Basic MP3s

If you are going to steal music (as opposed to buying it for $1 from itunes or for $.05 from mp3search.com) there is audiofind.ru. Quality is only so-so. And you have to make it through the russian (but the webpage is set up like any other -- click where you think you should and you will be right). The selection is decent, especially if you like mainstream stuff. I don't know how reliable it is or if it is some sort of scam. But seems to be a well-organized way to download a song or two (say you want the latest Britney single but not a whole album). Free mp3s from our favorite country for vodka, women, and songs: Russia. Cheers to each!

In Honor of Thirty

I Don't Wanna Grow Up by Tom Waits:

When I’m lyin’ in my bed at night
I don’t wanna grow up
Nothin’ ever seems to turn out right
I don’t wanna grow up
How do you move in a world of fog
That’s always changing things
Makes me wish that I could be a dog

When I see the price that you pay
I don’t wanna grow up
I don’t ever wanna be that way
I don’t wanna grow up
Seems like folks turn into things
That they’d never want
The only thing to live for is today

I’m gonna put a hole in my TV set
I don’t wanna grow up
Open up the medicine chest
And I don’t wanna grow up
I don’t wanna have to shout it out
I don’t want my hair to fall out
I don’t wanna be filled with doubt
I don’t wanna be a good boy scout
I don’t wanna have to learn to count
I don’t wanna have the biggest amount
I don’t wanna grow up

Well when I see my parents fight
I don’t wanna grow up
They all go out and drinking all night
And I don’t wanna grow up
I’d rather stay here in my room
Nothin’ out there but sad and gloom
I don’t wanna live in a big old tomb
On grand street

When I see the 5 o’clock news
I don’t wanna grow up
Comb their hair and shine their shoes
I don’t wanna grow up
Stay around in my old hometown
I don’t wanna put no money down
I don’t wanna get me a big old loan
Work them fingers to the bone
I don’t wanna float a broom
Fall in love and get married then boom
How the hell did I get here so soon
I don’t wanna grow up

Kenko's Essays in Idleness #29

"When I sit down in quiet meditation, the one emotion hardest to fight against is a longing in all things for the past. After the others have gone to bed, I pass the time on a long autumn's night by putting in order whatever belongings are at hand. As I tear up scraps of old correspondence I should prefr not to leave behind, I sometimes find among them samples of the calligraphy of a friend who has died, or pictures he drew for his own amusement, and I feel exactly as I did at the time. Even with letters written by friends who are still alive I try, when it has been long since we met, to remember the circumstances, the year. What a moving experience that is! It is sad to think that a man's familiar possessions, indifferent to his death, should remain unaltered long after he is gone. "

News Holiday

I decided to take a news holiday after the election. First, I wanted to absorb it all myself and form my own opinions about what happened and why with as little influence from all the talking heads as possible. Second, I needed to be a more well rounded person again. So I've managed to do a bit more non-news reading, I'm picking up my guitar more. And I'm not proud of this, but I got the new Grand Theft Auto video game and am releasing all my agression by violently killing and cursing at innocent bystanders. It is a thoroughly offensive and wonderful game.

Courage, Shipmates, Courage

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight,
restore their government to its true principles.

"It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurringthe horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.

"But if the game runs sometimes against us at home
we must have patience till luck turns
and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the
principles we have lost, for this is a game
where principles are the stake.
Better luck, therefore, to us all; and health, happiness,
and friendly salutations to yourself."

-- Thomas Jefferson , 1798.

John Kerry for President

Unwilted is endorsing John Kerry this year. There are thousands of reasons NOT to vote for President Bush. Instead, I just wanted to briefly discuss a few reasons to vote FOR Senator Kerry:

1. His environmental record is nearly without flaw. This issue has been overshadowed during the campaign, but the contrast between the two could not be more dramatic.

2. He had the guts to both fight in Vietnam and then oppose the war when he got back. I'm proud of him for both.

3. Integrity. The worst thing the Bush campaign has been able to dig up on him is that maybe the wounds he recieved in Vietnam really were not that bad! They have not been able to find ANY skeletons in his closet.

4. He's a thinker with a sense of history.

5. He skiis, windsurfs, and mountain bikes. And unlike the President, he drinks beer! He's more like me than President Bush (if that matters).

From the American Conservative Magazine

Kerry’s the One

By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

From Salon.Com

Salon.com article by Doug Bandow: Why Conservatives Must Not Vote For Bush

Sept. 10, 2004 | George W. Bush presents conservatives with a fundamental challenge: Do they believe in anything other than power? Are they serious about their rhetoric on limited, constitutionally restrained government?

