State Of Flux

Governement Of Wishful Thinking

2006-04-24T18:20:00.000-07:00

I am very depressing about the state of political affair in our country. Then I realize the true nature of the problem. Every Presidential candidate in the past thought of their contemporary administration as incompetent. They believed that the sad state of the government was precisely because of the administration was incompency, corrupted, and malicious. They believe that they can do better than their predessessor. So the challengers thought of grandios plans and then marketed them to the public, promise to perform miracle. The plans are beautiful and they are sincerely believe in the feasibility of their plan.

But then the challenger was elected and attempted to implement their plans - and they found out that they performed no better than their predessesor - sometime even worse. Things always seem to be harder in reality than in paper. The more spectacular the plans, the more spectacular they fail. Pretty soon the new administration was in the same problem the previous administration was in - the same incompency, the same corruption. And the more they tried to dig themselves out of the hole, the deeper they sank.

And the cycle repeated itself administration after administration.

Our government will not improve until the voters realize that the problems is not this President or that President, this administration or that administration. The problem is the structural limitation of government. All candidates started out well intented. But the micromanagement of the lives of hundred of millions of people is impossible, futile, and harmful. I believe that our government has reach it maximum limit of its efficiency and effectiveness. Despite all the current problems with corruption, mismanagement, and incompency, our government is still one of the most efficient and effective compare to many governments I have came across. To think that one can make it more efficient or effective is wishful thinking. If anything, one can only make it less effective and less efficient, which is essentially the story of the last five years, the story of the Bush adminstration.

National Absurdity Day

2006-04-18T21:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the last day to file your tax, better known as "National Absurdity Day." I prepared my own tax return. Do not feel bad because you did not prepare your own tax but instead paid someone else to do it. Do not doubt your own intelligence. I was able to do so because I was a tax preparer many moons and sun cycles ago. I did it part time and it was a very profitable part time job. But I could not help to think that it was absurd that people had to pay me so that they can pay their own government. I guess that is why I stopped doing it.

Our tax system is so bizzare that the tax payers cannot report their income to the government - and on top of the already heavy tax burden, have to pay someone else to do so. My friends, you are not less intelligent because you could not fine your own tax. Many of my clients were successful doctors and brilliant engineers. The idiots are the people who wrote the tax code. To quote my drill sergeant in Basic Training, the Internal Revenue Code, "was written by four monkeys on a crack pipe."

First of all, it does not even conform to our own accounting standard, better know as the General Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP). Many of the codes are contradictory to GAAP. Companies have to keep two set of books, one conforms to GAAP, the other conforms to the tax code. Secondly, it follows no set of principle - no overall concept. Everything within it is completely arbitrary. One must follows one cross-reference which leads to another cross-reference and then to another, and so on so forth like an infinite labyrinth of mind game. This is the tax code of the most advanced nation on earth.

The Code (according to our own government) has 16,845 pages. Other than being grammartically corrected - it makes little sense. Even tax preparers know only the most common parts of the codes. And some people, who call themselves "progressives," (what's a misnomer!) thinks that the flat tax idea is fringe crazy concept.

A Wall Is Too Expensive

2006-04-06T20:34:00.000-07:00

There is an argument that building a wall or fence along the US-Mexican border would be too costly. Let examine the cost. In fact, let look at the most extensive and extravagant barrier - the Israel security fence. Israel is building a security fence along the West Bank, a 540 miles long fence. According to Relief Web:

The wall, which is estimated to cost Israel $1.5 million U.S. per mile to construct... In some places the wall is a 25-foot-high concrete barrier and in other places a series of razor-wire fences with electronic sensors.

According to Wikipedia, the US-Mexican border is 2,067 miles. Multiply that by $1.5 million we arrive at $3,100,500,000. Our Federal Budget is $2.119 trillion. The Bridges To Nowhere alone costs us $453 million. According to Porkbusters there are $23,345,344,262 in porks identified in fiscal year 2006.

Decide for yourself if building the wall would be too expensive.

Carnival Of The Clueless No. 39

2006-04-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

It is a day late but the "Carnival Of The Clueless" is up at Right Wing Nut House.

Liberty as Utility

2006-04-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

John Stuart Mill is an important thinker of classical liberalism and libertarianism. His book “On Liberty” is important cannon on liberty. But Mill is known most for his contribution on utilitarianism. In a way, liberalism and utilitarianism is interrelated – one must think of liberty in the context of utility. To think outside of this context lead to convoluted reasoning that in the end detrimental to the cause of freedom.

Lysander Spooner is an early contributor to the libertarianism movement in the US. I found his essay 1875 “Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty” most refreshing. His clarity of thought and power of reasoning can be seen in the following paragraph from the aforementioned essay (I also recommend readers to read the whole essay, it is excellent):

It will do for a pope or a king - who claims to have received direct authority from Heaven, to rule over his fellowmen - to claim the right, as the vice regent of God, to punish men for their vices; but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the governed never would grant it. For them to grant it would be an absurdity, because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness; since to grant away their right to judge of what will be for their happiness, is to grant away all their right to pursue their own happiness.

Yet Lysander Spooner is also famous for his opposition to the US Civil War. What made the situation absurd is that Spooner was the strongest advocate of abolition – and abhorred slavery. Spooner wrote “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” which is considered the best legal argument against slavery. Yet he could not bring himself to support a war that would end slavery and set million of people free. Due to the absolute argument against all form of coercion – to include coercion that end coercion.

Slavery is coercion, hence is wrong. But a war to end slavery is also coercion, hence is also wrong. This thinking creates a problem in practical policy. It is in fact absurd, leaving no solution to any problem concerning liberty. Short of convincing slave owners to voluntarily free their slaves, there is nothing one can do about slavery. In fact, the line of thinking would be an end to all liberty as we know it. Without enforcement to ensure that liberty is protected, liberty itself is an empty meaningless concept – discussed in philosophy class without ever realizing it.

The problem with Lysander Spooner is the same problem that faces the Libertarian Party. Their concept of liberty is missing the concept of utilitarianism. It leads to bizarre political position – such as opposition to all wars – even the one that result in the spread of individual liberty. This is why John Stuart Mill advocacy of utilitarianism should not be seen as a separate and distinct from his advocacy of liberty – but rather an integral part of liberty. Liberty should be real and tangible. Something a person can feel, taste, and enjoy in his personal life. Therefore, Liberty is best understood as “the maximum amount of Liberty for the maximum number of people.”

"The Crucified" by Khalil Gibran

2006-03-30T20:09:00.000-08:00

Today, and on this same day of each year, man is startled from his deep slumber and stands before the phantoms of the Ages, looking with tearful eyes toward Mount Calvary to witness Jesus the Nazarene nailed on the Cross. But when the day is over and eventide comes, he returns and kneels to pray before the idols erected upon every hilltop, every prairie, and every barter of wheat.

Today, the Christian souls ride on the wing of memories and fly to Jerusalem. There they will stand in throngs, beating upon their bosoms, and staring at him, crowned with a wreath of thorns, stretching his arms before heaven, and looking from behind the veil of Death into the depths of Life.

But when the curtain of night drops over the stage of the day and the brief drama is concluded, the Christians will go back in groups and lie down in the shadow of oblivion between quilts of ignorance and slothfulness.

On this one day of each year, the philosophers leave their dark caves, and the thinkers their cold cells, and the poets their imaginary arbors, and all stand reverently upon that silent mountain, listening to the voice of a young man saying of his killers, "Oh Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing."

But as dark silence chokes the voices of the light, the philosophers and the thinkers and the poets return to their narrow crevices and shroud their souls with meaningless pages of parchment.

The women who busy themselves in the splendor of Life will bestir themselves today from their cushions to see the sorrowful woman standing before the Cross like a tender sapling before the raging tempest; and when they approach near to her, they will hear a deep moaning and a painful grief.

The young men and women who are racing with the torrent of modern civilization will halt today for a moment, and look backward to see the young Magdalene washing with her tears the blood stains from the feet of a Holy Man suspended between heaven and earth; and when their shallow eyes weary of the scene they will depart and soon laugh.

On this day of each year, Humanity wakes with the awakening of Spring, and stands crying below the suffering Nazarene; then she closes her eyes and surrenders herself to a deep slumber. But Spring will remain awake, smiling and progressing until merged into Summer, dressed in scented golden raiment. Humanity is a mourner who enjoys lamenting the memories and heroes of the Ages. If Humanity were possessed of understanding, there would be rejoicing over their glory. Humanity is like a child standing in glee by a wounded beast. Humanity laughs before the strengthening torrent which carries into oblivion the dry branches of the trees, and sweeps away with determination all things not fastened to strength.

Humanity looks upon Jesus the Nazarene as a poor-born who suffered misery and humiliation with all the weak. And he is pitied, for Humanity believes he was crucified painfully. And all that Humanity offers to him is crying and wailing and lamentation. For centuries Humanity has been worshiping weakness in the person of the Savior.

The Nazarene was not weak! He was strong and is strong! But people refuse to heed the true meaning of strength.

Jesus never lived a life of fear, nor did he die complaining. He lived as a leader; he was crucified as a crusader; he died with a strength that frightened his killers and tormentors.

Jesus was not a bird with broken wings. He was a raging tempest who broke all crooked wings. He feared not his persecutors nor his enemies. Free and brave and daring he was. He defied all despots and oppressors. He saw the contagious pustules and amputated them. He muted Evil and he crushed Falsehood and he choked Treachery.

Jesus came not from the heart of the circle of Light to destroy the homes and build upon their ruins the convents and monasteries. He did not persuade the strong man to become a monk or a priest, but he came to send forth upon this earth a new spirit, with power to crumble the foundation of any monarchy built upon human bones and skulls. He came to demolish the majestic palaces, constructed on the graves of the weak, and crush the idols, erected upon the bodies of the poor. Jesus was not sent here to teach the people to build magnificent churches and temples amidst the cold wretched huts and dismal hovels. He came to make the human heart a temple, and the soul an altar, and the mind a priest.

These were the missions of Jesus the Nazarene, and these are the teachings for which he was crucified. And if Humanity were wise, she would stand today and sing in strength the song of conquest and the hymn of triumph.

Oh, Crucified Jesus, who art looking sorrowfully from Mount Calvary at the sad procession of the Ages, and hearing the clamor of the dark nations, and understanding the dreams of Eternity: Thou art, on the Cross, more glorious and dignified than one thousand kings upon one thousand thrones in one thousand empires.

Thou art, in the agony of death, more powerful than one thousand generals in one thousand wars.With thy sorrows, thou art more joyous than Spring with its flowers.

With thy suffering, thou art more bravely silent than the crying of angels of heaven. Before thy lashers, thou art more resolute than the mountain of rock.

Thy wreath of thorns is more brilliant and sublime than the crown of Bahram. The nails piercing thy hands are more beautiful than the scepter of Jupiter.

The spatters of blood upon thy feet are more resplendent than the necklace of Ishtar.

Forgive the weak who lament thee today, for they do not know how to lament themselves.

Forgive them, for they do not know that thou hast conquered death with death, and bestowed life upon the dead.

Forgive them, for they do not know that thy strength still awaits them.

Forgive them, for they do not know that every day is thy day.

The Solution To Illegal Immigration Is Legal Immigration

2006-03-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

First of all, there are no undocumented aliens. Undocumented aliens are Japanese (or any nationality) tourists who came to the US and lost their visa at Disney World. Let call them what it is - illegal aliens. And it is a travesty that they are illegal aliens and not legal aliens. The current issue we have concerning illegal immigrants did not not appear out of the blue. The massive numbers of illegal immigrants did not cross the border yesterday, they came in the period of many years. And like it or not, they came because there is a demand for unskill jobs due to our unprecedent economic growth.

But the demand for labor was predictable and should have been anticipated. Therefore the current problem is mainly the fault of Congress and the President - not only this one but previous ones as well - going back at least 10 years. They should have anticipated the labor demand in our economy and adjust their immigration policy accordingly. They should have granted more working visas or came up with a guest worker program that meet our labor need. That means we could have had the same number of immigrants - but legal instead of illegal. We could have picked and chose the best of them base on skill, language, and education - as well as the lack of criminal record. We could have had a much more diverse immigrant population - representing the world at large instead of one single ethnic group. We could have had an immigrant population who are waving the Old Glory instead of a foreign color.

I think the current problem is more complex than people realize and requires several approachs. Building a fence alone does not solve the labor need. Amnesty will not end the incoming flow of illegal immgrants. The problem requires a multi-prongs solution beginning with tightening control of the border. Let make illegal tresspassing into the US a felony with some prison times. Next we have to deal with the illegal immgrants that are here and it is a complex solution. Deporting all of them at once is not a feasible and practical solution. There are too many of them; and who would do the work if they are gone? People who favor deportation will change their mind quickly when there are no fruits in the supermarkets. The practical solution would be slowly deporting people at the sametime rapidly increase the number of authorized employment visa - equal to the rate of people we deport. Let also distribute those visas equally across the globe so that we can have a more diverse population and increase the chance of assimilation. We can also lowering the labor demand by implementing free trade policy. Many of the jobs that illegal immigrants are performing would disappear if we have a sensible trade policy. Let start with ending the agriculture subsidy. It is much better to import fruit from Mexico than importing illegal aliens.

Genocide Deniers

2006-03-22T18:18:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting piece over Oliver Kamn. Oliver Kamn fisked Chomsky (and the Guardian) over his position in relation to the genocide in Bosnia. We all know about Chomsky infamous comment on the Cambodia Killing Field. Apparently he is taking a similar position with the genocide in Bosnia. And similar to the Killing Field comment, Chomsky said something outrageous and later denied ever saying it or claim that it was taken out of context. Noam Chomsky granted an interview to The Guardian last October and the interviewer supposedly asked some tought indirect questions about the masacre at Srebrenica.

Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?
A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.

It is true that the above question- in exact wording- was never asked; and Chomsky never gave the answer - in exact wording. Therefore Chomsky is entitled to an apology and a correction from The Guardian on this specific fact. But Chomsky did indirectly support the position that Srebrenicia was not a masacre and there was no genocide in Bosnia. And as a public intellectual, he must be held responsible.

Oliver gave the evidence of Chomsky position in his piece and I strongly recommend readers to read the whole thing. It is long and laborious but worthy of your time. The summary of Oliver's article is that Chomsky by supporting Diana Johnstone's position is himself a genocide denier.

I will not address Chomsky sin which is merely an echo of Oliver Kamn's position. However I wish to address the original position of Dianna Johnstone which Chomsky supports. Dianna Johnston wrote "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions" which basically denies that there was a genocidal campaign in the Former Yugoslavia and it is minor in comparision to crimes commited by the US internationally. Of course, wacko leftist accusing the US of war crimes is not noteworthy in itself so I will not address that particular argument.

But I have been to Bosnia and am intimately familiar with that civil war. And I think it is important to debunk the Johnstone argument - not for the sake of the US but for the sake of the victims of that genocide. Oliver Kamn did a nice job summarizing Johnstone's thesis and in this post I will refute her argument. I am doing it in the names of the murdered, the raped, and the survivors. Oliver Kamn:

To summarise, this is what Johnstone argues: that there is “a difficulty in knowing the truth about Srebrenica”. This is partly because “uncertainty has persisted concerning the actual number of people killed, the circumstances and motives involved and the political significance of the real or assumed killing that took place.” Johnstone urges, therefore, that “a number of factors should be taken into account”.
These are:

1. The safe areas (including Srebrenica) were not demilitarised, but “served as Muslim military bases … safe bases from which to attack the Serbs”, and UN-protected food shipments were “suspected - correctly” by the Serbs of acting as a front for the shipment of weapons. The UN announcement of the demilitarisation of Srebrenica was “deceptive”.
2. The Muslim forces in Srebrenica were led by one Naser Oric who “had carried out murderous raids against nearby Serb villages”. Oric’s Muslim fighters beheaded the bodies of Serbs, reminding Serbs of the Ottoman occupation.
3. The Bosnian Muslim government pulled Oric’s men out of the enclave “deliberately leaving the enclave undefended”. This alleged fact “has aroused strong suspicion of a calculated sacrifice”. In addition, a former member of the Bosnian parliament has “insisted that many more Srebrenicans had survived than were acknowledged”.
4. The US used the “inevitable failure” of the UN safe area concept as a way of getting NATO to supplant the United Nations. “The UNPROFOR mission was a planned failure … used to discredit the whole tradition of neutral diplomacy” and colluded in by “Washington’s choice as Secretary General, Kofi Annan…”
5. “The number of Muslims killed or missing after the fall of Srebrenica is uncertain and more effort has been made to inflate the figures than to identify and count the real victims”. The original 8,000 figure was made up of 3,000 reported detainees and 5,000 who fled, of whom, according to one newspaper report, 3-4,000 had now turned up. Six years later “ICTY forensic teams had exhumed 2,361 bodies in the region and identified fewer than 50 … some of the bodies were certainly of Serbs as well as of Muslims”. Johnstone concludes that there is “no clear way to account for the fate of all the Muslim men reported missing in Srebrenica”, not least because some of the prisoners “were released in exchanges” or “even dispersed abroad”.
6. “The original accusation against the Bosnian Serbs was politically motivated.” Johnstone writes that “The accusation of a ‘Srebrenica massacre’ [note, these are Johnstone’s quotation marks] was used by the Clinton administration” to distract attention from Croat activities in the Krajina region, and on to “Serb misdeeds”. A presentation by Madeleine Albright of satellite photographs showing possibly massacre burial sites “successfully diverted attention” at the UN from the Croatian offensive against the Serbs. The photos themselves are problematic because “If … the massacres took place on the scale alleged, why were no photos displayed showing the massacres?”

7. “Insofar as Muslims were actually executed [note the use of the quasi-judicial word ‘executed’ rather than ‘murdered’ or even ‘killed’ here] following the fall of Srebrenica, such crimes bear all the signs of spontaneous acts of revenge rather than a project of ‘genocide’”. This is the context in which Johnstone claims that the separation of men of military age from women and children makes one thing obvious, “one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children”. Johnstone claims that the separation actually happened “partly because the Serbs could exchange” Serb and Muslim POWs and partly because the Serbs were looking for Oric’s notorious killers. The rapid fall of the enclave “presented the Serbs with an opportunity to exact revenge”. Furthermore “some observers” think that the whole thing “was a ‘trap’ for the Serbs who stupidly fell into it.” In fact “one man who wanted to keep Bosnian Serb forces away from Srebrenica was Slobodan Milosevic”. He may have anticipated that “the accusation of ‘genocide’ in Srebrenica was used to construct the presumption that Milosevic was plotting to commit genocide in Kosovo.”

On point one and two, it has some kernels of truth but much more factual errors. There are still Muslim (Bosniaks) fighters within Srebrenicia proper - to include Naser Oric and his men - but the number is insignificant because the bulk of Bosniak fighters were defending Sarajevo. Srebrenicia location is deep within Serb controlled territory. I includes a map to familiar readers with the locations in this article. The greenline is the current border that divide Bosnia into The Federation and Republika Sprska. It was also the front line around the time of the fall of Srebrenica. The red lines are the main roads.

By the time of the seige of Srebrenica, the combined Serbian Army (JNA) and the Bosnian Serbs (VRS) forces already took Zvonik, a Muslim majority town north of Srebrenica and emptied it of all Muslims. Many of the refugee fled to Srebrenica, increased it population by at least five times. The JNA-VRS forces pushed further south and completely surrounded Srebrenica. Srebrenica was completely isolated and if one looks at the map, it is very far from the front line to be a viable base for launching attacks against the Serbs. Supplying in the city is virtually impossible without going through Serbs controlled checkpoint. The only way to avoid the checkpoints was on foot through the mountain. Having been there, I can tell you that the mountain in Bosnia is tough terrain to tranverse - one has to be in very good shape and if one carry light load. Johnstone's idea that the city was a forward base is absurd.

There is no denial that Naser Oric is a war criminal. I have personally met Naser Oric when I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia (2000) and my impression of him was negative. He is a typical criminal scumbag that profit from war. He was a sleazy night club owner in Tuzla at the time. When he was indicted, we came close to capturing him but he managed to evade.

But I wonder what Johnstone point in mentioning Naser Oric. Naser Oric role in the Srebrenica event was a negative one but irrelevant to the later masacre. Naser and his men, during the seige, went outside the city to forage for food and supply. In the process, they indiscriminately killed Serbs who live in the outskirt of the city. Robbery was his main motive. And as the Serbs were closing in the city, Naser and his men left in helicopter. Is Johnstone implying that Naser action justify the masacre later on by Serbs? According Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who is no friend of Naser Oric, submitted a document to the UN that Naser Oric killed 371 Serbs during his raids (from 1993 - 1995). War crime no doubt; and he is being tried for it. But that fact bear no relevancy on the later masacre unless if Johnstone argue that it was spontaneous revenge - unqualified as premeditated and planned masacre.

Which she did in this article at the International Action Center (a far left center found by Ramsey Clark), which seems to be the summarized version of her book:

When the Bosnian Serb forces captured the town on July 11, 2005, civilians were clamoring to leave the enclave, understandably enough, since there was virtually no normal economic life there. Much has been made of the fact that Serb forces separated the population, providing buses for women, children and the infirm to take them to Tuzla, while detaining the men. In light of all that preceded, the reason for this separation is obvious: the Bosnian Serbs were looking for the perpetrators of raids on Serb villages, in order to take revenge.

However, only a relatively small number of Muslim men were detained at that point, and some of them are known to have survived and eventually been released in exchange for Serb prisoners. When the Serb forces entered the town from the south, thousands of Muslim soldiers, in disarray because of the absence of commanding officers, fled northwards, through wild wooded hills toward Tuzla. It is clear enough that they fled because they feared exactly what everyone aware of the situation dreaded: that Serb soldiers would take vengeance on the men they considered guilty of murdering Serb civilians and prisoners.

First of all, the revenge explanation does hold water. There was other masacres long before Srebrenica. There is a hotel in Zvornik that we nicknames "Airbone Hotel." When the Serbs took Zvornik, they took Muslims to a hotel on the Drina (the river that divides Bosnia and Serbia), killed them and threw their bodies into river - hence the nickname. There were so many bodies that the hydroelectric damn downstream was clogged. The refugees at Srebrenica include many survivors of Zvornik.

Johnstone assertion that Muslims men fled north toward Tuzla is absurd. It would normally took us most of the day to travel from Tuzla to Srebrenica in humvee using the main road. It would be almost impossible to travel from Srebrenica to Tuzla on foot while avoiding the main road. The numerous mountains in between make it physically impossible.

Johnstone had also never visited the mass grave in Bosnia. I went to many of them and they turned my stomach. So far more than 5,000 remains were recovered in and around Srebrenica and new ones are being found. It is a higher rate of recover than most masacres in the past suggesting the number maybe much higher than 8,000 originally estimated.

Throughout her book, Johnstone deliberately avoids mentioning the rapes that occured after the fall of Srebrenica. Beside seperating the men and young boy to be massacred, the Serbs raped many women and young girls as a form of intimidation.

Beside the factual errors on the Srebrenica Masacre, Johnstone has nothing to add to the topic other than crazy conspiracy theory. The fact that Croats and Bosniaks also commited war crimes is not disputed by anyone. It does not change the fact that the Serbs were the most prolific killers in the war because they were most well equiped. It further does not change that Srebrenica Masacre in 1995 was the worst masacre in Europe since World War Two. Dianna Johnstone book has less to do with Bosnia than with America. If the US did not intervened in that conflict, Johnstone would have no problem acknowleding the masacre. I am used to the nutty Leftist bashing the US. We can take the abuse. But it sadden me to see victims of genocide being denied of their stories in the process.

Manolo Is Not A Postmodernist

2006-03-22T00:04:00.000-08:00

As a frequent visitor to Manolo's Shoe Blog, my instinct told me that Manolo is a not postmodernist. A man with such refined sense of style cannot possibly be a dreary postmodernist. Normblog profile of the great fashion guru confirms my belief.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > That beauty is the subjective, artificial construct. Indeed, it is not. Beauty and the appreciation of beauty they are part of the very essence of the human soul, and are indeed eternal verities.

Manolo, he is super fantastic!

Even Black Market Is Better Than Government

2006-03-20T01:54:00.000-08:00

The common argument among government intervention advocates is that without government regulation and intervention, a free market would lead to chaos, people would exploit one another. Here is a personal story that will debunk that myth.

I remember the period in Communist Vietnam from the late 70s through early 80s and the economic condition back then. It was a time I cannot forget because of the food shortage and other shortage of essential goods.

The Communist Forces took over the South in April 1975 and soon after completely nationalized the economy – even small and pop business was illegal. And within a year of it, consumer goods disappeared from the market. I remember standing in line with my mother for half a day to shop at Cooperative stores and by the time we get to the store, there was nothing worth buying. And in the rare occasions when there are something to buy, it is substandard and inferior products. And when I say substandard, I mean standard of a third world country – which is almost no standard.

One maybe able to tolerate not having toothpaste or soaps, but the worst experience is not having food. The collectivization of agriculture result in the worst food shortage experienced since World War Two. Those were the years of food shortage. The food shortage was experience exclusively in urban area. It happened because of two reasons. The first problem was distribution, food was gathered at central locations; and because of government bureaucracy, and they rotted in centralized warehouses. Second, there was little economic incentive for farmers to product more rice that they need for themselves. So farmers would grow just enough for their family. Congee (rice soup), to increase the volume of food, was the common meal. And it was barely enough to fill one stomach. I remember going to bed hungry. The situation was so bad that on many occasions we had to eat cattle feeds as substitution for rice.*

As a natural reaction to the economic situation, the black market emerged. At first, it was simply people battering goods and services. A fisherman would give a fish to a barber in exchange for a haircut. Since farmers were not allowed to sell their agricultural goods. However they could exchange it for other things. Illiterate people would give my mother chicken in exchange for reading lesson. This form of battering would later evolved into the black market, as complex as any market.

During the war, my mother was an elementary school teacher. My father was a music professor and a city councilman. It did not matter to the victorious Communist that my father was a member of the opposition party. He was considered to be a member of the former regime. He was arrested, jailed for a couple of years and was forced out of the job (he would be arrested again later but it is another story). The salary of an elementary teacher was not enough to feed my family so my mother quit. She and my father entered the black market as fabric merchants.

At first they knew nothing about commerce but they learned quickly and adapted. Having witnessed my parent business and other businesses that evolved out the black market, I have a great appreciation for the agility and power of the market. As the black market evolved, the economic condition improved rapidly – especially my own economic condition. Whatever one could not buy at the government cooperatives, one could get it in the black market. It became the primary market in the South but it was nonetheless illegal – more so for the merchants than the consumers.

One would assume that in a market that is not regulated (it is an illegal market), there would be much exploitation and cheating. But that was not the cases. There were cheatings, but far and few in between. A merchant’s business depends on his or her reputation. Those who cheat do not survive in the market very long. Honesty is a selling point. Commercial transaction is illegal, money and good did not change hand at the same time. Consumer would pay merchant first. At the time of payment, there was no merchandise in sight. Merchant would go get the items and give to the consumer later. Trust was paramount to the transaction. All sort of items (good as well as services) were available in the black market to includes controlled items such as pharmaceuticals.

Despite the fact that we suppose to receive universal healthcare, there was no care or medicine. Doctors could not live on government salary so they quit. Those doctors that stayed on at the hospital are unqualified. They became doctors because they were loyal members of the Communist Party, not because they were competent healers. People learned to avoid government hospital and government doctors. One was more likely to get sicker, not better from the treatment. Competent doctors practiced medicine from their house, without license or government sanction. People always knew who the good doctors were. The bad ones worked for the government.

Essential medicine was also purchased at the black market. I was a sick child and often required medical care and medicine - medicine that would require regulation, control, and prescription in this country. I never experienced any adverse effect from the medicine purchased from the black market. They always worked, and I always gotten better from taking them. In fact, they saved my lives several occasions.

It was the black market that ended the starvation – starvation caused by government action. It was the black market that cured people and gave them a decent quality of life. It was the black market that sustained the entire country economy.

Liberal economic concepts such as invisible hand or spontaneous order are not abstract concepts. They are real and observable – and they are wonderful. They show the superiority of free market over government intervention. And even unregulated black market is proven to be superior to government.

========
*According to the Economist, in 2005, Vietnam was the second largest exporters of rice. Yet in the 70s and 80s, it could not feed it citizens. It is not coincident that the increase in production of rice began after the economic liberalization of the 90s.

