Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Global Guerrillas has a very interesting piece up entitled “Playing with War.”  In it John Robb argues that:

The western way of war in the 21st century is a pale shadow of the warfare it waged in the 20th. The reason is simple: for western societies war is no longer existential. Instead, it’s increasingly about smoothing market flows and tertiary moral concerns/threats. As a result of this diminishment of motivation, western warfare is now afflicted with the following: 

John continues with a complete description of what I will include as an outline listing (for editorial and space reasons):

• Operations of low lethality
• Marginal placement within national priorities
• Muddled objectives

The upshot according to John is that wars will become increasingly difficult to win, because:

• Asymmetric motivation (of the enemy)
• New methods of warfare
• Proliferation of opposition

Finally, the following points are outlined as a summary for learning to live within the constraints imposed by this new breed of warfare (I will quote completely).  We should learn to avoid:

• Nation-building as a global social policy. Historically, counter-insurgency against an established enemy has almost never worked (and when it has, it usually involves bloody exterminations). Any attempt to build a nation will likely, particularly in the current environment of globalization, yield an opponent that will be impossible to defeat through limited means. Further, the durations of these conflicts will exceed the capacity of the western states to maintain a cohesive set of objectives — they will shift with opinion polls and political winds.
• Collapsing rogue states. In almost all instances, despite how easy it is to collapse a weak state with modern weapons, those wars launched to collapse rogue states will not yield positive results. The collapse will necessitate calls for revival (see item one). Unless states are willing to live with partial collapse without resolution, they should not undertake the action in the first place.
• Escalation of tension. Given an inability to resolve conflicts through nation-building and state collapse, western states should endeavor to deescalate conflicts rather than ignite them. Escalation is a false God that promises a return of the motivational clarity found in the wars of the 20th Century. It cannot deliver this. The only thing it provides is a widening and deepening of the conflict through the proliferation of opposition. 

Mr. Robb probably knows about one thousand times as much about the current subject as I do.  So it is with all due respect that I say that I think that his characterization of the problem(s) is incomplete.

Having a son in the Marines, I study everything I can get my hands on pertaining to his training, the history of the Marines, the nature of the current conflict, and what he will likely be doing in several months.

One of the more interesting things that I have learned is the concept of “small wars.”  I highly recommend reading the Small Wars Manual, and I especially recommend visiting the Marine Corps Small Wars web site and another site called Small Wars Journal.  I make a daily visit to these sites (and sometimes more).

What Mr. Robb describes has already been described in detail in the Small Wars Manual.  In fact, the Marines have known this not since the publication of the manual in the early ’40s, but essentially since the birthday of the Marines, 10 November 1775.

Since their birthday, the Marines have been engaged in small, low intensity conflicts at the behest of the President, oftentimes without the support of the public, without a declaration of war, and without clear goals or orders, while battling both regular forces and insurgencies and while also having to deal with more pedestrian issues such as electrical power and the restoration of government.  Such engagements have often relied upon rapid, mobile and robust force projection.

The above paragraph is not an advertisement.  The Small Wars Manual is as salient today as it was when it was first published.  It is an admonition for the Army to consider its future.  The Marines have had to adapt, modify, adjust and make-do based on the changing conditions of the over three hundred low intensity engagements in its history.  The Army will do the same, or it will become irrelevant to the twenty first century.

If this type of warfare is not new, then what has changed?  My contention is that politics has changed.

Politics and failure to act decisively allowed Bin Laden and many in Al Qaida leadership to escape Tora Bora.  Politics failed to execute a warrant for al Sadr’s arrest during Paul Bremer’s watch in Iraq (I recently saw an interview with Bremer on FNC in which he attributed this failure to a military decision, saying that he was in favor of al Sad’r arrest.  I know nothing of the decision making or line of authority concerning this matter, but if the military made this decision, then the one who actually approved of letting al Sadr escape arrest should be on the receiving end of a courts martial).  Politics has caused us to cease hostilities on Ramadan.  Politics has caused us to refuse to fire upon Mosques (until very recently).  Politics has caused problems for Gitmo.  Politics has dragged generals in front of congressional inquiries to be battered by those seeking to stake out a position for the upcoming elections in November.