Bush appears to have remained strong in the presidential race by rallying conservatives behind him. In his convention acceptance speech he derided Sen. John Kerry's claim to represent "conservative values" and seized the mantle of promoting liberty at home and abroad.

Indeed, many conservatives react like the proverbial vampire at the sight of a cross when they consider casting a ballot for Kerry. Tom Nugent, a National Review Online contributing editor, wrote: "The last thing the Republican party needs is the reckless suggestion that conservatives vote Democratic." That is mild, however, compared with the American Conservative Union's mass e-mail solicitation headlined "Why Do Terrorists Want Kerry to Win?"

Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices. Indeed, when discussing their domestic agenda, administration officials complained that the media had ignored their proposals, such as $250 million in aid to community colleges for job training. Not mentioned was that Washington runs a plethora of job training programs, few of which have demonstrated lasting benefits. This is the hallmark of a limited-government conservative?

Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Yet some conservatives celebrate this approach. Kevin Fobbs and Lisa Sarrach of the National Urban Policy Action Council opine that Bush is "a strong leader, a comforter in chief." A comforter in chief?

Why, then, would any conservative believer in limited, constitutional government vote for Bush? It is fear of the thought of a President John Kerry.

Bobby Eberle of the conservative Web site GOPUSA warns, "One can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry." President Bush has made the same point, repeatedly charging that Kerry "has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far." Maybe that is true, though the cost of Bush's actual performance would be hard to beat. After all, the president initiated a huge increase in the welfare state with his Medicare drug benefit bill. Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute points out that, in sharp contrast to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, "Bush has cut none of the [federal] agencies' budgets during his first term."

Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally.

Maybe so, respond some conservatives, but how about the Bush tax cuts? The president tells campaign audiences: "They're going to raise your taxes; we're not." But even here the Bush record is not secure. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

For some conservatives, the clincher in favor of Bush is the war on terrorism. Kerry, with more war experience than the current president and vice president combined, "resembles Neville Chamberlain," says Nugent. Answering his own hysterical question, "Why do terrorists want Kerry to win?" David Keene of the American Conservative Union says Kerry would submit to terrorists and "lead the free world to a second Munich," only this time with al-Qaida instead of Adolph Hitler.

Yet Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world. And acting CIA Director John McLaughlin worries that terrorists are plotting "something big" against the United States. For a time the Pentagon considered closing its child care center, lest it become the target of an attack. NRO columnist Goldberg observes that the president's contention that the war in Iraq has made America safer "is absurd." Goldberg backs the war for other reasons, but says it was probably "the risky thing in the short run."

Bush -- not even sure himself whether the war on terrorism is winnable -- has been unable to demonstrate how Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against America. Instead, he says: "I need four more years to complete the work. There's more work to do to make America a safer place. There's more work to do to make the world a more peaceful place." Alas, there's more work, far more work, to do because of Bush's misguided policies.

A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

And opposed it he should have. The conflict is undermining America's values. As social critic Randolph Bourne long ago observed, "War is the health of the state." Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the so-called PATRIOT Act threatens some of the basic civil liberties that make America worth defending. Abu Ghraib has sullied America's image among both friends and enemies.

Still, there obviously are issues important to conservatives on which the candidates differ. On abortion and judicial appointments, for instance, Bush is clearly superior for conservatives. On business regulation Bush is probably better. For this reason Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation worries that "in punishing Bush, they [conservatives opposing him] may end up punishing the country." The administration has also sacrificed economic liberty on issues such as antitrust, telecommunications and trade.

But these differences in practice may matter little. Not much can be done on abortion given current court rulings and the fact that Bush has won approval of few of his most conservative nominees. Republican senators could limit Kerry's choices just as Democratic senators have limited Bush's choices.

Bush's record has been so bad that some of his supporters simply ask, So what? Bush is "a big government conservative," explains commentator Fred Barnes. That means using "what would normally be seen as liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

But this political prostitution is unworthy of venerable conservative principles. Undoubtedly, reducing the reach of government is not easy, and there is no shame in adjusting tactics and even goals to reflect political reality. But to surrender one's principles, to refuse to fight for them, is to put personal ambition before all else.

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.

Some onetime administration supporters have grown disillusioned. Sullivan observes: "To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen ... is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments."

Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government.