Iraq - 2004 and now

2006-03-16T12:44:00.000-08:00

All the talking heads who tell people how bad the situation in Iraq is was not in Iraq in 2004. When I was in Iraq in 2004 thing was really bad. Early that year we lost physical control of al-Fallujah, then a string of cities and towns in al-Anbar province fell into the hand of terrorists. From ar-Ramadi to the border with Syria, we had no physical control. Terrorists had complete freedom of movement from Baghdad to Syria. They controlled most of al-Anbar province. In al-Qa'im near the border, there was a sign in English: "Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Qa'im."

Al-Anbar was not the only lost province. The fall of al-Fallujah had a domino effect. It inspired terrorists everywhere to duplicate Zarqawi success. As-Samarra in Salah ad Din province fell; followed by Tal Afar in Niwana province. Baquba (in Diyala province), thirty minutes from my base camp, al-Zarqawi attempted to take the city. The fight for the city last a week, two soldiers from my unit died on the first day of the battle, known unofficially as the Battle for Baquba. It took several days of heavy fighting and three 500 pounds bombs to disloged Zarqawi fighters from the city. We almost lost the city. Iraqi workers who are employed in my base did not show up for work for more than a week because there was fighting everywhere.

Muqtada Sadr took advantage of the situation and started his insugency. First al-Najaf fell; then it was Karbala, then al-Kut. In al-Kut, there was a small U.S. force there. The base fell. People arrived at my base camp with the clothes on their back. Throughout the South, Mahdi Army of Muqtada Sadr roamed freely.

2004 was a desperate year. It was the year of the Twin Insurgency. To call the US presence in Iraq an occupation was grossly exagerated. We barely controlled half of the country. The other half was firmly in the control of terrorists. They ruled their areas like mini-states. They even had Sharia court. People are worry about a future Islamic Caliphate in the Sunni Triangle. There was an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq in 2004 with Zarqawi as its head of state and al-Fallujah as its capital.

But that Caliphate is no more. Now, all the cities and towns I mentioned are fully in the control of the US or Iraqi government. There are still violences and Iraq is not out of danger yet. But thing had improved signficantly since then. Iraq has an democratically elected government. It has an Armed Forces.

If someone tell you that thing has gotten worse in Iraq, ask him where he was in 2004. Wherever he was, he was certainly not in Iraq.

"Journey From The Fall"

2006-03-13T17:03:00.000-08:00

An independent film that I will see. There are a whole lot of movies made about the Vietnam War and the effect of the war. But there are few, if none, made from the perspective of a Vietnamese. Unless that Vietnamese happens to be a Communist "freedom fighter" who triumphed over the "Imperialist America."

Few undestand that horrible price paid by many of us in the South, particularly my parent generation who had to live under Communist tyranny. "Journey From The Fall" is the first movie attempting to fill that gap.

Fresh from its screening at the Sundance Film Festival, JOURNEY FROM THE FALL is the first major American film to dramatize the traumatic aftermath of the Vietnam War from a Vietnamese perspective. Unlike Hollywood films with a one-sided focus on the American psyche, Ham Tran’s impressive feature-length debut delves into the stories of those left behind after the fall of Saigon.

Despite his allegiance to the toppled South Vietnamese government, Long Nguyen decides to remain in Vietnam. Arrested and imprisoned in a Communist re-education camp, he urges his family to make the treacherous escape by boat without him. They embark on the arduous ocean voyage, braving sickness, starvation and pirates in the hope of reaching the U.S. and freedom. Back in Vietnam, Long suffers years of solitary confinement and hard labor, and finally despairs that his family has perished. But news of their successful resettlement in America inspires him to make one last desperate attempt to join them.

This gorgeous, gripping epic skillfully interweaves the little-known horrors of the re-education camps with a visceral account of the trials and triumphs of the refugee experience. With superb performances and luminous cinematography, it tells an intensely moving story with dignity and astonishing lyricism. Filmed in the lush terrain of Southeast Asia by Guillermo Rosas (BEFORE NIGHT FALLS) and the sun-baked streets of California by Julie Kirkwood, JOURNEY FROM THE FALL is a tribute to the perseverance and hope of the Vietnamese people, and a testament to the beauty and power of filmmaking.

I will not be able to see it until it comes out in DVD, but if you are in San Franciso (March 16 -23), Berkeley (March 17 - 25), and San Jose (March 24 - 26), go see the movie. Here is the site you can order tickets.

“Public Purpose” Versus “Public Good”

2006-02-25T18:48:00.000-08:00

Fifth Admenment, US Bill of Right:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is much controversy over the public use clause, especially post Kelo v. New London. According to Justice Steven, “Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.” (Emphasis is mine)

The public use clause should not be equated to public purpose. The test for public use should be public good – not public purpose.

There are two qualities to public good (via wikipedia):

Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good.

This should be the qualifying test for all eminent domain cases. If this test had been use, the City of New London could not rob the home owners of their houses. In fact, I would favor the public good test for all government spending, not just on eminent domain. It would severely limit the ability of our government to waste our money.

US-India Relation

2006-02-23T19:17:00.000-08:00

I am looking forward to the President visit to India next week. I say it's about time. In fact he should have visited India the first year he was in office. India is the most populous democracy in the world, a future economic and military powerhouse. India is a key player international. Unfortunately the US has ignored India importance; and even in the past hostile toward it. I believes it was to our own detriment that President Nixon side with China against India. Our foreign policy in relation to China and India in the past reveals the hypocrasy and immorality of international realism. It is absolutely absurd that the US sided with China, a tyranical dictatorship, against India, a liberal democracy.

But relationship between the US and India is warming up. According to the Economist ("The great Indian hope trick," subscription required)

According to Promod Haque of Norwest Venture, a venture-capital firm, it is also suffering a “reverse brain-drain” as Indian and Chinese engineers go home. This, he argues, coupled with the retirement of the baby-boomers, is creating a “shortage of intellectual capital” in America which will eventually threaten its superpower status. The solution is to build a “strategic competitive advantage” through an alliance with an offshore base of intellectual capital. India is the obvious choice. Its pool of highly qualified graduates will be twice as large as China's by 2008, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, and they speak English.

Such a de facto alliance is already in the making, and is helping alert American business to India's other attractions: an economy expected to grow by more than 7% in 2006, for the fourth year running; a fast-expanding middle-class; and a government committed to liberalisation, even if implementing it is painfully slow. In the past year, India has allowed foreign firms to enter the construction and property industries, signed an “open skies” agreement with America and passed a patent law that meets WTO standards. As India continues to open up new industries to foreign investment, the opportunities for American firms are proliferating, says Ron Somers, head of the US-India Business Council.

One key huddle during the President visit will be India status as a nuclear power - both its civilian program as well as its military program. When Prime Minister Singh came to Washington DC, the US promised to share our civilian nuclear technology with India. However implementing the promise is easier said than done. The non-proliferation purists in the US object. According to another Economist article ("A passage to India", subscription required):

Under American and international law, such technology can be given only to countries that have renounced nuclear weapons and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has never joined the treaty, and it tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Mr Bush, in effect, was driving a coach and horses through the treaty in order to suit his own strategic ends, a move that invites the accusation of hypocrisy from other nuclear states and wannabes not so favoured. The idea was that India, in return, should take steps to satisfy the Americans on a long list of nuclear-security concerns, such as not exporting weapons technology and continuing to observe a moratorium on testing. Most important, India was asked to separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, with the former subject to a rigorous inspection regime.

The Economist:

So far, however, the proposals offered by the Indians actually to do all this are far from adequate. As Mr Bush packs his bags, desperate attempts are being made to bridge the gap. The obvious danger is that in order to portray his summit as a success Mr Bush will be tempted to accept even fewer safeguards from India. That would be a dangerous mistake: nuclear proliferation matters too much to allow excessive wiggle-room or create bad precedents. Fortunately, whatever deal is agreed between Mr Bush and Mr Singh will also require the approval of America's Congress, which has already taken a dim view of Mr Bush's nuclear generosity to India.

I disagree with the Economist and Congress. I think we are overreacting. India was never a threat, is not a threat, and extremely unlikely to be a threat. If we are comfortable to transfer our nuclear technology to the United Kingdoms, there should be the same level of comfort with India.

Furthermore, India relying on nuclear energy is important to the world security and the US security. The increase price of petroleum is due to increase demand from India and China. And petrodollars are being used by the Saudi regime to fund various madrassas, mosques, and religious institutions across the globe, turning those institutions into Jihadi information center, which in turn produce more terrorists. The President is commendable on his goal of reducing dependency on petroleum. But the the effect will be negligent if the demand for petroleum worldwide is not reduced. If India depends primarily on its nuclear reactor for its energy need, it will ease its demand for crude oil, and in turn lessens the amount of pretrodollars available to the Saudi regime.

The security and prosperity of the US depends on India-US relation. Do not let isolationists and protectionists stand in the way of our most important diplomatic victory in many decades. And isolationists in the US is not the only obstacle.

"This debate... has been hijacked over here [in the United States] by non-proliferation theologians and in India by those rallying under the banner of self-reliance," (India's Ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen)

Mythical Creatures

2006-02-22T21:57:00.000-08:00

Black Five suggests that “moderate Muslims” may be “mythical beasties;” somehow I managed to have met many of those mythical creatures, even fought alongside many of them. They exist, and they are very real. I wrote about them here, even includes a picture.

I am a strong supporter of the Danes against fundamentalists, but I am also a strong supporter of Muslims against fundamentalist. Those who claim, that because there is no uproar of opposition against fundamentalism from Muslim, that there is no moderate Muslim, have never lived in an oppressed tyranny. This is the equivalence of the argument from the Left (made during the Cold War) that because there is no protest against Communism behind the Iron Curtain, the Worker Paradise is truly a paradise.

The reason moderate Muslims are so quiet is the same reason we victims of Communism were so quiet – fear. For 15 years, I lived under the tyranny of communism; and for those 15 years, I said nothing. My father said nothing, my neighbors said nothing, and my (then) countrymen said nothing. In fact, if a Western journalist asked me a question about the government, I would have nothing but glorious praise for the Communist government. Of course, I would not believe what I said. We had food shortage; our lives were miserable and oppressive. But miserable as we were, we preferred living in misery to death and imprisonment. My family and I were terrified, and being terrified is a forgivable sin.

The majority of Muslims are afraid – and they have every reason to be fearful. We, in the West, think of Islamic fundamentalists in term of the September 11th attack, the Madrid attack, the London attack. But Islamists waged war on moderate Muslims long before they waged war on the West. All the Western casualties combined are only a fraction in comparison to the Muslims killed in Algeria by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). And Algeria is only a small front in the war. Add that number to the number of Muslims killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The recent bombing of the al-Askari Mosque prove that extremists are waging war against moderate (or as they call it “the near enemies’) and that we in the West are the peripheral to the conflict (“the far enemies).

Those who claim that there are no moderate Muslims must have never read the blog of Iraq the Model or the Big Pharoah. They of course never fought alongside the Peshmerga or the 206th Iraqi National Guard.

By not separating between the extremists and the moderates, we will loose potential allies and pitch ourselves against the greater Islamic world. The oversimplified clash of civilization meme will be detrimental to our cause.

Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues (from Ibn Khaldun)

2006-02-18T00:58:00.000-08:00

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) is an Islamic scholar living in the 14th century Andalusia, what we now known as Spain. Ibn Khaldun is many things. He is a historian, a government administrator and an Islamic jurist. But he is also the first sociologist and the first economist. In “The Muqaddimah” (translated as Prolegomena or Introduction), Chapter 3 titles “On dynasties, royal authority, the caliphate, government ranks, and all that goes with these things. The chapter contains basic and supplementary propositions,” Section 36 titles “Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues,” Ibn Khaldun wrote:

QUOTE:

36 Taxation and the reason for low and high tax revenues

It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.

The same reason for this is that when the dynasty follows the way of Islam, it imposes only such taxes as are stipulated by the religious law, such as charity taxes, the land tax, and the poll tax. Theses have fixed limits that cannot be exceeded.

When the dynasty follows the ways of group feeling and (political) superiority, it necessary has at first a desert attitude, as has been mentioned before. The desert attitude requires kindness, reverence, humility, respect for the property of other people, and disinclination to appropriate it, except in rare instances. Therefore, the individual, the individual imposts and assessments, which together constitute the tax revenue, are low. When tax assessment and imposts upon the subjects are low, the latter have the energy and desire to do things. Cultural enterprises grow and increase, because the low taxes bring satisfaction. When cultural enterprises grow, the number of individual imposts and assessments mounts. In consequence, the tax revenue, which is in sum total of (the individual assessment), increase.

When the dynasty continues in power and their rulers follow each other in succession, they become sophisticated. The Bedouin attitude and simplicity lose their significance, and the Bedouin qualities of moderation and restraint disappear. Royal authority with its tyranny and sedentary culture that stimulates sophistication, make their appearance. The people of the dynasty then acquire qualities of character related to cleverness. Their customs and needs become more varied because of the prosperity and luxury in which they are immersed. As a result, the individual imposts and assessments upon the subjects, agricultural labourers, farmers and all the other tax payers, increase. Every individual impost and assessment is greatly increased, in order to obtain a higher tax revenue. Customs duties are placed upon articles of commerce and (levied) at the city gates. Then, gradual increases in the amount of the assessments succeed each other regularly, in correspondence with the gradual increase in the luxury customs and many needs of the dynasty and the spending required in connection with them. Eventually, the taxes will weigh heavily upon the subjects and overburden them. Heavy taxes become an obligation and tradition, because the increase took place gradually, and no one knows specifically who increase them or levied them. They lie upon the subjects like an obligation and tradition.

The assessments increase beyond the limited of equity. The result is that the interest of the subjects in cultural enterprise disappears, since they compare expenditure and taxes with their income and gain and see little profit they make, they loose all hope. Therefore, many of them refrain from all cultural activity. The result is that the total tax revenue goes down, as individual assessment go down. Often when decrease is noticed, the amounts of individual imposts are increased. This is considered a means of compensating for the decrease. Finally, individual imposts and assessments reach their limit. It would be of no avail to increase them further. The costs of all cultural enterprise are now too high, the taxes are too heavy, and the profits anticipated fail to materialize. Finally, civilization is destroyed, because the incentive for cultural activity is gone. It is the dynasty that suffers from the situation, because its profits from cultural activity.

If one understands this, he will realize that the strongest incentive for cultural activity is to lower as much as possible the amounts of individual imposts levied upon persons capable of undertaking cultural enterprises. In this manner, such persons will be psychologically disposed to undertake them, because they can be confident of making a profit from them.

COMMENT:

The commentary by Ibn Khaldun describes what latter known as The Laffer Curve, names after the supply side economist Arthur Laffer. It should have been name the Khaldun Curve since he was the first to have mentioned it. It is important to note that Ibn Khaldun in describe the phenomenon was mainly interest in the effect on the state coffer, not the taxpayers; so he cannot be accuse of being anti-government or a libertarian.

Imagine writing the above paragraph in The Middle Ages. Ibn Khaldun was very wise. He was ahead of his time, and is perhaps ahead of our time as well. We are now seven hundred years after Ibn Khaldun. Yet we still have people who believe in big government, in high taxation, who still refuse to see the aggregate benefit to society when individual is given economic incentive.

Not Even Slavery Is Offered

2006-02-14T22:58:00.000-08:00

Dymphna quote me from this post.

Let not pretend that they seek to redress an insult to their religion. It is a mere pretext. They seek nothing less than our submission - our unconditional surrender to their rule. To them I say “bring it on.” I will not submit. I will not surrender. I will not be a dhimmi. I did not escape Communism to live under Sharia.

I just realized that dhimmitude is not even available to me. To be a dhimmi, one has to be of “people of the books,” that is either a Christian or a Jew. I am neither. I am a Buddhist, therefore slavery is not even offered. The choice for me is conversion or death. Some choices!

When this war began, many Buddhists (and Hindus) took a position that the war is between the West (implying Christians) and Muslim Fundamentalist – and it does not concern them. They are “useful idiots.” It is not possible for them or me to sit on the fence. In the global caliphate, at least Christians will be offered a chance as lowly second class citizens – if they submitt themselves to the Sharia. If one is an atheist or if one religion is not from a Abrahamic tradition, no quarter will be given. It is time for the fence sitters to take side in the war against Islamic fundamentalists; because the consequence for them is life or death.

The Left, Tort Reform, and Universal Healthcare

2006-02-13T23:00:00.000-08:00

Regardless if you are from the right or the left of the political spectrum - you should support tort reform, especially tort reform on medical malpratice. It puzzles me a great deal that the Left are adamantly opposed to tort reform.

If you are on the Right, like me, you support privatization of health care. If you are on the Left, you support universal healthcare. But neither goal can be achieved without reducing the cost of healthcare. I think both sides agree that the current price of healthcare is too high. It is too high for a person to buy health insurance on his own. And it would bankrupt the government if we decide to nationalized healthcare.

One factor that makes heathcare so expensive is the high cost of malpractice insurance to healthcare provider. And I do not buy into the argument (by attorney lobbyist, of all people) that there are no frivolous lawsuits. Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp is not as rare as they claimed. Both my brother and I had been partied to frivilous lawsuit.

The Right, by supporting tort reform, shows that they are serious about keeping healthcare in the private sector. If the Left is truly serious about universal healthcare, they should be supporting tort reform. Their current position only reveals that they are in the pocket of trial lawyers, and all the talks of universal healthcare is mere political rhetoric, not to be taken seriously.

Kurosawa view on Postmodernism and Multiculturalism

2006-02-10T01:30:00.000-08:00

Akira Kurosawa is perhaps my most favorite film maker in the history of cinema. His works is the best proofs that postmodernism and multiculturalism are wrong. There are many critics of both postmodernism and multiculturalism – but Kurosawa is perhaps the best and the most successful critic.

Among the best of Kurosawa works are two of my favorite movies, “Ran” and “Throne of Blood.” The first is based on Shakespeare’s “King Lear. The second is based on Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.” The two movies are Kurosawa declaration of universalism and a condemnation of postmodernism and multiculturalism.

“Ran” and “Throne of Blood” are both set in medieval Japan – a period known as Sengoku-jidai (The Warring State Period). Kurosawa did not simply doing imitations of Shakespeare. He had done something amazing. Here are two movies made my a modern Japanese, inspired by a playwright living in Renaissance England, transposed to medieval Japan, through modern medium (cinema), created masterpieces that are loved and understood by modern movie viewers across the globe. When I first watched the movies, I simply thought that the movies are Japanese movies about medieval Japan. To someone who is unfamiliar with Western classic literature, there is nothing to suggest that the movies derived from a Western source. I did not recognize Shakespeare in Kurosawa. I did not know anything about Shakespeare at the time. But later, studying Shakespeare in college, I recognized Kurosawa in Shakespeare.

By making these two movies, Kurosawa rejected postmodernism and its offspring, multiculturalism. Postmodernism rejects that words have no intrinsic meaning, that there is no universal human value. In fact, there is no such thing as value. This philosophy then gave birth to modern multiculturalism. Kurosawa through his movies demonstrated that there are universal values that transcend time, space, and culture.

I invite readers to watch “Ran” and “Throne of Blood,” as well as other Kurosawa’s movies.

Dishonesty and Dishonor from the U.S. Media

2006-02-07T18:14:00.000-08:00

I find the stated reasons by US mainstream media not to show the cartoons extremely disingenuous. It is understandably if they did not show the cartoons a month ago, when the issue had not surface. But the cartoons themselves are now a central part of the story. How can they report about the story without showing the cartoons that began it all? The reason that the cartoons should be reprinted is not to offend Muslim, or to express any opinion about the cartoons themselves, but to put the story in context.

These are the very same organization that had no second thought about showing the pictures of Abu Ghraib or other equally offensive images. The reason is no other than fear. They are afraid that Muslim extremists would bomb their building or harm their staffs. It is an understanding fear and they should say so. I would still respect the media if they came out and said that the reason they did not reprint the cartoons because they fear for their lives. At least they can score points for honesty. We expect the media to tell the truth, but we certainly do not expect them to risk their lives. We do not expect the media to be fearless, but we expect them to be honest.

Let me suggest a respectable press release for media organization who will not reprint or show the cartoons.

“We apologize to our readers/viewers that we cannot show the controversial cartoons. We wish we could show it to you so that you can completely comprehend the cause for the controversy. We wish we could show the cartoons to you so that you can decide for yourself if they are offensive or not. We do not show the cartoons because of the risks they pose to us as an organization and to our staffs as individuals. Our job is to report to you the story in it entirely, as honestly as we possibly can, but without jeopardizing our lives. In this case, our lives can be in serious danger. It is therefore with regret that we cannot show you the cartoons. We hope that you will understand our position.”

Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of the German newsweekly (which reprinted the cartoons) had this to say in a Washington Post editorial title: “Tolerance Toward Intolerance”

When the cartoons were first published in Denmark in September, nobody in Germany took notice. Had our publication been offered the drawings at that point, in all likelihood we would have declined to print them. At least one of them seems to equate Islam with radical Islamism. That is exactly the direction nobody wants the debate about fundamentalism to take -- even though the very nature of a political cartoon is overstatement. We would not have printed the caricature out of a sense of moderation and respect for the Muslim minority in our country. News people make judgments about taste all the time. We do not show sexually explicit pictures or body parts after a terrorist attack. We try to keep racism and anti-Semitism out of the paper. Freedom of the press comes with a responsibility.
But the criteria change when material that is seen as offensive becomes newsworthy. That's why we saw bodies falling out of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. That's why we saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. On such issues we print what we usually wouldn't. The very nature of the discourse is to find parameters of what is culturally acceptable. How many times have we seen Janet Jackson's breast in the course of a discussion of the limits of family entertainment? How many times have we printed material that Jews might consider offensive in an attempt to define the extent of anti-Semitism? It seems odd that most U.S. papers patronize their readers by withholding cartoons that the whole world talks about. To publish does not mean to endorse. Context matters.

He also has this to say about President Clinton and our government.

The former president has turned the argument upside down. In this jihad over humor, tolerance is disdained by people who demand it of others. The authoritarian governments that claim to speak on behalf of Europe's supposedly oppressed Muslim minorities practice systematic repression against their own religious minorities. They have radicalized what was at first a difficult question. Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules. Does Bill Clinton want to counsel tolerance toward intolerance?
On Friday the State Department found it appropriate to intervene. It blasted the publication of the cartoons as unacceptable incitement to religious hatred. It is a peculiar moment when the government of the United States, which likes to see itself as the home of free speech, suggests to European journalists what not to print.

It is an excellent op-ed. Please read the whole thing.

Under Seige

2006-02-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

A Muslim commenter left behind an absurd and bizzare comment. "Are you trying to say that you are happy that the Danish government has still not apologized to Muslims all over the world?" It is absurd to ask a government to apologize for an act of it private citizens - acts that are protective by freedom of expression. If a government is responsible for all action of its citizens, we should have bombed Riyadh, Medina, and Mecca to the stone age. We did not. The commenter should consider himself lucky that we in the West do not apply his bizzare logic.

Let be clear, my previous posting is not about whether the cartoons are offensive or not. That is beyond the point of debate. Last year, a US under-garment company introduced a line of panty with the image of Lord Buddha on them. My family and I, who are devout Buddhists, wrote to the company, explained to them why the products were offensive to us, and asked them the stop. Buddhists throughout the world participated in the campaign. We did not threaten bodily harm to anyone, we did not ask the US government to apologize, we did not boycott other companies that had nothing to do with the offense.

Demands by some Muslims on the government of Denmark, Norway and the people of Denmark and Norway is unacceptable. They may boycott the company that published the cartoons, they may even boycott the companies that have financial relationship with the company that published the cartoons. Other parties (the governments of Denmark and Norway, Danish and Norwegian bussinesses) are innocent of the offense.

The demands suggest a few things about those who demanded them. By asking the government of Denmark and Norway to punish the cartoonist and their publishers, the demanders have absolutely no regard for individual liberty. By asking the government of Denmark and Norway to apologize for the offense of private citizen, they believe that the state and the individuals are one and the same - this is the central value of facism. By boycotting Danish and Norwegian products, they believe that one member of the collective can be punished for the action of the other. This is the very same attitude that result in the barbaric gang rape of Mukhtar Mai.

Let not pretend that they seek to redress an insult to their religion. It is a mere pretext. They seek nothing less than our submission - our unconditional surrender to their rule. To them I say "bring it on." I will not submit. I will not surrender. I will not be a dhimmi. I did not escape Communism to live under Sharia. You are prepared to die for your religion. I am prepared to die for my freedom.

The new front is being fought in Denmark and Norway. If they fall, we are next. So here are the address, phone number, and email to the embassies of Denmark and Norway. Please send them your words of support and encouragement.

Embassy of Denmark

3200 Whitehaven St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008

Tel: (202) 234-4300

Fax: (202) 328-1470

wasamb@um.dk

Royal Norwegian Embassy
2720 34th St. N.W.

Washington DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 333-6000

Fax: (202) 337-0870

emb.washington@mfa.no

Open Letter To Denmark

2006-02-05T16:02:00.000-08:00

Dear the People of the Kingdom of Denmark,

We are all Danes today. I am a Dane today. Today I stand in solidarity with you and your great kingdom against the barbarians who want to put you under submission of their fanatical tyranny. Your kingdom is a loyal friend of the United State of America. You have always been along our side. I had the distinguish honor of serving along side your brave soldiers in Bosnia. I can say with certainty that the Danish Royal Armed Forces is one of the finest military forces in Europe. Since then, your country had stood by us in every conflict. You fought with us in Kosovo. After our country was attacked in September 11th, 2001, you sent your brave soldiers to dangerous mountains of Afghanistan. When we liberated Iraq, despite the strong sentiment against the war in Europe, you again sent your brave warriors to the heart of Mesopotania. In every case, you were honorable, dependable and continue to be so.

You have never fail us. We could not have asked for a better friend. But with great shame, anger, and embarrasment, I apologize for my government. My government have fail you. I am sorry for the cowardice statements that came out of our State Department. If you have felt betrayed by our State Department, it is a correct sentiment. You were stabbed in the back by those with tender spines. But please be mindful that they do not speak for me, nor do they speak for the Americans people. We, the great people of the United States of America hold the Kingdom of Denmark and her people in our heart and our prayers.

We are all Danes. I am a Dane.

A friend of Denmark,

Minh-Duc

What President Bush Should Have Said

2006-02-03T20:08:00.000-08:00

This should have been the State of the Union Address (via Pedro the Quietist). Robert Mandel wrote the best alternative speech that the President should have given. It starts out:

My fellow Americans, tonight I report on the state of the Union.
We are mired in debt.
We spend far more than we take in every year.
We have exceedingly high taxes.
We have huge trade imbalances...

The solution:

...So tonight, I say to the American public that we can restore this great land. But it will require change. And the change is far more than just some federal program, law, or department. It requires a changing of the soul, the very fiber of what made our nation the shining city on a hill, the envy of the world. We must stop asking the government to solve our problems, blaming others for our own failings, and expecting the world on a silver platter without work and effort commensurate...

This is perhap the best line:

...So tonight I propose nothing. That is I propose no new programs, no new spending, no new departments, no new anything. In fact, I propose quite the opposite. We must reduce, we must contract, we must devolve. Power, and money, must devolve from Washington and be returned to the citizens. We must allow the citizens to be free to conduct their own lives free from government intrusion...

Carnival of the Clueless #31

2006-01-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

I am a bit late, but here it is. Carnival of the Clueless #31: The "What Would Jack Bauer Do?" edition is up at Right Wing Nut House. Rick Moran essemble a good number of posts to includes my post: "Betrayal and Sacrifice."

Hamas and Fact on the Ground

2006-01-28T14:09:00.000-08:00

Call me an optimist, but I actually think that the recent development with the Palestinian Legislative Council is a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to be fearful about Hamas electoral victory. Much of alarms that generated both from the Left and Right are the failure to see thing as it is – to see the reality instead of the illusion. I agree with Dave Price at Dean’s World that “between incompetent, corrupt terrorists and somewhat more honest, less corrupt terrorists. Frankly, given their options, I think they made the right choice.”

Before we go on, we need to see the real situation on the ground prior to January 26, 2006. I find headline such as this, “Hamas win heralds new reality” (BBC), ridiculous. It is not a new reality; it is a same old reality. Hamas electoral victory changed nothing, it only makes thing clearer.

Fatah (and the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah) was not a negotiation partner – at least not a viable one. I am not questioning their willingness to negotiate or desire to compromise. It is the ability to deliver that is in question. It is delusional to think that Fatah had control of the situation on the ground. It never had any control of the Palestinian territories and it certainly never had any control over the political and military actors within the Palestinian territories – to include it own factions. Therefore the whole peace process involving Fatah was an absurd idea. It is akin to business negotiation, but instead of negotiating with the majority stock holders, one negotiates with the minority stockholders. Fatah lack the ability to deliver peace – so peace with Fatah in charge was wishful thinking.

