It's time to leave the UN

But America won't, because for some reason that escapes me, people are infatuated with multilateralism. They just adore it. The EU, the UN, The Kyoto Protocol; it's all evidence that they can buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony. But it simply has never worked.

President Bush spoke at the United Nations General Assembly this week and told them something that they needed to hear. I'm paraphrasing. The Human Rights Council has failed again and again. It is comprised primarily of countries that hate Israel and the United States. The Council has failed to act on the most egregious forms of human rights violations in the world. In the most recent assembly, it enacted two resolutions against Israel but none against the most atrocious regimes on the face of the earth. That brings the total to 15 resolutions against Israel and 4 impotent resolutions against Sudan; Land of the Dead.

The Council was unable to decide if an investigator should remain in Darfur, and so postponed its decision for three more months.

Here, in a nut-shell is what happens when entities like the UN form: All states that take part in the entity's actions, like all things in life, tend toward homeostasis. And since the chaotic malcontents far outnumber the successful western cultures, the West finds itself playing down to the lowest common denominators. To allow the opinions of known human rights violators such as Russia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia is lunacy. Lunacy in the name of just getting along.

Torture

No, I'm not talking about listening to Rosie O'Donnell. I'm talking about water-boarding. Torture is bad. So is shooting someone in the head. And yet, liberals try to tell me how evil America is for water-boarding captured members of Al-Qaeda, yet they never speak of the Al-Qaeda operative whom gets shot in the head from 300 yards by a Marine sniper. Give any operative a choice between water-boarding and getting shot and see what answer you get. CIA agents must undergo water-boarding so that they have experience with its effects. Is Amnesty International crusading for the rights of CIA agents to not be subjected to torture?

It's too easy to say that America shouldn't use torture because torture is bad. I always investigate closely anything that seems too easy--axioms if you will. Many times I find them to be correct, but often I find that they are cliche'd and spoken of without true thought.

Would torture be alright if your baby girl or boy were being held hostage by Al-Qaeda, perhaps with a scheduled YouTube beheading looming? If you say that you wouldn't authorize torture in such a case, I question your morality. And I don't proclaim torture to be moral. I proclaim it to be at times necessary. Just as long-range head shots in a war are necessary but not really moral. We need to stop thinking of war as a moral issue. I'm sure this shocks many people who only want it to be that. I'll say it right here: WAR IS EVIL. It causes massive destruction, kills thousands, sometimes millions--and yet sometimes it's necessary because there are even more horrible things than war. The will to live and the right to live are beyond morality. I expect no one to willingly die, even if they deserve death. The will to live is just too strong to expect that.

Never the less, Bush signed into law a bill outlawing water-boarding. He got no credit from the lefties though--he's a fundamentalist after all and deserving of no credit for anything.

How can the media be wrong so often?

Do they do any investigation before they write and broadcast their stuff? They can't. There's no way. And apparently most of the Democrat members of the House and Senate don't either. There's a massive outburst today, both from the House floor and the leftist media (90 % of the media) about a statement that Rush Limbaugh made yesterday. Limbaugh was commenting on former lefty love-child Jesse MacBeth. MacBeth had drawn adoration from liberals and military haters because of MacBeth's statements that he had served in Iraq where he witnessed soldiers abusing Iraqis, burning bodies and hanging them from the rafters of mosques. For months, MacBeth spouted what the weirdos that have taken over the Democrat party wanted to hear: America is evil. But guess what?

MacBeth lied.

He was never in Iraq. He washed out of Army boot camp. He has been convicted and sentenced for lying under oath. Yesterday, Limbaugh commented that MacBeth is a phony. Major media outlets like MSNBC jumped on the story saying that Limbaugh labeled all soldiers that did not agree with the Iraq war as phonies. I heard the whole show yesterday and that is obviously not what he said and he would never say such a thing. John Kerry was predictably among the knuckleheads berrating Limbaugh. This is the same Kerry who in 2005 accused the American military of attrocities in Iraq. To think that this man was almost president.

This story is all over, with journalists asking politicians for their response to Limbaugh's supposed statement. The media has messed up again--but they're unaccountable. Who watches the watchmen? Drooling head-nodders, that's who.

Syrian nuclear facilities--gone.

On September 6th, the Israeli air force dispatched a wing of F-15 Strike Eagles into Syrian airspace and launched a successful attack on a nuclear tech. facility. The facility was the result of collaboration of the North Korean government and Syrian scientists.

