the mound. The Red Sox dominated that game and there was much reveling in the streets. Unfortunately, I was unable to watch Game 7 as I was on a plane back to Colorado. The pilot was nice enough to update us on the final score, however.

The Rockies had announced that World Series tickets would go on sale solely online. I figured seeing the Red Sox live in the World Series would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so I, along with half of Colorado, spent my Monday morning trying to score a ticket. It quickly became apparent that the website was not functioning as anticipated. Once the technical difficulties were cleared up, the tickets went on sale again Tuesday at noon. Although it was a long, annoying process that devoured my entire lunch hour, my patience was rewarded. I had a ticket to Game 4.

I was the envy of everyone at work. They had all tried, but I had succeeded. It was then that the trash talk began. When they discovered that I was not going to the game to root for the Rockies, I was told that I did not deserve my ticket. I told them I was going to the game in which the Red Sox would sweep the Rockies. That may have been a tad bitchy…

I drove up to Denver early that Sunday, hoping to beat the crowds. I was not early enough. There were huge lines at the gates and merchandise tents. I picked up my ticket at the Will Call window and stepped into one of those long lines. By the time I reached the front of the line they only had two T-shirts left that mentioned both the Rockies and the Red Sox. They were both XXL. I bought them anyway. A small stack of programs for family back in Massachusetts and a woman’s long-sleeved shirt rounded out my purchases.

That was the beginning and end of my quest for souvenirs. Once inside the stadium I discovered that there was a line just to get into the main gift shop. Since there were so many people I could barely move, I gave up on shopping and concentrated my efforts on locating my seat. This turned out to be more difficult than I would have thought as there were no signs to direct me to my section. I pushed my way through the Rockies fans with purple hair and the Red Sox fans bearing brooms until I finally found a promising set of stairs. I did have to resort to asking for directions to my section, however.

Never having sat in the Club Level before, I was surprised when I was told to go through a set of glass doors. Beyond the doors, the din and crush of humanity disappeared. The concession stands were enclosed in a wall of glass, the floor carpeted. I was starving at this point, so I picked up a foot-long bratwurst before making my way through another set of doors to Section 219, Row 6, Seat 3. It was then that I discovered a menu at my seat. I could have placed an order for my bratwurst and had someone bring it to me. Oh well.

Coors Field is a beautiful park, with trees in the bullpens and views of mountains to the west. The stadium was a little different from the last time I was there – June 21st when the Rockies swept the Yankees (insert evil giggle here). The air was much crisper, although thankfully not as cold as the previous day, and the vines climbing the wall in front of the Rockpile were turning a majestic shade of red.

Before the game began, the Hank Aaron Award was presented by Hank Aaron to the best hitters in each league: Prince Fielder of the Brewers for the National League and Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees for the American League. A-Rod earned the ire of the crowd, along with a resounding chorus of boos, when he did not show up to accept this honor. I guess the thrill wears off after having already won three times previously. Prince Fielder, son of Cecil Fielder, seemed extremely proud, on the other hand.

This ceremony was followed by the national anthem sung by country star Trisha Yearwood. Reminiscent of the pre-game activities we witnessed at a Rockies opening day game several years ago, the national anthem was accompanied by an Air Force flyover, a gigantic flag, fireworks, and the releasing of purple, white, and black balloons.

It didn’t take long for the Red Sox to strike first. Leadoff batter, Jacoby Ellsbury, fired one down the left field line for a double. A David Ortiz single gave the Red Sox the first run of the night. I will admit to being self-conscious when it came to cheering. Doing so seemed the equivalent of talking too loudly in a library. A subdued Coors Field crowd expended their energy booing Ortiz, and especially Manny Ramirez, and cheering whenever either of those two players made an out.

Aaron Cook settled down in the second with a 1-2-3 inning. This earned the appreciation of Rockies fans. Television viewers may have noticed the occasional towel waving. No, they weren’t waving the white flag of surrender. Upon entering the stadium we were each given a small, white towel sponsored by Sharp Aquos. The towel read “Rocktober” and bore the logos of the Colorado Rockies, the World Series, and Major League Baseball. Screens throughout the park directed people to wave their towels at appropriate times. Not being one to wave a piece of cloth just because I am told to, and also being a Red Sox fan, my towel remained tucked safely away in my bag.

There was some excitement in my section during the second when a man in my row, only three seats away, caught a foul ball hit by Ryan Spilborgs. The lucky fan was gracious enough to pass around the ball so we could all see the World Series logo.

