Mark Bowden's analysis of the upcoming Battle of Baghdad is, I think, fairly convincing, if a little pessimistic. Hopefully, the best-case scenario is the one that plays out.

The difference between "us and them." We rescue their civilians and avoid hurting them, arguably making our war effort more difficult. They have to coerce their soldiers at gunpoint to continue fighting. Like the Russians at Stalingrad.

A good friend currently attending law school brings us this dispatch from academia:

Last night our prof opened the floor for a 45 minute discussion on the war.
I just wanted to share with you a couple of the comments that were made by
the enlightened and educated future lawyers of America. I hate class discussions...

One girl said - Bush is like Hitler. I never understood how Hitler could gain
such a following without anyone bothering to question what he was doing, but
now by watching Bush make these decisions without anybody questioning him -- I can understand.

Another said - Well it doesn't seem fair that if we get to have weapons of mass
destruction why [Saddam] he can't...

The prof even made a comment about this being a war about oil.

Off to class - hopefully this professor sticks to teaching law...

My generation -- hell, my parents' generation, too -- is so predictable.

So I've been out of circulation for about a week, and for that I'm sorry. I was house/dog-sitting and the Internet connection available to me was less than prime. Plus I'm lazy...very lazy.
I'm also sorry that some of you may have felt let down by my relative silence. Of course, I'm also sorry that some of you might be relying on me for pertinent and insightful commentary. I feel sorry for you if that's the case.
Seriously, there's been just heaps of good commentary since the shooting began. At-home commentray is great, like Andrew Sullivan and National Review; The Weekly Standard has people over there (Steve Hayes and Matt Labash are doing a great job in Kuwait)...plus all manner of traditional media outlets. Everyone's doing a good job out there.
I think this whole "embedding" thing is great. What better way to get truly objective commentary than to have reporters see what the soldiers see? Not to mention the fact that I'm extremely jealous. I wish I were out there. Tried to get some of the guys from my fraternity to fund my trip out there...surprisingly, they didn't seem too keen on it. Skinflints.

Well, kids, I've repeatedly tried to post an email I received from my friend Mike the Pole, but Blogger is telling me it's a no go. Soemthing about unsupported characters, except I can't find which they're referring to.
Bummer. It's a great letter, written in response (sort of an after-the-fact response, actually) to someone in a class of his. We've all had the same experience -- you get all worked up in a debate, and the person you're arguing with refuses to continue the debate because they know you're right. I hate that.
Or, even worse, the person you're debating (who most likely asked you to explain yourself in the first place -- that's what lefties do, you know.) refuses to answer your questions at all, instead opting to stick to the talking points and run around the real issues. Jonah Goldberg, in fact, provides this brilliant radio clip that shows exactly that. (I don't know where it's from.) An unnamed "peace activist" shucks and dodges one simple question from an Iraqi exile -- he asks "How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq promote peace and justice?"
It's pretty remarkable. It's lengthy, but listen to the lengths to which the activist goes to avoid answering the real question. Moreover, she purports to be able to tell the caller the real situation in Iraq -- she lectures him, even though he is from Iraq and still has family there.
Listen to the whole thing.

My friend Mike the Pole writes this:

I write to you today for two simple reasons. Our world is changing, and is becoming increasinlgy unstable, unsettling. And I, as an individual at least topically aware of current political climates and motives, am compelled to speak.


The issue here is just war. It has to do with the UN and the United States, the world community and collective security, democracy and despotism, and good and evil. Times are troubled because issues at hand are so convoluted, so complicated, so counter-factual. I desire moral clarity, though I am no moralist. World opinion says we are 'alone'. But being alone doesn't mean you're not right.

Of course, 'just war' is a Christian theoretical construct, first introduced by Augustine. We all know the basics of this theory, of this disposition towards war. Today we call it simply Christian pacifism. Even though it is honorable, it is effectively suicide. Particularly applicable amongst Christian nations, 'just war' theory simply fails in reality. Justification is based on individual perception, and perceptions amongst individuals tend to vary - drastically. But it is today a guideline, serving merely to justify military action against modern opinion, which, needless to say, is secular, progressive, and relativistic.