The response from Syria to this overt act of war by Israel? Utter silence. Why? Because they're scared. Syria boasted the thickest net of anti-aircraft installments of any country in the Middle East. They have recently purchased ultra-modern technology from (surprise) Russia. The stuff didn't work. Good.

The real reason Iran's president Ahmadinejad payed a visit is because he's afraid too. Recent reports by Indian nuclear scientists who've visited Iran to help out with the nuclear program, state that they were asked repeatedly by Iranian officials and scientists if America and Israel would attack.

Why are these countries scrambling all at once to build nukes? Because we've broadcast Western disunity over enforcing international law. Saddam didn't have to abide by UN mandates, why should they observe IAEA rules? We don't have the will to win and the rogue states know it. The West is like a single-mother who's tired of controlling incorrigible Johnny, so lets him do whatever he wants.

Tim Russert hit Hillary Clinton with some good questions at the debate the other night. It's shocking really. Journalists are prone to throwing softballs to Democrats (remember- only 4% of journalists are registered Republicans). But Russert pressed her on several issues--torture, Iran's nuclear ambitions. And Hillary did what she always does: changed her story on one question and refused to answer the other. She is not a leader--never has been, never will be. She's a poll reader. It's not easy to lead. It's tough. You make enemies but you follow your conscious and do the best that you can. You listen to those who have experience and wisdom, but ultimately if you're in charge, you make the tough choices. The media has destroyed most candidates' will to be leaders because the backlash is too strong for making unpopular decisions.

Hillary can't make an unpopular statement let alone a decision. Russert asked her about torture. She stated that she opposed all forms of torture. Russert than revealed that the parameters he had read to her for the torture question were from her husband, Bill. Bill has supported torture under the right conditions. Hillary joked that she needed to talk to Bill about his conclusions. Of course Hillary has stated before in an interview published in the New York Times that she supported "ticking time-bomb torture." Then Russert asked her about Israel's right to strike Iran should Israel's security be threatened by nuclear weapons. She outright refused to answer. Israel struck Iraq in 1981, destroying a nuclear reactor. What's different now? America is different, that's what.

Citizen Soldier to Segregated Warrior

The similarities in the historical curves between the Roman Empire and America are staggering, frightening really. But so much of our mode of government and military system was taken from Rome, that perhaps I should not be surprised by the ways Roman decay so matches America's own.

One worrisome aspect that I hope future generations will take care to remedy is the current segregation of our civilian from our military. More and more, beginning with the Vietnam conflict, our nations warriors are being pushed aside from their country's populace. Our best colleges have banned ROTC programs and it's almost unheard of for a graduate from one of these schools to enter the military. This is a problem. We have so demonized our own military, that it is threatened by us, not our enemies. We treat our armies as plebeians, doing the dirty-work for unappreciative mall-shoppers. What a shame, for there has never been a great civilization without a great army. When you become great, many would plunder your treasures.

In ancient Rome, around 100 BC, Romans served in the army not for money, but because of a sense of duty to the state. Those that could afford armor and other equipment were called Class I Hoplites. So the richest did the toughest fighting. An interesting concept. The poorer farmers and such served to a lesser degree and with weaker armor and weapons. When a military conflict had come to an end, the members of the army went back to their civilian jobs.

Toward the second century AD, Rome was primarily a demilitarized society. This despite its reputation as a martial culture. Only the poorest served in the military, which was at that point a paid professional army. Very few of Rome's soldiers were born in Italy, for Rome absorbed the armies of every nation that it conquered, granting citizenship to those who fought for the great city.

During the peak of the British Empire, the finest and highest ranking officers in the Royal Army were graduates from Oxford. This is in part why British colonies did so well, and in the end improved the world. We should learn from the British model of old.

The great universities of America need to change their pompous attitudes. They need to get rid of their elitist mentality. If they want the military to change, then they should accept ROTC programs and they should be recruiting officers who are currently serving in the military so that these men can attend their schools. That is the only way these schools can bridge the ever widening gap between our fighting men and America's civilians.

For more on this, see my article--The American Republican Army.