With the exception of another Boston run, courtesy of Mike Lowell and Jason Varitek, in the fifth, all was quiet until the seventh. Cook and Jon Lester both turned out impressive performances.

Throughout the pitching duel it became apparent that Coors Field’s atmosphere was very different from Fenway Park’s. In a rowdy, almost prayer meeting-like fashion, the Fenway faithful spent as much time standing as they did sitting. In contrast, Rockies fans spent the majority of the time warming their seats and actually shouted at others, including children, to sit down when they stood for too long. The fans were not completely docile, however. The reserved setting was periodically punctuated by chants of “Tulo” for shortstop Troy Tulowitzki and “MVP” for left fielder Matt Holliday.

The seventh inning was when things got interesting. Mike Lowell homered in the top of the inning and the Rockies finally made it onto the scoreboard when Brad Hawpe hit a homerun. The crowd turned ugly in the eighth when Bobby Kielty, pinch hitting for pitcher Mike Timlin, turned the first pitch into the third homerun of the night. Brian Fuentes was resoundingly booed for allowing the run, while everyone around me was cursing the name of Rockies’ manager Clint Hurdle for sending him out to pitch in such an important game after his disastrous outing on Saturday.

The Rockies made it competitive and kept the hope alive in the bottom of the eighth with a two-run homer by Garrett Atkins. It was not enough. A scoreless ninth ended in a 4-3 victory for the Sox with Seth Smith making the final out.

My section went dead silent as the Red Sox took to the field in celebration. I stayed at my seat for a while hoping they would show the ceremonies presenting the World Series and MVP trophies, but the PA system was shut down and the big screen showed only a thank you message for the Rockies’ fans.

It became clear that Red Sox Nation was gathering around the visitors’ dugout. I worked my way down to that area, listening to a spontaneous rendition of “Sweet Caroline” sung by the other fans also on their way to the congregation. It was hard to tell what was going on with so many people on the infield, but I did catch a glimpse of Mike Lowell with his MVP trophy and various Red Sox team members holding the World Series trophy. The fans went crazy every time a player came into view. They were very vocal about their desires for the Sox to re-sign Lowell and not to try to sign A-Rod.

I finally left the stadium around midnight. I did have to go to work the following day, after all. I didn’t make it home until 1:30 am. I was completely exhausted the next day and I’m not sure I’ve recovered yet, but it was worth it.

After work, I bought out every local newspaper at every gas station between my place of business and home. I thought family and friends might get a kick out of the local game coverage. My favorite headline came from The Gazette of Colorado Springs: “Rocky Horror.” So much joy for only 50 cents…

The Rockies are a young and talented team. They should be proud of everything they achieved this year. I was a little sad for them when I saw that all of the Rockies post-season merchandise was marked down 30-50% the day after the World Series ended. I wasn’t so sad that I couldn’t buy some Rockies vs. Red Sox T-shirts. I also broke down and bought an NLCS champions shirt. Did I mention it was half off? Plus, it was purple.

I never dreamed that I would have the opportunity to be present at a World Series game, let alone one in which my favorite team won it all. It was truly an unforgettable and thrilling experience. My only regret is that the man I love could not be there to share it with me.

Posted by Delenn at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

This month's issue of Military History includes an excellent article by Jonathan Turley about the U.S. government's power to make war and how the President and Congress have, over the past two centuries, expanded that power well beyond the limits envisioned by the Founders. I cannot find the article online, but for those who are interested it should be easy enough to find a copy of Military History magazine at your local bookstore, for those of you who aren't subscribers.

The United States government has been expanding the scope of its powers since the day the Constitution was ratified. This process ramped up markedly in the 20th century, and the expansion of the President's war powers grew alongside that more general growth. Today the United States finds itself embroiled in (arguably) three wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Global War on Terror. The Democratic Party took back both houses of Congress in 2006 at least partly on the strength of their promises to end the war in Iraq, but their efforts have not accomplished the removal of a single American soldier from Iraq as of this writing.

As Turley points out, this is largely because the war powers have changed from being primarily the province of Congress to being almost entirely the province of the President. Yes, the Constitution names the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but for most of American history Congress still kept a close watch on the wars the nation engaged in. It wasn't until Harry Truman decided to take on North Korea without a Congressional declaration of war that Congress began to fall out of the war picture, leading up to the current war, which Congress has almost completely divested itself from, even to the extent of Congressional leaders claiming Iraq as 'Bush's war.'

