Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Archive for category The War on Terror

Unity Takes Time

Apr 5

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Media Criticism, The War on Terror | No Comments

Cori doesn’t seem to think that it’s right for a columnist at the paper to break news while the reporters sit on their hands. Don’t read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch then, where columnists routinely break news that their reporters show little interest or ability to cover.

But what’s more important is what’s actually reported — the progress in the talks between the political parties in Iraq to forge a government:

The political agreements are fragile, and they will be blown away if the factions can’t form a government soon to put them in practice. Meanwhile, beyond the Green Zone, Iraqis are still being slaughtered every day in the streets. But given where Iraq was six months ago — when Sunni and Shiite leaders were barely talking — their agreement on the framework for a unity government is important. These negotiations may not succeed, but they are not a fairy-tale fantasy, as some critics argue.

We Americans are an impatient lot. From my meagre experiences abroad, time takes on a different meaning once you leave the country.

I’m wondering if that chick at the AP will take Mr. Ignatius to task for the “as some critics argue” line. OK, that was a rhetorical device because I’m not wondering at all, since she didn’t note that President Bush was following the lead of the reporting about him which is routinely larded up with “some critics claim” constructions without ever naming the critics.

Tags:

Are All Creeds Created Equal?

Mar 19

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture, Movies, The War on Terror | No Comments

You just have to love a title like “Jesus and the Duke”, and the post itself doesn’t disappoint after such a strong lead. Andrew Klavan looks at creeds, honor killings, and how they relate to Elizabeth Smart. Yes, there is a difference in creeds, and what make the United States a rare country is that it a nation built on a creed and not ethnicity. Mr. Klavan writes:

I couldn’t help reflecting that if Elizabeth had been the child of Islamic hardliners, her welcome home might not have been quite as loving as it was.Now the Mormons and every other group have their extremists, but they’re not accepted by our society as they are virtually throughout the Muslim world. To the vast majority of Americans, the idea of punishing, let alone murdering, a raped child is so appalling that language fails. And there can be no multicultural dithering about it: our way is better than their way, as civilization is better than savagery, as love is better than hate. But, of course, our superiority isn’t a matter of individuals, it’s a matter of ideas. The Islamofascist’s creed is a bad one; the American creed is not.

Which brings me at last to the films of John Wayne and the ministry of Jesus Christ. I mean, if these are not the twin pillars our nation rests on, man, I don’t know what those pillars would be. Thus my texts for today’s sermon, brothers and sisters, are John 8: 3-11 and John Ford’s The Searchers.

Not just anybody who can weave the Bible and John Wayne together. I might have gone with Romans 12:19 myself.

I wonder what text Mr. Klavan would choose to go with True Grit?

Tags: , ,

Dude, Where’s My End?

Mar 10

Posted by Kevin Murphy in History, The War on Terror | No Comments

The Shield of Achilles posits that the story of the 20th century was the struggle between fascism, communism, and parliamentarianism in a an epochal war that lasted from 1914 to 1990. [Full disclosure – I haven’t made it all the way through the book yet, but what I’ve read so far is quite interesting if overlong.] It was the vanquishing of fascism and communism during this war that led to the famous claim by Francis Fukuyama that we had arrived at “The End of History”. And yet, here we are, locked in another war that looks to be both long and epochal with fascists.

And the parliamentarian nations that triumphed have been thoroughly infected by communism – which is why it’s perfectly acceptable to proclaim yourself as a communist at almost any university in the Western world (for instance, I was taught Econ 101 by prof Gurley who made no bones about being a communist), but not proclaim yourself a fascist. It is considered rude to mention the fact that communists are as deadly and inimical to individual liberty as fascists (the communists were able to kill more — 100 million — in the last century mainly because they lasted longer in power because the fascists attacked the parliamentarians first) in elite circles.

Rather than an end, we got a brief pause before once again the struggle between divergent societal organizational models resumed; but at least by winning the last war, parliamentarianism is in a far stronger position than the last time and can obtain victory mainly by summoning the will to win backed by the confidence in its own rightness. But our elites, wedded to communism, lack that will and confidence and are hurting, not helping, the war effort — not by taking an active role against, but by sitting out — pretending that there isn’t a war on, or at least not a real one.

File Under Just Plain Stupid

Feb 3

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

I know that there are those who think the title sums up this entire blog, but for a change I’m not being self-depreciating. Actually, the title could just have been only the truth can be this bizarre or something similar and been just as accurate.