McCain--At least he has a spine

I admit that in the past I had some serious questions about John McCain. But he's significantly improved his status with me in the last couple of months. He speaks soberly but with conviction, he fully understands the implications of the war in Iraq and the dangers posed by fundamentalist Islam. Most importantly, I truly believe that he loves America. He has not changed his rhetoric to meet the swaying tides of polls; he must know that his stance on Iraq is doing him no favors but he's been honest with himself and the citizenry and for that I must commend him. McCain has shown himself to be an honorable man while serving his country. I do not give an automatic pass to those who have served. Wesley Clark is vastly at odds with my views for instance, but I will give everyone their do for serving in the armed forces as military service no longer carries the honor that it used to among the populace.

McCain has a spine. He says what needs to be said and his words seem fresh to me when juxtaposed with those of Hillary Clinton's canned speeches. His comments about MoveOn.org are exactly what needs to be said and I see that he has no fear of not being elected as president. That's something I see amongst most of the candidates--fear of irritating someone, if only for stating the truth. But we need to hear the truth. Also, I believe that McCain can quell some of the polarity that has (though I believe unjustly) gripped our nation. The GBDS (George Bush Derangement Syndrome) that many are experiencing can be controlled with medication--and McCain may be just the apothecary to administer the dose.

Right now, John McCain has my support for the Republican nomination.

Dick Cheney in the Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal today published an article by Dick Cheney. Cheney is an excellent writer; I've read other articles written by him and am impressed.

I implore everyone to read this article. Then ask yourself: Why haven't you heard this before? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010624

Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan's memoir--The Age of Turbulence--hit the book shelves today. The Dems are eating it up of course, because of Greenspan's disparaging remarks about the Bush administration. Here's the quote that is sending the left to near orgasmic rapture: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil".

Explain this, Mr. Greenspan. Explain exactly what you mean. Did America have an interest, indeed, did the whole world have an interest in preventing Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991? And was oil part of that interest? Of course. If the oil were water, and that water was important enough so that human life or at least life's quality were severey damaged for lack of said water--would a war to secure water be the correct action? If it were you or someone you loved suffering or dying for lack of water, I dare say that you would want America to fight for it. I am not saying that either Iraq invasion was primarily about oil. It was about denying a dictator the power to damage our nation, either though his control of the massive oil reserves in Kuwait, or by stockpiling WMD. Oil is important. Oil is not evil. Every day, virtually every American uses products containing petroleum. We buy our oil at a price set by OPEC. If the middle-east did not have oil, that area of the world would come closer to resembling the more horrible places in Africa than the quasi-civilized place it is now.

And besides, Greenspan doesn't say that the war is immoral. He says that he's saddened that linking the war to oil is politically inconvenient. But in the end, I fail to see how we have any more oil than we had before. The price of oil is up. No country in the world wants to go without oil any more than it wants to go without food, water or other sources of energy. Countries have always fought over recources--because recources are life.

By the way. I agree with Greenspan's complaints that the Bush administration did not veto enough spending bills, while at the same time lowering taxes. I do agree that conservatives need to return to their roots of fiscal thrift. But this doctrine will require cutting domestic spending and there are so many currently riding the gravy-train, that I fear it's a hard-sell. Now we have Hillary talking about her socialized medecine plan( which is actually Bill's plan, as just revealed) and this is going to pull more people onto the government teet. Get ready to spend big-time under Hillary.

Party of Defeatism

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."~Winston Churchill

Some may accuse me of being a Republican partisan. I'm not; I'm an American partisan, and the things that I see the Democrats doing right now remind me why I cannot be one of them.

If MY party--The Republican party--were doing what the Democrats have done to David Petraeus, I would pack my bags and be done with them. And Republican or no, apologist for the Iraq War notwithstanding, if Patraeus' report stated that the war was a lost cause and nothing good could come from staying, I would have to acquiesce. Anyone with any honor should leave the shameful political cog that is the Let's All Lose Together Party. They don't love this country; they hate what made America what it is and they wish to change it. And they most certainly don't understand sacrifice and honor or that someone wearing a uniform can be intelligent and honest. All their pandering, and giving in has done little to bring peace. The sad thing is that I believe that they know the nature of the beast (Islamic Fundamentalism) but refuse to state the truth--because they know what people want to hear. That everything is fine and dandy in the world and only if America would hand out more soccer balls to children, the extremists will stop killing us. The Dems hedge their bets on America's distaste for studying history and lean on niceties and vagaries.