There is a deep division in America, with one side being not just anti-military, but rather, socialistic and anti-American to a large extent, and this is a failure of American society, not American military strategy or might.  Even though the Marines have engaged in conflicts before in which the public was unsupportive (or unaware), the difference now seems to be politics in the highest ranks of the military brass.  The military establishment seems less willing to insulate the decision-makers from politics, and potentially risky decisions are avoided due to their being seen as potentially career-ending decisions.  To summarize, my contention is that the main difference today is the deference being paid to politics by the military brass (and senior leadership, including the Secretary or Defense and even the President).

When properly posed, I believe the question to be “do we have the political will to win?”  The tactics, strategy, manpower, know-how, equipment and patriotism are already in place.

It is not a question of warfare.  It is a question of politics.

Postscript: Even if I am right, this post doesn’t address the other issues raised in the GG post such as nation-building.  I will post on this at a later time.

The LA Times carried the story of the 21 former generals and other diplomats who sent the open letter to the President on Iran “not being a crisis.”  General Robert Gard was on the talking heads circuit trying to talk to anyone who would listen to him on the dangerous Bush policies in the Middle East.

From OneWorld US:

“We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program,” their letter read.

“An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq,” they argued. “It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere.”

In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration’s policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.

“That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the ‘Evil Empire,” said retired Lt. General Robert Guard (sic), who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “One wonders why George Bush can’t negotiate with the Axis of Evil.”

The generals further argued that the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran’s drive to develop a nuclear program.

“When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don’t want them to do,” Guard (sic) said, “develop a nuclear weapon.”

The pathetic OneWorld US can’t even get General Gard’s name spelled correctly (I had to use OneWorld because not many news outlets covered this story).  More pathetic is that the poor General can’t get his facts straight.

Ronald Reagan talked to Mikhail Gorbachev at a time when Perestroika was being pursued.  Reagan did not talk to Nikita Krushchev when he was shouting “We will bury you!” and banging his shoe on the table.  The times — if the General would simply recall — were the so-called “cold war.”  The USSR was once a powerful and recalcitrant Nation, but the arms race had bankrupted them and with the advent of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Gorbachev, the kind of reformer who wanted to compromise anyway, was ready to come to the table without preconditions.

Its a strange idea, this notion of talking with these Hitleresque terrorists in Iran.  What, pray tell, would be the purpose?  To what end would we engage in talks?  What do you aim for when talking with a man that has sworn genocide and takeover of Israel and absolute destruction of the U.S.?  Do we aim for an agreement for partial rather than absolute destruction?  Who would we sacrifice in this partial destruction of our country?  Who gets swept up in this death march?

On the other hand, perhaps General Gard believes that if we just talk persuasively enough, we can persuade him not to wish and work for our destruction.  Is this it?  Do we propose to send our State Department representatives over to Iran to tutor him in the correct understanding of the Qur’an?

What specifically does General Gard propose?  Do we compromise by allowing him to enrich Uranium, thinking that the IAEA will actually be allowed to inspect his secret facilities to ensure that they stop at reactor-grade and do not proceed to weapons grade?

To say that threats against Iran if they continue to enrich Uranium will cause them to enrich Uranium rather than stopping it is analogous to saying that a threat to spank a child for bad behavior will only cause him behave more badly, so we shouldn’t spank him.  No one in the U.S. has, to the best of my knowledge, ever spoken of an attack on Iran in the case that it gives up its weapons program and support for world-wide terror.  It would make no sense, as Iran would hold no strategic value if they weren’t a sponsor of terror.

Finally, the General says that the Iranian nuclear situation is “not a crisis.”  Unless the General has specific knowledge of all of Iran’s centrifuges and how efficiently they were operating, and had performed SWU (Separative Work Unit) calculations to assess how far along Iran was with their enrichment program, how would he know?  Answer: He wouldn’t.