With Hamas in control, the situation is closer to reality in the Palestinian Territories than it was before. Hamas was the entity that controls the situation on the ground (politically and military) – it is naturally that they should be in charge. Their ascendancy allows for more realistic assessment of political situation and allows the US and Europe to arrive at more realistic foreign policy decisions. This is especially true for Israel. Israel now knows exactly what it is dealing with – clear, concrete, and without ambiguity. So whatever it is that Hamas decide to do, it is easier to counter. If Hamas decides to moderate it position, one can guarantee that it can and will deliver its end of the bargain. If it decides to escalate the conflict, there is an identified address for Israeli Hellfire missiles. The fact that the controller is now in the light and not in the shadow is a good thing.

The last few years, Israel military options were limited. It could not strike the Palestinian Authority after a suicide attack. Since the entity (PA) is not the direct author of those attacks. And when attack PA, such as destroying PA police stations; it was condemned by the world. The only viable military option for Israel was striking Hamas which was illusive. This time, striking PA itself is an option.

Of course, I was merely describing the worst case scenario – not what will likely happen. The reason I am optimistic is because I believe that Hamas entry into politic will limit it severely. Hamas political platform was political governance. Hamas asserts that Fatah was corrupt and incompetent, and that Hamas can govern more effectively. It must now prove it to the electorates or loose the next Legislative Council election. Hamas will soon find out that governing is not an easy task. It is one thing to criticize; it is another thing to actually deliver. Therefore, if Hamas can govern wisely and effectively, it does not matter who is in charge. Hamas leadership did not anticipate their own victory; therefore I doubt that they have a plan to govern the Palestinian territories. So Hamas either has to adjust quickly – which will result in realistic and pragmatic policies; or the problem of Hamas will be a temporary one.

This has an impact on Hamas policy toward Israel. I doubt that Hamas will change its charter and rhetoric – for instance the destruction of Israel. But it will certainly reconsider its military option and weight it more carefully than it did before. Hamas is radical, but not irrational. It would not waste its military resource in a fruitless confrontation with Israel – especially a confrontation that it knows it will loose.

The electoral victory of Hamas will likely cause a split within its rank – between the leadership in exiles and the leadership in the Palestinian territories. Facing with the reality of governing, the leadership in the territories will be more pragmatic. Living in exiles, the leadership in Syria will stay true to its idealistic and radical vision. This split will come as it did within Fatah.

Where Is The Party Of Reagan?

2006-01-25T23:26:00.000-08:00

In the scenario that Roy Blunt is elected to be the new majority leader; I will withdraw my membership from the Republican Party and become an independent. I became a Republican a day after I swore in as an US citizen. But I am now reconsidering my membership.

I became a Republican long before I became a US citizen, long before I came to the US, long before I was old enough to vote. I was a young boy in Vietnam listening clandestinely to Voice of America (VOA) over a short wave radio. I had to turn the volume low, so low that I had to put my ear next to the radio speaker to hear. Listening to VOA, BBC, or Radio Free Asia was illegal in Vietnam. One could spend signficant amount of time in prison for listening to radio that was not government propaganda.

There, on that old short wave radio, President Reagan gave the "evil empire" speech. Living in a Soviet vassal state, I already knew that they were evil. The inherent evil of the Soviet Union was obvious. But not a single US President had the moral courage to say thing as it was - not until Ronald Reagan. I knew then that he would be the greatest US President in my life time.

I came to the US in the last year of Reagan Presidency. That was when I learned that my favorite US President is a Republican. I also learned that he favors limited governement. With the past experience with the government where I cam from, limited government is a wonderful idea.

Reagan brought me into the party, Newt Gingrich made me a believer. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Revolution. Now I fear that the Revolution is dead. For five years, the Republican Congress and White House had increased domestic spending at a record level. The Republicans even increased regulatory spending. And the last transportation bill is a mockery of Conservativism. Delay and his gang had betrayed the Revolution and insulted the memory of Reagan. It particular digusted me when a few days ago when Delay was speaking of Reagan on FOX. Delay spoke of how he love Reagan. What's a hypocrite!

The current leadership race for the majority leader will determine if the Republican Party is still the Party of Reagan, and that the Conservative Revolution is still alive. Roy Blunt is cut from the same cloth as Tom Delay. He is an opportunistic politician who speak of small government but fund big government. Reagan once said of his former political Party, the Democrats, "They left me, I didn't leave them." When Blunt is announced as a new majority leader, the Republican Party will leave me.

The reason I became a Republican because I did not want to vote for Democrats. This will be the same reason when I leave the Republican Party.

Leo Strauss on Intelligence Design

2006-01-24T17:14:00.000-08:00

Of course Leo Strauss did not actually say anything on Intelligence Design. The idea did not exist during his time. But we can extrapolate what he would have said from his philosophy concerning Western culture.

According to Strauss, Western culture developed from two points: Athens and Jerusalem. The former is Reason, and the later is Revelation. Strauss said that those two points are distinct from one another. Reason cannot be used to refute or support Revelation and vice versa.

Intelligence Design is an attempt to explain Revelation through Reason – to explain miracle of faith using scientific inquiry. This cannot be done. For many thousand years, men of great intellectual prowess and spiritual strength have tried to prove God existence. And those theologians came from both the Vedic and the Abrahamic tradition. They all fail and gave up.

Intelligence Design post more risk to religion than to science. It will undermine the most central point of religion – that spiritual knowledge is intuitive and not observable by physical sensories.

I am a Pacifist

2006-01-23T19:24:00.000-08:00

Of course, I am. I am for the most amount of peace to the most number of people - peace in aggragated term. And that means sometime peace has to be taken from some people (Saddam and his Baathists) to give to others (the Iraqi people). It is the only moral way to calculate peace.

The other "peace" that people speak so much about is not really peace. It may feel like peace to some, especially those who do not have to risk his life and karma for others. It is certainly easy. It is easy to say "I am for peace" and do nothing. It is easy to say that you are for peace when you already have peace. It is easy to take the theorical position that you are against violence in all circumstances, when you yourself never have to face any of those circumstances.

It is however far more difficult to see to give up one own peace for others. As we speak, there are 150,000+ American pacifists who are giving up their own peace for others. They are true pacifists.

1974: The History of Freedom

2006-01-21T20:39:00.000-08:00

Which event do you consider the most important positive event that affects our world today - The event that shifts the tide for the better? Is this the fall of the Berlin wall? It signaled the fall of the “evil empire” and a freer world to come.

However, the most important event happened in Stockholm in 1974. It was the 1974 Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It was the year Friedrich August von Hayek won his Nobel Prize. It was true that Gunnar Mydal, his ideological rival also won the prize – but the event changed the world forever.

The world prior to 1974 was the world of collectivism. In the East, Karl Marx ruled. In the West, John Maynard Keynes ruled. The world was divided between collectivism-heavy and collectivism-light; nowhere was individual liberty. When Friedrich Hayek wrote his “The Road to Serfdom,” the most important book written in the name of freedom, it was ridiculed by intellectuals and the politicians alike. On September 20, 1944, New York Times daily book reviewer Orville Prescott called it a "sad and angry little book." A year later, the people of Brittain voted Wiston Churchill out of power and elected Clement Atlee with a large majority. Soon after, Britain implemented nationalization of major industries and rationing food – even though the war was over.

In the US, the New Deal was going forward. Two year before the publication of “The Road to Serfdom,” in Wickard V. Filburn, the US Supreme Court took away the individual property right – ushered in an era of judicial activism that ended in Gonzales v. Raich. Incidently, Wickard was used as the precedence for Gonzales. Everywhere else, government interfered in every aspect of people lives. In India, Nehru implemented “The Five Year Plan,” a duplication of the Soviet “Five Year Plan.”

This was the world that Hayek struggled against. It was that he was the minority going against the tide – a light in the sea of darkness. So when the Nobel Committee decided to award the prize to him, they opened the door that could not be closed. The prize gave intellectual legitimacy to the idea that individuals are superior to state in economic matter and other matter. It did not supplant paternal Keynianism, but Freedom was here to stay. Two years later, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science. In 1979 Magaret Thatcher came into power and reverse the nationalization process of Clement Atlee. A few years later, Ronald Reagan came into power in the US and the idea of limited government became the mainstream of American political idea.

But as Milton Friedman said on “The Charlie Rose Show.” He won in theory, but not yet in practice. The idea of limited government, free market, and individual liberty is now mainstream in the intellectual world. But in the real world, we are far from victory. In the last year alone, the US Supreme Court decided two cases that severely limit individual freedom (Kelo v. New London, Gonzales v. Raich). The size of US government is increasing at an alarming rate. So freedom is not here to stay, yet. But all things began with an idea. In 1974, an idea came – it was freedom.

Discussing Marxism and Wilayat al-Faqih

2006-01-16T23:10:00.000-08:00

I was talking to a left leaning friend of mine about Marxism. He claimed that there was never Marxist government anywhere in the world. It seems to be the common argument among Karl Marx’s apologists. The so called “communist” countries were never communists. That the Soviet Union, all its’ satellites, China, and Cuba were and are not Communists. The second well known argument, relating to the first argument, is that a Marxist society has not come. This is because Marxism, according to Marx, would be a natural evolution result from capitalism. So when a Marxist society comes, it will come from a Western industrialized country, not pre-industrial society like Russia or China. Apologists argue that socialism is the antithesis to capitalism and that from capitalist society, socialism will emerge.

Both arguments are weak feeble attempts at escaping reality. Between political idea and implementation, the implementation is never exactly identical to the political blueprint – but there are always enough elements to make the implementation the offspring of the idea. There are enough of Marx’s ideas in the Soviet Union to see that it is very much a Marxist state. The abolishment of private property and the dictatorship of the proletariat are two main aspects of Marxist government.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the evolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence." - Vladinir Lenin, State and Revolution

The argument that Marxism cannot grow out of a pre-industrialized society is another flaw argument. The key diagnosis of social problem of Marx for his time was not merely capitalism – but alienation resulting from capitalism. Socialism is supposed to be the remedy for alienation, not capitalism since it is simply the underlining cause. And if alienation is argued by Marx as the symptom of his time, it was argued by Lenin that alienation was the symptom of Russian society. Serfs were certainly did not enjoy the fruit of their labors – hence estrange from their labor. The mean of production were in the hand of land owning classes. The different between English proletariats in the 1848 and Russian peasants in 1917 were superficial in nature – their predicaments were the same. A remedy for one should work for the other.

One further criticism of Marx apologists is the obvious flaw of Marx’s economic determinism. Marx did not say if you do A, B will occur; and if you do not do A, B will not occur. Socialism, according to Marx, is predetermined. It will happen – as sure as the sun will set or that the earth will evolve around the sun. Marx apologists who argue that socialism will come from an industrial society neglect to see that in the West, industrialization had come and gone; and there is still no socialism. In fact we are in a post-industrialization phase.

The influence of Marx went beyond the Soviet Union, Communist countries, and self-described Communist movements. I was surprised to find elements of Marxism in modern Islamism, particularly with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The term “revolution” in Islamic revolution is most evidenced of Western influence – particularly Marxist. This is of no surprise because Marxist approach and reasoning is very malleable. I am not suggesting that the Ayatollah Khomeini is a Marxist. He despises Marxism and its promotion of atheism. But he used Marxist approach, reasoning, and tactic to achieve an Islamic end.

“Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declaration of Imam Khomeini” is a collection of writing by Khomeini. Reading it, one can find Marxist terminologies and approach to the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini might find Communist atheism objectionable and dangerous. But he has no problem borrowing some of Marxist ideas to further his Islamic end. Khomeini’s idea of an Islamic state is heavily influenced by Marxism. Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Clergies) is an Islamic version of dictatorship of the proletariat. The Guardian Council is the Islamic version of the Communist Politburo and the Supreme Leader is the Islamic version of the Communist Secretary General.

Freethought Mecca has an article “Islam & Communism in Iran” which I offer a illustrative few lines.

In the introduction I described Islam with a rather cruel, if not sophomoric choice of words, and rightly so, as totalitarian mythologies created by tribal nomads (be it Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) should be spared no sort of verbal abuse. Still, such language, when being used to describe Khomeini, does not give credit to the Ayatollah's subtle brilliance and political craftiness. This was not just a backwoods cleric who concentrated on nothing other than his beard length and stories about Muhammad's flying horse; rather this was a man who was able to blend populism, bits of Marxism, and even a small dose of nationalism with Shia Islam in order to create a new ideology.
First there is the influence of Marxism on Khomeini's ideology. With polemicists such as Ali Shariati, and groups such as the People's Mojahedin, Marxism was being promoted in various forms throughout Iran during the 1960's and 1970's. The idea of the poor uniting against the rich obviously agreed with Khomeini's ideology. His concept of the mostazafin (oppressed) and the zagheh-neshinha (slum dwellers) going against the mostakberin (oppressors) and the kakh-neshinha (palace dwellers) had obvious Marxist connotations.

Khomeini, at one point, admitted the influence of the Marxists on the clerics. Speaking of the late response of the clerics to the movements against the Shah, Khomeini wrote "[w]e cannot remain silent until college students force us to carry out our duty. [8]" It was also during this time that Khomeini spoke poorly of sarmayehdaran ("the capitalists"). Khomeini was even quoted as using the famous phrase "oppressed of the world, unite! [9]"

Khomeini is not the only one who incorporated Marxist ideas into Marxism. Sayyid Qutb, the most important theorist of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood incorporate Marxist concept of False Consciousness into this writing. Qutb’s student is Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the political theorist for Al-Qaeda. Therefore it is not unreasonable to see that today Islamic Fundamentalism is partly a Western product – a blend of an old Arab religion from the desert and newer German dialectic reasoning from old Karl Marx.

Betrayal and Sacrifice

2006-01-12T16:21:00.000-08:00

This concerns me a great deal – if it is true. And it is “cutting and running.”

The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.

I would like to put out a caveat before I comment further. I am skeptical on the veracity of the above information. But if the administration intent to end the reconstruction of Iraq, it is without an exaggeration to say that it is a personal betrayal to veterans like myself, and especially to those who gave their last measure of devotion.

I can forgive the administration for the numerous mistakes made prior to and during the war. At least those mistakes were made without malice. But this is unforgivable – a stab in the backs to all those who fought in Iraq. This administration asked many of us to leave our family behind to go to the awful place to bring democracy and freedom to a people we hardly knew. We did so without complaint. We did so with all the energy we possess. All we ask for is victory – not merely the defeat of the enemies – but the victory of human spirit, a free a prosperous Iraq.

Years after the veterans of the Great War returned home, they could look across the Atlantic and Pacific to see a new Europe and Asia rose from the ashes of World War Two and knew that the sacrifice that they made (and the ultimate sacrifices that their comrades made) was not in vain.

It is my wishes and dream that years from now, the very spots that American blood dropped in the sand, a new Iraq rose – proud, prosperous, and free. The President owe me and my comrades that much. The President needs to get serious about rebuilding Iraq.

“Munich” – Multiple Perspectives

2006-01-06T01:59:00.000-08:00

“Munich” creates a furor. It is the first serious movie on the topic of terrorism since September 11th and it is natural that it causes different reaction from different people. And it is also natural that people see different things from the movie. There are those who say that Spielberg is blurring the line between good and evil and advocate moral equivalence.

Dingo defends Spielberg:

This is how Spielberg does such a good job of delineating good from evil. The main Jewish characters show both remorse and confliction for what they are doing. This is the line between good and evil when evil is committed. Four men are sent to do a job. That job is an evil task. It was a justified task, but none-the-less, an evil one. Killing, no matter how justified or necessary, is never "good." An eye for an eye is a justification, not a furtherance of good.

An evil job is easily done by an evil person.

An evil job is never done easily by a good person.

Thus lies the difference between good and evil when the task at hand is evil itself. Even when the good are forced to commit justified evil, the good will question. The evil will just do. In the movie, the Palistinians justified their actions as a desire for a homeland, but the means are never questioned.

I think Dingo saw the movie different than I did. Dingo also is addressing the wrong criticism of the movie. I have no problem with Spielberg showing movie-goers that the act of killing, regardless of circumstance, is extremely unpleasant and that good people should find it distasteful. I, as a soldier who was in Iraq, understand that point more than most. For a year, I found myself in circumstances where taking another human lives was a distinct possibility. And now immagine yourself a Buddhist. Thanks heaven, I never had to.

That is not the criticism of “Munich” by most people I read either. People generally understand that the act of killing is unpleasant and emotional disturbing. And not only does an assassination unpleasant. Any killing, even killing in self-defense against an imminent threat is unpleasant. That is not the point of criticism.

Spielberg went beyond showing the psychological pain result from killing another human being. Spielberg repeats the Hollywood mantra that violence in all circumstance is futile. The main character did not merely fought the inner emotional/psychological battle result from his action. Avner toward the second half of the movie asked point blank what is the point of killing those terrorists since more violence men will just replace them. And I was shocked beyond word to hear the main character (a Mossad agent) said something so ridiculous that only a Hollywood elite would have thought of. He requested that instead of assassination, those terrorists should have been brought to trial in Israel. I was shocked but not surprise. Peaceniks have argued the same thing prior to the War in Afghanistan.

Bruce Thorton offers the best criticism of “Munich.” Go read the whole thing.

This popular take on the Arab-Israeli conflict is encapsulated in the phrase “cycle of violence.” The assumptions behind this phrase comprise a catalogue of modern moral pathologies. Most important is the therapeutic psychology that sees force not in moral terms — that is, as the instrument of a righteous or unrighteous choice and aim — but as a reflexive reaction to grievances and wounds to self-esteem. People who have been insulted, wronged, or denied various aspirations “lash out” in anger, provoking a similar reaction in those whom they attack. Thus the “cycle of violence,” a vicious circle that can be broken only by abandoning force and addressing the grievances that started the cycle in the first place.

…. The Israeli agents tracking down the murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich are defined for the most part by their agonizing moral doubts and ambiguities, incessantly reprising the mantra of “violence begets violence.” The Israeli bomb-maker makes a speech about how killing terrorists somehow compromises Jewish “righteousness,” which suggests that Jews can be righteous and worthy of our sympathy only as long as they remain passive victims, as they are in Schindler’s List.

There is a clear distinction between the internal struggle to maintain one’s humanity when facing an inhumane enemy and the surrendering to the same enemy because it does not feel good to fight him. The former is bitter medicine, the later is sugarcoated poison. Spielberg simple does not know the difference.

Obvious Solution to Corruption

2006-01-04T20:21:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of the Abramoff scandal and other scandals in the government, many proposals were put forth to stop and prevent corruption in government. The proposals range from regulating lobbying activity on lobbyists to more finance campaign reform on politicians. All the proposals have one thing in common, they are procedural in nature.

Somehow, everyone seems to ignore the obvious solution to an obvious problem – money. I am not talking about the amount of political contribution or lobbying fee. I am talking about government coffer. The reason that there is corruption in government is because there is money in the government. The more revenue being appropriated by the government, the more incentive is there for misappropriating fund. The amount of corruption is directly correlated to the amount of money available. It would not matter if Republican, Democrat, or the Franciscan Order is in power. Scoundrels will follow the scent of money and corruption will enviably follow regardless of who are in charge. And no additional laws, regulations, or procedures will make a different. Scoundrels are not known to obey laws.

And I do not see the problem of corruption getting any better as long as government spending is a large part of our gross domestic product – estimate at 30 to 40 percent of GDP. And as our federal budget continue to grow in the coming years. I predict that there will be more corruption in our government.

The problem is money and the solution is money. More money available to government leads to more corruption. Less money available to the government leads to less corruption. The only long term solution to corruption in government is limited government. We must reduce the source of corruption by reduce the amount of money available to the government.

Who would bother to lobbying the government if the government has no money to hands out? Who would contribute to political campaign if there is no money to which politicians can appropriate? Who would buy influence if there is no influence to be bought?

Hope and Prediction for 2006

2006-01-02T20:51:00.000-08:00

I hope 2006 is better than 2005. 2005 was a mixed year – a year full of promises and disappointment. The Iraq political process came out better than expected. Within a year, the Iraqis were able have a free and democratic election, formed a government, and wrote a constitution. But on the domestic front, things are not going well. Despite the improving situation in Iraq, domestic support for the war is weakening. The budget is ballooning at an alarming rate. Our government is not spending far more money than we should have. Pork barrel spending is at the highest in history. We have more entitlement programs now than under a Democratic president Bill Clinton.

For 2006, I hope that the situation in Iraq will continue to improve. I am not expecting a miracle, but slow progress. There will be continued violence throughout 2006 and beyond. But we can be certain that the current Iraqi government will not collapse under pressure of terrorism. It is my hope that we can reduce military operation in four governorates: Diyala, Wasit, At-Tammin, and Niwana. The Iraqi security forces (ISF) should be taken the lead in those four governorates. Most of the South has been turned over to the Iraqi security forces. We will still be taking the lead in Al-Anbar and Salah Ad-Din where the insurgency is strongest. The training and maturing of the ISF will continue to improve. I predict that they will be fully matured in 2008. And then they can take on the insurgency by themselves.

I hope that Iraq economy will continue to grow, but I doubt they will grow at the same rate. The phenomenon growth rate in the last two years (50+% in 2004 and 26% in 2006) has more to do with the low starting base. If the economy can grow at 6 percents, I would be happy. It is important that we do much more to help. Iraqi financial institutions are in a primitive state. We need to help them reform their financial institutions; bringing them to at least 20th century standard and capability. A person should at least be able to deposit money into one branch and withdraw them at a different branch which is not currently possible in Iraqi banks.

On the home front, we need shore up support for the war. The loss of support for the war is due to two reasons: the normal isolationist tendency of the US public and the failure of the administration to explain the war. There is not much we can do about the isolationist tendency among our people in the short run. The US public has always been isolationist. We always have two oceans to insulate us from the danger of the world beyond. September 11th shocked us into the truth that the world beyond is a dangerous place and its impact directly on us. But many still find comfort in isolationism – that the problem of others is their problem alone. It is comforting thought but dangerous. The consequence for loosing in Iraq is immense. This is the most important war we fought since the Great War and we must convince the public of that reality. In the short run, the administration needs to do a much better job of explaining the war. We should not sugarcoat the fact that the war is a difficult enterprise entailing serious sacrifice in blood and treasure. But it is absolutely winnable and it must be won. In the long run, we should improve our education system so that our children are learning more about things beyond our border and how things far away impacting our lives.

Another domestic issue is government spending. It is my deepest hope that we can cut back on federal spending and curb the budget deficit. 2005 was a year of shame for the Republican Congress and the Republican White House. We increased spending on entitlements, we increased pork barrels spending, and we even increased regulatory spending. It is my hope that the Republican Party realizes how unhappy many of loyal Republicans are with the Party. It is time we return to the Party of Limited Government. The first thing to do is to severely cut back on pork barrel spending. I am realistic enough to not expect a reverse in our spending trend, I am happy enough if we can significantly slow down the growth rate in federal spending.

Merry Christmas

2005-12-25T00:20:00.000-08:00

To all my Christian readers, as well as Non-Christian readers. Merry Christmas. As a Buddhist, I have always celebrate Christmas - because I always have Christian friends. It is my philosophy that we should all celebrate other religious holidays.

This is why I am always puzzled by people who are uncomfortable with Christmas symbols. This is especially true of atheists. People of other religious tradition rarely have any problem with Christmas. In fact in Asia, where more than 90 percents of the population are Non-Christian, Christmas is an celebrated event. Daniel Drezner in Hong Kong noted that Christmas lighting in Hong Kong is far more extravagant than any city in the US.

Some may complain that Asian are commercializing the holiday. As ardent defender of capitalism, I see commercialism as a very good thing. It is certainly good for the world economy. Only if we can commercialize Ramadan.

So, I hope you get many presents this Christmas. I hope to get many presents myself. Long live shameless marterialism.

Quid Pro Quo

2005-12-24T14:49:00.000-08:00

Ayman Nour was sentenced to 5 years for a trumped up charge. The White House wants his immediate release.

"The conviction of Mr Nour, the runner-up in Egypt's 2005 presidential elections, calls into question Egypt's commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement.

"The United States calls upon the Egyptian government to act under the laws of Egypt in the spirit of its professed desire for increased political openness and dialogue within Egyptian society, and out of humanitarian concern, to release Mr Nour from detention."

The US must do a whole lot more than just demanding Nour release. There should be an ultimatum. Secretary Rice should make a public statement to this effect and make it clear that the US is very serious. If Mubarak want his annua twol billion dollars in financial aid, he will release Ayman Nour right now. It is about time we attach condition to our financial assistance. Two billion dollars is a lot of money and we have the right to demand some political reform from those who receive our money.

Another Look At Iraq Economic Number

2005-12-16T15:55:00.000-08:00

There are questions and doubts on the Iraq economic data I cited earlier in this post. So I went and looked at different sources other than Wikipedia. I subscribe to the Economist, but I am not willing to pay a few hundred extra dollars to get their data on Iraq from the Economic Intelligence Unit. And their regular site provide almost no information. Here are data from other sources, and they vary greatly.

According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (link in pdf), the economic growth for Iraq in 2004 is 35 percent. The forecast for 2005 is 6.8 percent.

According to Index Mundi, the growth rate for 2004 is 52.3. There is no mentioned of forecast.

According to the World Bank (link in pdf), the growth rate for 2004 is 46.5 percent and no mention of forecast.

From the International Monetary Fund dated September 24, 2004: "Real GDP is projected to rebound sharply, by about 50 percent in 2004, thanks in part to a stable macroeconomic environment; this is less than originally anticipated, mainly because of the continuing security problems."

Readers feel free to post other sources so we all can have a clearer pictures

The Meaning of the New Poll in Iraq

2005-12-14T21:54:00.000-08:00

The BBC and ABC commissioned a poll in Iraq. And we can interpret the result of the poll as following. (1) We are making progress in Iraq. (2) But that progress is painfully slow (due to mistakes on our part), and there are still much to be done.

The poll shows that the main stream media narrative is different than that of the Iraqis living there. This is natural. If one is to watch the local news, one may think that the area where I live, the Great Washington Metropolitan, is crime infested and overran with gangs. Part of it is true, there are areas that are crime infested and overran with gangs, but those are exception to the rule. This is true of Iraqis too. 70.6 percents of the participants their personal lives are quite good or very good. 51.5 percent think that their lives are better than it was under Saddam Hussein. Another 18.6 thinks their lives remain the same. Only 17.9 percents thinks that their lives are worsen off.

The interesting fact is despite thinking that their personal lives (70.6%) are positive; only 44.4 percents think that things in Iraq as the whole is positive. No, it is not a contradiction. Minus those who think their lives are positive, we have almost 30 percents who think their lives are negative (which interestingly coincides with the 30 percents unemployment rate). Now if 30 percent of your fellow citizens are in bad shape, it is only natural that one thinks that things are negative.

The poll also shows that the Iraqis do not like the occupation. This is not surprising either. Who in the world would like to be occupied? It is no surprise that Iraqis are resentful of being occupied. It is humiliating. Imagine a very abusive family where the father starves beats and sexually molests the children. If an outsider comes in, removes the father, and runs the household – it is still a humiliating experience. It is a humiliating experience to be situation that an outsider has to come in and rescue. There would be plenty of angers, but it would be because the person is helpless and dependent on outsider – and not due to anything the outsider does.

Iraqis do not like the occupation. It reminds them of their own helplessness and impotency. They resent having other people doing things that they know they should be doing for themselves. Imagine having to depend on strangers for food, security, and livelihood. It does not feel good. Therefore it is vital that we help the Iraqis help themselves – to put them back on their feet as soon as possible. That means a serious effort at training the Iraqi Security Forces. That means a more involvement of Iraqis in the reconstruction process.

Those who support the war know understands that we need to end the occupation as soon as possible. Neither the occupier nor the occupied like occupation. Therefore, the end goal should be to end the occupation – but not before the Iraqis can take care of themselves. The poll also illustrates this point. Only 25 percents believe that the US should leave right now. They all want us to leave at some point in the future however.

The poll for the most part is positive, but it is not a slam dunk for those supporting the war. The poll does not gross over the negative parts. It shows that mistakes were made (and are still being made) by the US. But it is something that the war supporters already knew. Unlike the impression being portrayed of the supporters of the war (by the anti-war groups), we never thought for one second that the project to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq is easy. On the contrary, we knew that every brick being built in Iraq would be soaked in blood, sweat, and tears. We knew that we would spend many nights anguishing over the mistakes we made. And we also knew that we would make plenty of mistakes and some Iraqis out there would resent us for our mistakes.