Congressional cowardice aside, the general expansion of Presidential powers would make it very difficult for even a very aggressive Congress to stop a war once it has started. Back at the start of the 20th century a different Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, told Congress he wanted to send the U.S. Navy (the Great White Fleet) around the world. Congress told the President it wouldn't pay for it. Roosevelt sent the fleet anyway, loaded with enough coal to make it about halfway around the world, and told Congress that if they wanted the Navy back, they would have to pay for the coal required. Left with the unpalatable option of leaving the U.S. Navy stranded, Congress caved. Now consider a Congressional resolution that ordered the President to bring all troops home from Iraq no later than December 31, 2007. What could Congress do if the President did not comply? They would be well within their rights to impeach and convict him, but in this polarized age, I'm not convinced they would be able to do so, and in the interim if they didn't provide funding for the troops, the President would be taking advantage of his bully pulpit to point out that Congress had defunded the troops, even though the real fault would lay with him for disobeying Congress. Such a battle would be worth fighting in my estimation, because it is probably the only way for Congress to recapture its role as the first branch of government, but I'm not at all confident Congress would be willing to make such a fight, simply because the President's advantage in communications would make it very hard for Congress to fight off negative perceptions about their performance.

The United States would not be in this dilemma had Congress not authorized the war in the first place, but Congress doesn't do a very good job at that, either. While I suspect Congress would have approved the Iraq War in any case, it is my opinion that a sizable fraction of those voting for the war did so not because they believed the war was justified or necessary, but because they feared what would happen to them in the election if they voted no. A determined Democratic Senate could have prevented the war via a filibuster, although they almost certainly would have paid a price at the ballot box. Still, a few Democratic losses in the Senate seem a pretty good trade for stopping a war that has cost the United States billions of dollars and thousands of lives, not to mention what the war has cost Iraq.

Not all the blame can go on Congress, however. Because the Democrats were almost certainly correct in their belief that voting against the war would have hurt them at the ballot box. U.S. citizens have an unfortunate martial streak, and too often going to war is seen as a question of intestinal fortitude rather than an issue of necessity. The Iraq War may at least do a reasonably good job of convincing a lot of Americans of the limits of military power, although the lessons of Vietnam didn't last more than a decade or two, so it would be unrealistic to suppose that Iraq will do any better, particularly given the far more limited losses in Iraq. Still, while the American people are more cognizant of what military power can and cannot accomplish, perhaps Congress could create a few structural changes to make it harder to take the United States to war.

First among these would be a Congressional amendment that requires at least a two-thirds majority to declare war. If war is really necessary, I have every confidence Congress will recognize that fact and act accordingly. But a two-thirds or three-quarters majority requirement could keep us out of wars that aren't necessary, a change that would save the U.S. a great deal of money, life, and prestige.

This doesn't address the problem of Presidents who decide to start wars on their own, however, such as Truman in Korea, Reagan in Grenada, Bush in Panama and Somalia, and Clinton in Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo (Yes, I realize no shots were actually fired in Bosnia or Haiti, but that was far from a guaranteed outcome). Congress tried the War Powers Act in the 1970s (a time rather similar to what I expect we'll see in the 2010s from a political standpoint), but it has never been enforced and so has done nothing to restrain Presidential aggressiveness. A Constitutional amendment that declares that the President has no authority to initiate the use of military force might help to reduce this tendency, although it would depend on Congress being willing to enforce it. Such an amendment would also be vulnerable to Gulf of Tonkin/Resaca de la Palma type actions, where a President seeking a war sends the military to be aggressive enough to provoke a reaction from the intended target. The fact such an amendment could be circumvented under some circumstances does not seem sufficient reason for it not to be considered, however.

There is no perfect solution to this problem. Presidents almost always turn towards the military because they have so much more control over the military than they do over anything else they can accomplish, so it seems an easy way for them to establish a legacy. And the American people have a disturbing tendency to see military power as far more capable than it can ever be. The former will never change, but it may be possible to change the latter, a paradigm shift that would make it at least more difficult for the President to make war. But such a change will require a major shift in American attitudes, one unlikely to occur quickly. Until then, some structural changes to place more roadblocks in the way of Presidents convinced of the efficacy of military action would at least make it a little more difficult for America to wind up in yet another country bleeding with little hope of strategic gain.

Posted by G'Kar at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

Yes, we've been dead silent of late. No, we're not quite out of business. I'll have something new up later today, and we'll go from there. Hopefully I can jar a few of the others into posting more of their own stuff and we'll get rolling forward again.

