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

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

So said George Santanya. Yet the past is sometimes a chain we wear which prevents us from progressing. That word, those, means mankind in this context. Others in the world are tied with their own chains of memory. Santanya’s opinion is often cited as a bromide rather than viewed in its entire application. People like the sound of it. But like other quotations used as substantiation for an opinion, they are nothing more than opinion themselves.

Another opinion, written by Will and Ariel Durant in their book, The Lessons of History, is just as valid, and often more appropriate:

“Furthermore, an element of chance, perhaps of freedom, seems to enter into the conduct of metals and men. We are no longer confident that atoms, much less organisms, will respond in the future as we think they have responded in the past. The electrons, like Cowper’s God, move in mysterious ways their wonders to perform, and some quirk of character or circumstance may upset national equations, as when Alexander drank himself to death and let his empire fall apart (323 BC), or as when Frederick the Great was saved from disaster by the accession of a Czar infatuated with Prussian ways (1762).”

The Durants penned an excellent series on the history of civilization. I’ve owned several volumes of the 11-volume set, and read several others. I have not made it through all. Their writing style suffers, I think, from the limitations of any text co-authored. The long sentences, foreign phrases (I’m not conversant in French or Latin), and constant references to things I’m not familiar with make for difficult reading at times.

They did compile a quite comprehensive history, though, and is worth the effort. And I believe the opinion they share in the quote above is imminently valid in the world today. Whereas some have clung to Santanya’s view, expecting future events to be a continuum with the past, I believe President Bush has followed the logic of the Durants’ analysis.

The United States has generally dealt simply with aggressors, following the European model of buying off opponents when possible, and tossing a few bombs or missiles their way when not. Bush took a different tack. When the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden, he destroyed the Taliban. In his State of the Union Speech last year, he said:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late

The very best interrogators are on the job. Of that there can be no doubt. I sometimes wonder, though, if they are so intent on gleaning information from Saddam that they miss the best possible form of coercion available with a man of Saddam’s ego.

Interrogators use many forms of torture to elicit information. I’ve experienced some of these when I went through the mock POW camp in USAF Survival School many years ago. The most effective involve no physical pain at all. In fact, if information is the true goal of interrogation, pain is bad. Pain makes people say anything to make it stop. If you want propaganda value, inflicting pain is a good way to get the answers you want to hear. But the answers may have nothing to do with fact.

What Saddam’s interrogators want from him is reliable information. To get it will require something other than inflicting pain. The threat of pain could have some effect. But just a little pain goes a long way if someone expects a lot of it for the wrong response. I see no way of using this with Saddam. He understands the US is not going to hurt him physically. Some of his former subjects may want that, but as long as he is cooperative with the US, he can expect to stay safe.

He also knows that some information may save him from death. That has to be played well in order to make him think he’s getting a reprieve without actually giving him one. He may be in denial. During all his time in power, leaders of other nations have allowed him to do what he wants

I believe Steven den Beste at USS Clueless and Wretchard at Belmont Club have done well to explain the anger within the Democratic base: Transnationalism.

On a strictly moral basis, there was no question that the Taliban were incomparably worse than the Americans. But pragmatically speaking the Americans were far more of a threat to the transnationalist goal of establishing world government, and if the Americans triumphed it would only reinforce American self-righteousness and self-confidence, nullifying decades of slow work aimed at convincing Americans to yield sovereignty to the nascent world government as it already existed in embryonic form. Ultimately the transnational movement swallowed its moral repugnance for the Taliban and embraced the pragmatic judgment that in the long run more people would suffer if America won than if the Taliban won.

For some this was not really much of an internal struggle. Their world view was highly abstract; their compassion was for symbolic groups rather than real people. Not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of leftists had embraced transnationalism mostly because it was an alternative to what they viewed as an ongoing creeping dominance of the world by America. It wasn’t so much that they really were dedicated to the transnational agenda as that they hated America and everything it stood for, and would support any alternative that had a credible chance of success.