We knew this is the most difficult enterprise we have ever participated in. But unlike the critics, we rolled up our sleeves and gave it our best shot. And for some, they gave a whole lot more – their own lives. This poll is a long shot from a certificate of achievement. But it is an indicator that we that our decision to start the project was right after all. Now, we just need to work a little harder.

Eugene Stoner versus Mikhail Kalashnikov

2005-12-10T00:49:00.000-08:00

There are those out there who hold the Kalashnikov in high regard, especially in comparison to the US M16/M4. The myth of Kalashnikov superiority is anything but a myth. It is in fact a very crappy weapon – for various reasons that I will discuss later. The belief that the M16/M4 is an expensive but fragile weapon is also an unfound myth. It is true that Kalashnikov (the inventor, not the weapon) was an able weapon designer, but he was not superior to Eugene Stoner (the father of the M16/M4). Kalashnikov designed a weapon for an ill-trained conscripted army. For that purpose, the AK47 was and is a superb weapon. Stoner designed a weapon for a professional army. Any professional soldier would prefer the M16/M4 family over the Kalashnikovs.

Let take a look at professional armies across the globe. The British Army service rifle is the S-80, but their elite Special Air Service (SAS) used the US M4. The Australian service rifle is the Steyr AUG, but their SAS also used the M4. The Israel Defense Force various special units also use the M4. Most Western Special Operation Forces used M4.

Having handled both an M16 and AK47, I understand why the M16 is a better weapon. My favorite feature of the M16/M4 is the functionality. It is more functional than any weapon out there. I will ignore accuracy because it is an accepted fact that an M16/M4 is far more accurate than an AK47.

(1) First, the fire selector is conveniently located above the pistol grip. Shooter can switch from safe to semi and back almost immediately with his thumb. In a place like Iraq, the ability to put a weapon in action quickly is highly prized.

(2) Second, the iron sight is natural. The rear sight is closer to the shooter eye. The smaller hole in the rear sight allows accurate firing at long range. The larger hole in the rear sight allows quick reflexive shooting at close range.

(3) Third, the weapon can put back in action quickly went the last round is fire. When the last round is fire, the bolt is held at the rear. The magazine release is conveniently located above at the magazine well, next to the shooter supporting hand (I hold my weapon at the magazine well). One press by the thumb and the magazine fall off by itself. Grab a full magazine, put it in the magazine well, press the bolt release, and the weapon is ready for action. The sequence just described can be done in a second. And this is done without the shooter having to take his eye off the weapon sight or his firing hand off the pistol grip.

How does the AK47 function compare to the M16/M4 family.

(1) First, the fire selector is located on the right, below the ejector port. One has to take his hand off from pistol grip, locates the selector switch, the turn it to auto. Yes, the AK setting is safe to auto then to semi – only untrained conscript fire his weapon on auto. It is inaccurate and wasted a whole lot of ammo. The shooter then has to put his hand back into the pistol grip to fire. The lost time in getting the weapon in action is the different between shooting the opponent and getting shot by the opponent.

(2) The sight on the AK47 sucks. The rear sight is far away from the shooting eye and is not very natural. Furthermore, one cannot switch between distance shooting and reflexive shooting.

(3) Now if one run out of ammo on an AK47, one better finds a good cover to hide for a few minutes; because that is how long it takes to reload the weapon. The magazine released is behind the magazine. One has to press the level; and at the same time one has to physically pull the magazine out. Reload a fresh magazine take as long, because one has to rock the magazine in place. Then one has to take one right hand off the pistol grip and physically charge the weapon with the charging handle on the right side below the ejector port, since the bold does not stay at the rear after the last shot. Reload an AK47’s magazine requires three extra motions and five times longer compare to the M16 or M4.

The only advantage the AK47 has over the M16/M4 is reliability. This only matter if a soldier does not maintain his weapon. And the advantage is only slight. The M16/M4 is not as fragile or sensitive as some believed. For the whole year in Iraq, my issued M16 never malfunctioned. And I had an old wore out National Guard M16. With a proper cleaning, an M16 will last for two to three days. I did not clean my weapon everyday. I cleaned it every other day. Every time, I left the base, I test-fired it. And we went to the range quite often. And the faithful M16 never let me down. And the AK47 is not as robust as some claimed. I have seen AK47 jammed because the owner (an Iraqi National Guard soldier) did not clean it. Even the AK47 needs cleaning.

Therefore I am glad that the US Army discontinued the XM8 program intends to replace the M16/M4. The XM8 is not better than the current service rifle. It is lighter and more reliable, but it still lacks many functions that make the M16/M4 my favorite weapon. Reloading magazine is still slower on the XM8 than the M16/M4. The XM8 bolt does not stay to the rear at the last shot. And the magazine release button is as clumsy as the AK47.

The US Army should stay with the M16/M4, however make more M4. I wish I had an M4 instead of an M16. It is shorter and is better to fire in confined space. With a few improvements, the M4 would be a perfect weapon. If the magazine well mouth is flare, like the H&K UMP, it would speed up reloading under combat stress. And perhaps it is time we go for better round, like the 6.8mm SPC or the 6.5mm Grendel. Currently, I am in favor of the 6.8mm SPC because the round fits in the current M16/M4 magazine. And switching to a 6.8 SPC is much cheaper than developing a new rifle. All we need to manufacture is the upper receiver.

Economic Growth without Oil

2005-12-06T01:45:00.000-08:00

One item that Western media often neglect to mention about Iraq is the state of the economy – or how well the economy is doing. According to Wikipedia, the growth rate (real rate, not nominal) for Iraq in 2004 is 52.3 percent. And the prediction is that the economy will continue to grow. The forecast according to the Economist will be 26 percent for the year 2005-2006.

The most interesting fact about the current Iraqi economy is that it is not petroleum based. Many war critics often criticized that oil production in Iraq is still below pre-war level; and they are correct. This means that Iraqi economic growth has little to do with oil. In fact a CNN Business article dated August 23rd, 2002 titles: “Iraq economy shrinking, despite oil.” The economy shrank despite higher oil production in 2002 but grew despite lower oil production in 2005.

I have argued before that raw material based economy – particularly petroleum based economy is unhealthy.

…oil [is] a curse because it creates a dysfunctional relationship between the people and the government. It further remove incentives for entrepreneurship, a key factor to economic progress. A future Iraqi government with a large oil revenue does not need to listen to her people since the money do not come directly from the people. There is no need for accountability. State revenue can be squandered on any frivolous project because oil revenue is readily available. Furthermore a large part of the economy, labor and capital, will revolve around the state-owned petroleum industry deprive Iraq of economic diversification.

Therefore, it is a very good sign that Iraq economy grew without oil. And no one (whether the Bush administration or the current Iraqi government) should takes credit for the economic growth. The credit belongs to the entrepreneurial spirit of the Iraqi people. There are several thousands new businesses are being registered every year (there are thousands more businesses that ignore the registration rule). It is the new enterprising spirit that allows a 52.3 percent growth in the worsening security environment (2004 is the most violence year since the fall of Baghdad).

The Iraqi people will find out that it is possible to experience wealth and prosperity without depending on the volatile oil market. It will allow them to diversify their economy by investing in many different industries. There are still many problems. Unemployment remains high – 30 percent. The banking industry, essential to investment, is nonexistent. But if the economy of Iraq grew despite numerous obstacle; one can only imagine the future when those obstacles are removed.

New Government In Iraq

2005-11-30T18:26:00.000-08:00

It seems that the current United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) List will loose seats and former Prime Minister Allawi’s List will gain seats in the next December 15th election. The people of Iraq are dissatisfying with the performance of the government. Mohammed of Iraq The Model:

recall that two weeks ago, we expected that the Iraqi Alliance would assume a change in strategy and according to an interview published on al-Sabah this morning, we weren’t wrong in our expectation; Nadeem al-Jabiri the head of the Fadheela Party (one of the 4 major components of the alliance) said in the interview that their goal is to achieve at least 1/3 of the seats of the Parliament as that would grant them the ability to block any alliance between other blocs.

The people in the Alliance realize very well that their chances to lead a government are getting smaller but they’re still in a state of denial, as one can conclude from al-Jabiri’s words “We have put in our plans that the Alliance shall win at least 1/3 of the seats so that no government can be formed without the Alliance…”.

I’d call is a dream rather than a plan because the other two major blocs that are most likely to be part of a government which are Allawi’s and the Kurds seem more inclined to unite among themselves after the elections to form the government rather than to keep power in the hands of the United Alliance.None of this is for sure as of now but the recent friendly meetings between Allawi and the Kurdish leaders like the latest with Barzani makes one think that if these two blocs get enough votes, then the United Alliance will have no choice but to become the opposition.

Mohammed is not who predict that the UIA will loose seats. Nibras Kazimi at the Talisman Gate predicts the same thing.

I’ve also been hearing that the Iranians are doing feverish polling activity around Iraq, and have concluded that their acolytes in the UIA list are in trouble.

If the composition of the next Iraq government changes, it is a very good thing. Not because I favor one party over the other. It is good because it illustrates democracy at work. Government must perform to stay in power. It also shows that those who were concerned about that the Islamist tendency of the Iraqi Alliance List were wrong. It does not matter. In a democracy, the ideology of a particular party in power is unimportant in the long term. They must adjust to the wish of the constituent to remain in power.

Democracy also affects how foreign power deals with a country. In Iraq – both the US and Iraq neighbors must take into account Iraq domestic political atmosphere. The US will find ourselves have less influence on what the Iraqi government does – which actually is not a bad thing – in fact it is a very good thing. Trying to win influence over foreign governments at the objection of the population has not been good for the US reputation. Another benefit is that the theocracy in Iran will also find that it also has less influence over the government of Iraq. It (like the US) cannot pressure the Iraqi government to implement policies that the Iraqi population opposes. Like Mohammed, I am very sanguine about the future of Iraq.

Illegal Immigration Is Not Immigration

2005-11-27T21:46:00.000-08:00

I am sick and tired of those who paint those who oppose illegal immigration as opposing immigrant. I am a first generation immigrant myself and very much in favor of immigrants. It fills me with joy every time I read about successful immigrants who realize their American Dream. But I strongly oppose to illegal immigration – whether mass amnesty or the refusal by our federal government to stop it at the borders.

By endorsing illegal immigrants, the US government is violating the “equal treatment” clause by creating two separate standards for immigrants – one for legal immigrants like me and one for the illegal immigrants.

My journey to the US was not an easy. I risked death and imprisonment to escape political oppression in my birth country. We escaped on a small wooden boat – and most of us did not make it. After a harrowing experience - I sat in a refugee camp for almost two years – going through various screenings and interview (by the UN and the US). Only after careful review – an US entry visa was granted.

I was eager to go to the US and the condition in the refugee camp was horrible. But I waited patiently through the process. And my patience was rewarded. I know many others who waited even longer in the camp. One of my friends waited for more than five years. His patience was also rewarded. He is now a successful physician in California. And as we speak, there are oppressed people all over the world who are sitting patiently at various refugee camps waiting patiently to go through the process. They, like generations of immigrants before, respect the laws of the US. These are people we want make fellow citizens – people who respect our law – not people who disregard our law.

It is inherently unfair that special treatment is given to people who simply decide to disregard US law and cross into the border illegally. If the victims of the genocide in Darfur have to go through the process, why can the people of Mexico or El Salvador? Why are they rewarded for breaking the law? And by rewarding illegal immigrants, we are in effect are punishing the aspiring immigrants who follow the process and procedure.

And there are those who are accusing people who oppose illegal immigration as isolationists, anti-capitalists, and anti-free trade. I am a strong advocate of free trade and globalization. Like most consumers, I like inexpensive goods - and the only way of getting them is by importing. But I also want the goods that enter the US to be inspected for health and safety reason. How many of you who want to eat imported meat and dairy that were not inspected? Please raise your hands. I did not think so. The same reason can be applied to immigrant. We want to inspect the people that want to enter this country to eliminate undesirable elements.

And if our labor market is demanding more low waged unskilled labor – let increase the number of legal immigrants. Double or triple the number of immigration visa annually, if need be. Let make it easier for employer to obtain worked visas for their foreign employees (after appropriate background check). But let grant visa to those who respect and value our law; and I even argue that we should make our fellow citizens. But those who show no regard for our law do not belong here.

UPDATE: Pedro makes a good point that illegal immigration is cutting in line. It is therefore absurd that the media keeps refering to those who support illegal immigration as "pro-immigration." Supporting people who cut in line and stole other immigrants chance of comming to America is in fact anti-immigration.

Class Action Lawsuit

2005-11-26T17:09:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I saw on CSPAN a forum of “progressives” (as the Left call themselves) which includes Kevin Drum. I saw nothing progressive about their agenda. There Kevin is selling his pet theory that class action law suit is a good thing. Kevin (I paraphrase) said that the reason class action law suit get a bad name is because of Republican propaganda. He argued that in class action law suit, 20 percents of the award go to the lawyers, and the other 80 percents go to the plaintiffs and it seems to be a fair way to compensate the damaged party.

Let take a closer look at this. And also let ignore Kevin error that the lawyer fee is 20 percent – it is 1/3 which is around 33 percents. Let say in a particular class action law suit, 10 million dollars is award to the plaintiffs. There are 200 plaintiffs and one lawyer. So one lawyer would get 2 million dollars and each plaintiff gets 400 dollars – 400 dollars versus 2 million dollars.

The consumers get such a great deal, why do we even need tort reform? Of course, the people who favor class action lawsuit only have the consumers’ interest in mind. Color me cynical.

Bad Sell

2005-11-22T01:10:00.000-08:00

A few months back, General Casey, the commanding general in Iraq, testified front of the Senate Armed Service Committee. The next day, in most newspapers, the head line said “Only one Iraqi battalion ready for combat” (or something similar to it). The head line, and the story gave the impression that the training of the Iraqi armed forces have not progressed at all. And if the US strategy in Iraq depends upon the readiness of the Iraqis, the situation seems dark and pessimistic. The headline was wrong. I did listen to General Casey, and I did not blame the Press. General Casey did a very poor job of explaining the situation in Iraq – especially concerning the readiness of the Iraqi security forces. It seems that I, a mere non-commission officer, understood the situation with the Iraqi forces better than General Casey.

When Senator McCain asked how many Iraqi army battalion with rating readiness rating of one; General Casey answered one. His answer is correct, that there is only one Iraqi battalion with the readiness status of 1. But he failed utterly to explain that it does not mean that only one battalion is ready for combat. My impression of General Casey from the testimony is that he did not understand the situation with the Iraqi forces. He read from a piece of paper, but did not seem to understand what it means, or what is actually going on with the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

A day later, at the Pentagon Press briefing, general Petraeus spent a couple of hours talking about the Iraqi armed forces. General Petraeus, unlike General Casey, understood the situation, and was able to explain with articulation and expertise. The readiness status of the Iraqi is based on the US system of readiness. To have a readiness rating of one, a battalion has to be completely autonomous and function. That requires autonomous function in logistic, personnel (pay and administration), intelligence, communication, and various other supporting functions. Therefore, having only one single battalion with the readiness rating of one is not a bad sign – in fact it is an encouraging sign to have any unit with a rating of one. There is a stark contrast between General Casey testimony and General Petraeus briefing.

The sign of progress is not in the number of units with category one rating but units with category two rating. Category II units are units that can conduct operation on their own but still depend on the multi-national coalition for logistic support and artillery support. That means that they control every aspect of their operation – offensive and defensive. But they still need food, bullets, fuel and other supplies from the US to carry out their operation. And there are many Iraqi battalions in category II. That is far cry from the head lines suggestion that only one Iraqi unit is ready to fight.

The reason that there are so few Iraqi battalions in the category one is intentional. The Iraqi Army, unlike the US army has a low teeth-to-tails ratio*. That means that they have a whole lot of riflemen but very few supply specialists, administrative clerks, medics, and other supported specialists. The reason is when we built the new Iraqi armed force from scratch; we started out with the basic skill and function of soldering, mainly infantry skills. This is logical because the combating element is the basic foundation of any armed force. Once that foundation is built, other skill set such as logistic, medicine, administration can be added on later to build a complete and independent unit. Those added on skills set have nothing to do with combat per se, but they are essential to the functionality of an armed force.

Furthermore those added on skill and functions is difficult to teach and built. Those who work in private sector in any managerial capacity will have an appreciation for the difficulty of running a logistic and administrative function. It is a skill set that even Fortune 500 companies are struggling with on a daily basis. How often do you go to your favorite retailer only to find out the items you are looking to purchase is out of stock? It is therefore unreasonable to expect the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, who just set up their logistic command and administrative center, can learn how to do in a short period of time.

But the fact it is I who are explaining this to you instead of the Bush administration is unacceptable. The support – or the lack of it – for the war has less to do with the situation on the ground, and has more to do with the administration inability to explain the situation on the ground. General Casey should not be the one who explain the status of the Iraqi armed force to the Senate. The right person is General Petraeus who was in charge of training and equipment the Iraqi Armed Force. The war does not need a spin – it only needs to be explained clearly. And if I have to give a grade on the Bush administration on explaining the war to the public; I would give them a failing grade. It would be unfortunate if a noble, positive, and righteous war is lost because the administration fails to explain it.

*teeth-to-tails are military term refering to the ratio between combating personnels and supporting personnels. Teeth are combating soldiers; tails are supporting soldiers. With the US Army, the ratio is 1 to 3. With the Iraqi Army, there are a whole of of teeth and almost no tails.

Realism or Unrealism

2005-11-17T02:14:00.000-08:00

Realism was the dominant school of thought in International Relation and widely practiced by the US and others. Key aspect of Realism from Wikipedia.

1. The international system is anarchical.
2. Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system.
Dismissal of the independent influence of international organizations, sub-state, or trans-state actors.
Focus on the primary importance of nationalism, as opposed to sub-national groupings, or transnational ideological of cultural groupings.
3. States are rational actors, acting in their national interest.
Distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
4. The overriding goal of each state is its own security and survival.
Fundamental nature of the security dilemma.
5. State survival is guaranteed best by power, principally military in character.
Focus on relative power (i.e. "zero sum") versus absolute power.

One aspect I noticed about Realism is nowhere does the individual mentioned. Everything is about the state – nothing about the individual. This neglect of the individual is the main flaw of Realism. And it is the reason we are in the trouble we are in.

Realists’ strongest argument is that their philosophy is based on pragmatism, functionality and is not pie in the sky idealism. By supporting the status quo - realists hope to maintain stability. If that means supporting tyrants and dictators at the cost of individual’s liberty, they consider it worth the price. Being a utilitarian, I have to concede that the realists are right that chaos and anarchy is dangerous and everything should be done to prevent them. And if the benefit does not clearly outweigh the cost, idealism of democracy and freedom is nothing but an unworkable idea – pie in the sky.

But does the policy of realists prevent chaos and anarchy? I argue that the realist foreign policy does not prevent chaos and anarchy. It seems to provide stability, but only in the short term. In the long term, it compound the instability and make it more certain that instability will occur – and at great scale.

Supporting dictatorship for the sake of stability is like using the pressure cooker. You hold in the steam in the short run. But in the long run, the pressure will result in uncontrollable explosion. If the realists are correct, September 11th would never happen, and we would not be fighting the war on terrorism. In fact, the policy of realism gave birth to Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and million of angry Islamists wiling to blow themselves up.

The evidence on the failure of realism is clear, especially in the Middle East. If supporting the modern Pharaoh Mubarak put a lit on Islamic terrorism, why are so many Islamic terrorists are Egyptians? I have no doubt that Mubarak is sincere in oppressing the Islamists. It is in his self-interest to do so. But he fails miserably. The Islamic Brotherhood is more popular now than ever in Egypt. Egyptian society is now more fundamentalist than decades ago. Clearly, tyranny is the wrong medicine for the religious fanaticism malaise. If anything, it is a booster for religious fanatics. Oppression turns religious extremists into martyrs instead of laughing stocks.

A good comparison is the US, and the West, we have our own nutcases ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to the various Christian fundamentalist cults. But none of them are receiving popular support the way Islamists are receiving support in the Middle East. In fact, in our society, they are the subject of ridicule in our society. We do not oppress them (as long they do not resort to violence), so they became laughing stocks and not martyrs.

So if realism does not promote international stability – which is it sole purpose – what use does it have? Realism is an oxymoron - an ideology that base on utilitarianism, but is useless. If realism does not work, let give liberalism a try. (And I am referring to classical liberalism that value individual liberty, not the socialist misnomer that is commonly used). Unlike realism, liberalism has a better track record. It works miraculously in the West and in emerging democracies of the Pacific Rims and India. It has not produced any fanatics who flew planes into building. Let give it a try in the Middle East.

The Unholy Alliance Between Realists and Peaceniks

2005-11-12T19:32:00.000-08:00

The War in Iraq completely changes the political paradigm. The left-right political divide over the war no longer no longer make any sense. It brings out the best in people – including people who I normally disagree with such as Christopher Hitchens. But it also brings out the worst in people. The devil reveals his true self. Who would have thought ten years ago that Brent Scowcroft would be the hero of the Left? Scowcroft is praised (among the Left) for his scathing statements toward President Bush and the war in Iraq. There are those on the right who criticized the President before. William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer had criticized the President conduct of the war (here, here and here). I have criticized the President conduct of the war. But, often the criticism is direct toward the on how it is fought – rather on why it was fought. Scowcroft criticism is unique among the right because he criticized the very reason for going to war.

It seems that those on the Left who praise Scowcroft must have forgotten who Scowcroft is and what he stands for. Scowcroft philosophy is not a secret – he speaks of it openly and is quite proud of it. This is a man who believes in “our-son-of-the-bitch.” And the sons-of-the-bitch include mass murderer (Saddam Hussein), corrupt tyrant who rob from his people (Ferdinand Marcos), drug dealer (Manuel Noriega), and general low life criminals. Scowcroft calls himself a realist – euphemism for cold-blood calculating Machiavellian. Scowcroft show public distain for humanitarian causes. Humanitarian intervention is not his concern. But Scowcroft is no pacifist. He opposed the intervention in the Balkan, East Timor (Scowcroft was the patron to the Indonesian military) and elsewhere – but had no problem waging war to defend the House of Sabah and the House of Saud – oppressive regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I supported the First Gulf War too, but for a reason different than Scowcroft. I opposed tyrant (Saddam Hussein). Scowcroft defended tyrants (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). It was therefore no surprise when Scowcroft stood by and watch the massacre of 200,000+ Iraqi Shiite civilians. His clients, the House of Sabah and the House of Saud, were safe. The lives of the oppressed Iraqis were irrelevant in the realist calculus.

Charles Krauthammer wrote a good respond to Scowcroft.

This coldbloodedness is a trademark of this nation's most doctrinaire foreign policy "realist." Realism is the billiard ball theory of foreign policy: The only thing that counts is how countries interact, not what's happening inside. You care not a whit about who is running a country. Whether it is Mother Teresa or the Assad family gangsters in Syria, you care only about their external actions, not how they treat their own people.
So the praising of Scowcroft by the Left say less about Scowcroft (who’s view is well known), but say much more about the Left. At least Scowcroft’s view has been consistent. At least realists like Scowcroft do not pretend to be moral. It shows how morally bankrupted the Left is. It shows that their past criticism of the US foreign policy is simply pretext for anti-Americanism. They must not have believed in what they said then. If we travel back in time to from the 70s to the 90s – the Left main criticism of the US foreign policy is the very same realist position they now praise. The sudden reverse on position must make you wonder about their true intention.

PS: More fisking of Realism and Realists in the next post.

Veterans on Veteran Day

2005-11-11T19:34:00.000-08:00

This Veteran Day is more special than others. For the first time, I am a veteran – something I would rather not be. On this Veteran Day, let this point be known – veterans do not want to be veterans.

I for once rather not have spent 2004 in Iraq. Who in the right mind would? Who would want to be in 140 degree heat in full body armor? Who would want to eat food that taste like mud or sleep in a non-air-conditioned tent surround by bugs and insects? Who would want to be on the receiving end of road side bombs or mortars? Trust me – it was no fun. Most important, who would want to be away from our loved ones for a year – to be absent on Christmas, Thanks Giving, and birthdays of those we love?

Veterans are not warmonger. We do not enjoy war. We do not enjoy shooting at people or people shooting at us. Some of us may talk like they enjoy it. Trust me – it is simply bravado for show. At nights – we all looked at pictures from our loved one and wish that we were home. We all longed for a home cooked meal. I remember that most of our conversations I had with my war buddies consist of what we would do when we get home. Not a single day went by that I did not think of home and wishing to be there – not one single day. In fact, the thought crossed my mind every single waking hour I was in Iraq.

I am not regretted going to Iraq. I said that I am proud of what I did. I just wish I did not have to. I would rather that tyrants just drop death naturally and democracy just spring up miraculously everywhere. But since that did not happen, I am a veteran. And since that will not happen, many others will become veterans.

Today I know what Veteran Day is about. For me Veteran Day is about making up lost time. So I am going to give myself a royal treatment. I am going to the best restaurant and eat the best food, surround by my family. Veteran Day is about enjoying what I missed when I was in Iraq.

Happy Veteran Day.

Fertile Ground

2005-11-08T02:08:00.000-08:00

The situation in France is worrisome. There are those who see this as poetic justice – something France deserves. But I do not share their view – whether France deserve this – or whether it was a creation of their misguide policy - this affect us all. The situation is potentially dangerous for France, for Europe, and for everyone. This is a perfect condition for Islamic fundamentalists to exploit the situation to their advantages.

Before I go on about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, let me disabuse some of the preconceptions. The riot in France in its current form has little or no Islamic overtone. This is because the kids (and they are kids) are not religious or religiously motivated (and many rioters are not Muslims). The majority are children of Muslim descents who rarely attend mosques. They cannot read the Koran because their first and prefer language is French not Arabic. Therefore their motivation is not Islam.

Nonetheless, these kids are now extremely perceptible to Islamic propaganda and recruiting. They are angry at the authority. They are in despair. Their only prospect is perpetual poverty in a welfare state with no future, no dignity, and no hope for a better live. We have seen this before, in the US and elsewhere. In the US, often children such as these join criminal enterprises. In the cities, they joined the Bloods, the Crips, and the Maras. In the rural and suburban area, they joined the Aryan Brotherhood or the Ku Klux Klan. Or they became anarchists, communists, and other fringe political groups.

Among the North African youths of France, they are the fertile ground for Islamic fundamentalism. All it takes is the sowing of seeds. Just imagine these kids who long for a purpose and meaning come into contact with charismatic Islamists (who are plentiful in Europe). Now they are simply burning cars and building. Years from now, they will trade their Molotov cocktail for a suicide vest.

The Unintended Consequence of the Welfare State

2005-11-04T13:25:00.000-08:00

France suburban riot is on its 8th day. What we are witnessed is the unintended consequence of the welfare state. The crisis in France, as well as Europe, is not social per se. It is true that the rioters are North African Muslim – but the core of the crisis is economic – not racial or religious. One must keep in mind that most of the rioters are second and third generation immigrants, who should be fully integrated into society in normal circumstance. But French society is not a normal circumstance or has it been for sometime now. France is essentially a welfare state in which the government try to provide for its citizens everything – even things that private individual should provided for themselves. France economy is heavily regulated and its labor is extremely restricted. This results in high employment and a very sluggish economy.

How does the economy have anything to do with ethnic riot? Everything – Employment lead to more interaction outside of one ethnic and social group and bring a particular ethnic group into the social fold through the economic process. High unemployment – even with social safety net such as welfare and entitlement – is disastrous to a society. Employment and economic opportunity is not merely material but spiritual. Imagine large number of idle young men, in ethnic neighborhood, with absolute nothing constructive to do – young men full of vigor and energy. They will find things to do to release their penned up energy. And in poor ethnic ghettoes, those activities are often consisted of nefarious activities – crime, or worse, Islamic fundamentalism. (This is particularly true of Saudi young men – idleness had led many of them toward extremism in a search for meaning in life. Bin Laden and Zarqawi were once such idle young men.)

The riot in French suburbs reveals the flaw in Fabian socialism. It does not take into account the psychology of people. It assumes that by providing the basic subsistence to people, that would be enough to keep them content. People are never content with bare subsistence – especially if it comes in the form of hand out and charity. It degrades them and robs them of their self-esteem. It is a shameful existence. Men need pride from their own labor. Self-reliance brings personal honor and pride – a sense of ownership over one own life. This is why the free market economy is not only an efficient and effective system – it is also a humane and honorable. What is more honorable than self-reliance – a complete control over one own life.

