Gone shooting all day today
I am taking a trap shooting clinic from 2002 World Champion Frank Hoppe. There will be eight of us students, being instructed on the range. See you tonight!

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2003 06:19:00 AM. Permalink |

Iraq sanctions have destroyed its middle class
So says Iraq expert Sandra Mackey, speaking of post-Saddam Iraq. Mackey says that once Saddam is ousted, either by invasion or a coup,

. . . you're going to have, at least in the short-run, real problems of control. There is a lot of anger there of Iraqis against Iraqis. There will be a huge scramble to see who is going to be able to control the state and who is going to define the state. . . . The Iraqis have got to reestablish civil society. Before they can even move on to a political system, they've got to define the state. I can't see that Iraq can move from a period of Saddam to total self-rule overnight. There's got to be some international presence there that more or less wraps the blanket of civil society around the Iraqis. . . .

The Iraqis are going to have to come to terms with how to govern themselves. This is going to be very difficult. One of the things that's thrown around a lot both by both Iraqi opposition groups and the United States is democracy, "We're going to give them democracy." This is not going to work in the short run in Iraq. If you regard democracy as one man or one woman, one vote, that puts the Shia, with 60 percent of the population, in control of Iraq. That's not going to be acceptable to the Sunnis or by the Kurds. . . .

[The sanctions] had a devastating effect on all Iraqis. What we're seeing today is that you can meet the food and medical needs of the Iraqis very easily. But in dismantling the Iraqi economy, the sanctions really destroyed the middle class. That's the group you need now to try to stabilize Iraq in a post-Saddam era.

There's more. Read it all.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 09:40:00 PM. Permalink |

Just War in in the era of WMD proliferation
Dr. Terence Kelly examines the question, "What's a 'just war' these days?"

Just as the horrors of nuclear war caused us to re-examine which wars could be just, the flip side of that argument -- preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- should cause us to rethink just-war theory today. . . .

So, we are faced with a new set of circumstances to which just-war theory must be applied -- circumstances in which a decision not to use force seems certain to lead to unambiguous and significant evil. These circumstances are not unique to Iraq. Indeed, they are characteristic of many situations in the world today -- and appear in large part not to be subject to international intervention short of war.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 05:00:00 PM. Permalink |

A delightfully fierce movie review . . .
. . . of The Life of David Gale is offered by Roger Ebert, who gave it zero stars, making it tied with Plan 9 From Outer Space. Says Roger,

The acting in "The Life of David Gale" is splendidly done but serves a meretricious cause. The direction is by the British director Alan Parker, who at one point had never made a movie I wholly disapproved of. Now has he ever. The secrets of the plot must remain unrevealed by me, so that you can be offended by them yourself, but let it be said this movie is about as corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and morally dishonest as it could possibly be without David Gale actually hiring himself out as a joker at the court of Saddam Hussein.

Now, that's a movie review! (hat tip: Mondo Miscellanea)

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 03:34:00 PM. Permalink |

You should ask them this. . . .
C. David Smith reports that his dad wrote him "that the preacher at his church compared the local anti-war protesters to Biblical martyrs and even called them heros. . . . According to these church leaders, 'you can't fight evil with evil.'" Dave replied thus:

Ask them if they believe we need police in our cities and towns. Do we even need laws and courts? Or why should we even have a government in the first place? James Madison once said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Implicit in this truism is that men need government to keep men in line. Otherwise, we'd be in a state of anarchy or a perpetual state of war where as Thomas Hobbes says life is "nasty, brutish, and short." To understand the nature of government, you must realize that in order to keep men in line--to keep the peace--government must use the threat of violent physical force and at times have the will to actually use it. Is this evil? Ask these church leaders if they'd be willing to live in a society where there are no police to protect you, no courts to solve disagreements, and no prisons to separate the truly dangerous evil men and women from the rest of the God-fearing civil society. If they do not condone that at times the threat and the actual use of physical coercive force is necessary, then by default they promote anarchy, which in political science terms just means the lack of a government. Unfortunately, with anarchy comes . . . well . . . anarchy as it is generally understood, in other words, violence and evil abound and unchecked. . . .

The main problem with pacifism throughout history is that pacifism leads to even greater evils than can be imagined at the time. How would the world be shaped today if Britain and France had refused to appease Hitler in the 1930's and had invaded Germany immediately following the annexation of Austria (which was forbidden under the Treaty of Versailles) in 1938 rather than waiting until the following year after Germany invaded both Czechoslovakia and Poland? A faster response to Germany's actions would have produced a much shorter and less deadly war. It would also have prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war and thus prevented Communism from spreading to the eastern European countries. Pacifism and appeasement allow evil to grow unchecked. For someone to say that a war in Iraq is immoral shows how morally bankrupt that person is. Clearly that person does not value life, whether it is someone else's or his own.

After you read it, cruise on over the Thomas Holsinger's first-person explanation of American religious pacifism.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 03:22:00 PM. Permalink |

"Hippies Are For Barbecuing"
You can find the most intriguing things by looking through your referral logs or at Technorati.com. I discovered a blog called, Hippies Are For Barbecuing, whose name alone makes it a must visit.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 02:44:00 PM. Permalink |

Page views? I gotcher page views right heah!
Sometimes it helps to keep things in perspective. I am very grateful for everyone who takes the time to browse here and read my scrivenings. So far this month I have had 52,000 page views. I am very pleased with that!