Posted by G'Kar at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

6 June 1944

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.

SIGNED: Dwight D. Eisenhower

Posted by G'Kar at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

And now, as they say, for something totally different. Yes, it is (finally, some would say) I, Marcus, back at long last. To those puzzled by my long absence from posting, and infrequent posts when I was present, I will simply ask how many times Marcus showed up in the early episodes of the series. However, now that G'Kar is getting ready to depart for realms most sandy, my appearances here will hopefully be more frequent.

This morning I'd like to talk about a series of books that I've recently discovered, the Dresden Files, by Jim Butcher. It is now also a series on the SciFi channel, but you needn't worry about spoilers as I haven't seen a single episode as yet.

The Dresden Files are a series of books chronicling the adventrues and misadventures of modern day wizard Harry Dresden. Given that 'wizarding' doesn't pay all that well in modern day Chicago, Harry also works as a police consultant on arcane matters. The books feature excellent characters, adventurous plots, a bit of mystery, and plenty of dry wit.

Buthcer's characters are very well developed, and have plenty of warts. Like the real world, few are ever 100% good or bad, and Dresden lives in a world full of various shades of gray. These include Dresden's nominal boss, police detective sergeant Murphy, gentleman mobster Johnnie Marcone, a faerie godmother who wants his soul, a pack of werewolves, and vampires too numerous to mention.

In each volume, Harry is confronted by both normal crime and all kinds of nasty critters from the NeverNever, Butcher's version of Faerie that lives next door to our own reality. His writing is definitely improving with each volume, and the books provide hours of entertainment. The 9th volume in the series was published in hardback earlier this month.

Posted by Marcus at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

On the one hand, campaigns like the VoteVets, which attempt to undermine support for the Iraq War by having former generals speak out against it, seem like logical moves. Generals, after all, have a great deal of training in war and the military art, so if they say that the war is lost, their words should carry some weight.

On the other, some of them seem an awful lot more interested in getting in the news than in really helping. Via Mudville Gazette comes this exercise in compare and contrast from retired Army Major General Paul Eaton.

Last year, pre-surge (pre-US elections) retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton appears before congress, excoriates the Bush administration and demands a surge of troops for Iraq.

Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq. "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned. "We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

This year, in television advertisements for his political group "VoteVets", he says:

President Bush says he listens to his military commanders.
Well, Mr. President, I was one of those commanders, and you weren't listening when we warned you of the dangers we would face invading Iraq. Now our military is overcommitted, and America is less secure.

Mr. President, you're being told we need serious diplomacy, not escalation, and you're still not listening.

If the president won't listen, Congress must.

Posted by G'Kar at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

For those who don't recognize it, that was the now-infamous exchange between Republican presidential candidates Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani (Complete transcript begins here). Giuliani got a lot of great press out of it, as his position seems to be one held by a sizeable fraction of Americans. It's difficult for me to express how unfortunate I believe this to be, and what it probably means for the U.S. in the future.

Americans have a fascinating view of the world. When other nations get in the U.S.'s business, it's considered only proper and just that they be put in their place. Yet when the U.S. bombs a sovereign nation or goes to war in a distant land, Americans seem to think that the world should simply accept the benevolent motivations of the U.S. I happen to believe that, contra the blood for oil crowd, U.S. motivations generally are pretty good. But whether they are or not, the results are often mixed at best. Regardless of American intentions in Iraq, the situation on the ground there is a disaster right now, for example. And it should surprise no one that some Iraqis will blame the U.S. for what has happened to them and will be willing to act on that belief.

There is an unfortunate tendency among people to dismiss motivations they don't understand. So when Osama bin Laden cites the occupation of Andalusia as a motivation for his attacks on Spain, a lot of people shake their heads and assume the man is irrational. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but if he believes that the reconquista is a justification for attacking Spain, and he can find enough other people who believe that to make effective attacks against Spain, it doesn't really matter whether his reasoning makes sense to us or not. It is sufficient for him and his followers, and they're willing to kill for it.

Now we have a situation where the U.S. has, for many years, intervened in the Middle East. It doesn't matter to a lot of Arabs whether those interventions were justified and it doesn't matter what motivations underlaid them. All that matters is that they saw the U.S. come in, push people around, and humiliate Arabs, no small issue for an honor-shame culture. And so a nontrivial number of them have been radicalized enough to try and kill Americans to avenge these perceived slights. And when they do occasionally succeed, what does the U.S. do? It strikes back in such a manner as to radicalize still more enemies. I think the whole 'cycle of violence' concept is overrated in many quarters, but it this case I think there is some justice in it.