Patraeus didn't say what the leftists wanted him to, and the Party of Defeatism hates him for it. Barbera Boxer and Hillary Clinton appear as the petty ideologues they are--and the world will pay for their ignorance should America leave Iraq now. It doesn't matter what party the reader of this article is a member of. Everyone who cares should ask themselves what will happen should we leave now, after years of sacrifice and work and blood--leave just when there is light at the end of the tunnel. Iraq will implode, millions will be slaughtered and Al-Qaeda will be gifted with a training ground.

When and if the Democrats gain the Whitehouse, I expect to see a president that is holding their breath, waiting out their terms for the big money that will come to them on the speech circuit. They'll keep on negotiating with the likes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda ala Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They'll pray they can hold the terrorists off until the next president has to deal with them. They will have to deal with them--history tells me no different.

I'll leave you with one more quote from that greatest of statesmen, Winston Churchill (Can't you come back, just for four years, Winston?):

"Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer."

Oh Goody! Environmentally Friendly Bombs!

The Russians recently showcased a new type of bomb-- a fuel-air bomb with the equivalent explosive power of 44 metric tons of TNT. Fuel- air bombs are not new. In the movie, Outbreak, one is dropped on a camp in the African jungle in order to eradicate a deadly virus.

The great part about this, is not that humans would be instantly evaporated within the blast radius of this largest of conventional munitions. No, it's that even the hard Russians know how to please the media. Here's a quote from Alexander Rukshin, Chief of Staff for the Russian military: "At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one."

Good--I was worried. After several thousands of people are fried by liquefied petroleum gas, at least we'll be able to build a wild-life preserve in their memory.

Book Review--Colossus

"Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders, and to hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests and kings, as she can. What a colossus shall we be."~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

This is the opening line to Niall Ferguson's Colossus--The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. It is not often that one comes across a book that deeply embeds itself on your consciousness, but such a book is Colossus for me.

Ferguson is a Harvard and Oxford educated history professor who writes with potent clarity. The scope of his knowledge is enormous, ranging from economics, military history and literature. The premise for this book, somewhat of a modern-day classic, is this: America is an empire in denial. It has power that it no longer wants, and in the end, its lack of will may be its undoing.

My favorite aspect of Ferguson's writing is that he backs up his statements with firm examples and numbers from history, not bumper-sticker slogans and feel-good quotes. First, the author speaks of the "Imperialism of Anti-imperialism." America's efforts to destroy despotism and totalitarian regimes. He juxtaposed this policy against the British Imperialism of the past and comes to the conclusion that British Imperialism did far more good than bad, and that America could do the same--if only it were tougher. To prove his point, he shows that of all the former British colonies, now relinquished to go about their business, only two have surpassed their per capita gross domestic product under imperialism-- others have fallen. The two that have prospered being Singapore and Australia. Even Canada has declined.

Ferguson also tackles issues concerning the war in Iraq and shows how America was damaged in similar ventures in the Philippines and Central America. America's problem: We don't stay long enough. We remove regimes, then move out. The British on the other hand, stayed for decades and in almost every case, British overseas ventures resulted in better places for human beings to live.

The EU, according to Ferguson, has in some cases been beneficial, but for the most part, its effectiveness is overrated. It has not allowed Europe to move as an entity even in stabilizing places within its own borders such as Kosovo. Also, the EU as a whole still lags behind the United States in most economic areas and shows to signs of uniting further. The UN too is all but non-existent and impotent without the United States.

Ferguson ends his book by stating that America is a less effective empire than its British for-bearer and states the following reasons:

1) Social Security and Medicare, not military spending, are primarily responsible for America's economic deficit. Both will continually drain the federal coffers at an increasingly dangerous rate. The political power of the AARP and the feel-good tactics necessary to get elected may prevent the cuts in these programs needed to avert disaster.

2) America's armies are experiencing a man-power deficit. It's standing army is the smallest it's been in a long time--a time when our overall population was much smaller and a time when our allies were more likely to be of help as opposed to their current role as speed-bumps of American power. More men in uniform are needed if we are to nation-build.

3) Lastly, and most important to Ferguson, is America's attention deficit. The United States lacks the will that Imperial Britain possessed and therefore, in it's current state, America cannot make the world a better place as it would otherwise be capable of doing.

Ferguson states that it is possible that the world could become a place of apolar power. America, while having power, refuses to use it. Europe with its, self-imposed neutering. The occasional rise of rogue-states my in fact become not-so-occasional.