Band of Brothers

2005-10-30T09:09:00.000-08:00

I remember fondly Lieutenant Colonel Khaki, the commander of the 206th Iraqi National Guard (ING) Battalion. The 206th ING was the only Iraqi unit operating in our area. When I first arrived to Iraq, the battalion was in bad shape. Each of its company has only 3 vehicles, and most soldiers have only two magazine worth of ammo. To compound the problem, the ING at the time only received 2 weeks of basic training - not enough training time to be a soldier. This is the problem for the ING throughout Iraq. Those who point to the failures of the Iraqi security force during the twin insurgencies in 2004 do not appreciate the predicament they were in. Imagine having an AK47 with two magazines of ammo facing opponents who were well armed with plenty of ammo and heavy weapons such as RPG7 and PK machine guns. Of course, when the ING in Fallujah disintegrated and fled, it did not surprise me. I am not sure I would stand and fight if I was in their place. American fought because we were well trained (the most well trained in the world). I received months of retraining prior to my arrival to Iraq. We were well armed with almost unlimited amount of ammo and we could always expect that someone would come to our rescue if thing get desperate. The Iraqi soldiers did not have that advantage – or not at least at the time.

But the 206th ING was reliable and courageous. We had almost zero desertion and most held their ground when “shit hit the fan” (excuse my authentic military language). The 206th ING suffered three times the casualties we suffered despite having only a third of our man power. It is also important to put thing into context. We get to go home after 365 days of war. They live the war everyday; their homes are in the war zone.

I watched with amazement as the 206th ING grew from a ragtag band of undisciplined armed men into a cohesive and effective fighting force. When I left at the end of 2004, they were operating mostly on their own – either as a category 2 or 3 unit. They were quite aggressive – sometime a bit reckless. But Iraqis believe that their lives are in the hand of God. “Inshalah,” “God willing” they say. I and my section worked very close with the 206th. We even participated in several of their raid – raids that they independently initiated and we just came along for the ride. You do not ride with a unit that you cannot trust.

And what I remember most about the 206th is their hospitality. We were the first unit to arrive at the area and we had to build the base from nothing. So for the first 6 months, we ate T-ration. If you know anything about food, you know MRE (Meal-Ready-to-Eat) is the prepackaged military ration, and you also know that it taste terrible. Well, T-ration tastes even worse. So we were happy when the 206th insisted that we eat with them whenever we work at their compound. They had fresh bread and rice. We then discovered that their food budget was limited and that we were eating into their budget – the Coalition Provisional Government was quite stingy when it comes to Iraqi units funding. We stopped. Colonel Khaki was offended that we stopped eating with his unit. We explained to him that the food was for his men and it was limited, and that it is not right for us to eat food that was meant for his men. Colonel Khaki acclaims, “But you are my men too.” And a bunch of other Iraqi soldiers joined the colonel in insisting that we share the meal with them. I was quite moved and so were other in my section. Here are people who have very limited resource who are willing to give the shirt of their back for their friends. This behavior was consistent from the 206th ING throughout our deployment. They were generous and hospitable.

In the armed profession, the greatest praise that can be said to a man is “I will go to war with you.” It is a statement of confidence, in his commitment, his loyalty, and his ability. Concerning Colonel Khaki and the 206th ING, I would go to war with them and I did.

(I am the little skinny guy on the right and next to me in the middle is Colonel Khaki. This picture was taken the day before we went home.)

Carnival of Liberty XVII

2005-10-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

Eric is hosting the 17th Carnival of Liberty. I sent in my post on marriage certificate.

Notable among the posts are Jacqueline Passey who asked the question that we often forget to ask - What is the role of the government?
Mr Completely, wrote the funniest post - check it out. I had a good laugh.
Andrew Bartlett, wrote a post that I intent on rebute. I agree that we should not use torture, but it has to be argued on the utilitarian reasoning. The Kantian line of reasoning does not work here.
Brad Warbiany who wrote an excellent analysis on society and the government.
Just because I did not mention a post, it does not mean I did not like it or consider it not worthy. I can only comment on so many posts. So visit the carnival yourself.

The Proudest Days

2005-10-25T18:13:00.000-07:00

The Commissar asked blogger who inspired them to be blogger - their blogparent. I cannot recall which blogger specifically inspired me to blog. But I know what inspired me to blog. The War in Iraq. My first two posts were about Iraq. I came back from the war with mixed emotion about the war - both positive and negative. I first heard about weblog on "News Hour" which several bloggers were interviewed after the Eason Jordan scandal. The only person I remmembered and recognized was Andrew Sullivan.

I thought then that it would be a perfect medium to express my trapped emotion about Iraq. So I googled and studied as much as I could about blogging. So State of Flux, like the new Iraq, came into being. And much like Iraq, I had no idea where I was going or why. But now I am glad I did. It allows me to put my experience into perspective - to meditate about it deeply and rationally instead of emotionally. But emotion remains.

Today emotion is reawaken with the reminder that 2,000 US soldiers died in Iraq. The story brought me back to my first memorial service in Iraq. I did not know the soldier nor meet him. But his convoy was behind my convoy when he was killed by an IED. That was on the first day we entered Iraq from Kuwait. That was when I came face to face with my own mortality. That was my first but not last, more memorial services were conducted during our deployment. It was bitter, but in my heart of heart, I know that I was there for a good cause. But I also know that victory is uncertain. It is still pointless to mark the 1,000 or the 2,000 or the 3,000. Every fallen soldier is a great loss to his/her family, the community, and the country. The media by paying special attention to this day when the number reached 2,000 miss the point. This war is not about the deads but the livings - counts the living not the deads. Count the number Iraqi voters in the next coming election and many elections to come. Count the children who would have died in the cripping sanction.

My experience had much bitter. I wrote about it here. It even titles: "They Year of Discontent." It was a bitter and difficult year - many days I was in despair. But we did great thing - against great odds. And we did it not knowing what the outcome would be, not knowing if we would be appreciated for our sacrifice, not knowing if our political leaders have the conviction and wisdom to lead us to victory. We did it on faith - faith in our own nobility and hopefully the nobility of the Iraqis. I did not realize the fruit of my labor until January 30th, 2005 when Iraqi flocked to the poll to elect the first representative government.

Today, it is confirmed that the Iraqi constitution has passed. I cannot help but think that those days in Iraq were the proudest days of my life. Days that I can retell my children and grandchildren with pride. I have served with the most noble breed of men and women - some are counted among the 2,000 deads. I will remember fondly the numerous convoys we were on together - on an IED ladden road between Mandali and Balad Ruz. The rides were terrified - but the companies were terrific. I will remember fondly the meals we ate together. It was the worst tasting food I ever had; but I could not have it with better companions.

Let them count the deads, I will count them too. But I will remember them with pride, not with shame. My proudest days was short live, their are eternal.

Loretta Sanchez the "Economist"

2005-10-24T12:50:00.000-07:00

Prior to his nomination to replaced Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the Fedearal Reserve today, on October 20th, Ben Bernanke gave a testimony to the Joint Economic Committee (House and Senate) on the economic outlook of the US. Listening the hearing, I was reminded why I never voted Democratic. What's a bunch of anti-market and anti-trade zealots!

The Democrats on the commitee spent most of their time on "tax cut for the rich," "loss manufacture jobs," and how bad the US economy is. Bernanke pointed out that the US has the much higher employment and economic growth than other industrial nations and he gave an example of Europe. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez who claims to be an economist rebuted that it was a terrible analogy by the White House to compare the US to Europe . I fell out of my chair laughing when I heard her calls herself "a trained economist." The self-porclaimed economist Sanchez said that Europe had to bear the burden of integrating the Eastern European countries (who were devestated by communism and are not used to the market economy) and the comparision is not accurate and fair.

First of all Miss Sanchez is no economist. She received an undergraduate in economic in 1982 - when Keynesian Economic was still popular in campus - an undergrad! I never heard undergraduates in economic calling themselves economists. Maybe I should start calling myself an economist - I took as many economic courses as she did (perhap more). And her rebuttal was grossly inaccurate. Eastern European economies are not the reasons the European economy is behind the US (in term of growth and employment). If Miss Sanchez even bothers to read the Economist, she would know that Eastern European economies are growing faster than the US. So European economy tank inspite of the growing Eastern European economies, not because of them. And her comment that they (Eastern Europeans) are not used to and are not adjusting to market economy is pure ignorant. Eastern Europe today is far more capitalistic and pro-market than Western Europe - that is why they are growing faster.

That's Loretta Sanchez the Economist!

Certificate of Morality

2005-10-22T16:23:00.000-07:00

I have an idea that would end all for once the same sex marriage debate. The main issue with gay right activists is the fact that the government is not issuing marriage certificate to homosexuals who are in a committed relationship – and they want the same privilege extend to them. However I have another solution that better serve gay and straight people. That the government should stop issuing marriage certificates altogether – whether to gay or to straight people.

Let examine the extrinsic value of the marriage certificate.

(1) It cannot be traded like stock and bond certificate.
(2) It does not give one’s ownership, such as car title, house title, patent or trademark.
(3) It is not a license that grants you certain privilege like driving, opening a restaurant, or practicing a profession (like professional license).
(4) It is not even a contract which states clearly who has to do what and what the obligation each person has.

It in fact has no extrinsic value. It does not even have a utilitarian value. At least with other certificates such as birth and death, they are useful. The birth certificate proves that one exists, death certificate prove that one ceases to exist, they are therefore helpful as census so the government can plan their economic policy. Some say that it provides inheritance right, visiting right and other so called right pertaining to children and spouse.

But it does poorly that these function too. Marriage law differs from one locality to another. If the couple moves, then expectation and obligation concerning marriage will change. Marriage certificate fails to provide clear obligation, duty and right. It does not enumerate these things. All those things depend not on the marriage certificate itself, but on local laws which there are fifty of them. In fact a contract is better served for such a purpose. It enumerates clearly the obligation, duty, and right. Since it states in plain text, the meaning is the same wherever one go.

Then why is such a thing exists despite providing no extrinsic or utilitarian value? The marriage certificate is nothing but a moral certificate. The government through the control of such certificate is defining the moral values, which activities are moral and which are not. Those they grant marriage certificate to, they approve of their morality. Those they refuse to grant marriage certificates to, they deem immoral.

In the interest of individual liberty, we need to remove the government from the moral defining function and give that function back to the rightful owners: the individuals, the families, the communities (which they free associate), and the churches which they freely choose. It is the family, the community, and the church which an individual belong to and has emotional tie with - not the government. The government has no personal relationship with a person to play a role in his or her private life. The government is at best a benign faceless bureaucracy and at worst an oppressive and intruding leviathan.

They should not be allowed to make moral judgment. Of course, for now, the harm from government issued marriage certificate is abstract and not concrete. The government has not cracked down on people activities. Nobody is hauled to jail. Nobody is even monetarily fined – whether they are heterosexuals living outside of marriage or homosexuals who practice their orientation. But the justification for sanction is already there – waiting to be used. It is true that it is very unlikely to punish those they deem unworthy of a marriage certificate. But one must keep in mind the government has and is punishing activities that harm no one – what we call victimless crime - this range from cancer ridden patients who smoke marijuana to women who choose to sell their sexual services. So it is improbable but not impossible.

Regardless whether you find these activities (homosexual marriage, marijuana, prostitution) offensive or acceptable, you do not want to involve the government. It is better that you accomplish your goal through persuading your fellow citizens from such activities – rather than calling in the government. Because once you give the government the right to crack down on activities you deem offensive, they may start to crack down on activities you find acceptable – perhaps even activities you cherish.

With that in mind, let empower yourself, your family, your community, and your religious institution by supporting an end to government exclusive control of marriage certificate. Gay activists, in the interest of their own liberty, should stop asking the government to grant them marriage license. They are simply putting themselves into a position of subservience. They should instead ask that the government stopped granting the absurd certificate of morality altogether and be free from the grip of the leviathan.

NOTE: There are those who will interpret this essay as an opposition to the institution of marriage (it has happened before). It is not the case. The opposite is true. I value the institution of marriage and value it so much that I want it to be free from the government.

Friday Hayek Blogging

2005-10-21T10:19:00.000-07:00

With all the depressing news concerning porks in Congress, Miers for the US Supreme Court, Hayek blogging alway cheer me up. And not to forget about the other Hayek - I introduce to you the blog of F.A. Hayek great nephew (F.A. Hayek is his grandfather brother). Here is Richard Zundritsch and his blog Hayek in Vienna. It is a must go to if you are a fan of F.A. Hayek like me (If you are a fan of Salma, you can always come here every Friday). Richard dedicates his blog to the biography of his great uncle and the idea he advocated when he was alive - freedom through free market.

And since it is a very depressing week (The Senate voted down the Coburn amendment), I am posting two Salma pictures.

Let Hamas Participates

2005-10-20T08:41:00.000-07:00

In 2000, when I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia, I was my opinion then that the banning of the Bosnia Serb Radical Party (SRS) from participating in the Bosnian election was a bad idea. It is true that the ideology by the SRS was abhorrent – it advocates racism and many of its members were indicted for war crime. But by banning the SRS from election, the OSCE strengthened Serb ultra-nationalism and radicalism. And the election of 2000 precisely did that. SRS supporters simply voted for the next radical and extreme party, the Bosnian Serbian Democratic Party, ensuring the electoral defeat of the much more liberal government who was in power.

Let not repeat the same mistake in Palestine. There is a suggestion that Hamas should be banned from the electoral process. As I argue before, let them participate in the electoral process. For democracy to be credible, all who want to participate must be allowed to participate. We cannot and should not pick and choose who get to run for election. And as I argued before, I am not concerned with Hamas winning election. I am more concerned with the prospect that they are barred from the electoral process. It will not weaken Hams. It will in fact strengthen them politically and discredit the whole electoral process.

Also let not confuse the disarmament with the electoral issue. They are two separate tracks. We must press for the Palestinian Authority to disband all armed groups to include Hamas, Islamist Jihad, and other belligerents. And we should provide whatever assistance we can to President Abbas so that he can carry out the task. But while that is going on – free and fair election should be extended to everyone – even the most repugnant.

Related articles:
(1) Defeating Hamas (Washington Post)
(2) A Vote for Hamas? (Washington Post)

The Good Enough Justice

2005-10-19T07:36:00.000-07:00

I am remain unconvinced of the White House argument for Harriet Miers. I think the White House argument is back ward, if not upside down. It should not be us the critics who have to prove that Miers is unqualified. It should be the White House who should prove to us that Miers is qualified. The President says that she is the best there is for the Supreme Court, then the burden of proof is on him. And so far he has not proven the case - all we got is "trust me." "Trust me" is not an acceptable argument.

I do not doubt that Miers is a good person with a good heart who want to do good thing. However it is not an argument for the Supreme Court nominee. If it is, my mother would be emminently qualified. The premise for this debate should be that it is the responsible of the President to pick the best mind among the legal professionals to fill the position - the best not the good enough. To say that there were other justices who similarly lacking in experience is to argue for mediocrity. Just because there were mediocre justices before - as there are mediocre ones on the court now - is not a good reason to pick another mediocre one.

A question for the readers to ponder, when you need heart surgery, do you want to be operated by a surgeon that is "good enough," or do you want that surgeon to be "the best."

Jose Ramos-Horta on Iraq

2005-10-18T06:15:00.000-07:00

Unlike most pundits, this one know the horror of living under tyranny, he also knows the sweet tatse of freedom and democracy. Jose Ramos-Horta was the receipient of the Nobel Peace prize in 1996. In the recent article in the Asian Wall Street Journal (October 17, 2005), he offered his thought on Iraq.

U.S. Soldiers Are The Real Heroes In Iraq
By Jose Ramos-Horta

Time and again as I watch the barbarity inflicted on innocent Iraqi civilians, often women and children, pass with seeming silence and indifference from the rest of the world, I ask where are those who are so quick to take to the streets to protest every alleged U.S. sin -- be it real or imaginary? If they are so appalled at the graphic photos showing the depraved acts committed by a small number of American servicemen -- photos that, never let it be forgotten, were unearthed as a result of the U.S. Army's own investigation -- surely they should be even more appalled by the daily carnage inflicted on the Shia majority in Iraq. Instead, those who hate the U.S. seem to believe that every wrong committed by an American serviceman must not only be loudly condemned but portrayed as a deliberate act by the U.S. government, while the systematic and daily barbarities perpetrated predominantly by Sunni Muslims upon their fellow Muslims pass without comment.

Such hypocrisy and unwarranted attacks increase the pressure on the U.S. to cut and run from Iraq. In the face of a mounting death toll and growing financial burden, it's understandable that some have begun to have doubts about whether America should continue to send its brave young soldiers to die in a battle so far away.

To those who harbor such doubts, I say remember the lessons of history. In Lebanon in the 1980s under a Republic Administration and Somalia in the 1990s under a Democratic Administration, the U.S. retreated in the face of American casualties. As a result, both countries fell into the grip of terrorists -- a state from which it took Lebanon many long years to emerge, while Somalia still remains mired in lawlessness. Any such instance of the superpower vacillation emboldens its sworn enemies, while causing anxiety among its friends. And Lebanon and Somalia are but small dots when compared with the vital strategic importance of Iraq.

Retreat is not a viable option for the costs would be far too high for U.S. vital interests in the Middle East and the world as a whole. Iraq would inevitably descend into a Somalia-like failed state with dire implications for its neighbors. Oil prices would skyrocket, bankrupting many non-oil producing countries, and triggering recessions in industrialized economies.

In addition to such strategic considerations, there is the moral and ethical dimension of betraying the Shia majority and all those, Kurdish and Sunni democrats who have put so much faith in the U.S. and in the international community to stand with them in their struggle for a secular and democratic Iraq. The Shia leadership, in particular, have shown enormous restraint in the face of daily provocations and attacks, as they struggle to grasp this historic opportunity to overcome many centuries of oppression by the Sunni minority.

All these are reasons why it is in the world's interests to see the U.S. stay the course. But other countries also have a part to play. In particular, Iraq's neighbors need to do far more to prevent their territory from being used as a training ground, safe heaven and transit route for mercenaries and weapons. For all Syria and Iran's denials of actively aiding the extremists in Iraq, at the very least they are not doing enough to assist the democratic government in Baghdad win the battle against the terrorists and the remnants of Saddam Hussein.

Europe too has a role to play. It is a great relief that the acrimonious trans-Atlantic tirades over Iraq have given way to a far healthier discussion on how best to assist the Iraqis. Many Europeans remain critical of U.S. policies, and there are some who are never prepared to accept that America can do anything good. But there are many more whom are realistic enough to accept that there is no substitute for the U.S. as a guarantor of international peace. They understand full well that America provides a vital security umbrella and strategic balance, especially in areas of the world where regional rivalries could easily escalate into open conflict without the stability provided by a U.S. presence.

For all the present violence, in a few years Iraq could easily evolve into a peaceful and democratic country. Whether that transpires ultimately rests in the hands of the millions of Iraqis who defied the terrorists by bravely turning out to vote earlier this year. But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave, young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible.

In Praise of the SAS

2005-10-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

Details emerged on incident involving the British SAS in Basra in which they were imprisoned by the Basra police. According to the London Sunday Telegraph.

It is understood that the Special Air Service had been ordered to carry out surveillance operations against several members of the Iraqi police, who were believed to be responsible for torturing prisoners at the notorious Jamiyat prison in Basra.
Military sources said that the operation was ordered by senior officers after the body of an Iraqi, who had been arrested by the police for smuggling and gun-running, was found on the outskirts of the city in April. An examination of his body had revealed that an electric drill had been used to penetrate his skull, hands and legs.

When the story came out innitially, I was not sure how a Iraqi police force could have captured the best special force soldiers of Great Britain. The well-trained and well-equiped commadoes could have easily outfought the police and escaped. According to the article:

To try to avoid a shoot-out with the police, the SAS soldiers decided to surrender and each pulled out handkerchief-sized Union flags and began shouting, "British forces, British forces".

It is clear that the soliders acted honorably and care deeply about the unneccessary loss of lives - since if there was a firefight, the loss of lives would likely be Iraqi polices and not the British soldiers. Their mission was honorable because the British was concerned about misconduct by the Iraqi polices in their area of operation that may have violated human right. And their action throughout the crisis was measured and responsible. Who among us would willingly surrender to people we suspect of practicing torture, knowing we could easily outfight them?

It was the correct action by their commander to carry out the rescue mission. And they should be praised for the execution of the mission without any loss of lives - British or Iraqi.

Friday Hayek Blogging

2005-10-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

... Silly not that Hayek, this Hayek

Friedman, Hayek, Buckley and the Vienna State Opera

2005-10-12T17:46:00.000-07:00

Enough of heavy and contentious subject for this week. So here is something light - or lighter.

An interesting post by Peter Robinson at the Corner. Peter, trying to decide whether PBS should continue to exist asked readers to email a quote (if it is true) that Von Hayek supported public subsidy of the Vienna State Opera. Apparently, Peter could not make up his mind. Myself, despite being a small-government conservative I must confess my worst sin, I supported government subsidy of the National Endowment for the Arts. Milton Friedman on an email to Peter said:

I believe your memory is playing tricks on you. It was Ludwig von Mises who was notorious for supporting state opera. I never heard that Hayek was a fellow sinner…. Re my view on PBS, I believe the government has no business running a propaganda mill, by radio, TV, or in print. I would completely privatize PBS.

Who am I to argue with Milton Friedman? Especially if I claims to be his greatest admirer. But Mr. Friedman, unlike me, was never poor. Until very recently, I could not afford to attend classical music concert without government subsidy - it would be cost prohibitive if it is privately funded. I love classical music. When I went to war, beside defending democracy, I thought of myself as defending Mozart against Islamofacism. Yes, I fought for W but W. Mozart, not W. Bush. Who would you rather fight for? After the porks ladden highway bill and the Harriet Miers nomination, I am glad I fought for Mozart.

Yet, being poor is not a good accuse for my position. I was essentially supporting socialism - that someone else pay for my pet cause. And then William Buckley came to the rescue. In an inteview with Brian Lamb (via Peter original post), Buckley said:

Adam Smith said that the state can legitimately do certain things. And those are a very short list. It can look after the common defense and it can be the custodian of monuments. So I asked myself the question: Does the authority of Adam Smith attach to a state enterprise that takes dead musicians and makes their music available?

...as to suggest that a monument need not only be something chiseled in marble, sitting in the middle of a park, but might also be keeping alive a musician and providing the wonderful amenity.

I know some of you may still be unconvinced and think of me as a hypocrite. You may even be right. I am afterall flaw. But if I died in war and requested that the government pay for Mozart Requiem to be sung at my funeral (which I actually did in my will - it is my favorite requiem). Would you object?

If you are still unconvinced by my shamless emotional argument above, I still have one last argument (even more shamless) - this.

Loosing Is Not Neccessary Bad

2005-10-11T12:42:00.000-07:00

Both Hugh Hewitt and Mark Coffey warned that overplaying the conservative objection to Harriet Miers may cause the Republican Party to loose in 2006 and 2008. Let set aside the Harriet Miers and the nomination, I am still in disagreement that loosing election is necessary bad for the Party. It may be bad for the Party in the short run, but not necessary bad for the Party in the long run.

Let look oversea for an analogy. The Congress Party of India lost the first election to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1998 for the first time after years of Congress domination. The reason was because Congress became arrogant and and lost touch with the people. For five years, the BJP ruled India. Being a religious fundamentalist party, the BJP fail miserably at governing. This ushered the Congress back into power in 2004 with Dr. Manmohan Singh as prime minister.

Loosing an election in 1998 was not necessary bad for Congress. Congress before the defeat was corrupted, arrogant, and poorly governned. Five years as an opposition allowed the party to reform itself and when it came back in power, it was better before – free of corruption, modest, and better governed. And the people of India had a taste of the BJP and decide that it did not agree with their palate.

Return to the US, the Democratic Party in its current form is similar to the BJP, extremist and radical – a fringe movement. It would not be a bad thing to give an American people a taste of the Democratic Party. Of course, the secondary benefit is a reform within the Republican Party in while in opposition. The Republican Party is now too arrogant and governed too poorly. We had became the Democrat before the 1994 election. We are an obese party that love pork to much, a careless party that spent too much money. When in opposition, we lobbied against the government on the behalf of the people. Now that we are the government, we decide that the Democrat was right, big government is actually good when one is in charge.

We need and deserve to loose elections. And when we return, and we will, we will have learn our lesson and be a better political party. Of course, the only thing that stop me from fully endorsing this option is the War in Iraq. It is the sole reason I am still on board.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown

2005-10-08T14:16:00.000-07:00

Like many others, I am puzzled at the President choice in nominating Hariet Miers to the Supreme Court. I am not screaming (not just yet) - there is still a confirmation process when the nominee can prove her intellectual prowess. But at this point, I am very unimpressed.

However I ran across this speech by Janice Rogers Brown - and I am immensely impressed. What's a brilliant mind! I am not going quote any because it is very difficult to pick among many profound passages. But I ask that readers read it for themselves. She articulates her judicial philosophy clearly in her speech - without refering to any pending or controversial Supreme Court cases.

After reading her speech, I understand why the Left feel threaten by Judge Brown. They should be. Judge Brown believes in the power and wisdom of the individual not the collective. And she believe that words have meaning. President Bush chose the easy road by nominating Harriet Miers, but the easy road often does not lead to right destination. Judge Brown as a nominee would not be a easy road - it will be a difficult journey full of obstacles. But the destination is worth the journey. She is someone we need in the Supreme Court.

Mukhtar Mai for Nobel Peace Prize

2005-10-06T12:39:00.000-07:00

Last years (2004), as a battle buddy and I were sitting in the chow hall in Iraq, the Nobel Peace prize was announced. The winner was Wangari Maathai. My buddy who is an African-American female commented on that the Laureate is most undeserving. Her point was that it is absurd in a continent full of war, famine, and strife; an African is awarded the Nobel Peace prize for saving trees – not saving people.

Of course this does not surprise me that the institution that gave Peace prizes to Arafat and Le Duc Tho would do such a thing. It was then no surprise to learn that Wangari Maathai is an extremist. She believes that the virus HIV was created by Western scientists to punish Africans.

This year, the contenders include Bono of U2 and El Baradei. For the record, I like Bono and I think he does good work, but not Nobel Peace prize material. And I am even less certain about El Baradei. However, I have a candidate in mind (a candidate that Dymphna would approve). Her name is Mukhtaran Bibi, better known as Mukhtar Mai.

There are those who love her for being a victim. I admire her for being a heroin. She refused to be a victim – she fought back. She brought the Islamofacists who raped her to justice. Her fight did not stop there – she used the compensation to build school for girls in her village. Mukhtaran Bibi herself cannot read or write. Instead of award the Nobel Peace prize to communist, terrorist, and radical tree-hugger; the committee should award to someone truly deserving. Mukhtar Mai for Nobel Peace Prize!

UPDATE: Mohamed El-Baradei is the winner - underserving so. This year winner strengthen Pedro's point (comment section). However, I am not ready to renounce the Nobel Peace prize altogether because of the few underserving recipients (Le Duc Tho, Arafat, or Carter). To do so also means to not recognized other recepient such as Lech Wałęsa, the beacon of freedom and an inspiration when I was growing up under brutal Communism.

Avian Flu

2005-10-06T06:21:00.000-07:00

Maxed Out Mama have been blogging about avian flu eversince I read her blog. I enjoyed her other topics (especially the legal ones) but never paid much attention to the avian flu topic. I knew that it was dangerous, but I did not think that it post a serious international threat. Boy, was I wrong. Of late, it shows that MaxedOutMama has better foresight than me - almost prescience.

Maxed Out Mama is where you want to stop in for avian flu update. Katrina and now Avian Flu taught me that there are other natural threats beside homocidal humans.

UPDATE: As soon as I finish posting, she put one up.

Interrogation Legislature

2005-10-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan highlights the McCain proposed amendment. Andrew calls it the anti-torture amendment. I am in agreement that we need to pass a bill - not only to protect the detainees but also to protect the interrogators. But the McCain proposed amendment is insufficient to address this issue.

Any bill being introduced concerning interrogation should not be political grandstanding - but should adress these following issues: (1) the protection of detainees, (2) the protection of interrogators, and (3) an effective interrogation program. The McCain proposal lack the last two goals. As I mentioned in this blog before (here and here), we need to look closer at our current interrogation policy, see if it suit our needs, and modify it accordingly. We must be candid and admit that our current interrogation program is obsolete. We need to go back and look at various interrogation techniques - whether on the books or proposed - approve or disapprove each technique, and put it into law. We can even add the oversight function into the bill to ensure that the harsher techniques go through an approval process.