Any counterinsurgency fight lies mainly in the non-military realm. If the counterinsurgency focuses all its efforts on killing insurgents, it may be able to reduce the number of problems markedly, but it will not destroy the insurgency. The cause will still draw new followers to replace those lost, perhaps even more quickly than the counterinsurgent can kill them depending on how heavy handed they are. The COIN fight can only be ultimately won by addressing the root causes of the insurgency. For 30 years, the U.S. has attempted to fight a type of insurgency using strictly military means, and the results have been predictable.

Yet when Paul points out the plain facts, that while terrorist attacks are not justified, our actions can justify them in the eyes of our enemies, the audience wants to cheer Giuliani's robust defense of American blundering.

Are there people out there who hate America for its freedoms? Yes. Some Islamists look at the U.S. and are appalled by all they see. They would do anything to wipe the U.S. out. But their numbers are trivial. They can only strike at the U.S. by drawing on other grievances, the kind the U.S. keeps handing them.

I do not support an isolationist policy. But there is a gap between isolationism and sending American troops around the world on a regular basis to intervene in areas they're not wanted. Were the U.S. to stop throwing its military weight around the world on a regular basis, its leaders might be surprised to see how quickly the world demonstrated its appreciation by ratcheting down a lot of the anti-American rhetoric that stirs so many to act against U.S. interests. It wouldn't solve all the problems by any means; what solution would? But it's hard not to notice that countries like Japan and Switzerland are able to be economically and politically stable without throwing their military muscle around every few years.

But that prescription will never last as long as demagoguery like Giuliani's is preferred to reason and analysis.

Posted by G'Kar at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

James Lileks and his family recently visited Walt Disney World, and Lileks naturally published a small travelogue reviewing his visit. As I am something of a Disney-phile, having visited The World some 15-20 times in my life, Lileks' prose was even more interesting than I usually find it because he was describing things that I am very familiar with. If you enjoy Lileks' work or you like Disney World, you'll enjoy his take on all things Disney.

Continue reading "The Happiest Place on Earth" »

Posted by G'Kar at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

First Lieutenant Andrew J. Bacevich Jr., son of BU professor and author Andrew J. Bacevich, is dead. He was killed by an IED in Salah ad Din province on Sunday while serving with 3-8 Cavalry.

His father is the author of the excellent book The New American Militarism and has argued against the war for some time now. Our thoughts go out to the Bacevich family.

Posted by G'Kar at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It

Just as with lobbying reform, the Democrats want people to see them as the party better able to deal with national security issues, but the plain truth is that while they're not likely to be any worse than Republicans, they're not going to be any better, either.

With the U.S. in a war that is only going to get worse as we withdraw from Iraq (which doesn't necessarily mean that isn't the right decision; my own position on Iraq remains informed uncertainty), the Democrats have decided that our intelligence assets need to spend some of their limited time and assets evaluating the national security implications of global warming.

Does global warming pose a threat to national security? Quite possibly yes, but there's no way to know right now given the state of the science: we just don't know how soon changes may occur, what changes they may be, or to what extent. Those variables make all the difference in a global warming scenario, and without more information, any assessment offered about its effects on global warming will tell us more about the assumptions underlying the assessment than the real problems.

At another time, this might just be another government boondoggle, spending other people's money to benefit the cause or group of the week. But intelligence is a bit more important than studies on cow flatulence or another building named for Robert Byrd. Al Qaeda has shown a definite pattern in its attacks: it goes after targets more than once, and it seeks to up the ante with each new attack. Further, it is a patient organization. It took them eight years to launch a second attack on the WTC. Defeating those kinds of attacks requires good intelligence, and that is something the United States sorely lacks. Tossing off some of those limited assets to create a largely speculative report is little more than a concession that national security isn't really an issue for the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, both parties are blessed with the knowledge the American system doesn't hold anyone responsible for failures any longer. George Tenet walked away from his tenure as CIA director, having overseen the failure to stop the September 11 attacks and having guaranteed the presence of WMDs in Iraq, with a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his troubles. When the next attack comes, nobody is going to blame the Democrats for sending intelligence assets on a wild goose chase, nor the Republicans for launching a war than inspired who knows how many new jihadis to strike at the United States.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Posted by G'Kar at 3:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Digg It