Few books that I have ever read have been so informative. I will read it several times in the course of my remaining years, if only to better understand what Ferguson has to say. This book should be required reading for all studying American history and International Relations. Lastly, it should be required reading for Barak Obama.

5 out of 5 five stars.

Next week: Clandestine, by James Ellroy.

Petraeus and Congress

I'm watching the Congressional hearings today. As of this writing, Petraeus has not testified, but has sat listening to members of Congress. My blood pressure spiked when I had the dishonor of listening to Representative Lantos--DEMOCRAT-- from CALIFORNIA, ramble on. He's all for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, calling the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, "myopic."

Myopic? The true case of Myopia is any thoughts of withdrawal! Do we think Al-Qaeda will lay down its arms? Who in their right mind believes that an unstable Iraq is good for America or the world? As I watched Petraeus' reactions to some comments, in particular, when Republican Dunkan Hunter showed him an article purchased and printed in The New York Times by MoveOn.org, calling Petraeus, General Betrayus, I saw that the General was shaken. The Democrats have stated repeatedly that Petraeus's speech is written as Bush's propaganda. How repugnant, how despicable, how down-right wrong. This is a man who is putting himself in danger's way in Iraq. This is his third combat tour there. I won't listen to anyone that's pushing for cushy votes deride Patraeus; not until they themselves go where he's been. He holds more credibility then any of the politicians on either side.

How can any American not want us to win? It's their country, they live here! Regardless of any one's ideas on the efficacy of this war at the beginning--we are there and we MUST win. Since MoveOn hates war, I hope that they'll surrender as easily in the one that I'm declaring--on them. They are a cancer, a hive of lies and a bunch of moonbats hovering around the hopes of catastrophic American loss. They hate America, and I hope that they hate me, because I am their enemy--sworn.

Does anyone reading this think that MoveOn.org or the Democrats want us to win? Do they want Petraeus to tell the truth if it means American success? Anyone who is honest with themselves will know that 1) The left is against a win because Bush would appear in a good light, 2) A win and a destruction of the enemies of America would chip away at the ideology of liberals. That is: weakness is strength and America must grow weaker in order to regain its status in the world.

Where are the outcries by the Democrats for the actions of Iran and Syria in supporting the sectarian violence and American deaths? As in the past 30 years, Democrats stand firmly on the side of despots, totalitarian regimes, and nihilistic assassins.

The Barbary Pirates

One of my enduring ambitions--aside from getting America to love itself again--it to give people a historical context for today's current events. So many times, mostly because of 24 hr. news, we are led to believe that the events of the day have no precedent.

Today we'll see that the ongoing war on terror is in fact an old war and that our enemies believe they have the right to kill us and take anything of value because we are infidels. It is true. Do not believe that all people around the world think as we do, and that violence and the importance of individuals lives receives the supreme value it does in America.

In 1784, just one year after America had finished its war of independence with Britain, Barbary Pirates, (water-borne thieves operating from the coasts of North Africa under the flag of Islam), seized an American ship. Negotiations ensued and America paid the pirates $60,000 in cash and a treaty was signed with Morocco. Then, again in 1784, Barbary Pirates from Algeria captured two American ships, sold them, and forced the crews into slavery.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson was America's ambassador to France; John Adams to Britain. Both of them met with the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli to Britain. The ambassador was asked why American ships had been attacked even though there had been no provocation and no past hostilities. Jefferson writes what the ambassador told him:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise

Such a response echoes today even; its din resonates in virtually every major country the world over--but people can't hear it even though it's repeated with startling regularity.

Have no doubt, it is commanded by Mohammed to kill or enslave the unbeliever. That is Islam's root. Not all Muslims follow Islam's commands to the letter, just as not all Christians are pious, but the commands are written that Al-Qaeda should do what it is doing--slaying infidels.

By 1793, twelve American ships had been captured; all of their crews lived as slaves for eleven years. War was never officially declared on the pirates, but military force was authorized by Congress. A point to remember, is that these pirates were terrorists of a sort. And they did not get trials nor were they held at Gitmo for CNN to film. They were killed by military engagement--that's what happened to pirates then and that's what should happen to terrorists now. They are engaging in a multi-national WAR. This is not a crime-spree; it is battle.

America learned from its dealings with the Barbary Pirates that Islam grants itself the right to do whatever it wants to unbelievers. In the late 1700s, America paid $990,000 in ransom's and bribes to Algeria alone; the national revenue was merely $7 million.