This protect detainee from abuse. It also protect interrogator who know if he use a technique that is lawfully approved and if he receive approval from a legitimate authority, he is protected from prosecution. And the review of all interrogation techniques, we can have a better interrogation program that yield good intelligence for the war on terrorism. Detaineees were not the only victims of past scandals - interrogators and intelligence collection were victims as well. Let give the interrogators the backing of the law, let them do their difficult job knowing that they have the support of the country.

"Bedouin riding a camel"

2005-10-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

This makes me laugh. It is too funny when the Iraqi Interior Ministry, Bayan Jabr, fired back at the Saudi.

...This Iraq is the cradle of civilisation that taught humanity reading and writing, and some Bedouin riding a camel wants to teach us... They have one god, he is the king, he is the god, and he rules as he likes. A whole country is named after a family...

It might as well be a shot at the whole Arab establishment. It is a response to the racist comment by the Saudi Foreign Minister that the Saudi government is concerned about the growth of Iranian influence in Iraq. Jabr further said that Saudi Arabia should let "Saudi women be allowed to drive cars first before Saudis can talk about Iraq’s internal affairs" (Iraq the Model).

I agree with Mohammed that the comment is extremely undiplomatic and should have not been said, but nevertheless Jabr is correct. The Saudi position is absurd. What we should be concern is the Saudi regime, who is tyranical and beholden to a fundamentalist sect, who oppress women and minority (particularly Shiites). The Saudi is not in a position of criticizing anyone - and for that matter not a single Arab country in the Middle East is any position to criticize Iraq.

The Palestinian Civil War

2005-10-03T08:01:00.000-07:00

It started on Sunday (Oct 2nd, 2005). Palestinian Authority Police clashed with Hamas militants. PA and Hamas disputed the account of incident. According to PA:

Aljazeera reported Palestinian security sources as saying the incident started when a police patrol came across two people fighting at an ATM machine. When the security forces intervened, one of the men called for Hamas assistance and a grenade was thrown.

Hamas disputed the version:

A Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, Usama Hamdan, gave a different account. He told Aljazeera that fighting broke out when the police came to arrest Muhammad Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi, the son of the late Hamas leader Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi, who was assassinated by Israel in 2004.

According to Hamdan, the police beat al-Rantissi, people in the neighbourhood gathered to protect him, and the police opened fire indiscriminately to disperse the crowd. Al-Rantissi was unarmed when the police approached him, Hamas said.

Soon the fighting spread and Hamas fired several rockets at a police station killing a PA police major and several other policemen were wounded. Two civilians were also killed in the process. Today the polices stormed the Parliament building to protest inaction by the PA.

"We want the Palestinian Authority to take a stand on Hamas. Our blood is flowing for the Authority and they are not doing anything," one officer dressed in black said.

The sentiment of the officer is understood and justified. It is remained to be seen if Mahmoud Abbas can assert control. The viability of Palestine as a state depends on whether they can maintain law and order. That means that the PA must take on Hamas. The next few days will determined if Abbas has any spine. If Abbas is unwilling or affraid to take on Hamas, the Palestian cannot survive. Abbas will loose the support of his people if they perceive him as weak.

Since the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza, the threat to Palestianian state come not from the Israel Defense Force but Hamas. I am still waiting for condemnation of Hamas by the Arab world - but I won't hold my breath. On the side note, it seem no one in the "Arab street" seem to be outraged about the two Palestinian civilians killed by Hamas. I guess the mudering of Palestinians is acceptable as long it is done by other Palestinians.

The Media, Katrina, and The Vietnam War

2005-10-03T07:29:00.000-07:00

So we found out that none of the horrors (rapes, murders, numerous bodies in the fridges, ten thousands deaths) occured during Katrina. Echoing Hugh Hewitt point that if the Media throw all their resource in the coverage about an even that happen at home, and they got it wrong; how can we trust them on things that is far away in a far less permissible environment such as Iraq. I wrote about it here.

But there is different point to it. We know that most of the accounts of the Vietnam War was reported by the Media, and many of the facts eventually ended up as sources for text books. During Katrina, even with the advent of weblog and close scrutiny of the media, they reported lies. Imagine the 60s and 70s, when there was no scrutiny, how can we trust anything they reported then.

Question: Are our children learning lies?

Responding to Dan Darling on Zarqawi

2005-09-29T18:58:00.000-07:00

Here are my separate points in response to Dan Darling’s post: “I Blame Public Ignorance.” It is not so much a disagreement, rather to enhance Dan’s post with more detail – an augmentation. I do not have concrete evidence on how Zarqawi’s group is organized but here is my theory base on opened source information and personal experience in Iraq.

I. How leadership Emerge:

Zarqawi most eminent skill is his ability to absorb other Islamist groups. The most important merger was between his organization and Ansar Al-Islam (later changed it name to Ansar Al-Suna) before it merge with Zarqawi’s Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. This ability was also observed in Bin-Laden when he absorb Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

Leadership is based completely on personal charisma. The way leadership emerge is the product of nomadic culture. This is true from the Mongolian steppes to the Saharan desert. The best analogy in history are Chengis Khan and Timur Leng (Tamerlane). Followers pledge allegiance not to the group per se, but to the individual who is most charismatic and the strongest. The allegiance does not pass on to children or designate heirs. In fact the pledge of allegiance expire when the leader pass away. Therefore, there is no point in officially designate an heir apparent. The same is true of Zarqawi’s organization. He would have a functional second in command, but the person is not necessary the second in term of seniority or second power structure, and especially not the heir designate. This position is more administrative than command.

If Zarqawi die (I hope in the most painful manner), the next leader to emerge will be the most charismatic, powerful, and ruthless. We may find out the various contenders by picking out the most charismatic and powerful personalities. But we cannot know until Zarqawi die. The new leader will be determined by how many pledge of allegiances each contenter receive and who pledge allegiance to whom.

II. Order of Battle:

Attempt to describe Al-Zarqawi organization along Western line is futile and unimaginative. One must think outside the box. However there are historical models to aid understanding (there are only so many ways to organize) – think of the Japanese warring period or European feudal era. Organizationally Zarqawi’s organization can be broken into main components.

1. Zarqawi and his entourage: This is similar to sultans, a khans, and their household troops and officials. They play the role of advising, organizing, and administration. They interact with the next group. Within this group, important advisors reside to provide guidance on religious, political, or strategic military matter.

2. Zarqawi various emirs: These are the vassals. The title emir does not denote uniform command. In Europe feudal ear, a nobility can be a count, a baron, or a duke and command terrorial vary in size, population, wealth, and military strength. Zarqawi’s organization is closer to the Japanese daimyo that they are nominal of equal status, but in reality vary in strength and power. But the most important aspect of the emirs is their operational autonomy within their territory -- in which Western military would call area of operation (AO) or area of responsibility (AOR).

Strategic decision come from the first groups, but tactical and operation decision is decided solely by the second group. Beside military operation such as attack, many of the recruiting, training, and financing, and activities are actually done by the emirs locally. Zarqawi may assist the emirs with money, arms, and occasional recruits depend on strategic important of each emir (at different time or phase in the war). But emirs are expect to be responsible for most . This is similar to military campaign during feudal time. Vassals actually recruited, trained, armed and financed their own knights and sergant-at-arms.

The organization of Islamist terrorist is only unconventional in Western sense. It is not by no mean unconventional elsewheres in the world where power structure are less formal and non-linear. Of course Pentagon has an extremely difficult time describing event in Iraq to the general public – and I doubt that even the Pentagon leadership outside of the counterterrorism circle truely understand it. It is therefore difficult to quantify the significant of Abu Azzam’s death without going into exhaustive detail, even then it is highly academic and I doubt most people would be interested. More importantly the Press lacks the necessary aptitude to understand the subject to convey it correctly. If a highly intelligent person such as Matthew Yglesias has difficult grasping the situation, one cannot expect an average (if not mediocre) reporter to understand it.

Opposition to the Iraqi Constitution Weakens

2005-09-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

Within the Shiite camp, Muqtada Al-Sadr was the most critical of the Iraqi Constitution - in particularly the issue of federalism. However according to Knight Ridder, he said he will not oppose it (hat tip to Keven Drum).

Rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's representatives said that while he's not thrilled about the constitution, he likely wouldn't encourage his followers to oppose it.
.....
"But for now, his opinion is neutral,"

Why's the change of heart. Muqqy may be an low-life opportunist, but he is not stupid. He would not dare openly oppose Al-Sistani. Sistani openly blessed the constitution and for a Shiite faction to oppose it is political suicide. So Muqqy accomodates. Sadr is not the only one who compromise on the constitution. Even the Iraqi Islamic Party (an Iraqi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) also compromised.

The largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said that although it has encouraged its supporters to vote down the document, its efforts are focused on the December election for a new National Assembly.

"There are powers that will make sure this bad constitution passes," said Ala'a al-Maki, a party spokesman. "We are focusing more on ensuring the Sunnis participate in the next election."

These events may be strange to those who doubt the benefit of democratic process. But for advocates of Democracy, this is easily understood. The political process moderates extremists, forcing them to be pragmatic and make compromise. Bottom line, extremists can be coopted by democracy. Democracy promotion is not a eutopic as critics claim, but rather it is a pragmatic (and only) tool to combat extremism.

Fouad Ajami on Bigotry

2005-09-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

I wrote about bigotry in the Middle East here. But Fouad Ajami is much more cogent and far more eloquent on the subject (hat tip to Austin Bay). I love the title, especially the tagline, "Heart of Darkness: From Zarqawi to the man on the street, Sunni Arabs fear Shiite emancipation." An sample of anti-Shiite bigotry:

...
Nor ought we be taken in by warnings from Jordan, made by King Abdullah II, of a "Shia crescent" spanning Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This is a piece of bigotry and simplification unworthy of a Hashemite ruler, for in the scheme of Arab history the Hashemites have been possessed of moderation and tolerance. Of all Sunni Arab rulers, the Hashemites have been particularly close to the Shiites, but popular opinion in Jordan has been thoroughly infatuated with Saddam Hussein, and Saddamism, and an inexperienced ruler must have reasoned that the Shiite bogey would play well at home.

Ajami even mention Western's complicity is this bigotry.

[...]And America, at times ambivalent about its mission, brought along with its military gear a suspicion of the Shiites, a belief that the Iraqi Shiites were an extension of Iran, a community destined to build a sister-republic of the Iranian theocracy. Washington has its cadre of Arabists reared on Arab nationalist historiography. This camp had a seat at the table, but the very scale of what was at play in Iraq, and the redemptionism at the heart of George Bush's ideology, dwarfed them.
...

It is an excellent essay. Go read the whole thing.

Hotel Window Reporting

2005-09-27T07:36:00.000-07:00

By now readers have all heard about the story of AP reporters staying in Baghdad Hotel and not going anywhere. I can testify to that fact. In the Fall of 2004, there was a masacre of around 50 Iraqi soldiers. The story dominated the news for 2-3 days. I witnessed the aftermath and know the incident in intimate detail.

These soldiers are Shiites from the South. They just finished their 8 weeks of basic training and were allowed a week of leave before reporting back for their next duty assignment. They all put on their civilian clothes and took taxis home (the taxis were actually Kia minivans). As the vans crossed Wasit Province from Diyala Province, they were ambushed.

The terrorists dragged the occupants out of the vehicles, ordered them to lay down along the side of the road in row, and shot them in the back of their head. Even the civilian taxi drivers were killed. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi claimed credit for the attack.

What is interesting about the attack is despite the heavy coverage in the news. The media was not actually there. Despite being informed by the Iraqi Defense Ministry about the incident (by press release), not a single foreign journalist showed up at the crime scence - no BBC, MSNBC, CNN, not even Al-Jazeera. For two days, the 206th Iraqi National Guard Battalion transported the remains back to Forward Operation Base Wolverine. Only after the remains were inside a Iraqi military facility did the media showed up. They were not there at the site with the 206th ING, they were not there when the transportation of the remain occured.

I wonder how in the world can they report a story accurate if they do not even show up at the scence. And of course, typical of the ignorant media, they got the fact wrong. They reported the victims as Iraqi National Guard - the victims were regular Iraqi Army. They got the location of the incident wrong. They reported that the place of the masacre was in Diyala Province. It was in Wasit Province. Diyala Province was where the bodies were - not where it happened.

Beside the time where I saw the media inside FOB Wolverine, I never saw member of the Press anywhere. So the next time some clueless reporter has the audacity to tell us how important his job is, and how he inform us. Remember that he most likely has no idea what goes on in the world, his world view is the view of his hotel window. And if you want good reporting in Iraq, read Michael Yon, Faces from the Front, or better yet read Milblogs.

I am not Convinced

2005-09-26T08:19:00.000-07:00

Tom DeLay, in an pathetic attempt to cool down the the angry fiscal conservatives:
This year, House Republicans streamlined the Appropriations Committee structure to allow for a more transparent, accountable legislative process for our annual spending bills. This reformed process will make it harder to hide excess spending and easier to save money in the future. Wasteful spending can be found and should be cut -- like the $89 billion that never made it into the $286 billion (formerly $375 billion) highway bill the president signed last month -- and as conservatives and Republicans, we should never let down our guard on this issue.

Translation: Get off my back, you troublesome fiscal conservatives. Instead of spending $375 billion of your children money on bacon, I spent only $286 billion. What am I suppose to do without my bacon.

We need real fiscal conservatives in Congress -- people who authentically believe in limited government - not pretenders.

The Conservatives Insurrection

2005-09-22T07:07:00.000-07:00

This is an insurrection. I have written about this issue before (here, here, and here). It is about we take a closer look at the last five years and what conservative causes have been advanced since then. In the last five years, every single gain that was made under the Gingrich's Conservative Revolution has been reversed, by a faux conservative President and a faux conservative Congress. For the last five years, I voted Republican because I was limited by two choices: big government conservatives or even bigger governmnet liberals. Therefore it is extremely sad and profoundly disappointed to see this from Tim Chapman.

... A coalition of bloggers have launched a website called "porkbusters." The site lists every member of the House and Senate by the name and has a column next to the name for "committed cuts," or sacrifices. Currently, the only member of Congress listed with a "committed cut" is House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Many Republican members of Congress must be asking themselves, "Is Nancy Pelosi the best fiscal conservative this Congress has to offer?"

Not one single Republican - not one - in the House or Senate is willing to give up pork. In fact, Tom Delay, the Republican majority leader, new title is the "porker of the month" and the co-awardee is another Republican, Senator Don Young of Alaska. Delay even had the audacity to declared that there is "ongoing victory" over government wasteful spending. The Pork King refuse to even consider delay the drug benefit. Who would have thought a self-proclaimed conservative would defend an entitlement.

Of course, the House and Senate Republicans are not the only one to blame. The White House stated that they oppose the delay of the Medicare prescription plan. The President is threaten to veto any bill that delay the program. Unbelievable! This president who never vetoed a single spending bill is threaten to veto a bill if it spend less. This President may talk like Ronald Reagan but act like Lyndon B. Johnson. Compassionate Conservative is a disguise for "The Great Society."

It is therefore with enthusiasm and pride that I declare myself a rebel - a member of the Conservative Insurrection. Let renew the Conservative Revolution. Let renew the Contract with America. Let start to hold every single Republican politician accountable. The day that politicians get my vote for being members of the Republican Party is over.

CORRECTION: Don Young is a congressman not a senator.

"Neither Ethical nor Pragmatic... Just Muddled"

2005-09-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

Vikash Yadav of Foreign Exchange wrote an excellent analysis on the current dilemma of India when it comes to Iran. Please go there and read the whole thing.

In the most recent test of India's foreign policy skill, India seems to be resisting pressure from America and Europe about referring Iran to the UN Security Council for violating its agreements with the international community.

If India does not cooperate with the US, it could scuttle a proposed deal on nuclear cooperation between the US and India. Moreover, India risks once again alienating a natural democratic ally and major economic partner.

Vikash's conclusion is that India action is neither idealist or pragmatist, just muddled

Of course, one could argue that at least India is finally adopting a realistic approach to its foreign policy by placing its energy needs over morality and international law. However, such a claim would ignore the fact that the United States is still India's largest export market. And as a nuclear power, India can certainly shift toward greater reliance on its own nuclear energy if it is denied access to Iranian oil and gas. India's economic (and security) interests are ultimately with the US, Japan, and Europe, not emerging pariah states in the Middle East. If America becomes estranged with India, the US will once again strengthen ties with Pakistan. India cannot afford a repeat of the Cold War where the US-Pakistani entente resulted in India's strategic isolation.

Thus it would appear that India's latest foreign policy is neither ethical nor pragmatic.... just muddled.

I am in complete agreement with Vikash. India policy regarding Iran appears unwise and counter to India self-interest, as well as potentially ruinous to India's long held reputation as a moral and progressive state. But it is also the responsible of the Democratic countries, in particular the US, to help India out of its contradictatory foreign policy. It now rests upon the US, particularly Secretary Rice to unmuddle India Foreign Policy. It is important that we persuade India to our side. I believe there are great incentives we can offer India to reassure that its energy need is safe. Perhap another trip by Secretary Rice to New Delhi is in order.

Small Mindedness

2005-09-19T16:15:00.000-07:00

Federal Court in California ruled that the "Pledge of Allegiance" is unconstitutional because of the inclusion of the phrase "under God." The person who brought the case to trial is Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist who said he was offended by the phrase. But I am clueless as to why Mr. Newdow is offended - and so offended that he put considerable resource (time and money) to fight it.

Like Mr. Newdow, I am not a Christian. But I am not an atheist. I am a Buddhist by faith. And my religion is best described as agnostic. Our scripture does not mentions the Creator. We do not affirm or deny the existence of God. Therefore "under God" is not a part of my tradition either. But I am not offended by the phrase "under God" and readers would find that no Buddhist would be offended by it either. Why would I be offended by someone else expression of faith. And saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance does not degrade my religious belief in any way.

Perhap Mr. Newdow is a small man who is offended by the belief of others that are different from his. Let call his attitude what it really is - intolerance and bigotry. Of a million things to be offended on this world, he decide that this issue offend him. Perhap I can offer him other issues to be offended about - issues far more worthy of his zeal in protest. Let start with the genocide in Darfur where thousand of peoples are dying on a daily basic. Does it not offend to him? Michael Newdow can also be offended by the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. If that is not enough for him, the murderous rampage of Islamofacists around the world. And if he want something closer to home, how about the Government of New London bulldozing people homes to profit big cooperation. Or if he want something that personally affect him, how about his hard earned tax money being used to built roads to nowhere or pay for farmers to grow nothing. Any of the preceeding issues are far more worthy of outrage than "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

The Most Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh once wrote about the dynamiting of Buddha statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan. He chided commentators and pundits for their misdirect outrages. They were quite outrages by what they deem as destruction of valuable arts. He scolded them that instead of being outrage about inanimate stones and rocks, they should be more outrages about the treatment of women in Afghanistan - who are flesh and bones.

Giant and Midgets

2005-09-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

I have been listening to the John Roberts nomination hearing for three days now. Here are my observations. It is like watching a giant sparing with a bunch of midgets (Republicans and Democrats alike). John Roberts displayed such an intellectual prowess that it is seem terribly mismatched. I almost feel sorry for the senators. What's a pathetic bunch!

Despite the fact that the senators are the ones who have the innitiative, who control (and know ahead) the questions. They managed to fumble time and time again. Often they asked silly (if not stupid) questions. Their numerous attempts to corner Judge Roberts is so futile that I wonder why they even bother. In the process, they look like fools.

The answers that Judge Roberts give are the only ones that are educational. It taught me so much about our judicial process and philosophy. It confirms my view of government. Mainly that of the three branches of government; the executive branch should be the most innovative and open to change. The legislative branch should be more resistant to change - restraining the executive branchfrom potential over-reaching. The judicial branch should be the one most adverse to change. In that regard, Judge Roberts judicial philosophy fits perfectly.

UPDATE: Liberal senators often asked question that has word like "progress," "advancement." It implies that they want judges and justices to promote "human progress." John Roberts by refusing to answer implicitly said: "It is your job, not mine."

The Promotion of Racism in the Middle East

2005-09-14T08:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, President Talibani visited the US. Unlike those murderous thugs that the Left praise as "freedom fighters;" this man is a true freedom fighter. Jalal Talabani fought for his oppressed people freedom since he was a teenager, often as an underdog against one of most brutal tyrant in the Middle East. But have you ever hear the Left refer to Talabani as a freedom fighter? No way. To them, his relationship to the US renders him illegible for the title. But somehow, Baathists thugs in Fallujah are "freedom fighters."

What Talabani said yesterday was not as important as what he said last week on September 4th. According to the article by the New York Times:

In an unusual public rebuke, President Jalal Talabani angrily criticized other Arab states on Monday, saying they had insulted Iraq by not sending diplomats to Baghdad and had not sent condolence letters about the stampede last week in which almost 1,000 Shiite pilgrims were killed.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, amplified complaints by other Iraqi leaders about the Arab states' failure to recognize the stampede, which caused the highest one-day death toll since the American-led invasion. The complaints, aimed at mostly Sunni leaders, hinted at a sectarian bias against Iraq, where Shiites are about 60 percent of the population.
......

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, hinted at similar criticism on Monday when asked about the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who donated $100 million to the American victims of Hurricane Katrina but nothing to the victims of the stampede. "I'm not condemning what he did, but he should think of Iraq," Mr. Jaafari said.

The comments by Mr. Talabani and Mr. Jaafari came at a time of heightened tension with other Arab nations. Last week Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, issued a public criticism of Iraq's new constitution - largely written by Shiites and Kurds - in which he echoed the criticisms by some Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

Some Iraqi leaders asked why Mr. Moussa was willing to denounce the new draft constitution now, after the Arab League had been notably silent about Iraq's lack of a constitution under Saddam Hussein.

Of course neither President Talabani and Prime Minister Jaafari should be surprised at the treatment they get from their fellow Muslims and Arabs. The Arab League was quiet when Saddam gased the Kurds and they said nothing when Saddam masacred 200,000 Shiites. Here in this blog, I will say what no biased Western media will say. The Arab League are a bunch of racist and bigots, and our own Media and the Left are complicit in their racism and bigotry. Pan-Arab Nationalism is by nature racist and facist. It includes only Sunni Arab, excluding all other. Kurds are not Arab, hence their lives and death mean little. And if they are massacred by Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab, it is for the better. Iraqi Shiite maybe Arabs, but they are heretics, and their loyalty to the greater Arab world is always in doubt.

In fact Shiites are automatically suspected of treason, that they are controlled by Iran, incapable of independence. Every action they take is interpreted as action ordered by Iran. Ever since the election of the current Iraqi government, charges of treason were and are levied against them. Alarmists in the Middle East with the complicity of Western Media and Western Left, have continously warned against a Shiite theocracy in Iraq controlled by Iran. Their evidence is based solely on the fact that the government of Iraq is dominated by Shiites.

Racism by the Arab League dominated by Sunni Arabs is to be expected. But to have the racist talking points being repeated, propagated, and promoted by our Western Media and the New Left show the hypocrasy of the Media and the Left.

Snowballed Effect and Lessons Learned

2005-09-07T12:15:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the long absense. I was overwhelm with family and work, both are priorties before blogging. As I was absensed from the blogosphere, Katrina hit. So here are a few disconnected points about Katrina.

Snowballing Effect: The first failure compounded exponentially the effect of the succeeding failures. Despite the fact that all levels of US government look pathetic in the aftermath of Katrina; the failure of the City of New Orlean is most note worthy because it worsens the failure of the next echelon. By the time the Federal Government fail to act, the effect became catastrophic. It is important to put the City of New Orlean into context. Just put Katrina in term of military operation and thing became clear. The City of New Orlean is the first line of defense, the first responder. In military term, it would be the first unit on the front line. It is responsible to hold the line at all cost, until the enemy overwhelm the line. If the enemies break through this line, the second line of defense is activated. In this case, it is the State Government. The Reserve is the last line of defense (the Federal Government), to call in when the second line of defense is breached. During Katrina, the first line of defense capitulated, dropped their weapons, and fled without a fight. This reduced the neccessary time for the second line of defense (the State) to react to the onslaught of the enemies. This was then compounded by the slow response of the second line, so the the second line quickly folded. The Reserve was then slow to react, unawared that the first and second lines have fallen. By the time the situation is realized, the enemies have breach the wall of the city and in the process of sacking it. The lesson is that it is important to shore up the first line. Both the State and the Federal Government should have inspected the state of prepareness of their respective lower echelon.
Follows the plan: Have a plan and follow it. Captain Quarter reports that New Orlean has a plan for this scenario. The plan looks good and addresses many of the problem faced on the first few days of the crisis. Except that they did not follow it. Had they follow their own plan, many more lives would have been saved. Perhap the plan was simply written to satisfy State and Federal requirement and no ranking official in the city actually read it. It is important to have everyone of responsibility to read through the plan, have everyone involve in the plan go through a rehearsal (at least simulates it on computer). And most important designate a person who knows the plan to be in charge of all activities during crisis. Establish a chain of command so that if the designated person is killed or unavailable.
Private Citizens Are Assets Not Liabilities: Earlier on the crisis, the government announced that private citizens should not to come to the affected area to help, because they would get in the way. We later learned that private charities and individuals were faster, more responsive, and far more effective than the government. Disobeying government order, they came. And because they came, many lives were saved. Private charities were the first to get to the affected area. Their effectiveness was impressive. As the government was deciding what to do; trucks full of food, water, and relief material were arriving in massive quantity from private humanitarian organizations. Before any government official arrived, volunteers were already in the area providing relief. The government was wrong to bar private citizens from rescuing their fellow citizens. The forgotten lesson of September 11th is that citizen volunteers played a key role on the first week. Most the rescuing effort at ground zero was done by volunteers. They digged through the rubbles, they took care of the wounded, they saved lives. They organized themselves without the government and they were better organized. It is time that the Bush administration (who are big government conservatives) to recognize this fact.

Three Prongs Approach to Victory in Iraq

2005-08-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

There is a question by critics of The War in Iraq that what constitutes success. It is a fair question and deserved a good and honest answer – something that the administration so far has failed to do. So I will offer my amateur and novice opinion. My thinking is partially based on the experience in Iraq.

Victory in Iraq for us requires a success in a three prongs attack: (1) the political prong, (2) the economic prong, (3) the military prong. All three aspects (or at least two out of three) are needed to ensure long term success.

On the Political prong, Iraq requires a viable government – a democratically elected government that is self-sustaining with a strong political institution (executive, legislative and judicial). The Economic front Iraq need a sustainable economy with basic services and basic infrastructure. On the Military front, Iraq needs an armed force that can handle the insurgency on its own (with limited US assistance of course). Lacking any of the three factors put the future of Iraq (and the Middle East) at great risk.

Of course this is only a thesis. I will elaborate the idea further tomorrow and also assess where we are on each of the criteria.

Stolen Identity

2005-08-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

I am at loss to find a word to describe my political orientation. To be precise, I should refer to myself as a liberal. But that political identity was stolen in the 30s by socialists. And it now means the very opposite. It no longer means free market, and less government but more government and virulent anti-market.

And lately I cannot call myself a conservative anymore because term is also stolen by people who think conservatism means expanding entitlement and the promotion of the welfare state. Who would have thought that with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, we would be expanding our entitlement programs at an unprecedented rate? What happen to the old face of the Republican Party? Remember Newt Gingrich and “The Contract With America” advocating smaller government. Today, the face of the conservative today is Rick Santorum on CSPAN advocating more government spending while lambasting fiscal conservatives.

Instead of finding a market solution for the high cost in subscription drugs (and the high cost in medical care), Mr. Bush decide to throw money at it by adding another entitlement on the already expensive entitlement. In fact, the President has done little in the last five years to promote market. The medicare reform was anything but a reform.

This editorial of the Washington Post highlight the problem.
Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to what was generally known at the time as the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress. But on Wednesday Mr. Bush signed a transportation bill containing no fewer than 6,371 earmarks.
Has anyone notice that President Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill?

The nation is at war. It faces large expenses for homeland security. It is about to go through a demographic transition that will strain important entitlement programs. How can this president -- an allegedly conservative president -- believe that the federal government should spend money on the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana? Or on the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan? The bill Mr. Bush has signed devotes more than $24 billion to such earmarked projects, continuing a trend in which the use of earmarks has spread steadily each year. Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?

And I am not buying the war on terrorism excuse. The Economist reveals the number.