So let us leave theory for the scholars and philosophers amongst us. We will be a war generation within hours. The time for theoretics is over, made basically irrelevent by the events of 11 September.

The issue is our pre-emptive attack against Iraq. I will approach it in two ways. First, I will consider the 'just war' theory as our moral purpose, as our legitimate authority. Then, (for all you secular post-moderns out there), I will face the reality of this military action comparatively and relatively, being as non-moral as I can. We must all realize that it is in vogue to be skeptical, if not altogether hostile, towards religion. Though it is a disappointing fact, social will relies more on pragmatic assertions than on issues of morality. Sadly, moral imperatives are least convincing these days.

Without question Iraq has been a rogue regime, a wrongdoer, developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions, attacking one neighbor and seeking to annex another. There is considerable evidence of Saddam's individual support for terrorist activity. The question in front of us, though, is whether the US must await a direct attack by Iraq before acting (obviously, in self-defense).

In days of more conventional warfare, this might have been reasonable if not completely appropriate. Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear development programs made it no longer necessary. September 11 made it difficult, if not suicidal. And our invasion of Iraq hours from now will have made it anachronistic, dead to our world. Just as many wonder why diplomatic actors did not stand up to Adolf Hitler earlier and prevent mass atrocities, we should not leave historians to ask why no one pre-empted an evil man and an evil regime like Saddam's from using its illegal arsenal. We must learn lessons from history. This is not to say that our current situation is analogous to Abyssina, 1935, Munich, 1938, or Suez, 1956. It isn't. History is not dates and facts. It is the study of human action, interaction, and conflict. We can see trends, then and now, and gauge our actions against the successes or failures of the past. If nothing else, realize that atrocities will always happen. And realize that records are made to be broken. Six million, I am afraid, will one day seem insignificant.

And then there is the UN. A breeding ground for anti-Americanism, tyranny, petty rivalry, anti-Semitism, and relativism. Yet, public perceptions which are usually misinformed or just plain ignorant actually seek the unanimous approval of this political body as a justification for war. Those who feel the US must await UN approval forget what Margaret Thatcher or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan have said repeatedly years ago: The United Nations is a political body, not a moral one. It is an idealistic construct, which fails immeasurably under the weight of reality. It has, for all intents and purposes, discredited itself since its inception, or when it resolved (as in passed a resolution) that Zionism was a form of racism. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission, recently replacing Syria. The US has had more human rights violation than China. So are we to understand that three thousand dead and the World Trade center gone is less a justification for war than the raised hand of the UN ambassador from the Gambia, or Zimbabwe, or the Sudan, or Iran? Or France? The UN pushes for diplomacy at all costs because it cannot enforce anything without the US, or more precisely, US military might. And the UN hates that, and hates us because of that. To be effective, it must respect the US. Because it hates the US, it has become completely ineffective.

But the UN agreed with us as to the nature of the Iraqi regime. They passed a resolution. So if Saddam is a menace, a wrongdoer, an evil dictator, it is the moral duty and authority of the UN to act against him. If for nothing else but respect for the oppressed Iraqi people. But they won't because they are not moral. Some member states have been pacified domestically (Belgium or Sweden), some have been scarred historically by war (Germany), some have heaps of investments and economic interests with Saddam's despotic regime (France), and some can't decide whether George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein is the greater menace (Syria, Iran). I apologize, but if you really have to think about who is a better man, or a better leader, please stop reading this. You are not worth the semi-involuntary electric impulses guiding my fingers along this keyboard.