How sad.  General Gard, I feel sure, once had a stellar career.  The capstone of his career will now be rembered as this silly statement and his emotional antics on Television a few nights ago.

I have always looked at the TSA with some degree of loathing, for reasons that would be too many to innumerate here (including but not limited to: (a) it was at one time run by the pitiful Norman Maneta, (b) it is a government agency when it should have been privatized, (c) the times that I have seen them in action them seem to show little regard for true risks and favor busy-work, and (d) anyone who asks a little old Caucasian lady with a walking cane to disrobe or take her shoes off should be whipped and excluded from contributing to the gene pool of the country rather than given a job.  Yes, I have seen a TSA employee search a little old white lady with a walking stick.).

Now I have found the best reason of all of loath the TSA.  Our friend Oak Leaf over at Polipundit has a post on the TSA searching men and women in uniform, and cites a commentary at the Orlando Sentinel:

A little-known fact about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the U.S. military requires soldiers to travel in uniform from theater. An even lesser known fact is that the Transportation Security Administration aggressively targets war veterans as they travel home to their loved ones.

At Baltimore’s airport on my way back to Orlando from Iraq, there were about 50 soldiers in line, waiting to be cleared by TSA. I noticed soldiers taking off clothing, and then they assumed the position so commonly seen in police-chase videos, arms and legs spread wide as a screener passed a wand close to their bodies. Soldiers were asked to remove belts, boots and shirts, and their carry-on bags were ransacked.

“We’re fighting a war. Do you guys think we’re a threat?” I asked as I spread my legs and arms.

The screener replied, “I dunno,” and kept his wand in motion.

There you have it.  Your tax dollars going to perform meaningless and silly busy-work intended to embarrass your men and women in uniform rather than decrease the collective risk to our country.

There it is again ringing in my ears: “I dunno.”  Someone whip that jackass, please?

But Oak Leaf has a solution for it: the registered traveler program.  Go check it out at Polipundit.

Okay, here we go with a prediction.  I have made only a few of those so far, because they are something that:

1. No one remembers if you got it right, and
2. Everyone will remember if you got it wrong.

Nevertheless, I will make one.  This is a prediction with a small “p.”  I have no special knowledge and I am not clairvoyant.  I just have a web site and have a thought to share — for whatever its worth.

Joseph Lieberman will win the Senate race this November.  The democrats in Connecticut committed suicide tonight.  They simply imploded, and let the Daily KOS types ruin their chances of taking the Senate this November (I am a Republican, so this is a good thing if I am right).

My thinking goes like this.  Ken Mehlman won’t give a penny from the RNC coffers to the Republican candidate in Connecticut.  There will be enough Republicans that cross over and vote Independent this November that, together with about half of the democrats in Connecticut (if tonight is any indication), Lieberman’s tally will make him victorious.

Polls will be taken until the “cows come home” or until “pigs fly.”  People will respond in polls what they would like to happen, not what they will do in November.  When Republicans go into the private voting booth, they will (correctly) think: My candidate cannot get elected — he doesn’t have the votes, and my vote will not change that.  Lieberman can get elected, but my vote might make a difference in this case.  If Lieberman gets elected, not only do I have a Senator who is strong on defense, but the democrats lose a seat in the Senate, decreasing their strength by unity (one).  If I vote for Lieberman my candidate loses, but I win.

So, I cast the vote for Lieberman.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of coverage.

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

From CSM:

TAIPEI, TAIWAN – As Asia grapples with the fallout from North Korea’s projectile posturing, another military flashpoint in the region – the Taiwan Strait – is in the midst of missile tensions as well.

A private TV station reported earlier this month that Taiwan’s military was preparing to test-fire a tactical missile in September capable of striking targets in China. While the details were sketchy and the claim was swiftly denied by the Ministry of National Defense, they struck a chord with analysts who have heeded the frustration among hawks in Taiwan over the island’s vulnerability in the face of China’s military might, including its expanding missile arsenal.