In his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 11, 1989, Reagan observed: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." Even when politics forced him to give way, everyone knew what he stood for. Bush's biggest problem, in contrast, is not that he is a poor communicator. It is that he has nothing to communicate. Victory over terrorists, yes -- but then what American really disagrees with that goal? Beyond that there is nothing.

"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Although anecdotal evidence of conservative disaffection with Bush is common -- for instance, my Pentagon employee neighbor, a business lobbyist friend, even my retired career Air Force father -- for many the thought of voting for John Kerry remains simply too horrific to contemplate. And this dissatisfaction has yet to show up in polls. Fear of Kerry, more than love of Bush, holds many conservatives behind the GOP.

Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

Politics Video

Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, the guy who got President Bush into the National Guard, in a short video.

I love Russia

Personally, I'm done with itunes. I have found allofmp3.com, a Russian site that claims to be leagal. I don't know if it is legal for you. I don't know if it is safe (there's probably some risk giving your credit card number to some Russian company). But I'm sold. A similar site is mp3search.ru. I make no money from mentioning either. It was pure luck that I stumbled on them. So far, $35 worth of music (loads of it) and no problems.

Faces of the Fallen

Here

Oh Buddha!

Lyrics for the song Oh Buddha, recorded by the Imperials:

Well, Old Buddha was a man and I’m sure that he meant well
But I pray for his disciples lest they wind up in hell
And I’m sure that old Mohammed thought he knew the way
But it won’t be Hare Krishna we stand before on The Judgment Day.

No, it won’t be old Buddha that’s sitting on the throne
And it won’t be old Mohammed that’s calling us Home
And it won’t be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we’re going to see The Son not Reverend Moon!

Well, I don’t hate anybody so please don’t take me wrong
But there really is a message to this simple song
You see there’s only one way Jesus if eternal life is your goal
Meditation of the mind won’t save your soul.

No, it won’t be old Buddha that’s sitting on the throne
And it won’t be old Mohammed that’s calling us Home
And it won’t be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we’re going to see The Son, not Reverend Moon!

Well, you can call yourself a Baptist and not be born again
A Presbyterian or a Methodist and still die in your sin
You can even be Charismatic shout and dance and jump a few
But if you hate your brother you wont be one of The Chosen Few.

Cause it won’t be a Baptist that’s sitting on The Throne
A Presbyterian or a Methodist that’s calling us Home
And it won’t be a Charismatic that plays that trumpet tune
So let’s all just live for Jesus ‘cause He’s coming back real soon.

No, it won’t be old Buddha that’s sitting on the throne
And it won’t be old Mohammed that’s calling us Home
And it won’t be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we’re going to see The Son, not Reverend Moon!
And we’re going to see The Son, not Reverend Moon!

War on terror lacks coherent strategy

A damning editorial from retired General Montgomery Meigs, who was (among other things) the Army commander in Europe. I remember seeing him on tv spots on Armed Forces TV in Europe.

This editorial is getting less attention than it deserves. I had a link to the newspaper (Austin American-Statesman) but that link is now down. So I've just posted the whole editorial here. This was originally published on 13 July 2004.

The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib has dominated public attention in recent weeks. Unfortunately, we have a greater problem. We do not yet have a strategy for the larger war on terrorism that offers the prospect of defeating our enemy.

The administration's statements that Iraq is the central front of the war on terrorism highlight the problem. Al Qaeda and its offshoots in the Muslim world existed before we entered Iraq, and they will continue after this campaign is over. Their great strength lies in their ability to exploit unrest in the Muslim world and to draw enthusiastic recruits into slowly proliferating, compartmented networks of disciplined, clever and lethal operators who want to undermine our will and attack our way of life.

These networks propagate in any area where governments fail to maintain public safety and general order. Remote, ungoverned corners of the world in Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines and South America become their breeding grounds. Pressure in one area can gain only a local tactical victory, not a worldwide strategic one.

Information Age communication and transportation provide ready means for command and control and for infiltration that allow 21st century terrorists to change organizational forms at will. The ability to morph new structures in ever new locations while drawing recruits ready to join and die for the cause constitutes the strategic center of gravity of the terror webs of Osama bin Laden and emerging junior players like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Our campaign in Iraq has fixed our main effort on a secondary strategic objective, one fixed geographically. Bin Laden can afford to lose in Iraq. After planting our flag there, we cannot. We will not win the war on terror unless we attack the enemy's true strategic center of gravity.