The explanation among Republicans is the war on terror. Surely you need to spend more on defence when the country is under attack? Surely you need a stronger federal government when terrorists are trying to kill you? As the Cato Institute shows, this is tripe. Even if you strip out spending on defence and homeland security, Mr Bush still wins the prize as the biggest booster of public spending for three decades.

With Republican becoming Democrat and Democrats becoming Socialist, I am not sure what to call myself.

The Economic of Arranged Marriage

2005-08-27T13:26:00.000-07:00

My parents were the first wave of marriage that was not previously arranged. But many of their contemporaries were still arranged marriages. I have always thought (and still do) that arranged marriage is unnatural and oppressive. However, I have met many who were genuinely happily marriage despite not knowing their spouses before the wedding dates.

The rate of failure is actually higher among chosen marriages than arranged marriage. I thought long and hard about it. And I think I have a theory on why. And the theory has to do with economic than anything else. Let first set a unit for happiness in term of utility. And let assume that the maximum utility is 10 which is maximum happiness, the minimum is negative ten which is maximum unhappiness, and of course zero is a neutral value where one is neither happy nor unhappy.

The reason that arranged marriage work well is because of the expectation in happiness. Most people expected their marriage to a stranger forced on by their parent to be extremely miserable – something akin to slavery. But when they were married, it does not seem to be so bad, or not as bad as they thought. On the other hand, people who married out of loves expected their union with their loves one to be blissful; often the expectation were rarely met. Their idealism was destroyed by the reality of marriage.

Let put this into the equation. An arranged marriage couples probably expect their marriage with a happiness utility value of negative ten – they expect a hellish existence. Most couples married out of love expect their marriage with a happiness utility value of positive ten – heavenly existence. Of course reality is far from expectation. In an arranged married, the actual happiness utility is closer to positive once, hence a couple in an arranged married gain eleven points in happiness utility. In a marriage out of loves, the actual happiness utility is close to positive four, and the couple lost six points in happiness utility.

Since the expectation in an arranged marriage is a negative ten (the lowest possible point), the couple in an arranged marriage cannot loose, they can only gain in reality. Unless one lived under Saddam Iraq, nothing in life can be equal to negative ten. Even with a reality of negative six, they still gain four points. They always end up better than they expect. In a marriage out of love, the expectation is positive ten (the highest possible point) which means they can only loose. This probably explain why second marriage is often better than the first one, people often lower their expectation the second times around.

This is of course only an exercise of the intellect. I am by no mean advocate arranged marriage. I still think people should marry out of love. Afterall, my parents are still married. But I do advocate lower one expectation.

Clueless on Originalism

2005-08-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

Kevin Drum on originalism:

ORIGINALISM....Of all the pillars of modern conservatism, the one that has long struck me as the most obviously absurd is the doctrine of originalism. Think about it. Are we really supposed to take seriously the idea that the Supreme Court of 2005 — in an era of spyware, genetic mapping, and billion dollar hedge funds — is supposed to make its judgments based on divining the intent of a small group of men who lived in a simple agrarian community 200 years ago? Presented baldly, it's an idea that wouldn't pass muster with a bright 10 year old.

Marc Lynch even compares Originalism to Islamic Salafism.

… Originalism - or the "original intent" approach to Constitutional jurisprudence - sounds very, very familiar to these Middle East expert ears. Basically, it sounds like
Islamic fundamentalist (salafi) jurisprudence.
Islamic jurisprudence after the passing of Mohammed revolved around establishing procedures for interpreting the Quranic message. For most Muslims, this expanded to include the "hadith", or stories about the life and sayings of the Prophet. Competing schools of jurisprudence argued over what sources could be considered legitimate, how to interpret the meaning of the text of the Quran and the Hadith. Elaborate rules were created for establishing the "authenticity" of various hadith - who first told the story, the chain of transmission, how to adjudicate different versions of the same story. Over the course of Islamic history, an enormous and complex body of interpetation and jurisprudence accumulated, divided into distinct
schools. The Islamic reformers - the original salafis - in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - called to sweep away these centuries of accumulated traditions and return directly to the text of the Quran and authentic hadith.

Kevin and Marc are both wrong. For such intellectuals, they fail miserably in understanding constitutional philosophies. Originalists do not believe that the constitution is base on the intent of the founding fathers. Rather it should be interpret literally. This does not mean that the constitution cannot be changed or written in stone. It can be changed through the amendment process. In fact the constitution should be changed to adapt to the time.

However the responsibility for amending the constitution is a legislative responsibility, not a judicial one. Even if a certain provision/article of the constitution is out-of-step with modernity or even outright unjust; Jurists should interpret it as it is written. If the provision/article is unjust, the decision will highlight the injustice. And the outrage electorates will force their elected legislators to amend the provision/article. This process ensure that legislators are responsible toward the electorates and ensure that the new article/provision receive have consensus within society.

Activist judges by interpret the constitution as they see fit, prevent the constitution from being properly amended. The greatest harm of judicial activism is that they takes the debate away from the public realm and prevent the people from participating in the constitutional process.

India-US Defense Cooperation

2005-08-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

As I have predicted warming tie between the US and India. Today, Defense News came out with this article (subscription requires).

August 23, 2005
India, U.S. Prepare To Discuss Weapon Buys (By Vivek Raghuvanshi, New Delhi)
Indian and U.S. officials will discuss the possible sale to New Delhi of U.S. weaponry — including Aegis missile systems, an amphibious platform dock ship, anti-submarine patrol aircraft and Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 air defense systems — when Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, the Pentagon's Defense Cooperation Security Agency chief, visits here next month.
Indian Defence Ministry sources said arming Indian destroyers with anti-submarine patrol aircraft and Aegis missile systems would help the ships detect Chinese submarines operating in the Indian Ocean region. India also considers purchase of an anti-ballistic air defense system like the PAC-3 or the Israeli-U.S. Arrow-2 a priority, and money is not an issue, a Defence Ministry official said.
The meeting between Kohler and senior Indian Defence Ministry officials will be the first since the two countries agreed to begin cooperating on civilian nuclear efforts here during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to United States in July.
Kohler will give officials here a classified technical briefing on the PAC-3, F-16 and F-18 multirole, multirange combat aircraft.
Officials also will discuss India's possible purchase of the USS Trenton, a decommissioned Austin-class amphibious transport dock, used to transport large numbers of troops over long distances. An Indian Navy official, however, said the Trenton is not in good condition.
The Indian Navy also wants to buy U.S. Aegis combat systems for its ships. The Navy official said the system can monitor large areas of the Indian Ocean, keeping an eye on Chinese ships and submarines there. The Aegis system can defend Indian sea-based assets from short-and long-range missiles, added the Navy official, who strongly advocated the purchase of this system.
Defence Ministry officials said Aug. 23 that the government likely will buy the Aegis system even though similar systems are available from other sources in the world at a cheaper price.

Of course this is only preliminary discussion and there was no concrete agreement. However such a scenario was unthinkable only a decade ago. Critics of the administration often cite poor relation with Western Europe as an example of poor diplomacy. But even under Clinton, the supposedly diplomatic President, India and the US had a cold and distance relationship. They fail to see that under the realignment of world politic, it is necessary for the US to be closer to some and further to others. Warming tie with the most populous democracy is a very encouraging sign. I would encourage the administration to work even harder at building trust and friendship with India.

The Military and the Left

2005-08-23T16:15:00.000-07:00

I wish more liberals have the view of Rosa Brooks of the LA Times – or at least listen to her. She may have identified the one of the problem why the Left is viewed as weak on National Security. That is why independent voters distrust the Left when it comes to the security of the United States.

That's why I've started urging all the bright young liberals I meet to join the military.
Sure, U.S. military policy is flawed in many respects. But that's not a reason for progressives to shun the military. On the contrary, it's one of the main reasons that liberals need to reexamine their long-standing aversion to military service.
There is a significant and growing gap between military and civilian cultures. While about a third of the general public identifies themselves as Democrats and another third as Republicans, a January 2005 Military Times poll found that 60% of military respondents were Republicans, 17% were independents and only 13% were Democrats.
A generation ago, the military was far less partisan in its composition: A plurality (46%) called themselves independents, while only 33% were Republicans. On numerous key social and religious issues, military personnel today are far more conservative than the typical American.
In today's polarized political atmosphere, anyone who finds this troubling needs to be willing to work for change from inside the military, not just from the outside. Otherwise, the cultural and political gap between the military and civilian society will only widen.

The Left can scream “chickenhawk” all they want. The fact remain is that overwhelming number of men and women in uniforms are Republican. More pathetic is the second largest bloc of voters in the military is independent, with self-identified Democrats trailing last. This is also a well known fact among all voters. It is no surprise that Post September 11th, swing voters decide that the political choice most warriors make is the right choice.

If the Democrats are smart (but they are not), they would try to peel away this bloc of military voters hence significant weaken the Republican Party. A similar strategy works for the Republican Party concerning minority votes. By winning a very small percentile of Black voters (a gain of merely two percents), Republicans weaken the Democrats in the 2000 and 2004 election. To repeat this strategy for the Democrats requires the Left to treat the military with more respect.

The military bloc is not difficult to peel away from. Most members of the military are Republican because of national security issue (the very same reason they join the armed services). The other conservative issues are far less important to them. Many of those Republicans (including me) are not social conservatives. But many think the Democrats are a bunch of candy-assed sissies. Of course, there are muscular Democrats who are friendly toward the military (Joe Lieberman comes to mind). But they are a small and marginalized bloc of the party. The Democratic Party is most representative by the Moveon.org and Howard Dean, not Sam Nunn. And of course my point is immediately proven. A self identified liberal wrote a responding letter to the LA Times.

An unwillingness to participate in the killing of innocent civilians, known in military parlance as "collateral damage," is a key reason for low enlistment rates among those who consider themselves liberal. Conspicuously absent from Rosa Brooks' recruitment broadside is any mention of such killing in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Having a different sense of compassion and a stronger belief in diplomacy, liberals share with revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine distaste for what he called "offensive war" but would doubtlessly sign up if the American homeland is imminently threatened. President Bush joins Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon as a leader who has failed to make the case.
RALPH GOLDSTEIN
Altadena

Ralph Goldstein is a typical Democrat not Rosa Brooks. Ralph probably opposed the war in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia as well. It exposes another thing about the Left. It is a blatant lie when Leftists anti-war groups claim that they oppose only the War in Iraq. They opposed all wars, even the one which the US saved millions from genocides (Bosnia and Kosovo) or when the US was directly attacked (Afghanistan). And I have no doubt they will oppose any military action in Darfur.

Of course, I am not gloating about the number of Republicans in the military despite being one myself. It is an expression of great concern. If it is unhealthy for the Black community to vote overwhelmingly Democratic; then it is equally unhealthy for the military when most of them vote Republican. It is also unhealthy for the Republican Party when the party has no strong opposition. The country needs a strong opposition Party that is not on crack. But I am very pessimistic about the state of the Democratic Party and the prospect of them supporting the military.

Another issue in reverse is former and current military joining entity associate with liberal leftwing cause – such as the Peace Corp. Colman McCarthy wrote an op-ed on the Washington Post arguing that the Peace Corp should encourage former soldiers to join the Corp instead of opposing it (as they are currently doing). And not to neglect academia, I also propose a closer interaction between the military and college campus. Thucydides said that "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." This is why we produce such dismal academics such as Juan Cole or Ward Churchill. It is essential that Ivy League institutions bring back ROTC programs and encourage their student to serve in the military after graduation. And the Pentagon is not entirely blameless either. For years, the Pentagon has created an anti-intellectual culture. This is why General Abizaid ascendancy was noticed by many Pentagon observers as unique and exceptional, not because the General was of Middle East descent, but that he was a scholar. The Pentagon should take step to recruit more officers from Ivy League institutions and in the process bring an end to the separation between academia and the military. It would benefit the country greatly when a scholar and a warrior is the same man.

Mrs. Vincent responding to Juan Cole

2005-08-22T14:16:00.000-07:00

Murdoc Online posts a letter of Mrs. Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, the wife of the brave journalist Steven Vincent. Her letter was a respond to the disgusting comment made by Juan Cole. (For your information, despite claiming to be an expert on Iraq, Juan Cole has never been to there). I reposts the Mrs. Vincent letter here in its entirety. She deserves to be heard.

"Was American journalist Steve Vincent killed in Basra as part of an honor killing? He was romantically involved with his Iraqi interpreter, who was shot 4 times. If her clan thought she was shaming them by appearing to be having an affair outside wedlock with an American male, they might well have decided to end it. In Mediterranean culture, a man's honor tends to be wrought up with his ability to protect his womenfolk from seduction by strange men. Where a woman of the family sleeps around, it brings enormous shame on her father, brothers and cousins, and it is not unknown for them to kill her. These sentiments and this sort of behavior tend to be rural and to hold among the uneducated, but are not unknown in urban areas. Vincent did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture and was aggressive about criticizing what he could see of it on the surface, and if he was behaving in the way the Telegraph article describes, he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner." [This was posted by Juan Cole not soon after the death of Mr. Vincent]

Mr. Cole -

(I refuse to call you professor, because that would ennoble you. And please change the name of your blog to "Uninformed Comment", because that is precisely what the above paragraph is.)

I would like to refute this shameful post against a dead man who can no longer defend himself against your scurrilous accusations, a dead man who also happened to be my husband. Steven Vincent and I were together for 23 years, married for 13 of them, and I think I know him a wee bit better than you do.

For starters, Steven and Nour were not "romantically involved". If you knew anything at all about the Middle East, as you seem to think you do, then you would know that there is no physical way that he and she could have ever been alone together. Nour (who always made sure to get home before dark, so they were never together at night) could not go to his room; he could not go to her house; there was no hot-sheet motel for them to go to for a couple of hours. They met in public, they went about together in public, they parted in public. They were never alone. She would not let him touch her arm, pay her a compliment, buy her a banana on the street, hyper-aware of how such gestures might be interpreted by the misogynistic cretins who surrounded her daily. So for you brazenly claim that she was "sleeping around," when there is no earthly way you could possibly know that, suggests to me that you are quite the misogynist as well. Cheap shot, Mr. Cole, against a remarkable woman who does not in any wise deserve it.

This is not to say that Steven did not love Nour - he did. And he was quite upfront about it to me. But it was not sexual love - he loved her for her courage, her bravery, her indomitable spirit in the face of the Muslim thugs who have oppressed their women for years. To him she represented a free and democratic Iraq, and all of the hopes he had for that still-elusive creature. And he loved her for the help she gave him - endangering herself by affiliating with him because she wanted the truth to come out about what was happening in her native city of Basra and the surrounding area. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that it is possible to love someone in a strictly platonic way, but I assure you, it can happen - even between men and women.

And yes, he was planning to to convert to Islam and marry Nour, but only to take her out of the country to England, where she had a standing job offer, set her up with the friends she had over there, divorce her, and come back to New York. He had gotten her family's permission to do so (thereby debunking the "honor killing" theory), but more importantly, he had gotten mine. He called one night to say that it had been intimated to him that Nour's life was essentially going to be worthless after he left; since he was an honorable man (a breed you might want to familiarize yourself with), he then asked what I thought he might do to help her. I told him to get her out of the country and bring her here to New York. However, the only way she could have left Iraq was with a family member or husband. Since her family had no intention of going anywhere, Steven was her only recourse, and it would have been perfectly legal for him to convert, marry her, then take her out of Iraq to give her a chance at a real life. (Now that that avenue is closed to her, I have made inquiries to the State Department about the possibility of my sponsoring her in America. Do you perhaps labor under the misapprehension I am such a spineless cuckold that I would put myself out thusly for the woman you believe my husband was traducing me with? If so, I'm guessing you don't know much about the Sicilian female temperament.)

As to your claim that "In Mediterranean culture, a man's honor tends to be wrought up with his ability to protect his womenfolk from seduction by strange men", it may perhaps have escaped your notice that Iraq does not abut, in any way, shape or form, the Mediterranean Sea. Italy is a Mediterranean culture, as are Spain, Greece, Southern France. In none of them is "honor killing" an accepted form of "protecting womanhood". As to the southerly lands like Morocco and Algeria, they are not, in the general scheme of things, considered Mediterranean cultures - they are considered Arabic, a whole different beast. For you to seemingly be unaware of this, and then to say that my husband "did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture" again begs the question, just where do you get off? If you cannot differentiate between Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures, how is it you feel qualified to pontificate so pompously?

How often have you been to the Middle East, Mr. Cole? In 2000 Steven and I spent almost a month in Iran on vacation. In 2003 we spent 10 days over Christmas in Jordan. In the last 2 years he had made not one, not two, but three trips to Iraq, and at the time of his death had about 7 months of daily living there under his belt. Can you offer comparables?

How much Arabic do you speak, Mr. Cole? Steven had been learning Arabic for the last two years, and was able to converse simply but effectively with the people he came into contact with. He had many expatriate friends in the Muslim world from whom he was always learning. As I sit here writing this at what was his desk, I can look at the literally dozens of books he devoured about Islam and the Middle East - each one thick with Post-It notes and personal observations he made in the pages - as he sought to comprehend and absorb the complexities of the culture and the religion he felt, and cared, so deeply about. If you would like a list of them, please email me back and I will be happy to send you a comprehensive accounting.

Yes, Steven was aggressive in criticizing what he saw around him and did not like. It's called courage, and it happens to be a tradition in the history of this country. Without this tradition there would have been no Revolutionary War, no Civil War, no civil rights movement, no a lot of things that America can be proud of. He had made many friends in Iraq, and was afraid for them if the religious fundamentalists were given the country to run under shari'a. You may dismiss that as naive, simplistic, foolish, but I say to you, as you sit safely in your ivory tower in Michigan with nothing threatening your comfy, tenured existence, that you should be ashamed at the depths to which you have sunk by libeling Steven and Nour. They were on the front lines, risking all, in an attempt to call attention to the growing storm threatening to overwhelm a fragile and fledgling experiment in democracy, trying to get the world to see that all was not right in Iraq. And for their efforts, Steven is dead and Nour is recuperating with three bullet wound in her back. Yes, that's right - the "honorable" men who abducted them, after binding them, holding them captive and beating them, set them free, told them to run - and then shot them both in the back. I've seen the autopsy report.

You did not know him - you did not have that honor, and you will never have the chance, thanks to the murderous goons for whom you have appointed yourself an apologist. He was a brilliant, erudite, witty, charming, kind, generous, silly, funny, decent, honorable and complex man, who loved a good cigar, Bombay Sapphire gin martinis, Marvel Silver Age comic books, Frank Sinatra, opera and grossing me out with bathroom humor. And if he was acting in a dangerous manner, he had a very good excuse - he was utterly exhausted. He had been in Basra for 3 months under incredibly stressful conditions, working every day, and towards the end enduring heat of 135 degrees, often without air conditioning, which could not have helped his mental condition or judgment. He was yearning to come home, as his emails to me made crystal clear. But on August 2nd, two days before my birthday, he made the fatal mistake of walking one block - one - from his hotel to the money exchange, rather than take a cab, and now will never come back to me. I got a bouquet of flowers from him on August 4th, which he had ordered before he died, and the card said he was sorry to miss my birthday, but the flowers would stand in his stead until he made it home. They are drying now in the kitchen, the final gift from my soulmate.

I did not see your blog until tonight. I was busy doing other things - fighting the government to get Steven's body returned from Basra days after I was told he would be sent home, planning the funeral, buying a cemetery plot, choosing the clothes to bury him in, writing the prayer card, fending off the media, dealing with his aging parents, waking and then burying him - but I could not let the calumnies you posted so freely against two total strangers go unchallenged.

You strike me as a typical professor - self-opinionated, arrogant, so sure of the rightness of your position that you won't even begin to consider someone else's. I would suggest that you ought to be ashamed of yourself for your breathtaking presumption in eviscerating Steven in death and disparaging Nour in life, but, like any typical professor, I have no doubt that you are utterly shameless.

Sincerely,

Lisa Ramaci-Vincent

China Carrier Program

2005-08-21T18:34:00.000-07:00

To those who are holding on to the belief that China military expansion is merely defensive; here is a piece from Jane’s Defense Weekly (subscription is required). It cost several hundred dollars to subscribe to Jane so I will do a favor to all readers by posting the article in full follow by my own comment. Article follows.

Is China Building A Carrier?

By Yihong Chang, JDW Correspondent & Andrew Koch, JDW Bureau Chief,Hong Kong & Washington, DC

Chinese shipyard workers have been repairing a badly damaged ex-Russian aircraft carrier and have repainted it with the country's military markings, raising the question once again of whether China is pursuing longer-term plans to field its first carrier.

In the latest developments, images show that workers at the Chinese Dalian Shipyard have repainted the ex-Russian Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Varyag with the markings and colour scheme of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy (PLAN). Additional new photographs show that other work, the specifics of which could not be determined, appears to be continuing and that the condition of the vessel is being improved.

JDW believes that PLAN technicians have also conducted thorough studies of the basic structure of the Varyag during the past few years to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the carrier's structural design. Former PLAN commander General Liu Huaqing stated in his memoirs that China had purchased blueprints for the carrier - a fact that Russian sources confirmed to JDW. Moreover, Gen Huaqing added: "The competent departments of the defence industry employed Russian aircraft carrier designers to come to China and give lectures."

Gen Huaqing noted that "meanwhile, a certain amount of aircraft carrier design documents were also introduced into China, which helped [China] to make some progress in the preliminary research of the key equipment of [an] aircraft carrier. [PLA] Headquarters of General Staff and the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence organised constant analysis, evaluation andassessment of the related study trips, import projects and preliminary
Still, China's ultimate intentions for the Varyag remain unclear. Onepossibility is that Beijing intends to eventually have it enter intosome level of service. A military strategist from a Chinese militaryuniversity has commented publicly that the Varyag "would be China's first aircraft carrier".

It is possible that the PLAN will modify the Varyag into a trainingaircraft carrier. A US intelligence official said the vessel could bemade seaworthy again with enough time, effort and resources. However,US defence officials said that repairing the Varyag to become fullyoperational would be an extraordinarily large task. The carrier wasabout 70 per cent complete at the time of transfer and sensitiveportions were destroyed, including damage to the core structure,before China was permitted to take possession. Given the difficultyand expense, it is questionable whether Beijing would pursue theeffort only to use the Varyag as a training platform; such a movecould, however, mark a transitional phase en route to a fullyoperational capability.

Another possibility is that China does, indeed, plan to repair thevessel to become its first seagoing aircraft carrier or use knowledgegained from it for an indigenously built carrier programme. The US intelligence official said such an outcome "is certainly apossibility" if China is seeking a blue- water navy capable ofprotecting long-range national interests far from its shores such assea lanes in the Strait of Malacca. If this strategy were to befollowed, China would have to reinstate the structural integritydegraded before delivery and study the structural design of the carrier's deck. These two activities, along with the blueprints andthe ship itself, could be used to design an indigenous carrier. Such a plan would very likely be a long-term project preceded by the development of smaller vessels such as amphibious landing ships.

Despite the obvious controversy a Chinese aircraft carrier would entail, some US retired and active military officials say they are not troubled by the move as it would siphon off resources from other PLAN projects they view with greater concern. These include anti-access capabilities for use in a future conflict over Taiwan such as fielding more diesel-electric submarines, anti-ship cruise missile platforms and ballistic missiles with manoeuvring warheads that navy officials’ project could be capable of targeting US warships from sometime around 2015. Retired US Navy Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, an expert on the Chinese military and former US military attaché to that country, said it would be a little surprising if China were seriously pursuing a carrier as up to now Beijing has focused on improving its anti-access capabilities in a Taiwan crisis scenario - a situation in which a Chinese carrier would be of marginal value.

US defence and military officials were also sceptical, noting that fielding a Chinese carrier would be years in the making and entail significant time and resources far beyond just the vessel and its air wing. They noted, for example, that China would have to learn how to conduct integrated carrier operations with the rest of the fleet, including having to acquire the requisite escorts. It would also need to learn how to conduct maritime patrols away from shore and controlthose from the carrier. Past Russian and US experiences show these are not easily, cheaply or quickly accomplished.

Whatever the ultimate plan, the moves would appear to discredit China's original claim that Macao's Agencia Turisticae Diversoes Chong Lot Limitada purchased the Varyag with the intention of converting it into a 'floating casino'. [End of article]

COMMENT:

JDW put forth a few hypotheses for the activities surrounding the Varyag. (1) That China is finishing the carrier for its navy. (2) Using the carrier, in addition to the blueprint, as a study for an indigenous carrier design. (3) Or that it is used for a training platform. Regardless, it is clear that China is intending to possess a carrier capability. The questions are how and when.

This destroys the wishful theory that China ambition is limited to Taiwan. China does not need carriers to invade Taiwan. Taiwan is well within striking distance of all Chinese aircrafts. The carrier is intended for neighbor further away such as Malaysia, Indonesia, or the Philippines. I am not suggested that China want to annex these countries. But possession of carrier(s) increase China military project a hundred folds its current capability making intimidation far more effective.

What is most disturbing about the article is not China’s intention but this sentence: “US defence and military officials were also sceptical, noting that fielding a Chinese carrier would be years in the making and entail significant time and resources far beyond just the vessel and its air wing.” We must not forget that Defense and military officials prior to September 11th, 2001 were skeptical that Al-Qaeda has the capability to strike at the US homeland. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. China is developing at a phenomenon rate. In fact in the Eastern Coast of China, technology skipped several phases that Western countries had to go through. No one ten years ago could have predicted such the proliferation of technology in China. And no one can predict where it will go ten years from today. Let not underestimate our potential competitor.

A Short Break

2005-08-18T18:42:00.000-07:00

There are many things I want to comment on - the Gaza, Iraqi Constitution, and Cindy Sheehan. However my sister is getting married this Saturday and there is much to do. I apologize to my readers. I will resume blogging on Sunday.

My Favorite Hayek(s)

2005-08-17T14:43:00.000-07:00

I have a dilemma. Being both a lover of beautiful women and brainy economists (as well as a hardcore free-market defender), I cannot decide which of the two Hayek(s) I love more – Salma or Friedrich. The later stimulates my intellect; the former stimulates my _____ (you know what). Of course, I have seen most of the movies that feature the gorgeous Salma but read only one book of Friedrich (The Road to Serfdom).

Luckily, this website of Glen Whitman keeps the score – Friedrich win by one point. Regardless, you will not see me post any picture of the 101 years old and very dead Nobel laureate. However, I will post plenty picture of Salma.

Pacifism for Pacifism Sake

2005-08-16T15:06:00.000-07:00

Ayako Doi and Kim Willenson wrote an alarmist op-ed on the Washington Post warning that Japan is loosing its spirit of Pacifism.

Since 9/11, Japan has shifted further away from pacifism. Starting in late 2001, it employed a task force of destroyers and fleet oilers to the Indian Ocean to help the allied fleet support operations in Afghanistan. And a few months after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein's government, Tokyo sent about 1,000 troops to establish and support a small force in southern Iraq that so far has avoided combat.
The emergence of a Japanese will to get back into the military game, even in a carefully nonviolent way, has stirred fears in Beijing, Seoul and Pyongyang. Koreans only too well remember the oppression and humiliation they suffered under Japanese colonial rule from 1910 to 1945, while the Chinese will never forget the hundreds of thousands killed in the 15-year conflict between China and Japan that began in the early 1930s and culminated in the second Sino-Japanese war.

Both Doi and Willenson both imply that Japan is sliding back toward militarism and imperialism of the 30s. This is complete nonsense. Doi and Willeson made the sad mistake of using the slippery slope fallacy. World War II was a long time ago. The chance of Japan going back to militarism is equal to that of Northern European countries going back to the period of pillage and plunder of their Viking ancestors. Northern European countries have participated in many military operations worldwide – Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan just to name a few. We still have not seen any Viking long ships raiding European coasts.

The fact is that for many years, Japan was a prosperous first world country, but without the responsibility of one. In a globalize economy, Japan was and is the main beneficiary of world stability. However, Japan contributed very little in relation to its wealth. Australia with a much smaller economy and much smaller size, contributed disproportionally. Australia took the lead in East Timor, participated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and numerous other missions around the world. It is time for Japan to step up to the plate and share the burden. It is inherently unfair to other countries otherwise. Japan recent action should be seen as an encouraging sign.

All of this has marginalized Japanese pacifism. The government last year embarked on a plan to revise the occupation-era constitution with support from a majority of the public. Earlier this month, a panel of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) proposed to drop the renunciation of war as a national principle, to do away with the ban on maintaining "land, sea and air forces" and to revive "the right of belligerency of the state."
………
Tokyo's "reinterpretation" of the constitution to permit things that the document plainly forbids has certainly improved Tokyo's relations with Washington, which were strained over economic and trade issues during the Clinton administration. Today, officials of both governments describe them as never better. But Japan's new militarism has made relations with Beijing and Seoul the worst in recent memory. That in turn is making East Asia look suddenly and unexpectedly volatile, after 30 or more post-Vietnam years of relative stability.