The first Barbary War was conducted between 1801 and 1804 and then another commenced in 1815. The United States Marine Corp. saw extensive action in the fighting, gaining the moniker: Leathernecks.

In ending, consider the words of US consul William Eaton in 1799 as he wrote to the Secretary of State: "Too many concessions have been made to Algiers. There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

Al-- Don't leave

Yes, soon we'll all be rotisserie chickens. In about 8 1/2 years actually. So sayeth Al.

Al would have been the smart president, right? He was the guy who did really well in school, clearing the way for his status as sentinel of the eco-system, correct?

Ummmm--not quite.

Normally I wouldn't pick on someone for their grades in school, because people change and performance has as much to do with desire as intelligence; more in my opinion. But since liberals heap praise onto Al Gore and hold him up to be an intellectual(just because he's liberal), and also because the common charge against GW Bush is that George is dumb, let's explore Al's past academic performance.

-- Dropped out of Vanderbilt twice.

--Gore only took one economics course--ever. Intro to Economics. He got a C-.

--On his college board achievement tests, Gore score a 488 out of 800 on the physics portion and 519 out of 800 in chemistry.

--While at Harvard, Gore earned a D in Natural Sciences 6; he received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

--While at Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore received five F's.

There are more examples of Gore's lack of academic success. The primary point is--Gore has NO scientific credentials. He is a demagogue and a hack. He dribbles shallow content lifted from editorials in GQ magazine. But above all of that--he's a millionaire who invested heavily in "green" stocks before embarking on his mission to save the penguins.

Numbers Count

After the initial invasion of Iraq, the lightning-quick destruction of the Iraqi standing military and the removal of Saddam from power, the situation in Iraq seemed well in hand. From there, an insurgency arose, prompted by Al-Qaeda. There can be no question that mistakes were made--as they are always made in every war. The Battle of the Bulge, for instance, was a catastrophic intelligence failure on the part of the United States. The German army's attempted breakout and encirclement of four allied armies resulted in the deaths of 19,000 American soldier. Most of these deaths occurred over a span of three days!

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's plan for America's new military force was one whose constituents consisted of highly mobile, highly trained troops, small in number, working with as much ultra-tech as could be mustered by the likes of McDonald Douglas and Raytheon. Indeed, the wars of the future were to be "small wars" and they could take place on the filthy streets of Mogadishu or in the jungles of South America. Uprisings, coups, genocidal tyrants were what we had to worry about, not the juxtaposed might of the Soviets. To be fair to Rumsfeld, this was the thinking of almost all the generals in their war colleges as well as the authors of techno-thrillers like Tom Clancy. And indeed, Iraq's leader was a genocidal tyrant, and one that flaunted the weakness of UN resolve in unabashed fashion.

What Rumsfeld's new legions were not prepared for, was nation building. America's fighting force was meant to annihilate the enemy quickly, and to be sure, they practice their craft with the utmost efficiency. But in this thing called nation building numbers count. Laser-guided bombs shatter the resolve of the enemy for hours, perhaps days, but guerrillas quickly regain confidence when they peer from the gloom of their enclaves and see--no American troops.

Approximately 120,000 troops were mustered for the invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Rumsfeld that between 250,000 and 300,000 troops would be needed to pacify the country. There were simply not enough troops to cover the places that needed covering after the initial invasion.

Some statistics warrant inspection. Despite the "bake-sales, not bombers" bumper-stickers you may have seen, America spends far less on its military than at any time in modern history. The military's force numbered 3 million at it's peak in the early seventies; now it stands at 1.4 million. And of that 1.4 million, almost 85% are stationed in the United States, not overseas.

This war is far from the unmitigated disaster that so many speak of. The casualties are remarkably low, the infrastructure of Iraq remarkably intact. It is not that Americans can't stand casualties, they just have no patience and little knowledge of history. I don't understand at all the latter. We have more access to information that any culture ever and yet, my grandfather knew more history than many high school teachers that I know of--that's a shame. We want to shatter regimes, and then leave as quickly as possible, and that's fine, as long as the job is complete. The surge is completing our task. Our failures in Iraq produced lessons hard-earned, but greatly less painful than lessons of the past. Honorable men and women have shed their blood for this just war. Remember, America--there are just wars. The ease of the fight does not constitute a war's justification. I think that before most of us pass on, we'll see a difficult war and we shall be ashamed of our current doubts.

