Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Islamo-fanatics and their apologizers are always complaining that the Zionists control the world. That tells me they think Jews are much smarter than everyone else.

Are they whining that they aren’t as smart as their enemies?

The Scotsman has an interesting editorial on the “what-if” factor. How would things differ today if we had not invaded Iraq? Some of the probable results may be thought-provoking. The conclusion, though, answers the biggest question:

A poll of Iraqis last week indicated that the majority of them believe life in their country has improved compared with a year ago. Let theirs be the final verdict.

I’d say that pretty much sums it up.

Am I allowed to say that about a woman these days? Well,Sarah has done a great job fisking some Philosophy Professor over on her site. I’d hate to have her mad at me!

The last chapter of Ralph Peters’ book, Beyond Terror, is titled Dogma and the Dead. He discusses “intellectuals” at length, and this guy seems to fit the bill.

A room filled with university professors makes me nostalgic for the Khmer Rouge. Since I value intellect, I dislike intellectuals?those men and women, freed from the necessity of labor, who prefer theory to reality and who footnote while others fight our nation?s battles. The enormous increase in the number of minds shielded from mundane concerns?thanks to our expanding wealth?is far more dangerous than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: Absurd theories killed vastly more human beings in the twentieth century than did the most terrible weapons.

I was thinking about these folks as I played golf today. All the anti-war protests going on led me to that distraction. Spoiled Children. That’s the best way to describe them. They didn’t get what they wanted, so they’re going to throw tantrums.

The entire concept of representative government is majority rule, with respect for those in the minority. These people cannot grasp that because the majority believes going into Iraq was the right thing to do, their opinion no longer matters.

Prior to the war, I believe they had every right to protest the impending conflict. Once it began, however, debate was over. Timothy J. Freeman (notice how this type likes to be known by their full name, like John F. Kerry?) is just another crybaby. They cannot stand to be proven wrong, and will never accept being wrong. They were absolutely right, but it is “nuanced” right. Right?

I’m sure Timothy J. Freeman marched yesterday. It was a “look at me” moment he wouldn’t have missed. The issue no longer is who was right and who was wrong, but that Bush did something these folks didn’t want him to do.

But they were in the minority. Now, as in any democratic republic, they have the chance to elect someone who would be more likely to do what they want. That is the issue. And they are going to continue crying until they get enough people on their side to get Bush out of the White House. And that’s okay. That’s what elections are all about.

But they have no valid stance. All they can do is lie (yes, and that word is very strong to me) and restate bromides which have no basis in truth, or even relevance. This they do to try to convince others to join their personal crusade. They have no value, create nothing, and demean all.

The intellectual may speak loftily of liberty, but he loves the sound of a cell door slamming shut on his enemies, be they real or imagined. The man who thinks too much lives far too little. The intellectual lives in terror of experience. He hates talent and all things instinctive, the capacity for joy and the generous spirit. Far from hungry for understanding, the intellectual gorges on dry texts as a substitute for the far richer diet of knowledge consumed by the man of deeds. Throughout history, the great book-burners and the most determined censors have always been intellectuals.

I agree with Peters, and only wish I could put it on paper as well as he does.

In Those Without Swords, our noted curmudgeon takes issue with those who rail against a war already begun.

I have the same feelings, and wondered whether it was my military background or the fact that I have two sons directly involved in the combat that made me relate this way.

Francis talks about how Charles Lindberg argued hard against our entering WWII, then went to the Pacific and flew combat missions once we were in it. Perhaps many of you don’t realize what a true hero Lindberg was, years after his solo flight across the Atlantic. People cared about his opinion. He spent time in Germany at Hitler’s invitation, and had glowing words about the state of aviation in the Reich. But when war was declared, he answered the call.

Vietnam was the first time it was fashionable (and that is a precise word for the sentiment) to be anti-war. It is interesting to me that the people in this country most vehement in this philosophy are those very people who made their name and reputation by being anti-war in the 1960s and ’70s. It is like they are searching for their lost relevance.