May I go on record as saying that this is a highly, extremely, very bad idea … until, that is, Taiwan can give proof of its already having gone nuclear.  If Taiwan goes nuclear, they have protection against Chinese bully tactics.  If they don’t, this missile will be seen as nothing more than an instigation to conflict — a conflict that Taiwan will lose.

Ed Peck, Chief of U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter, was interviewed on Fox News Channel today, and said some remarkable things (over at HotAir.com).  Here is the conversation I transcribed a few minutes ago.  Ed Peck is EP, and the Fox News Channel commentators are FN.  After being pressed on how to prevent World War III, Ed Peck begins:

EP: Maám, it’s a good question.  I’m a diplomat.  I believe very sincerely on the basis of my experience and whatever knowledge I have of history, that if there’s a problem between two groups, and they sit down to see if they can eliminate or reduce the problem — they talk about it — there’s a chance that they can achieve that objective.  But if they do not talk, there’s no chance.

FN: But Mr. Ambassador, Hezbollah is bent on … you know … sort of wiping Israel off the map.  So what is there more to say?

EP: Well, and Israel is bent on destroying everybody in Hezbollah, so what is there to say?  There is a middle ground, almost always.  But you’ve got to talk, just like we did to the Russians during the cold war, although we knew they could blast us off the face of the earth — at cost.

FN: But Mr. Ambassador, do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

EP: Well, a terrorist organization is in the eye of the beholder.

FN: I’m asking you.

EP: Okay.  You have to understand, now, we parachuted people into Europe in World War II.  You’re too young to remember that.  Their job was to kill Germans.  Now.  Were they terrorists or heros?

FN: Well, let’s go back to Hezbollah.  Do you think its a terrorist organization?

EP: No, I think it has objectives to which we object very strongly, and some of them are bloody, but other people are doing things quite similar to that, and they’re not called terrorists, because they’re on our side.

Permit be a bit of commentary since I went to the trouble of transcribing this juvenile conversation.  Here is a remarkable testimonial to a foreign policy that has been completely unhinged from any value system except, or course, relativism.

The sole criteria that Mr. Peck sees being used to define the word “terrorist” is whether we agree with them or not.  He is incapable of judging any further than that as to means, tactics, purposes or causes.  It represents the impotent Carter administration exactly, and it is again remarkable that Mr. Peck even brought up the examples that he did.  Let’s look at them for a moment.

He brings up the cold war and the talky-talk with Russia.  But Carter accomplished nothing during his administration except the strengthening of communism and terror around the world (well, he did bring us 16% inflation).  It was the Reagan administration that won the cold war, and Peck’s mentioning of it only highlights the abject failure that defined the Carter administration during these years.  That Peck defines this as a success is incredible but informative.

Peck brings up the airborne troops that were dropped into Europe during WWII, asking rhetorically if they were terrorists?  FN failed to give the answer.  Let me supply it.  No.  The U.S. showed incredible restraint in the years leading up to our involvement in WWII.  In the years 1939-1943, German U-Boats sank approximately 4700 U.S. merchant ships, sinking them at a greater rate than the U.S. could manufacture ships.  One merchant ship, in fact, was sunk at the mouth of the Mississippi River on May 12, 1942.

All pathologies bent on world domination (communism, Islamic facism, Nazism, etc.) use times of talking to re-arm, rest, strategize and re-group.  These times of talking have always occurred at strategically beneficial points for those bent on world domination.  Why wouldn’t they?  If all we are willing to do is talk, the enemy waits until he is ready.  We will always be ready.

But this strategic use of timing to re-arm is irrelevant if there is no good and no evil.  If there is no side of right and side of wrong, it really doesn’t matter who is strongest now.  Only under a system that is hopelessly incapable of ascertaining good and evil does one compare the American G.I. in WWII with Hezbollah terrorists who drag non-combatants in front of them to die in their stead — and then celebrate the death of those same non-combatants.

No, the talking that Ed Peck and Jimmy Carter did on their watch caused, at least in part, the situation we now face.

Jimmy and Ed should be ashamed.  But their value system will not allow it.