Simplified Insanity Index (SSI)

After much observation of the human condition, and having decided that psycho-therapy is for the most part post-modern astrology, I have created a simple index that may help others to know their own levels of sanity (or insanity). It may also help when someone is deciding if they should marry or date another person. It goes like this:

Add the number of body piercing/tattoos, cats and bumper stickers that you or your prospective date have. Then, simply refer to the chart below.

0-2: This person is stable, reliable and a realist. They don't believe that the government is tapping their phones and they don't have posters of Rosie O'Donnell over their beds. The person is able to cope with everyday difficulties without experiencing a psychological meltdown and destroying everything that is dear to them.

3-5: This person can be subject to mood swings, particularly when they hear George W. Bush speaking on television. They may tell you that their cats talk to them and tell them secrets known only to the "forest spirits." If you can put up with with the emotional roller coaster, you may find that there is a very good and intelligent person here, but there will be times of trouble.

6-10: Things start getting downright weird here. Lava lamps, smoking green herbs before going to work in the morning and quietly planning ways to cause psychological trauma to their significant other; that's what this person is all about. Bumper stickers will be comprised of the most cliche' slandering of America possible and some body piercings may be covered by underwear. When you look into this person's eyes, you'll experience moments of confusion; is that happiness or homicidal merriment?

11-15: People call the police on this person--often. They probably wander around town, stopping in at various places to expound of the End-Times. They have a friend that you can't see. To them, all of reality is a conspiracy; even God is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Piercings will be mostly facial and cats--probably Siamese.

16-20: The Chernobyl of cuckoos. Absolute and complete meltdown. There are cats in the cupboards, in the freezer and a fat-assed coon-cat will probably be using the toilet should you have to go number two at this person's house. Or, the entire back of their mini-van may look like a poster-board for the Sierra Club and hemp consumption. This person avoids fluoride in all forms(it's a form of government mind-control) and their teeth are worse for the wear. Their favorite movie is The Taxi Driver; they're completely sympathetic with DeNiro's role and may have shaved their heads just like he did in the movie. Al Gore may be this person's hero.

My friend and I were walking through the dog park the other day and came upon a fellow who'd brought what looked like a brigade of cats with him, all in separate cages. He was camping under a wooden canopy with his laundry strewn about. I thought I saw one of the cats mouth: "Help me," but I can't be sure. If you or someone you know carries their cats everywhere in separate cages, multiply the cat algorithm by two.

Media Coup

I just got done reading a column written in the New York Post by Ralph Peters. I consider myself a disciple of Peters, whom many believe is a top expert on terrorism and war in general. He is certainly the best amongst the experts at communicating using the written word. I respect him because, even though he is employed by a media outlet, he freely writes about media bias concerning the war in Iraq.

Peters has recently spent several weeks in Iraq reporting on the situation there, interviewing soldiers and generals alike. Peters himself is a retired Lt. Colonel from US Army Intelligence.

I found it interesting that Peters states in his latest article, that while he is in America reporting on the war, he begins to feel warn-out by the media's negativity. He himself begins to believe that maybe Iraq is a lost cause. Then, when he actually goes to Iraq, he feels much better about things. He walks around, talking to troops and Iraqi citizens and he's found little of the cynicism that's infested America. The Iraqis don't want us to leave now. The troops' morale is at its highest level since 2003. It is sad to me that someone could feel more positive while they're in a war zone than when they are in America. The media has pulled off a true psychological coup here in the States and I'm ashamed for them and ashamed at us for buying into it. Our politicians even visited the herd's trough.

Furthermore, while Peters reserves glowing optimism for greater results, he states that there is light at the end of the tunnel; Anbar Province, once a chaotic bloodbath, is now firmly in our control. The military was only 6 weeks ago fighting door-to-door there; now people walk down the streets wearing no body armor.

Strategically, Al-Qaeda has suffered a massive defeat in Iraq; Muslims there have rejected them, they want them gone and they realize now how truly evil the organization is. Iraq may never reach our level of open democracy but it is on the road to stability, peace and a prosperity it has not known since the days of Nebuchadnezzar--if only its people will see....

So now, let's throw out the idea of leaving when the jobs almost done. We're there, we need to see this thing through and we can't let the Irans of the world win--that would be truly catastrophic.