Ironically, nation-building in Iraq draws attention and resources away from the effort to attack the wider effort that can hit the terror networks where it hurts them the most. Our presence in Iraq and our inability to foster progress in the Middle East fuel enmity in the Muslim world that spawns new recruits for the terror networks and bolsters bin Laden's image and that of his allies as modern-day Islamist warrior monks.

The failings at Abu Ghraib are only one symptom of the problem. Over the past year, we have seen several other serious missteps that highlight our strategic error. We fought Operation Iraqi Freedom with a force sized as much to prove a point about defense transformation as to achieve the strategic objective of a "democratic" Iraq. With the combination of air power and ground forces employed by the U.S. Central Command, we had enough units on the ground to defeat the Iraqi army. We did not have enough force to allow us at the end of the campaign immediately to provide a safe and secure environment across Iraq.

As a result, we did not do an adequate job of quickly apprehending the regime's hard-liners and pre-empting the Baathist "bitter enders" from going underground. Nor did we have the organizations in place quickly to begin fostering the economic development crucial to the growth of confidence, shared self-interest and public order needed for the growth of constituent government.

President Bush stated that fostering democracy in Iraq was our final objective of the campaign. His Defense Department did not promulgate or execute a coordinated and rehearsed plan for it.

The misadventure of Jay Garner's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and the mistakes made by ambassador L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority put the effort on the wrong footing from the start. These mistakes include not putting a cleaned-up Iraqi army in action quickly to allow us and the Iraqis to get a hold on public security. We manned the provisional authority with officials too short on experience in the region and deployed them on tours too short to become effective in their work.

We also now have before us the question of whether a former darling of administration officials, Ahmad Chalabi, not only misled the administration with the intelligence he made available to provide a rationale for the war, but allegedly gave valuable information to Iran.

These mistakes were not our greatest folly, however.

Focused on transforming the way we fight campaigns at the operational level, the administration eschewed military advice, overcommitted the forces deployed and made the huge strategic error of not focusing national energies on the enemy's strategic center of gravity in the larger war on terror.

We have invested a huge amount of national treasure and energy in a war that distracted us from the main strategic threat of terrorism without first exhausting the possibilities of containment of Saddam Hussein in a way that kept important allies in harness with us. Our great irony lies in the fact that having invaded Iraq, we cannot risk the chaos that will emerge if we walk away precipitously. We must leave a stable situation behind us or risk emergence of another authoritarian regime, destabilization of the Gulf states and the economic implosion in world markets that would result.

So where to from here? The administration must do a better job of explaining in detail to the American people the threat we face. We will not win the war on terror in the normal strategic sense. The cycles of campaign will not correspond with our electoral rhythms.

With allies, with a combination of military and police force, and with aid and assistance to weak states at the brink of failure, we can slowly dry up the resources that terror networks need to survive and grow. With military and police acting on shared intelligence, we can track down the most obvious terrorists as they rise to leadership positions.

The best we can hope for will resemble our experience with the ultra-leftist Red Brigades, which sought to separate Italy from the Western alliance and slowly faded away in the late 1980s. We will never see a surrender ceremony and have the psychological relief it creates. The task that faces us will take time and patience. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld belatedly wrote last fall that it will be a "long, hard slog" that will try us all.

A unilateral approach will not work. Nor is a fascination with military solutions useful. Attacking the center of gravity of the terrorists' networks will require allies. In the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and South America, concerted action will require the perception by local constituents and their political leaders that we are the right partner and that our common cause is necessary and just. We cannot do this task alone. Speaking loudly and carrying a big stick frustrates our purpose.

Finally, we must change the way we think about the strategic problem. Defense transformation is as much a function of strategic thinking, political influence and military and police power as it is a function of new technology. Elegant technological solutions at the tactical level cannot make up for misguided strategic choices.

We have much to do in the war on terror, and we have not started well. Creating an Iraq with a democratic government is only part of a much larger problem of empowering Muslim moderates to confront Islamist radicalism. Progress to a solution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and stability in Pakistan remain crucial to this endeavor.

We must also deploy an information campaign that convinces Muslim communities of their own self-interest in drying up the terrorists' sources of recruits and funds. Allies willing to work with us under great risk bring invaluable capabilities, tools we do not have in our own inventory.

With shared intelligence and the coordinated, multinational efforts of law enforcement, combined task groups of military forces and special operations forces, we can run terrorist operators to ground. But the campaign will require our best effort, patience and an approach that brings the greatest number of friends along in what will be a long, frustrating campaign, the more so if we continue to operate without a coherent strategy.

Unwilted Blog

Welcome to the new Unwilted blog!