In contrast, though, Glenn Reynolds has had about 2,500,000 page views this month.

Then there is Drudge, who reports he got more than 113,000,000 page views already this month, and there are still two days left to go for him.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 02:38:00 PM. Permalink |

What Sean Penn is up to now
Justin Sodano has the proof!

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 02:27:00 PM. Permalink |

Explaining the Vatican
Geitner Simmons does it.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 02:21:00 PM. Permalink |

The new flag of Old Europe
It's here, really. And more genuinely symbolic it could not be.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2003 02:13:00 PM. Permalink |

The coming American Holy War
"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." The Battle Hymn of the Republic, by Julia Ward Howe, 1861.

About a week after the 9/11 terror attacks, I wrote an essay called, "Why We Were Attacked: Religious Motivations for Anti-Western Violence," which I published on my church's web site. I wrote one of the sections on American Holy War:

The religious motivations of the American way of war are covered with mantles springing from American secular institutions and values, such a constitutional rights and individual worth. Nonetheless, there are some deep layers of religion in American war making that give it a holy war dimension. [These layers are regional in origin, but now pervade the whole character of the American way of war; they are no longer exclusive to only one region.]

Holy War from the legacy of the American South is waged from an offense to the nation that is seen as a stain upon the national honor, or as vengeance for wrongs done to the nation. (Southern concern with honor was a major contributor toward both Southern secession and the attack on Fort Sumter, precipitating the worst war in our history.) Honor can be restored only by confronting the foe with great force. The foe's surrender or destruction restores the national honor.

Honor codes have not played a large role in shaping the Northern model of of Holy War. Instead, the Northern codes spring from ideas of the dignity of humankind, and deep notions of sin and judgment. From the Northern model, Americans readily answer the call to colors to liberate the oppressed and punish the oppressors, a combination that probably springs from the North's Puritan and Calvinistic founding.

"Trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored"

I am using here a template that describes modern American war-making as drawing on both the Northern and Southern models. When I say, as I do, that the campaign against Afghanistan was a Southerners war, I do not mean that only Southerners waged it. I mean that in military terms, we removed the Taliban from power because that was the only way to eliminate Afghanistan from being used as a terrorist base against us. It also fed our hunger for vengeance against those who killed our people and destroyed our sovereign territory. That the Afghans were liberated was a happy collateral effect of the destruction of the enemy, but not the intention of the campaign.

If the Iraqi people were no more repressed than say, Egyptians, Americans would probably not accept the existence of weapons programs, no matter how potentially destructive, as casus belli to invade. Our attitude would be very simple: if they attack us, we destroy them in retaliation, pure and simple. This is the Southerners legacy of peace and war: Americans mainly want to be left alone and leave everyone else alone, but God help those who attack us.

In the fall of 2001, I was at a dinner where another guest commented that it "wasn't fair" for US pilots to fly with impunity above Taliban positions, dropping bombs. I bit my tongue. Later, a guest said that the bombing "wouldn't intimidate" the Taliban.

I dived in. "We're not trying to intimidate them," I said.

"Then why are we bombing them?" came the question.

"To kill them," I answered. There was a long silence at the table. The concept seemed not to have occurred to them. With only a couple of exceptions, the others were university graduate-school students.

This kind of war was perfectly captured in Stephen Lang's portrayal of Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals. After the slaughter of Union soldiers at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Jackson visits a hospital tent where a Southern general is dying of wounds. Upon leaving, Jackson comments to the surgeon that the suffering in war is terrible. The surgeon asks, "Against such oppression what can we do?" Whirling with fire in his eyes, Jackson exclaims, "Kill them, sir! Kill them all! They are the invaders!"

But the Southerners war is over now, at least for the foreseeable future. The Northerners war is about to begin.


"The fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword"

In the many months since American military objectives were mostly achieved in Afghanistan, we have turned increasing attention to Iraq. Iraq will be a Northerners war.

Last May 13, I wrote,

President Bush has not made the case for war against Iraq. Before the US takes any action, Bush should explain fully to the American people what the reasons for war are, and seek an actual declaration of war against Iraq by the Congress, not just an "authorization."

Bush made good on the first and not on the second; he did get the authorization, though. But the case the Bush has made falls into the category of "necessary but not sufficient." The sufficient cause is now being synthesized by the American media and people.

The more obvious Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions becomes, the less it seems to matter to the American people. American papers and commentators have paid decreasing attention to Saddam's arsenal of weapons of destruction and, with increasing fervor and frequency, more attention to brutality against his own people. Liberating the Iraqi people is not a solely sufficient reason to invade Iraq, but its combination with the provable military threat Iraq poses forms an irresistible motivation for Americans to take action. Consider, for example, this yard sign. An Iraqi-American wrote in the Christian Science Monitor,

Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"

Here is a small sample of other evidence that the Northern legacy of the American way of war is manifesting itself by defining the coming Iraq campaign in liberation terms:

There will be no war on Iraq. There will be a liberation of Iraq.