Surely it would be preferable to have UN support, for political reasons alone, but it is not necessary strategically or tactically. And it is certainly not necessary morally. You see, we are alone in this matter. We have a coalition of sorts, but this is America's war. We have waited twelve years for diplomacy to work, for Iraq to disarm, for the UN to act upon its charter, for world opinion to realize that Saddam is a threat, a liar, an Iago who pits allies against allies and never fails to keep his thugs two steps ahead of even the most observant or well-equipped UN Weapons Inspector. Saddam can manipulate the UN precisely because he knows that allegiance to its charter is based only on good faith with no real means of enforcement. I imagine he laughs at our willingness to debate, discuss, and deliberate. He laughs because he knows he can use our blind idealism to divide the Western world and secure another five years for himself. If still capable of rational introspection, I imagine Saddam laughs at France because he knows what we say about him is true. And he can't believe that France doesn't realize it. No. France does realize it, and that makes him laugh even more.

We have national security objectives. We are targets for terrorists. We are hated or resented by our allies. American travelers are at more risk today than they were ten or twenty years ago. World opinion sees America's ability to decapitate a regime at will as a threat to world peace. But they are wrong. Simply. They see American might as a threat because they no longer have a moral compass, no longer are capable of tackling issues of moral clarity. It is all relative and quantifiable to them. We have the most weapons, we must be the most evil. Politics and morality are disparate concepts, but at certain times under certain conditions, they are truly one and the same. When diplomacy fails, war is its omega.

We can no longer be simply reactive, or passive. The conditions of the world today, and America's place in it, demand us to be pro-active, literally for the sake of our survival.

Today, we adapt ancient moral principles to modern realities. This war is just. We will fight it humanely and energetically. We will liberate the Iraqi people. The post-Saddam body politic will echo what dissidents have been telling us for years, that this needed to be done. World opinion will wait to see the outcome before it condemns or congratulates. Typical behavior for 'useful idiots' (read Lenin). The global protesters will probably escalate their efforts by moving towards civil agitation. And increasingly, we will depart on our own course alone, with fewer and fewer allies as the years go by. There will be failure and success, and perhaps our generation will be the first to witness the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps even worse. Realize that history placed the US in this position of hegemony. Our responsibilities to others are immense, their gratitude toward us is negligible.

But we are right. And that is why we are, and shall probably remain, alone.

Sobering thoughts for such an ill-prepared generation as ours. Nonetheless, we will press on, in one way or another. This does demand vigilance, patience, temperance. But mostly it demands will, which unfortunately, can only wane over time. Perhaps even a change in political party leadership, or a new Administration, will impede America's course. You see, we are indeed a country divided, diverse in its opinions. There are those who see the US as a sovereign nation which was attacked on 9/11, whose only real global motive is others' political stability and economic prosperity. And there are those who see the US as a member of the world community, equal to any other country, with no exceptional attributes, which brought terrorism upon itself via globalization and moral paternalism. Little do they realize that there are still many places on this Earth where they would be killed for such ideas.

So I fear a lack of resolve. And I fear the ever-expanding schism between Americans and the World, and even Americans and Americans. Our beliefs are minority ones, so it seems. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.

These days do mark drastic and immensely significant global changes, geo-political realignments. These days require tough choices between shades of good and evil. These days require what I unfortunately think our generation lacks: a memory. Things move so fast these days that we forget the significance of certain events far too soon. In our effort to understand what happened and why, we end up forgetting what did happen and when.

But let us realize again these last things. The US is the greatest political experiment in the history of human development. The quality of life here is better than in any place, anywhere, any time. We should be proud that we are alone against a world gone upside-down. And we should rest assured that no matter what happens, to me or to you, we did the best we could in the name of civilization. Yes, this is a generalization practically dripping with visceral rhetoric. But generalizations can also be true. That is why they exist.

And for you post-moderns out there, post-Saddam Iraq will certainly be a better place for the average Iraqi than it is today. Yes, people will die, resentments will mature, factions will cleave for power. But the quality of life will finally improve, men and women will vote, and perhaps people will eat lobster somewhere else than in the Presidential Palace. For better or for worse, Iraq will be a nation of Iraqis, and not of one man.

Again to each of you, thanks for the time. This is therapeutic for me, probably selfish, and most assuredly wrong on a number of points. We will all see.