I don’t think Dean or Clinton are sincere in their professed support of the concept of international government. It’s simply one of those things that sounds good to people who believe the United States is too powerful. Subjecting our sovereignty to the will of other nations appears to be identical to the unification of the thirteen original states.

It’s not.

But there is a large segment of what has been termed ‘the Far Left

Definition:
\Di

I intended to write about my tournament yesterday. That was overcome by events.

The scene reminded me of Charles Manson. Saddam actually had the same look, and was captured hiding in similar fashion–Manson was curled up inside a small cabinet, and almost wasn’t even noticed.

Now I’m waiting to see the long line of American lawyers eager to defend the criminal of the century–pro bono. What would be a greater career builder or cap? John Edwards would probably be a good choice.

Of course, one of the first questions at the 4ID press conference was “What does this mean for the future? How will it change things in Iraq?” Reporters are obsessed with the future. I guess it takes too much talent to report events which have already ocurred engagingly. It’s much easier to predict the future when you’re not ever held accountable for the accuracy of those predictions.

It doesn’t happen only with hard news. The current celebrity trials are the same. I remember last year when Rich Beem won the PGA championship, during the news conference which followed, a reporter asked him, “Have you given any thought to how you’ll defend your championship next year?” One ABC talking head said something to the effect that “The Coalition will definitely want to talk to Saddam about where weapons of mass destruction might be in light of the fact that that was the major reason given for invading Iraq in the first place.” Why do I even bother to listen to ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN?

Let’s simply celebrate the moment. Other people in positions of responsibility (certainly not the media) have decisions to make. Let them enjoy the good feeling that goes along with reaching this milestone along the road to security, and they’ll get back to work. And they’ll continue to do it well.

Zeyad doesn’t have anything posted, yet, but some good links at The Mesopotamian.

Howard Dean’s blog site has some interesting comments:

I can’t believe this. I’m crying here. I feel that we now don’t have a chance in this election.

Don’t forget–Dean has us–and that’s what will carry him through this media rapture with Hussein’s capture.

HEY GUYS WAKE UP!!!
THERE IS NO SUCCESS EXISTS IN THE UNJUSTIFIED WAR WHOEVER WAS CAPTURED!!!
IT IS ONLY A DANGEROUS ILLUSION OF SUCCESS WHICH MAY LEAD ONLY TO THE NEXT WRONG JUGMENT AND NEXT WRONG DECISION SUCH AS A NEXT WAR!!!

Term ‘success

There is an interesting article on the National Post web site (Canadian newpaper). Interesting.

Though nominally still under UN control, the southern province of Serbia is today dominated by a triumvirate of Albanian paramilitaries, mafiosi and terrorists. They control a host of smuggling operations and are implementing what many observers call their own brutal ethnic cleansing of minority groups, such as Serbs, Roma and Jews.

In recent weeks, UN officials ordered the construction of a fortified concrete barrier around the UN compound on the outskirts of the provincial capital Pristina. This is to protect against terrorist strikes by Muslim extremists who have set up bases of operation in what has become a largely outlaw province.

And NPR is carrying a story about the reluctance of the UN to get involved in Iraq:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan says Iraq is still too dangerous for his organization to play a major role there, and staff members will fly in and out as needed to perform their duties.

The UN has no troops. The UN has “functionaries” and bureaucrats. Troops must be furnished by member countries to be controlled by these people. Guess who furnishes the majority of forces to the UN. So what would be different for us if the UN took over in Iraq? Look at Kosovo.

Also see InstaPundit

Zeyad is an Iraqi in Baghdad. What he, and his fellow bloggers there, have to say is important. That’s why I have him linked as a daily read.

Today he was part of a demonstration against terrorism, and those in the world who want the US out of Iraq. He has posted photos, and also has links to other Iraqi bloggers.

Isn’t freedom GREAT!?