There will be an end to the war that the Ba'ath Party has been waging on the people of Iraq through its policies of racism, persecution and genocide. Liberation will bring hope to enslaved Iraqis and justice for the dead, for the hundreds of thousands of Kurds murdered during such campaigns as the Anfal, for the Assyrians who were "disappeared," for the Shi'a Arabs slaughtered for rising up against the regime, for the deported Turkomans and the Sunni Arab officers shot for plotting to overthrow the regime. (cite)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not engaged in a "clash of civilizations," but rather in the same fundamental struggle between freedom and tyranny that created the United States in the first place. (cite)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there are hundreds of thousands of terrorists and state fascists in almost every Arab government, hundreds of millions of more ordinary citizens are watching this war to see who will win and what the ultimate settlement will consist of. Many, perhaps the majority, may for the moment have their hearts with bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but their minds ultimately will convince them to join the victors and a promising future, rather than the losers and a bleak past. (cite)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one disputes that the Iraqi people would be better off under almost any other regime than the current one—or that vast numbers of them, including almost every Iraqi exile, endorse a war to remove the tyrant. If we can do so with a minimum of civilian casualties, if we do all we can to encourage democracy in the aftermath, then this war is not only vital for our national security. It is a moral imperative. And those who oppose it without offering any credible moral alternative are not merely wrong and misguided. They are helping to perpetuate a deep and intolerable injustice. (cite)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have [protestors] seriously addressed the human suffering that could flow from the world's failure to deal once and for all with Iraq's 12-year-long defiance of the community of nations? Are they morally comfortable with the suffering Saddam Hussein continues to inflict on Iraqi children through his corruption of the U.N.'s "oil for food" program? What do they say of the torture and arbitrary executions that are a part of everyday life in Iraq? (cite)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years. Are you willing to allow him to kill another million Iraqis? Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam’s reign. Are you willing to ignore the real and present danger that caused so many people to leave their homes and families? (cite)

"The trumpet that shall never call retreat"

Of course, President Bush has promised liberation to the Iraqi people more than once, Similarly, I would argue that Lincoln did not become an abolitionist until he understood that the the North would never suffer the abattoir of the Civil War merely to preserve the Union, but it would bleed profusely "to make men free," as Julia Ward Howe's hymn urged. In Gods and Generals there is a scene where Union Col. Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels) tells his brother, also a Union officer, that if they both have to die to free the slaves, then so be it, even though abolition was not an original aim of the war.

It is the Northerners kind of war that Americans have waged more utterly than any other. As military historian T. R. Fehrenbach wrote in This Kind of War, "Wars fought for a higher purpose must always be the most hideous of all." War is such an awful thing that it must be entered into for only the most transcendental purposes. Hence, any war - as opposed to a punitive expedition, such as Panama, 1989 - that Americans engage in must be a crusade, because only crusades can justify the costs and the suffering. War is to be waged only reluctantly, even sadly, but when waged, done so ferociously.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said, "In war there can be no substitute for victory," because when war is entered into for supreme purposes, to stop short of victory is to betray that purpose. In American Holy War, the political end is secondary to the military victory. Political structures are imposed by Holy War's victorious conclusion, they do not determine the conclusion. That war is an extension of politics by forceful means is a European idea that has never really been adopted by Americans. The role of politics is to pick up the pieces when total victory has been won.

This is also the Wilsonian way of war, although Woodrow Wilson neither originated it nor saw its apotheosis. It was left to Franklin Roosevelt to do that. Wilson gave it its most eloquent sound bite: "Make the world safe for democracy." Wilsonianism's adherents see national security as dependent upon international frameworks: treaties, concordances, assemblies and the like. This is a fine ideal, but all international frameworks break down eventually. When they do, the Jacksonians of America have their day (named after Andrew Jackson, not Stonewall Jackson).

Steven Den Beste contrasted Wilsonian and Jacksonian foreign policy,

Jacksonians do not think that international frameworks and international cooperation are impossible or unnecessary. But Jacksonians believe that such frameworks should be limited, concentrated, and closely monitored. Cooperation is possible without trust if it is backed with vigilance and the will to retaliate for cheating. (Retaliation can take many forms, of course; it's not exclusively military.)

The Bush administration has worked within the UN and other international bodies but is also more than willing to part ways from them if need be. The amazing facility with which Americans are equally willing to do so is unique to them. Wilsonianism is not inbred is us and neither is Jacksonianism. Both are like coats that we shed or put on as best serves our interests.


"Sifting out the hearts of men"

What I think is happening now is that the US is taking elements of both Wilsonianism and Jacksonianism toward the campaign against Iraq. Its Wilsonian character is that the convincing reasons we are using to topple Saddam by force have all the earmarks of the traditions of American Holy War. It is Wilsonianism that unleashes American Holy War. Jacksonianism is pragmatic; its apotheosis was the Korean War, fought for secondary purposes as a pragmatic, even realpolitik, exercise.

However, Jacksonians are not uneasy at all about unilateral action if necessary to protect our interests. Hence comes our willingness to shed the mantle of the UN, NATO or other alliances in order to confront Iraq. The Jacksonian strain of America also gives the military much freer rein to wage war on its own terms than European governments do. Crushing the enemy's military capability mercilessly is the Jacksonian way; reinforced by Wilsonian Holy War the onslaught of American military power is indeed a terrible swift sword. American generals tend to be (at least, they should be) Jacksonian: their purpose is to place America in a militarily dominant position over the enemy. What happens after that is not their problem. Wilsonians at war understand that imposing the structures for future preservation of the peace relies on military dominance, which explains why the administration seems not yet worrying deeply about the nature of postwar Iraq. That's politics, and if politics had worked, the war would not be fought to begin with. So politics is somewhat suspended until the war is won.