Michael Yon [full disclosure, I’ve hit his tip jar once] is a freelance reporter who as ex-special forces actually understands what he’s reporting about in a war zone. And he’s unabashedly pro-soldier. He took one of the most famous pictures of the war so far, an American soldier cradling a dying Iraqi child following a terrorist attack. You’d think the Army would play nice with him, but you’d be wrong. The trouble is that the Army distributed his photo as if it were theirs, which cost him a chunk of change and respect. When he complained to the army about it and asks for recompense, they told him, I kid you not, that the liability waver he signed in order to be imbedded — which basically said if anything happened to him, he knew the risks going in and it wasn’t the Army’s fault — covered any harm he suffered from the Army distributing his photo, and that furthermore by uploading it to a government server he had an implied license agreement that the Army could do whatever they wanted with it. There’s no call to insult the man after you rip him off.

Now if that weren’t weird enough, Yon has asked Senator Ted Kennedy to help him with the matter (Yon’s current home base is Massachusetts). Talk about the odd couple.

UPDATE: The Army comes to it’s senses — OK, the dispute got the attention of General Brooks (the ultra smooth briefer of CENTCOM in the high tech media center in Qatar back during the invasion phase of OIF) who had a competent lawyer examine the dispute. So now everybody’s happy, and Senator Kennedy can leave his pants off for another night of carousing instead of working late on Mr. Yon’s complaint. Thanks to Kevin at Pundit Review for the heads up.

You Go George

Jan 10

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

I’ve already explained my thoughts on the whole “domestic spying” controversy – it isn’t domestic, and why my phone/email communications can’t be searched by a US government agent without a warrant while crossing a border yet I and my property can be is beyond me.

But Tom Maguire does his usual treatment of subjects that fascinate him (he’s still even posting on the Plame kerfuffle, bless his heart) which means he’s thorough (but gentle, as a blogger should be). So we have not just one post, not just two posts, but three whole posts about it. He gives a hypothetical situation on why even the 72 hour retroactive warrent may not be good enough – and frankly why the whole framework of FISA may simply be OBT (Overtaken By Technology) and rendered obsolete. He takes us through the thoughts of the Democrats who were briefed (including the New York Times – you know, the media wing of the Mediacratic party of which the Democrats are the political wing (kind of like the IRA and Sinn Fein, but different because we don’t know which side of the media/democrats is calling the shots and we know the IRA is calling the shots (pun not intended and regretted)) and concludes:

Possible unifying answer – Harman, Rockefeller, and the editors of the Times are all dupes. Uh huh. Another possible answer is, they know enough about this program to know that there might still be some secrets there.Folks who think that the catalog of Atrios’s ignorance and the limits of his imagination define the boundaries of human endeavor will remain bemused by his question. For myself, I am convinced that I don’t know enough about this program to have any solid idea what security issues might be involved, so I am relying on the good, if unsteady, judgments of elected representatives such as Harman and Rockefeller.

 

It’s clear from the Brit Hume interview with Rep. Harman that Tom links to that she thinks that there are still secrets there:

HUME: You say it’s basically foreign. Were you not made aware individuals within the United States’ conversations with the suspected terrorists overseas were part of the program?HARMAN: It’s a classified program, so I can’t discuss what I was made aware of. But let me say…

HUME: Well, I know, but the…

HARMAN: No.

HUME: … toothpaste is out of the tube…

HARMAN: … it was made clear to me — no…

HUME: … when it’s known that that’s the case.

HARMAN: But it was made clear to me that conversations between Americans in America were not part of the program and require — and I think they do — a court warrant in order to eavesdrop on them.

And that’s been a point of confusion, because some of the press articles allege that this is a so-called, as you said, domestic surveillance program. That’s not what I believe it is.

HUME: Well, all right. So in other words, your belief is that this was indeed a case of Americans being picked up, perhaps within the United States, in discussions with people overseas.

HARMAN: Well, let’s just leave your comment there. I really don’t want to confirm what…

HUME: All right.

 

No Brit, the toothpaste isn’t all out of the tube, and even if it were, the information hasn’t been declassified yet. The New York Times may rule the Mediacrats, but they don’t have the power to declassify (something that Joe Wilson forgot when he blew the cover off his wife being a covert operative).

And it’s nice to know that Rep. Harman and I agree that this isn’t domestic surveillance, but foreign and international if need be.

The same papers that demand we search every cargo container entering the US and fault the administration for moving too slowly here are the very ones who are attacking them for listening in on foreign and international calls without a judge’s approval. Again, what gives phone calls such privileges? What makes a judge so special? Is a judge more sober than members of Congress?

Frankly, it’s nice to know the Bush administration was on the ball with this one. And I hope they catch the SOB who leaked and comprimised an ongoing and effective covert intellegence operation in wartime – a war that is has been and continues to be fought partly on American soil. Sometimes I think some people forget that.