A few days ago, I heard someone throw around the idea that we are a 'ghost generation'. I don't know exactly what that means but maybe its the idea that we've inherited so much, and done so little. We can be perceived, but do we really exist? Are we as unreliable or fickle as our contrived senses? Perhaps.

Here is our chance to prove that we exist... for a reason.

When worlds collide -- vintage Homestar Runner meets Japanimation.
I was rolling.

I do love me the Beastie Boys -- Paul's Boutique is one of my favorite albums of all time -- but they should shut the hell up. Why, you may ask? It's a free country, you'll say. They have a right to speak their minds, right?
Sure they do. But it must have been difficult to learn all the incredibly complex nuances of American and world policy while on tour, dousing girls with honey in the back rooms of venues.
I know, I know...they've changed from the hell-raisin' rich boys they once were. They arranged the Tibetan Freedom Festival, etc, etc. In fact, I've seen them speak out against so-called American prejudices against Arabs before.
I just hope these nice Jewish boys know a few things: first, that the Arab world wants them dead. Second, that a US war against Iraq is not unjustified, nor is it "bullying" (a term I've seen more than once recently). Third, it takes a pretty detailed understanding of the US's role in the and its foreign policy aims and objectives to understand the true scope of the situation, and I ain't seeing it here in the lyrics.
I'm going to speak directly to Mike D, Adrock, and MCA right now. Fellas, please -- shut up. You're out of your collective depth here. Go back to the days of "Pass The Mic," "Shake Your Rump," "Hey Ladies," and "Egg Man." The new, serious Beastie Boys give me the willies.

Had we all forgotten about this one? It came, of course, during last summer's "rash of kidnappings" and multiple Amber Alerts, but at least this one has a happy ending.
I was actually thinking to myself just the other day, "Wonder what happened to that Smart kid?" And look at that -- she's found, alive and well.
I don't want to take all the credit, but...

Christopher Hitchens gives a firm "how's your father Fisking" to the religious anti-war crowd. Jimmy Carter's ears are burning.

Man, will I ever leave poor Maureen Dowd alone? Probably not, as long as she keeps writing columns like this one.
I find this section particularly odius, not to mention curious:
"William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda."
Here's Greider's article.
I can't believe this. I may be close to speechless. I find that 42 per cent figure extremely hard to believe. More than that, 42 per cent of what? The American people? French poodles? Sailors?
When you someone cite figures that don't seem to point anywhere, it's a good bet that there's a reason for the omission.
Even more astounding is the contempt dripping from both Dowd's and Greider's articles. Contempt for the American people, who according to them are so stupid that they actually think Saddam Hussein commssioned the 9/11 attacks! You people are all idiots, according to these two. Being taken for a ride by the Washington Post, the paper that has consistently struggled to keep a lid on scandals in the Federal Government, if only to keep warmongering Presidents in power.
Oh, you didn't know that the Post has been in the government's pocket for a long time, and they all vote Republican?
Geez. If you're feeling adventurous, try typing "William Greider" into Google. Check out the kind of stuff he's written. Not exactly a paragon of objective journalism, methinks.

Good words on a good weekend from yours truly. Actually, to be honest, it wasn't all that great, but it seemed as though it was. Went out. Watched some college basketball on Saturday, saw a kick-ass art exhibit, and saw Old School.
Wow. Looking at those three things side-by-side is strange. Sort of runs the high-brow/low-brow gamut.
"Yeah, I watched some f**king HOOPS!"
"Indeed, I pondered the mystery and majesty of nature as I strolled through the museum, taking in Van Gogh's pastoral landscapes. Ah, Arles. Auvers. C'est magnifique!"
"Movie funny. Man fall down, catch on fire."
I'm a bundle of contradictions.

Lots of work to do today, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to post today. But hey, you're used to my scattershot method of posting, right? On again, off again, and so forth...

How proud are we here in Ohio's Ninth District that this woman is our Representative to Congress? The headline, though, is a little misleading. It should read "Nutjob She-Politician Couldn't Possibly Be More Wrong."
On the upside, the local paper (not the one I work for, by the by) DID get a link on Drudge. Toledo hits the political big time!