An advantage of the slow amble to war with Iraq has been that the nation has on it own (well, with some nudging from the administration) made the transition from one kind of American Holy War to the other - Southern to Northern. Also, we have begun synthesizing Wilsonianism and Jacksonianism together for the Iraq campaign. When the process is shortly complete, America will be non-defeatable. "In war," said Dwight D. Eisenhower, "public opinion is everything." Public opinion is congealing now to liberate Iraq, with the collateral effect being the destruction of Iraq's military threat - the exact opposite of the Afghanistan campaign.

In Afghanistan, the national honor was avenged and our enemies were destroyed, though not all of them, of course. The Southerners way of war has had its day. The Northeners war is imminent. American Holy War is coming to Iraq, and its people will be freed. Afghanistan was Stonewall Jackson's war, Iraq will be Joshua Chamberlain's.

But the peace to follow will probably be a mess.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 08:02:00 PM. Permalink |

Transcript of President Bush's speech tonight to the American Enterprise Institute
I didn't catch the introductory remarks, but here is the close-captioned transcript of the president's speech that just ended.

On a september morning threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century. We learned a lesson, the dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal. We will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men.

[Applause] Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda.

[Applause] Across the world we're hunting down the killers one by onE. We are winning, and we're showing them the definition of american justice.

[Applause] And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the middle east and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it.

[Applause] This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country and america will not permit it. The danger posed by saddam hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the iraqi regime will meet the demands of the united nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

[Applause] The safety of the american people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the middle east. A liberated iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and america's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction. To a free and peaceful iraq.

[Applause] The first to benefit from a free iraq would be the iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to saddam hussein. But iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

[Applause] Bringing stability and unity to a free iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that saddam hussein has chosen for them.

[Applause] If we must use force, the united states and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated iraQ. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly three million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We will make sure that iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the oil for food program are stocked and open as soon as possible. The united states and great britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the u.N. High commission on refugees. And to such groups as the world food program and unicef to provide emergency aid to the iraqi people. We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of iraq. We will seek to protect iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regimE. And ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the iraqi people.

[Applause] The united states has no intention of determining the precise form of iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

[Applause] Rebuilding iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in iraq as long as necessary. And not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before. Eace that followed a world war. After good evening -- after defeating enemies we did not leave behind occupying armies, g parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militaryism, liberty found a permanent home. There was a time when many said that the cultures of japan and germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of iraq today. They are mistaken.

[Applause] The nation of iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world -- [Applause] The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the middle east. Arab intellectuals have called on arab governments to address the freedom gap, so the people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation , economic openness, and free trade. And from morocco to bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. And new regime -- a new regime in iraq would serve as an inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

[Applause] It is preshump anxious and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the 1/5 of humanity that is muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life. We're the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slowingians of hatred and the tactics of terror.

[Applause] Success in iraq could also begin a new stage for middle eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic palestinian state.

[Applause] The passing of saddam hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

[Applause] Without this outside support for terrorism, palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders.

[Applause] True leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

[Applause] For its part, the new government of israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable palestinian state.

[Applause] And to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

[Applause] And the arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic palestine and state clearly they will live in peace with israel.

[Applause] The united states and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We're setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, israel and palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old patterns of conflict in the middle east can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in iraq would create such an opportunity.

[Applause] In confronting iraq, the united states is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We're a permanent member of the united nations security council . We helped to create the security council. We believe in the security council so much that we want its words to have meaning.

[Applause] The global threat of primbings of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them. And use force if necessary. After all, the united nations was created as winston churchill said, to make sure that the force of right will in the ultimate issue be protected by the right of force. Another resolution is now before the security council. If the council responds to iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the united nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose. I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who fly-out those demands. -- Who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace and by acting we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

[Applause] Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines fully understanD. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges. Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that america's cause is right and just. Liberty for an oppressed people and security for the american people. And I know something about these men and women who wear the uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage.

[Applause] Much is asked of america in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the middle east after so many generations of strife. Yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us and americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our timE.

[Applause] We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations, by the resolve and purpose of america and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history, and free people will keep the peace of the world. Thank you all very much.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 07:03:00 PM. Permalink |

First the Jews, now the Christians
Bill Hobbs has an extremely read-worthy posting about Michael Horowitz, a Jewish writer and member of the Reagan administration. Says Mr. Horowitz,

Too many Jews, my people, have by now been killed to be useful targets of evil, repressive regimes. But there are millions of vulnerable Third World Christians who are just right for that purpose, and they have become the scapegoats of choice for today's thugs. The manner in which Christians are treated in many parts of the world is a litmus indicator of whether freedom exists not only for them—but for all others in their societies. Christian villages and churches have become the medium on which battles for freedom in much of the Third World are waged. And, as was true with the fight against Hitler's reign of terror against Jews, appeasing the persecutors of Christians condemns millions of others to dark-age lives.

What is interesting is that Iraq does not oppress Christians, at least no more than anyone else - Saddam is an equal-opportunity killer. But Christians are severely oppressed in most other Arab nations, Egypt being a shining exception, where Christmas Day is a national holiday. Saudi Arabia is the chief persecutor among Muslim countries (no surprise) and China still harshly oppresses Christians. They persecute other faiths, too, but Chinese persecution of Christians is persistent and uniformly oppressive. Despite this, Christianity in China is a fast-growth religion.