Tags: , ,

Nobody Here But An NSA Agent

Jan 6

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

Back in the day when phone companies ruled (you know, when a hip movie like The President’s Analyst could cast “The Phone Company” as the ultimate villain) there was a clear division in phone calls – domestic (between two phones in the same United States), and international (between a phone in the US and a phone in a different country). Yet I keep reading in the news about how the NSA is conducting domestic spying on international calls — you know, between a phone in the US and a phone in a different country. I wonder if they use a TARDIS to accomplish that trick? While I can’t read minds, I’m inclined to think such a mischaracterization is a deliberate attempt to sway your opinion.

Now if you’re not a legal expert (just like me) there are a lot of competing claims – generally along partisan lines with the left claiming malfeasence and the right claiming prudence. The legal experts have shown more heat than light on the issue, and it seems to me you can pick your answer by picking your legal beagle.

But I’m a scientist masquarading as an Engineer, so I asked my self, what would Albert do? Why, a thought experiment of course! But in place of a phone call between two countries, I place myself, a US citizen, on a trip between two countries. And since I have indeed traveled internationally (before the War on Terror), between a variety of countries, it’s a well grounded thought experiment. On the outbound leg, I leave the United States, and the only check is by the airlines to make sure I have a passport and if required in the destination country a valid visa. They do this because if I arrive without such necessities, they have to send me back at their own expense. When I arrive at my destination, however, I am subject to not just questioning, but search of not just my belongings, but my person. Even local military escort, which was able to take us to the head of the line in Pakistan, was unable to circumvent the searching of our luggage. In Europe, I received the most scrutiny in England (because of my name), and the least in Switzerland. The return, however, is different than the departure, as despite the fact I’m a US citizen on US soil, I am once again subject to questions, and to the search, not only of my property, but of my person, at the discression of a US government employee, and without a warrant. I got the most thorough going over upon my returns from Pakistan and the most perfunctory from Canada.

So I’m supposed to get excited because the NSA is listening into international phone calls without a warrant, but there is no excitement over my warrentless search when I physically travel internationally? So why are my phone calls more priveleged than me? Well, we have a pretty good understanding how helpful such border control can be when it comes to the physical, but some people don’t seem to see that when it comes to communications.

Look, I’m not happy about such searches (especially when I’m going through them, and I’ll never forget the asshole agent in Hawaii) but I understand they occur simply because it’s the only way to enforce the law. It’s not because of the badness of government, but the badness of people.

Tags:

Non Verbal Communication

Jan 4

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

What’s the best way to declare you’re not an Islamofascist? Wafah Doufar, Osama Bin Laden’s American niece thinks that showing a lot of skin says it best. Maybe there is something to that whole protest babe thing after all.

Tags:

Some Things Will Never Change

Dec 16

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Media Criticism, The War on Terror | No Comments

Why is the media doing such a bad job in Iraq? Don’t take my word for it, don’t take our soldier’s word for it, take a journalist’s word for it:

Think about everything you’ve heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.Then think again.

I’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

Maybe not wrong, but certainly different than the picture in my head.

The spirit of Baghdad Bob lives on.

Via Small Dead Animals.

Tags:

And Don’t It Feel Good

Dec 16

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

Yesterday was another great day for Iraq — an estimated 70% of registered voters braved long lines and possible violence to vote. One vote (or even increasing participation over three votes as has been seen) isn’t the final step of the march to democracy. But it is a significant milestone of that march. The hardest test of all isn’t coming out to vote, but the peaceful transfer of power from one faction to another as a result of an election. The United States didn’t face this test until 1800 and the election of Thomas Jefferson – 24 years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

It is often said that you can’t impose democracy by force which seems to me a total misread of the typical situtation. Normally, you have to use force to stop those who seek to suppress democracy – the British in 1776, Hitler & Tojo in 1941, Saddam in 2003. And force can be required to keep a country democratic, from opponents both internal and external. But truly representative government is popular enough that you don’t have to impose it by force, even in cases like the United States where people nearly universally are willing to abide by results of elections they don’t even bother to vote in. Is anybody forcing the Iraqi’s to vote? Or are they voting because they see representative government as a solution to some of their most pressing problems?

I’ve maintained all along that the war in Iraq will be won or lost (from the American point of view) by the Iraqi’s themselves. Our job was to provide enough security, aid, advice, and yes, encouragement so that the people of Iraq could set up their own democratic government and security forces that they could defeat the insurgents themselves. We could not, nor should we try, to obliterate the insurgancy, set up a fully functioning democratic country in Iraq, and then turn all this over to Iraqi’s who had had not part up until then. There is no such thing as a turnkey country. If we had, it would have collapsed like a house of cards as soon as we left.

Tags:

Curse Missed Opportunities

Dec 13

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | 1 Comment

Thank a soldier week is coming next week — don’t miss it.