Doi and Willenson are acting as if the abandonment of strict Pacifism is the end of the world. Hundred of countries reserve the right to wage war but few of them embrace militarism or expansionism. Let be clear. Japan is not the cause for instability in the Pacific – North Korea and China is. To think otherwise is simply crazy or delusional. Japan is a liberal democracy with strong political and economic institutions. And Japan has a record of treating other country in an equitable and fair manner. This cannot be said of its critics. I have written about China attitude toward its neighbor here before. It treats it neighbor in a superior-subordinate fashion. In fact, since the 50s, China had fought with every single neighbor that shares its border. It has brutally subjugated Tibet and massacred its own citizens. It financed and armed the Khmer Rouge. And it has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan. Furthermore, China has continued to extent its support to despotic regimes in Burma and Sudan. And since the end of World War II, North Korea have brutally invaded South Korea, sent troops to fight in Vietnam, and oppressed its citizens. North Korea constitutes a grave threat to the Pacific and the world.

These are the reasons that Japan should (and the world should encourage Japan) to drop the archaic and obsolete “pacifism” clause in its constitution and take its rightful place among the nations of the world. Let not have pacifism for pacifism sake.

Middle East Reform: Revolution versus Evolution

2005-08-11T17:32:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that the Middle East need serious reform. I have addressed the reason for the rise of Islamism here – that it is a reaction to tyranny in the region. The issue is at what pace. Do we want drastic change like we did in Iraq – with all the risks and uncertainty involves? Or do we want incremental change?

The answer is depended. It depends on the level of willingness of the regime to implement change and how much persuasive power do we have over the regime in question. Let looks at Saudi Arabia. There is no doubt that we all abhor the social-political condition in the kingdom. But many (particularly on the Left) often use Saudi Arabia to oppose our war in Iraq. They state that the Saudi Arabia is as oppressive as or even more so than Iraq. The comparison in term of level of oppression is impossible and irrelevant.

As I state earlier, it depends on the level of willingness of the regime to implement change and the persuasive power we have over the regime. Saddam Iraq was irredeemable. There was no possibility that Saddam would ever reform his country regardless how much the world put pressure on him. The Saudi (and to some extent Mubarak) has showed some willingness to reform. It is extremely slow but it is happening. And in the case of Saudi Arabia, Westerners see the reform as miniscule and negligent. But putting in the political context of an extremely reactionary and fundamentalist country, the reform is a major step – if not historical and unprecedented. From the Economist (subscription is required):

The late King Fahd moved cautiously to modernise the economy and made the first tiny steps towards a semblance of democracy by appointing a consultative council. Crown Prince Abdullah expanded the council and even allowed it to question ministers—within limits. More recently, he let half the seats on the country's toothless local councils be elected on multi-candidate (though non-party) slates, with women excluded from both voting and standing.

Of course, compare to our modern democracy, the reform seem insignificant. The Saudi is using the “crawl, walk, and run” incremental stages. And at this stage, it is crawling at the pace of a snail – but it is crawling nonetheless. We would like to see women driving and having more rights – but this is better than nothing.

And this is not the only reform ongoing.

So too have small but real reformist measures, such as privatising and opening chunks of the economy, purging schoolbooks of hate-mongering material and this year's holding of municipal elections.

And the death of King Fahd should facilitate the process of reform (another Economist’s article).

Abdullah, crown prince for 23 years, assumed the throne automatically and immediately named his half-brother, the long-serving defence minister, Prince Sultan, aged 80 or so, as his successor. In the past the pair have been seen as bitter rivals, with the more reform-minded Abdullah being serially thwarted by Sultan's powerful Sudairi branch of the family, named after King Abdel Aziz's favourite wife. Abdullah may be too frail to push hard for change, but any initiatives he does take may meet less resistance, now that Sultan is assured of eventual accession.

Of course, we should not leave the reform process in the hand of the House of Saud. They went forward with reform because we put pressure on them. Steady pressure is needed to keep up the pace of reform.

Mr Bush should now urge the new king to move a lot faster than he dared to do as crown prince—for instance, by bringing in a more tolerant educational system, facing down the most bigoted clerics, widening the scope of representative government, opening the budget to scrutiny, curbing royal privilege, giving women a voice and a vote, and sowing a culture of tolerance, pluralism and debate. The consultative council should become a properly elected parliament, perhaps with a college of princes serving as an upper chamber. In the end—“ready” or not—Saudis have as much right to democracy as Iraqis, or indeed anyone else.

India – A Case Study for Democracy Promotion

2005-08-10T19:26:00.000-07:00

Critics of democracy promotion often raise the fear of either a hostile regime to the US or a religious or ultra-nationalist party will be elected to office. They fear that a Shiite theocracy will rise in Iraq or that an Islamists government will replace the government of Saudi Arabia or Egypt. These critics exist both on the Left as well as the Right (I call them paleo-conservatives). Perhaps a case study is needed to put to rest the alarmists.

A recent article in the Economist cites the case of India. This article does not require subscription – so read the whole thing. I would like to draw readers’ attention to 1998 when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lead coalition came into power. The BJP is a Hindu Extremist Party that advocates “Hindutva” – a xenophobic ideology. It publicly wants to establish “a Hindu state and Hindu glory.” It is important to remember that the Party was responsible for instigating anti-Muslim riot and destroying Islamic mosques. The BJP ascendancy worried many – including this blogger. I was quite shaken by the event at the time and became unsure of my commitment to Democracy. But in 2004, the BJP lost the election to Congress Party and is in steady decline.

The Economist analyzes the Party demise.

…Yet an Indian news magazine last month splashed across its cover the question: “Is the party over?”
It is not alone in asking. The BJP is going through more than a bad patch. Its continuing quarrel with its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), or National Association of Volunteers, calls into question the party's purpose. Is its main aim to win elections or to promote the RSS's ideology of Hindutva, (Hindu-ness)? Adherents of the organisation portray Hindutva as a demand for equality, in that it would end the special arrangements, such as their own family-law system, enjoyed by India's 150m Muslims. The Muslims fear that Hindutva's aim is to promote Hinduism over Islam.

The Economist offers two theories. The first is…

…Many in the BJP believe that “with a narrow Hindu-only approach, [the BJP] will never occupy the dominant position in Indian politics that the Congress once enjoyed.” Those words come from a paper written in March by Sudheendra Kulkarni, then an aide to Mr Advani. Most observers outside the Hindu “family” agree with his analysis. They blame the BJP's poor electoral performance last year in part on the bloody anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 in Gujarat, a BJP-ruled state, and its failure to take action against Narendra Modi, Gujarat's chief minister, whose government was accused of complicity in the violence. The BJP's identification with hardline Hindutva, it is argued, cost votes.

The second theory is argued most vigorous by Hindutva’s adherents.

However, other party members and RSS leaders argue the exact opposite: that the problem was that, in office, the BJP was not Hindu enough. To forge a governing coalition, it had agreed not to pursue the three big Hindutva demands: the building of the Ayodhya temple, a matter it left to the courts; the adoption of a uniform civil law to supplant Muslim family law; and the revocation of the special constitutional status of Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state.
The Hindu right argues that it was the failure to deliver results on these demands that alienated the BJP's core voters and demoralised its activists. Prafull Goradia, a former member of Parliament for the Jan Sangh, the BJP's forerunner, calls the notion that moderation is the only way of coming to power “absolute hogwash”. He argues that the RSS should end its reliance on the BJP alone and “license” more Hindu parties. This, he insists, would increase the total Hindu vote.

This is similar to the US Democratic Party argues that it lost three elections in the row because it was not liberal enough – the argument put forth by Howard “The Socialist” Dean. It is delusional talk. The BJP was plenty Hindutva and the Democratic Party was plenty liberal.

The BJP defeat was due to more pragmatic reason – because they governed badly. It was easy to blame the incumbent when on is the opposition. Most extremist parties can talks the good talk. But once coming to power, extremist parties are often cannot govern wisely. Their radical ideology prevents them from implement practical and common sense measures. Getting the train to run on time is easier said than done. The Indians soon became delusional with the BJP.

Furthermore, records have shown that when radical parties participate in politic – they become less radical and more pragmatic in the process. Electoral politic tend to moderate people. This can be easily seen in the BJP after their defeat. The BJP had moderated the rhetoric significantly.

The RSS's row with the BJP centres on Lal Krishna Advani, president of the party and leader of the opposition. Mr Advani upset “family” members on a visit to Pakistan in June. He praised Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Islamic country's founder, and said he was sad about the destruction, in 1992, of a mosque built on the alleged site of a Hindu temple in Ayodhya.

The phenomenon can be seen elsewhere too. Hizb-Allah in Lebanon is still an extremist party – but it rhetoric is significantly toned down. Just compare Hiz-Allah public position on Israel today and five years ago; the contrast is startling.

One should have faith in Democracy. Fear not that Hamas will win the next Palestinian Authority election. Once winning office, they either have to moderate their position or risk loosing power. Critics of Democracy often deride its proponents for being idealistic. Their cynicism prevent them from seeing Democracy for what it is. Democracy is not an ideal, it is the most pragmatic concept. It has worked consistently in modern time and with Democracy came other things equally pragmatic - good standard of living, strong economy, and wealth.

Reagan Boulevard?

2005-08-09T16:02:00.000-07:00

Frank (who guest-blogged at Andrew Sullivan) commented on the proposal to rename a 16th Street NW in District of Columbia.
First, they came for my airport, and I said nothing. Now, they’re trying to rename my main thoroughfare, 16th Street. The bastards want to make it Ronald Reagan Boulevard. I have much grudging respect for the Gipper. But the District of Columbia was one the few places to thoroughly reject Reagan’s reelection. They won’t let that drop. It’s seems they’ll keep forcing the Great Leader’s name on us until we recant our decision in the 1984 election.
Now there is a perfectly good reason to oppose the proposal – mainly the naming convention of letter and number. But simply because residents of the District of Columbia did not elect Reagan is irrelevant. It is our nation capital and it belongs to all Americans. Let not forget that Reagan was elected by a landslide – and if we choose to name everything in the city after him – it is our right. Nobody complained when there are 10,000 structures name after Kennedy.

The fact is District of Columbia would be a third world city without the financial contribution of non-residents. If the residents of DC choose to reject that fact, maybe it is time to move our capital to city more deserving.

The Fallacy of Troop Number

2005-08-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

There have been numerous articles, blog’s postings, and editorials about the inadequacy of troops in Iraq. One after another, the authors call for an increase of troops in Iraq. They question the Bush Administration and the Pentagon for putting too little troops on the ground – that the generals’ opinion and need are suppressed. Nonsense! I do believe we need more troop level in the US Army so that soldiers do not have to deploy as often as they currently do (many served in Iraq every other year). But the troop number in Iraq is not the problem. Simply putting more people with guns on the ground does not solve the problem we currently face. There is no added value to having more troops in Iraq. At the height of the insurgency, there was at maximum 20,000 insurgents – one sixth the number of the US forces. With a radio of 6 to 1 in our favor, we do not need more troops.

This example will illustrate the irrelevancy of troop quantity. Somewhere in the Sunni Triangle, Abu Qasim (the name is completely fictitious; any similarity to a real person is purely coincidental) is a merchant at the market. Every time a US convoy goes by, Abu Qasim would waive and smile at them. He even offered his food to US soldiers for free. Every time he speak to a US soldier, he would tell them how much he hates Saddam Hussein and how much he appreciates the US for freeing Iraq.

Abu Qasim seems like a really friendly and jovial guy – except that he is also a local terrorist cell leader. Qasim runs a network of 50 local terrorists who have killed a few US soldiers and wounded many others. He also orchestrated the assassinations of many Iraqi officials and polices. Qasim never participate in any operations himself, leaving that to the foolish Iraqis who are paid $100 – 200 per attack. He does not even plan the attacks. He simply finances the operation, provide strategic direction, and leaves operational detail to trusted underlings. Many terrorists never met Qasim; they receive order through middlemen.

This is the nature of the War in Iraq, faceless, nameless enemies who strike without showing their faces. Adding a hundred thousand additional US soldiers to Iraq change absolutely nothing. They just all drive by and wave happily to Abu Qasim, totally ignorant of his true identity. And there are others faceless and nameless terrorists in Iraq ranging from the leadership type of Abu Qasim to demolition engineer who built Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). Even the bottom of the food chain insurgents who place the IEDs on the road and detonate them do so discretely. A US soldier would not know who the insurgents are unless they were lucky enough to be caught in the act. Even then, only the lowly terrorists of little value are captured.

The issue of Iraq is not enough troops but not enough of the right kind of troops – Civil Affairs, Psychological Operation, Intelligence (particularly HUMINT), and Special Forces; Each with a unique skilled set and capabilities that will help to identify key terrorists like Abu Qasim. The first two elements win heard and mind providing the friendly environment the last two elements to collect intelligence and capture key leaders. I call them soft elements. The soft elements currently consists of a very small percentage of US troops in Iraq – far from being sufficient to win the war.

Except in the province of Al-Anbar, We do not need more troops in Iraq. In fact we can do with far less if we can get more specialized troops – the soft elements I mention above. Unfortunately, the number of soft element is finite and we are deploying them to the max. Both Psychological Operation and Civil Affairs exist only within the Reserve and all of them have been on deployment since early 2003. We need to expand those assets and include them within the active duty force. That of course takes time. A concurrent solution is turning the war over to Iraqis. Who better at finding and fighting Abu Qasim than his own countrymen whose speak his language and know his culture? Of course that includes a laborious process of turning the Iraqis Military into an effective force – a task that we did half-heartedly until recently. Therefore training, equipping, and mentoring the Iraqi Armed Force should be the priority number one.

Honor and Honesty

2005-08-05T18:47:00.000-07:00

From Michael Yon’s dispatch:

…I kept asking American officers throughout the day, “Was he really a bad guy?” The soldiers could have said that the dead man was a terrorist, and that they had gotten him. There is so much going on that it would have been difficult for me to know the difference without checking with the hospital and others. But instead they told me, “We think we killed the wrong man.”
I said to the commander, “You know I will write about this, don’t you?”
He answered, “Mike, you can write about the good, the bad, and the ugly. I think we made a mistake, but you were there. You saw what happened. We are still not certain that he is not a cell-member, but we have no proof that he was and my gut tells me he was innocent. I think it was a bad target.”

I am immensely proud of our fighting men. Instead of claiming that they killed an enemy combatant, or worse lie to themselves that they kill an enemy, they courageously admitted that they make a mistake. Imagine the mental anguish that they experienced and will experience for the rest of their lives. People forget that the greatest sacrifice many soldiers make is living with the guilt of war.

You are not going get the same level of honesty and integrity from the main stream media or anti-war activists. Unlike our brave soldiers, the anti-war people have routinely distorted facts, in some case completely fabricated statistic.

It is clear whose are more trust worthy.

Intelligence Oversight Violation

2005-08-04T20:30:00.000-07:00

Gregory Djerejian, John Cole, and Rick Moran blogged extensively about this article in the Washington Post and this article by the Salt Lake Tribune. The article detailed the interrogation of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi General. Here is an excerpt from the Post’s article.

When he didn't answer or provided an answer that they didn't like, at first [redacted] would slap Mowhoush, and then after a few slaps, it turned into punches," Ryan testified. "And then from punches, it turned into [redacted] using a piece of hose."
"The indig were hitting the detainee with fists, a club and a length of rubber hose," according to classified investigative records.
Soldiers heard Mowhoush "being beaten with a hard object" and heard him "screaming" from down the hall, according to the Jan. 18, 2004, provost marshal's report. The report said four Army guards had to carry Mowhoush back to his cell. (WAPO)

Mowhoush died two days later in the following interrogation session. I have written about interrogation techniques here, both the controversial ones and the uncontroversial ones. The incident described above –if happened - is clearly torture. There is absolutely no moral justification for the action. It deserves the strongest condemnation. It was only seven days into the detainment that the beating began. What’s a bunch of impatient buffoons!

What I find most disturbing about the alleged incident is that it is not clear that the interrogation was being done by interrogator, and certainly not trained and qualified interrogator. There are too many amateurs in the story. It mentioned interrogation being done by ODA (Operation Detachment Alpha).

When Army efforts produced nothing useful, detainees would be handed over to members of Operational Detachment Alpha 531, soldiers with the 5th Special Forces Group, the CIA or a combination of the three. "The personnel were dressed in civilian clothes and wore balaclavas to hide their identity," according to a Jan. 18, 2004, report for the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division (WAPO)

The Post refers to “a combination of the three.” They are mistaken. There are only two; ODA and Special Forces Group is the same thing. But Special Forces soldiers are not trained and qualified interrogator. And I cannot speak to the qualification of the CIA in relation to interrogation. It was the interrogation session by either ODA or CIA (the Post is extremely unclear on the entity) that the alleged beating and torture occurred (November 24th).

There is a thing known as “Intelligence Oversight.” It is a Law. In short, it regulates intelligence collection activities by the US armed force. Not only does it prescribe the allowable and forbidden activities. It also explicitly states who can do what. In the matter of interrogation, only trained and qualified interrogator can conduct interrogation – not any garden variety Military Intelligence personnel. Outside of the CIA, it is not clear if any of the Army personnel involved in the death of Abed Hamed Mowhoush are qualified interrogators. The article mentions two days later, Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. conducted another interrogation. We do not know if WO Welshofer is an interrogator, the article did not mention his MOS. But we know that other whose were involved are not. SPC Jerry L. Loper is a mechanic. SFC William Sommer is a linguist. And Warrant Officer Jeff William is an intelligence analyst. Where are the interrogators?

Intelligence Oversight also delineates clearly chain of command and authority concerning interrogation. Interrogators have separate and distinct chain of command from the maneuver units they attach to. They do not report to the field commander.

Intelligence Oversight was in violation in this case. At the preliminaries hearing:

Col. David A. Teeples, who then commanded the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, told the court he believed the "claustrophobic technique" was both approved and effective. It was used before, and for some time after, Mowhoush's death, according to sources familiar with the interrogation operation. (WAPO)

Colonel Teeples simply does not have the credential or the expertise to determine what are approved or what are effective. And by law, he is not allowed to make that kind of judgment or influence the interrogation process in any way. Colonel Teeples simply exceeded his authority and may have violated Intelligence Oversight Law. Furthermore, the defendant for WO William stated that,

"The interrogation techniques were known and were approved of by the upper echelons of command of the 3rd ACR," Cassara [the attorney] said in a news conference. "They believed, and still do, that they were appropriate and proper." (WAPO)

Let be clear. No one within the 3rd ACR chain of command has the authority to approve or authorize interrogation techniques. The only person who has the authority is the G2X, an officer at the divisional level who is in charge of all HUMINT activities which include interrogation. If anyone else within 3rd ACR chain of command approved any techniques, they are in clear violation of Intelligence Oversight.

The Salt Lake Tribune also mentions Intelligence Oversight violation. A Utah National Guard soldier who is a witness to the case reports.

Later, when he learned that unqualified soldiers were conducting interrogations, Pratt again logged a compliant. In response, he testified, he was investigated - and told by other soldiers it was for blackmail purposes.

Intelligence Oversight is a serious matter. For the same reason one would not want an unqualified medic to work on the wounded, one does not want an unqualified interrogator to conduct an interrogation. On both the Abu Ghraib scandal and this scandal, one similarity emerges – unqualified and untrained personnel with little supervision, or under supervision of equally unqualified and untrained personnel.

Colonel Teeples and the accomplices in his staffs deserve to be tried for violation of Intelligence Oversight. If the colonel does not understand the important of the law, does not care, or the combination of both; he does not belong in the position that he is currently in. He does far more harm than good. The Pentagon is not blameless either because of their weak enforcement on Intelligence Oversight. Furthermore, they create an environment that such violation is inevitable. With the chronic shortage of interrogators, as well as Military Polices, commanders are forced to use unqualified and untrained personnel to fill critical positions. This condition existed throughout the chain of command from top to bottom. Such a shortage existed long before we went to Iraq, yet Secretary Rumsfeld did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation. He fought with Congress when Congress want to increase the Army authorized strength. We are going to war with the army we have instead of the army we want because the Sec. Def. lack the foresight to see the obvious problem.

For those moral cretins who will say that I am too concern about a terrorist, a Ba’athist, and Saddam henchman. Mowhoush may be all those things. He is more likely than not an important terrorist leader. And being a key leadership of the insurgency, he has vast amount of information on the insurgency that could have saved lives – American and Iraqis. But now the information died with him because some unqualified idiots decide to play interrogators. Detainees like Mowhoush are gold mine to be exploited. This is an intelligence war and a large part of our current information comes from detainees. With some patience, a skilled interrogator can get a lot out of Mowhoush – cooperative or not. The information would have saved some lives and deal a serious blow to the terrorist networks. Explain that to the next fallen Marine because we let Mowhoush die.

Rush - Who Do You Call A "Staff Puke?"

2005-08-03T21:20:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh is officially an ass for calling Paul Hackett a “staff puke” (hat tip to the Commissar) Here is the transcript.

RUSH: [Hackett] was in the Civilian Affairs Unit, and this is a Washington Post story (it says here) from July 30th. “A lawyer and a major in the Marine reserves, Hackett volunteered last year to serve in Iraq and spent seven months there in the civilian affairs job, including service around Ramadi and Fallujah. He returned to Ohio in March, decided to jump into the race for Portman’s seat, seeking to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress.” So he volunteered to serve, spent seven months in a civilian affairs job. What is that, since you’re — did you say you’re a Marine?
CALLER: I’m in the Navy, sir, Navy lieutenant.
RUSH: Navy. What is a civilian affairs job? You tell me.
CALLER: Civilian affairs is just basically a public affairs job where they interact with the civilian authorities from a military perspective. It’s a military liaison, if you will.
RUSH: Oh, it’s a military liaison. Is it a combat position or not?
CALLER: Negative. It is not a combat position.
…
RUSH: Okay, call him a staff puke if that’s what you want, but civilian affairs, staff puke. Bottom line is he’s running a fraudulent, deceptive campaign, and the Democrats are saying this is a bellwether election.

First of all, there is no such thing as “civilian affair.” It is “civil affair,” but most of the time they go by the acronym CA. And most important of all, they are no “staff pukes.” Civil Affair actually falls under the Special Operation Command (SOCOM). The reason they fall under SOCOM is their unconventional nature. They do the important task of winning heart and mind by building infrastructure such as bridges, clinics, schools, or water treatment plants. In Iraq they also play soldiers-diplomat by working with local tribes and local governments.

These soldiers risk their lives on the daily basic because they are far more vulnerable units compare to the combat units. They convoy in smaller force with less firepower into dangerous villages and towns. Imagine a small contingent of US Army averaging nine to ten soldiers in an isolated Iraqi village far away from the main base. Half of them are in people house trying to win them over leaving the other half on the vehicles to provide security. Their frequent interaction with average Iraqis leave them extremely vulnerable to insurgent attacks.

I did not follow Paul Hackett political career and do not know his political position. From what I heard, he is a Democrat and not nice fellow. I heard that Hackett is opposing the war in Iraq. If it is so, then I do not share his politic. But I do not really care because it is irrelevant to the subject. There are a million ways Rush can criticize Hackett without resorting to calling him a “staff puke.” I know that some over-testosterone and immature infantrymen use the terms toward non-combat soldiers. It is inappropriate for them to do so, and it is even more inappropriate for Rush Limbaugh (who is a civilian) to do so.

What is most upsetting about this incident is the lack of outrage from the Right. In fact many are shamelessly defending Rush. The Right had the reputation of cleaning our own house. During the Trent Lott scandal, I was proud to be a conservative. It is absolutely shameful that many conservatives are behaving like hypocritical moonbats. It is time conservatives let Rush knows he is way out of line.

UPDATE: Thank you to reader James in Shreveport who informed me that the transcript may not be correct. He believes that it was the caller who used the term "staff puke," not Rush. I did not hear it myself and I cannot swear by the authentication of the transcript. I should have put out a disclaimer on authenticity. My sincere apology. I got the transcript from the Commissar who got it from someone else.

Intelligence Design

2005-08-02T18:37:00.000-07:00

Both the Commissar of Politburo Diktat and Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House have made expressed their dismay at The President endorsing the idea that Intelligence Design should be taught along side Evolution in Science class.

Beside the excellent points made by others I have a few points of my own – the points are made for those on the Right who endorse it.

(1) This is the scientific equivalence of moral relativism that we on the Right criticize moonbats for. Since when did Conservative buy in the idea that all ideas are equal? The argument of the proponents of ID is that it is a competition of idea. If that is the case, how would they like it if Communism or Fascism is being taught to their children in government or economic class? I know that I just gave extreme examples. But I doubt those who advocate ID would even want their children to learn the Gaia theory that many of those left wing new age loonies believe. And are they ready to learn the theory of that I personally subscribe to, soul migration which also known as reincarnation?

(2) Those of us that oppose Intelligence Design in Science class are not opposing to the potential soundness of ID. It can be taught as a metaphysic theory in Philosophy class. It has validity within that department along with the other theories that Plato and Aristotle articulated. That is where it rightly belongs, as well as my subscribed theory of reincarnation, not in Science class. ID is not science since it cannot be falsified in the same manner scientific theory can.

UPDATE: I am having second thought.

There will be those who will accuse me of not understanding intelligence design. I understand it. I understand that it does not invalidate the theory of evolution. It merely explains that evolution is not random; rather there is an author behind the process. It is actually a justification for a person who believes in a creator to accept evolution theory by wrapping evolution around a theological concept. If I understand it incorrectly, please feel free to correct me.

Why am I having second thought? I am still not subscribing to ID nor do I believe that it belongs in the realm of science. But if intelligence design gets skeptical people (particularly religious parents) to accept evolution – and there are many of them – the utilitarian in me say that it is an acceptable trade off.

Not In Their Names

2005-08-01T14:21:00.000-07:00

Wretchard:

…One of the ironic things about reading Milblogs based in Afghanistan or Iraq is how little undirected bloodthirstiness their authors have. They have Muslim friends. They have Muslim enemies. That almost sounds normal…

For a man who never been to Iraq, Wretchard is very perceptive. It is absurd that many anti-war activists are claiming to represent the interest of Iraqis. I just had a conversation with a few friends who oppose the war. They are nice folks who believe that they are looking out for the interest of Iraqis. My question is how many Iraqis do they personally know? Most probably answer none.

I do not claim to know the will of the Iraqis people since I do not know all of them. But I and other soldiers who deployed came to know many Iraqis – interpreters, soldiers, policemen, or workers on base. And natural as any other human-to-human setting, friendship developed – genuine and affectionate bond of brotherhood. And in many circumstances, language barrier is insufficient a barrier to people who want to make friends. Unlike anti-war activists, the term “Iraqis” is not an abstract term for men and women in uniforms. It has faces, names, and memories. Some we remember fondly.

I have seen both sides of the coins. I often wonder that how many of the Vietnam War protesters actually know any of us Vietnamese. And I am certain (despite having no imperial evidence) that they would reverse their position if they personally knew any of us. Today those former war protesters that changed their mind about their position during the war, almost every person came in contact with Vietnamese refugees living in America. Through the narrative of their friends, they came to regret their position they took during that conflict. I met a few of those. This is particularly true of school teachers who met young Vietnamese students – fresh out of the refugee camps and full of bitter memory. It is a role reversal, the students taught the teachers.

Christopher Hitchens conversion did not happened in the West. He changed his mind when he met real people with faces, names, and stories (hat tip to Neo-Neocon). Hitchens in an interview.

...I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, "Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can't see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don't want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy's image on it. So do you have to?" And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, "No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too." And from what I'd seen by then in that region, I thought, that's basically morally true. I don't have a reply to that. I don't have a glib one and I don't have a sound one. It's true. So at that point my criticism of the war became this: that it had not been a regime-change war, that the slogans of liberty and justice that had been used to mobilize it had not been honored. But if they had been, I would have been in favor of it. It's a narrow but deep crevasse to cross, and once you've crossed it, I'll tell you this, you can't go back over it again. You can't find yourself on the other side of it. Some of you may be in transition across this crevasse yourselves or be thinking about it. I warn you: don't cross over if you have any intention of going back, because you can't. You're stuck with it then. You're a prisoner of the knowledge of genocide and fascism, and you'll never break free of it—of that awareness. You will have made friends you can't desert...

I too have made friends that I cannot desert.