While you're visiting Bill's site, check out this new fact on the al Qaeda - Saddam connection and what this Iraqi taxi-driver (still there) says about who will fight the Americans.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 03:38:00 PM. Permalink |

Rumsfeld and McNamara - separated at birth?
David Ignatuius observes,

Rumsfeld increasingly reminds me of a previous secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara. Both men came into office mistrusting the generals and admirals of the uniformed military as overly timid and cautious, a mistrust that was reciprocated by the military brass. Both men believed in rationalizing and modernizing a hidebound Pentagon bureaucracy. Both surrounded themselves with cadres of bright intellectuals who appeared to have contempt for less clever people who didn't understand their strategic vision.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 03:12:00 PM. Permalink |

Church of England bishops urged to resign
Church's decline is severe
Reports the UK's Telegraph,

Partly as the result of liberal reforms, [a study] said the Church had lost half its members and attendance among children had almost disappeared, and it promised faster falls in the future. . . .

"The only part of the Church of England that has increased has been the number of its bishops and their bureaucracy," said the study's editors, the Rev Peter Mullen and Digby Anderson, the unit's director.

"The bishops and other leaders have scarcely acknowledged this astonishing decline. They have failed to recognise just how many criteria now point to disaster. They have also failed to take responsibility for many of the policies associated with failure."

It will come as no surprise to my long-term readers that I would also say that many of these observations can be accurately made about the oldline churches in America. (Thanks to Darryl Boyd for the link via email.)

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 02:40:00 PM. Permalink |

Letter from Commando Camp, Kuwait
This US Marine officer in Commando Camp, Kuwait, definitely knows what he is talking about. His email on The Ornery American is long but engorssing. Some nuggets:

Everyone carries a weapon and full combat load of ammunition at all times. Everyone carries their gas mask at all times. The gas masks come with a standard issue of three sets of Atropine and Pralidoxime Chloride injector kits. They are two large needles capable of penetrating your chemical protection suit and uniform. If you are exposed to nerve agents you jam the injectors into your thigh.
. . .
You want to be the hardest target out there so the bad guys will pass you up for an easier target. Fortunately, we have a lot of Air Force people running around the country. Their command won’t let their airmen carry weapons inside their compounds because they are afraid they might shoot themselves. Soft mentality, soft targets.
. . .
Through out the camp there are concrete bunkers wrapped in sand bags. Everyone has an assigned bunker but as past drills have demonstrated, it is every man for himself. You just grab the closest one, mask up and wait it out. Last week I was in a briefing with 15-20 people from different commands and agencies. There were two OGAs (Other Government Agencies – read CIA). They are on their own agenda and don’t follow any force protection rules. We were all around a large table in an open-sided tent when the siren went off declaring some sort of chem-bio attack. We all assumed it was another drill until there was a declaration that it was not a drill and to don your gas masks. Everyone remained fairly calm and thought, “Well, here we go…” Once we masked up we noticed that the OGAs were just sitting there with worried looks on their faces. One of them asked if it was in fact a real alarm. A Lt. Colonel next to me, yelled through his mask in all seriousness “Well, we will know for sure when you two fall over dead!”.
. . .
A fully mechanized Army Division is simply mind-boggling. On our left (western) flank is the 3rd Infantry Division that recently deployed from their base in Germany. Marines are tough but we don’t win the big wars. The Army wins the big wars. They do it because they are massive and can bring an incomprehensible amount of firepower to a fight.

The most important fact to remember is that one Army Mechanized Division has more firepower than most countries.
. . .
We can put up an interconnected dome style tent that can shelter 100 fully function terminals hooked up to satellite feeds with in 4 hours. Large, projection screens can display real-time satellite imagery and video feeds from unmanned aircraft.
. . .
Our path north will take us into the Mesopotamia Valley that is the cradle of modern civilization. The ruins of the Tower of Babel, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and Assyrian ruins are all there. Interestingly enough, Hammurabi’s Code was written in the area. King Hammurabi ruled the region from 1792-1750 BC. This was the first sophisticated code of law put into writing. It gave commercial structure so merchants could prosper. The position of women, marriage, divorce, rent, administration of justice and labor conditions were written down in Hammurabi’s code. Separation of religion and secular authority was also a main theme. Sadam claims to be the modern embodiment of ancient rulers like Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin. Their claim was conquering ancient Judah, destroying Jerusalem and throwing out the Christian, Medieval Crusaders. Sadam is selective in his history of his region.
. . .
Tyranny left unchecked by apathetic people is why Hitler was able to see the Cliffs of Dover from the shores of Western France.

Grant Williams
Major U.S. Marines
Commando Camp, Kuwait

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 02:31:00 PM. Permalink |

Coming attractions
Here's a short look at some stuff I am working on:

Why President Bush won't meet with these clergy (hint, their moral sense has gone AWOL).