This article never addresses this simple issue: if actors have a right to express their views, don't others have a right to express theirs, whether by boycotts, petitioning, or otherwise?

The Onion, as ever, gets it. Be sure to scroll down and read the whole thing for full impact.

I'm spent after that last post. More later, maybe.

The New York Times republishes Stalin's obituary to mark the 50th anniversary of his death -- he died March 5, 1953. The Times also carries this story, pointing to new evidence that Stalin was poisoned.
I'm a little disappointed in the American press today. I can't really find any articles that take up the difficult task of examining Stalin's lasting legacy, not to mention any articles that point to his heinous crimes or his gangsterism. And don't get me started on the absence of articles comparing the machinations and methods of his regime to the still-existing Stalinist states in the world today. The Independent publishes this gem today (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing to the link), the Financial Times published a great special section on Stalin over the weekend (can't find it on the Web), and several other European papers have articles on Stalin's legacy. So whither the U.S. press' commentary?
Like I said, I'm disappointed. Doesn't the 50th anniversary of the death of the 20th Century's most prolific killer warrant a little coverage? Guess not. It's disturbing because there are so many adherents to Stalin's ideas today still influencing policy today. Even more disturbing is the fact that some people still don't think the man did the things we know he did. Yes, folks, there are still Stalin apologists out there.
Stalin was a monster. That's it. End of discussion. He killed some 30 million of his own people (purges, show trials, forced starvations, and the like), he threatened the world at large, and he (and those who came after him) held half a continent hostage for nearly 50 years. And yet, Americans seem to want to forget all this. Well, maybe we don't want to forget, but we do.
You can't exaggerate Stalin's crimes. Nor can you exaggerate the lengths to which some people went to deny the atrocities of the Stalin regime. This is an important juncture, people -- the specter of Communism doesn't haunt the world as it once did, but it's still out there, lurking around. Moreover, Stalinism in particular -- if not the all the socialist aspects of his regime, then the devotion to violence and brutality -- still has its loyal adherents. Castro, Hussein, Kim Jong Il -- they're all crazy about "Uncle Joe," and would do anything to weild the kind of power he did. But if we forget about Stalin's crimes, methods, and madness, we may not notice that his disciples are still eagerly rubbing their hands, waiting for their chance to become Stalin. We need to be aware that Stalin, not Hitler, was the real prototype for a dictator. Hitler, though awful and brutal, lasted only for 12 years. The world found out about him, made up its collective mind, and dispatched him. Stalin, on the other hand, wielded power of some sort for 36 years, and total power for 25! And there are still people who won't believe the truth about the man or his regime. They didn't believe it when it was happening, and they don't believe it now, even as the archives are opened and the body count is plain to see. That's dangerous, and what's even more dangerous is that some of us still can't identify the Stalins in our midst today.

Ah, jeez...Maureen Dowd is at it again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- if I had a platform like The New York Times, and my job never made me back up any of my wild assertions, I might go a little nuts too. Drunk with power and all that.
I just don't get where everybody's favorite tart-tongued trollop is going with this column. Her money shot -- and indeed the teaser for the column -- doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the column. She writes "As the brazen Bush imperialists try to install a new democracy in Iraq, they are finding the old democracy of our reluctant allies inconvenient." Now, maybe I didn't read the article fully (I do that occassionally), but I didn't see much talk about our allies up to this point. Remember, the above quote is the last sentence of the column. I mean, Dowd spends the bulk of the article comparing Donald Rumsfeld et al to Genghis Kahn, talking about how the Defense Department commissioned some study to glean lessons from ancient empires; then she compares the so-called "Bushies" to empire builders. Nowhere does she mention anything about "reluctant allies" -- she tosses that in as an afterthought. Or maybe she wrote that part first, like some sort of hack mystery writer.
Whatever Dowd was trying to get across, the column makes about as much sense as snowshoes in Bali.