And they bring along younger zealots, most of whom are disciples. Others follow along as a result of group-think.

Are they sincere? I doubt it, at least as regards the war. They are sincere in their search for acceptance. Younger ones may be sincere, yet also naive. The point of all this dissent is to change the government’s action. That is precisely our enemy’s goal. Yet these folks don’t see themselves as allies of our enemies. They view themselves as patriotic because they are dissenting.

If they really want to see this war end as quickly as possible, they would show a united front to outsiders. I have to wonder whether they like the idea of being defeated.

Deacon addresses Robert Kagan’s Washington Post article and its optimism that the US and Europe can mend fences. He identifies the prime error in Kagan’s reasoning:

Kagan seems to embrace the fallacy, so often derided by neo-conservatives, that differences, no matter how fundamental, can always be bridged because ideology doesn’t really matter much.

It is interesting to me primarily because I read a Parameters article just this morning by Ralph Peters, The Atlantic Century. I respect Peters, and agree with much of his assessment. In fact, I have always believed we need to be more active in Africa. Now, we have more reason than ever.

Old Asia and Old Europe have devoured American lives and consumed our wealth. The regressive societies of the Middle East are sick?and contagious?with hatred, jealousy, and congenital disrepair. Whenever the United States is forced to engage cultures whose glory days are behind them, we win, but we often pay a bitter price.

Peters explains why he thinks we should be building alliances with Spain, Portugal, and the UK in working with the two continents abutting the South Atlantic, and distancing ourselves from the likes of France and Germany. He makes points about both Africa and Latin America we should heed.

In the Arab world, we play down the negatives. In Africa, we ignore the positives. As a nation proud of our rationality, we are behaving very irrationally, indeed.

Latin America?s family secret is that everybody really wants to be a gringo, though it dare not be said in public. The ?Yankee go home? era is over, except for the dwindling revolutionary hardliners who have failed the continent as badly as did their nemeses, the caudillos, the strongmen and the land barons.

With what he suggests, I have great optimism. If we can only get our focus away from the Middle East and Old Europe.

MSNBC is running their “Question of the Day” and it is:

Baghdad Bombing

Do we need more troops in Iraq?

I would never have come up with that question. I can’t imagine the mindset that makes that leap.

Unless we put a soldier on every street corner in every town in Iraq, more troops add nothing to stopping this from happening. Even then, someone willing to blow himself up in the name of Allah could still drive up to any building and set off a bomb. How would more troops stop that?

“Well, they’d find out about the plan and stop it.” Really? “They’d be able to search more places and find the bomb-building equipment.” Did anyone find Timothy McVeigh’s?

Right now, terrorists are attacking Iraqis and foreigners, not the military. So, I guess there is some twisted logic that says if we place a soldier on every corner, every corner will be safe.

I haven?t made the trip over to see what Sam has to say on Hammorabi in a while. He has a wonderful post on the signing of the Iraqi interim Constitution which he entitled United States of Iraq. There is much to digest in his post, and I wish everyone would take a look at it. And don?t forget to check the comments.

I have always felt a states system and representation based on geography would be the best way for democracy to take hold in Iraq. Historically, people in that region base their politics, and virtually everything else, on tribal or religious sect identification. The only way I can see to eliminate the chances of internecine warfare is by a geography-based electoral process similar to what we have here in the US. The big state-small state issue is resolved somewhat by having the Congress membership selected in different ways.

Also, term limits are something for them to consider. In Mexico, where everyone is limited to a single 6-year term, politicians work hard to get all they can for themselves while they can. Here, the lack of term limits keeps a politician class employed. There is some middle ground, but will have to be defined within the Iraqi cultural bounds. Jefferson was disappointed the Constitution didn?t include term limits, especially for President. Fortunately, we had a man of tremendous stature and integrity as our first, and he set the standard. I can only hope Iraq will be as fortunate.