Evidence that Americans are transitioning to Holy War mode, and what that means for friend and foe alike.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 12:25:00 PM. Permalink |

Haloscan commenting is down, not deleted
Haloscan.com informs its users that it commenting feature is "temporarily" offline. No word when it will be back up. In the meantime, please use the "Shout Out" link to post comments.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 12:21:00 PM. Permalink |

Bush to outline Iraq plan tonight
The Washington Post reports,

Bush is scheduled to give a speech tonight outlining the administration's vision of how an overthrow of Hussein and the creation of an Iraqi democracy would be the first step in a wave of democratic changes across the Middle East, fundamentally reshaping the region and enhancing U.S. interests.

This is a pretty good summary article of today's political picture regarding the Iraq crisis.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 08:53:00 AM. Permalink |

Blogger is screwy today
Sometimes it loads, and sometimes it doesn't. So posting may be spotty. . . .

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2003 07:30:00 AM. Permalink |

The Nigerian scam has moved north
I still find it amazing that anyone would believe that total strangers on other continents would want to give them huge sums of money. Americans have been falling for the "Nigerian scam" for years. The southern Europeans have apparently taken note:

My name is Glorja Kovac,a daughter of late Miodrag Kovac former Yugoslavia Minister of Health, who died due to mysterious circumstances that is still being investigated.Immediately after his death,the government seized all our properties and froze all our accounts.And it brought to my mind that there is soimething fishing as in the govenment knowing about his death.

I was arrested by the government immediately after the press conference about the death of my father and I was under house arrest for almost a year.I was released after so much pressure from the British and US government.

All the people that claimed to be my father's friends none of them came to my rescue.,they thought it was finished with us financially and I also believed there was no hope again.After some time,I recieved a phone call from my neigbouring country inviting me to come and and I went there and they disclosed to me about the properties of my late father deposited with them.That I should go and bring all the necessary documents to claim it.After going through my father's memo,I saw the documents that proves there is a property he deposited outside the country and is registered as 100% raw gold and diamond.When I went back to claim the properties ,I was asked to open it and confirm before I carry it.

After opening it,I discovered it was money and $100 bills and I counted the bills it was 430 bills of $100 notes denomination.Then I closed it back and I told the company that it was gold as stated in the document and I will come back and claim it later because I cannot take that kind of money back to my country.So since then I have been soliciting for a reliable person who does not have any relationship with my country to help me recieve this money and advice me on how to make use of this money properly.

Please,get back to me if you know you are capable of assisting me through email,I will give you more details as soon as I recieve your positive response.

Best regards,
Glorja Kovac

Yeah, "dear," count on it.


by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 05:44:00 PM. Permalink |

Phil Donohue's show is canceled
Says Drudge. But the question is, "How can you tell?"

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 02:41:00 PM. Permalink |

Iraq slideshow online
Brothers Judd say they got this excellent online Powerpoint slideshow over the transom. Take a look!

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 11:02:00 AM. Permalink |

Inside the Battle of Baghdad - guest blog by Ranger officer Patrick Walsh (ret.)
A lot of people are worried about U.S. troops getting bogged down in urban combat in Baghdad or other large cities in Iraq. Their knowledge of urban combat, also known as Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT), comes from repeated references to Stalingrad or other WWII battles by the talking heads on TV or memories of the U.S. operations in Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) or the terrifying final scenes in the movie Saving Private Ryan.

Actually, the Battle of Baghdad is likely to be more like the Battle of Panama, where only a few poorly defended buildings had to be captured by force, than like Stalingrad where two million men fought for six months.

In the case of Stalingrad, Mogadishu or the fictional battle in Saving Private Ryan, technological or political conditions combined with the characteristics of urban terrain to force combatants to rely almost entirely on infantry weapons. If the opposing forces were equally determined to win, the result was often an endless series of small battles for the next room or hallway. There might be a hundred small, deadly fights for every single city block. Yet there were other battles, such as the American attack in Aachen or Manila in WWII or in Panama in 1989 that demonstrated how proper tactics and equipment can overcome the challenges of urban warfare to produce victories at relatively low casualty rates, even when the attackers are outnumbered.

Remember that the final scenes in Saving Private Ryan, as intense as they are, cover about 20 minutes and involve less than a dozen Americans. There are no guarantees in warfare and there can always be some terrible accident or the enemy can get a lucky hit. But, there is very little chance of some sort reenactment of Stalingrad.

Here are some of the reasons why urban warfare has been so costly in the past and an explanation of how those conditions are different today.

1. Both combatants were very determined to win. If one or both sides give up quickly there are usually much fewer casualties. In Stalingrad, for example, Russian troops were very motivated to defend their homeland. This feeling was reinforced by summary execution of commanders and soldiers who lost ground. On the other side of the battle, German soldiers kept on fighting until they literally dropped dead from exhaustion and starvation. This level of motivation is relatively rare. In the pending war, the Iraqi Army is very likely to surrender or desert en masse as soon as the first bombs and missiles hit. There were massive surrenders and desertions 1991. This time they know how the movie ends and are even less likely to stay and fight. I think that includes the Republican Guard. One troop of U.S. Cavalry destroyed a brigade of the Republican Guard in something like 20 minutes in 1991. As I said, they know how the movie ends.

2. Huge forces were involved on both sides. In WWII hundreds of thousands of soldiers were involved on either side of major battles. With such large forces, the defenders could establish an unbroken defensive front, miles in length, and the attackers were left with no choice but to attack through it, head on. Not only were the defensive positions tens or even hundreds of miles wide they were often ten or more miles in depth. To give you some idea of the scale of fighting, the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad had about 300,000 men when a Russian force of nearly 1,000,000 encircled it. The combined total of both the Iraqi and American forces in any war is likely to be between 400,00 - 600,000 and these forces will be spread out over a country the size of California. In the Mogadishu fight the numbers were much smaller but the enemy outnumbered the Americans as much as 20 to 1 and surrounded them. In order for the Rangers to go anywhere they had to fight through the enemy. But even in this case the smaller numbers meant the fight was short lived (around 48 hours) unlike the months involved in a major battle.

3. The third difference is the technology available to the combatants. In WWII the technology of the Russians, Germans, Japanese and Americans was roughly equivalent. The nature of urban terrain tended to negate any technological advantages that did exist and force all combatants to rely primarily on hand held weapons. That is not the case with the Iraqi’s and Americans.

Until very recently, aircraft had a lot of trouble hitting specific targets. Even when they managed to hit them, the bombs did not have the effect that modern ones do. Modern aircraft can effectively strike pinpoint ground targets today under conditions in which WWII airplanes could not even fly. As a result, WWII aircraft were not as effective at destroying the defensive positions in a city. And for a large part of the time they could not participate in the battles at all because of darkness or weather. In contrast, modern U.S. aircraft are deadly accurate at night and consider nighttime the best time for air attacks because the can see so well while the enemy is comparatively blind. And Americans will have air superiority to a greater degree than enjoyed by any side during WWII. In the coming fight airpower will be closely coordinated with the ground fight. In at least some cases the front line commander will be able to call in aircraft to hit specific buildings to his immediate front. This occurred even as far back as Panama when ground commanders were able to direct Apache helicopters to fire Hellfire Missiles at enemy snipers in positions that could not be attacked with infantry weapons.

Armored fighting vehicles did not make up as high a proportion of the forces involved in previous wars and they were not as effective as today's, either. To give one example, the Germans had about 675 Tanks assigned to the Battle of Stalingrad as part of a force of more than a million men. Today, a single U.S. Army Mechanized Division, depending on task-organization, will have around 432 armored fighting vehicles (tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles) as part of a 17,000-man force. Even when they were available, WWII tanks were hard to keep running. They broke down. They threw tracks. They had trouble going over or through rubble. They were relatively vulnerable to artillery fire, Molotov Cocktails, mines and shouldered fired anti-armor weapons. They could be stopped much more easily than modern vehicles. There are very few weapons on earth that can “kill” an M1 Abrams tank. While a Bradley is more vulnerable it is still very survivable. Both are reliable and mobile.

Another aspect of this is the degree is the degree of motorization (or lack of motorization) of the supporting arms and services in past battles. In the battle for Stalingrad, much of the German Army’s artillery and supplies were moved by horses and the lack of roads in Russia meant the German’s had great difficulty supplying their attacking force. That will not be a problem for the attacking Americans.

Finally, no one had satellite photography and aerial photography had to be developed using chemicals back at the airfield and copies of photos had to be made one or two at a time. Photos seldom got to the front lines in time to be useful. Today, satellite photos or video from UAV’s can be transmitted to front line commanders in near real time.

How do all these factors affect attacking a large city in Iraq?

We think a large part of the Iraqi Army will surrender or desert, but we can’t plan on that. Some significant number of Iraqis may defend a significant portion of Baghdad. We will be able to see them using satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s), aircraft and in-person reports from Special Forces and friendly Iraqis. They will not be able to see us until we are firing on them. Even then, they may not see us because we can fire at them at night using night vision capabilities that they cannot match. . The Iraqis have few weapons that can destroy our tanks and not many more that can destroy Bradley. Our tanks can destroy anything they have. Our tank and Bradley crews can fire faster, more accurately and from a longer distance (not as key in a city, but still important) than their guys. Our infantry is also better trained, better equipped and better motivated.

The basic scenario will be for helicopters and airplanes to drop precision bombs and missiles on the defenders before our ground forces ever get there. Anything that emits a radio or radar signal, or looks like a heavy weapon or armored vehicle will be bombed. When we attack, our forces will descend on the area from several directions using armored vehicles and helicopters. They will surround the enemy, cutting off supplies and reinforcements. We will seize key intersections, bridges, tunnels and buildings very quickly. In most cases there will be very little fighting due to the initial bombardment and the speed of the attack. Another reason is that the Iraqis simply cannot defend very much of a large city like Baghdad. To defend only a couple of city blocks in strength takes hundreds of soldiers. Most of the city will not be defended at all. Obviously, soldier fighting for a particular building will find it a significant event, but it will not be Stalingrad.

In most cases, we will not fight room to room. We will attempt to enter a building. If we enter successfully, we will clear it; using the techniques you have seen the soldiers practicing on TV. If we cannot enter the building initially or encounter significant resistance once inside, we will pull back and blow the building apart. If necessary, we will repeat the process on the next building. [Note: this is the tactic that US troops learned to use in World War II. When the Germans defended a building, the US troops called tanks forward and just blew it down -- DS.]

At the end of the first phase of the attack the situation will most likely be that small numbers of Iraqis will be holed up in scattered locations. We will quickly overcome some of these positions. Others may put up more resistance. Depending on the situation, including the proximity of civilians, we will surround some of these locations and try to talk them out. In other cases, the ground commander will give the defenders an opportunity to surrender. If they refuse, airplanes and helicopters will drop laser-guided bombs into the building. Tanks and Bradleys will pour cannon and machine gun fire into it. The survivors will be invited to surrender again. If they refuse, there will be more fire and an infantry assault.

The infantry will most likely attack at night. Every one of our soldiers has some sort of night vision device. A large proportion of our weapons have “red dot” lasers on them. The red dot is a low power laser light that shows where the bullets will strike when the weapon is fired - a big advantage. The assault will begin with artillery, mortar, tank, machinegun and grenade launcher fire. This will shut down any attempt by the enemy to return fire. As the infantry advances, supporting fires will continue over their heads or be shifted to nearby enemy positions to prevent them from supporting the one under attack. The buildings will probably not be left standing. The infantry will move over the rubble throwing hand grenades and firing into anything that resembles a defensive position. They will enter and seize the next defensible position. The tanks and Bradley’s will move up to the new line.

This same scenario will play out on a larger scale if the Iraqis attempt to hold a large area or even if they fortify it. In this case they might control 10 or 20 city blocks. If that happens, the attack described above will be repeated several times on a larger scale, until the remainder of the defenders either quit or try to retreat.

The biggest problem will be civilians. We will do everything in our power to get civilians out of the combat area before we attack. The initial air attacks will be very accurately directed against identified targets and while there will be some civilian casualties, they will be largely the result of the Iraqis choosing to locate weapons and headquarter in the middle of non-combatants. If they do this, it is they who are violating the Laws of Land Warfare. But, even in past wars we have successfully used imaginative methods to get civilians out of danger. In WWII for instance, the U. S. Army had German politicians from conquered towns call their counterparts in the next town to persuade them to negotiate a surrender, bypassing the German Army Commander in the town, rather than allow a fight. We can expect similar tactics in the pending war.

We probably will have some sort of effort to communicate to civilians as we enter Baghdad and give them instructions on what to do to avoid the fighting. In those areas where we are able to gain control, we will most likely move civilians out of the area. Once we have identified any centers of resistance, we will also be trying to identify if there are any non-combatants in the area. If we can, we will get them out of there before any further fighting. In some instances, the presence of civilians may cause us to adopt different tactics than outlined above.

Even as the fighting continues, the U.S. will be attempting to restore essential services, make sure the population has food and water and restore the rule of law. We will establish temporary housing facilities and assist in the medical treatment of the injured. At some point, control of captured areas will pass from military units to military or provisional civilian governments organized by the U.S.

For more reading, go to the U.S. Army’s Combat Studies Institute. There are also very good discussions of urban warfare by Joe Katzman and Steven Den Beste.

Guest writer Patrick Walsh is a retired US Army infantry officer. His an assistant vice president in the Technology Project Office of a large financial services company located in Pittsburgh, PA. During his career, he served as deputy chief of operations in Joint Task Force 6; was the S-3 and then executive officer of the desert phase of the US Army Ranger school for 36 months; commanded a rifle company in the 7th Infantry Division; and commanded an Initial Entry Training Company for one year. Mr. Walsh wrote two field manuals on small unit operations and taught tactics for two years. He also served as rifle platoon leader, anti-tank platoon leader and rifle company executive officer.

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 10:41:00 AM. Permalink |

More on "blood for oil"
Ken Adelman offers another rebuttal to the protests that the coming Iraq campaign is really just an oil-grab by Bush et.al.:

One last point on "blood for oil." Iraq's having substantial reserves - and the whole Middle East holding much of the world's oil supply - is a legitimate factor in our concerns in the region. Even the recent Noble Peace Prize winner, President Jimmy Carter, understood the importance of oil to the development world when president. In 1979, after the Soviets brutally invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter asserted the Carter Doctrine, which offered U.S. protection of Gulf states precisely because of their abundant oil.

The "Carter Doctrine" was enunciated by Jimmy Carter in his 1980 State of the Union address. It was a clear declaration that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to secure its access to Middle East oil:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This declaration was directed specifically at the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan the year before. But the broader implication was clear: the United States would oppose by force any attempt at hegemony over Middle East oil by any country.

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 10:07:00 AM. Permalink |

More on the Left's anti-Semitism
I last wrote about this topic here. Now David Brooks of The Weekly Standard observes, It's Back, The socialism of fools has returned to vogue not just in the Middle East and France, but in the American left and Washington.

Not long ago I was chatting with a prominent Washington figure in a green room. "You people have infested everywhere," he said in what I thought was a clumsy but good-hearted manner. He listed a few of "us": "Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle." I've never met Doug Feith in my life and Wolfowitz and Perle I've barely met. Yet he assumed we were tight as thieves.

(via Hoplites)


by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 10:02:00 AM. Permalink |

More on journalism and blogging
My post on the relationship between journalism and blogging (if any), and what is a journalist anyway, elicited some responses in addition to Bill Hobbs' long analysis. Memphis blogger MRH at Half bakered adds some thoughts, and links to Chris Lawrence's thoughts on the issue of what constitutes journalism. Have a look!

Update: Bill Hobbs adds today some authoritative voices that bloggers are indeed journalists, beginning with Dave Winer, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, and publisher of Scripting News, who wrote,

Web logs are journalism. Have they had a big impact? Absolutely. When a big story hits, I don 't necessarily trust the professional journalists to tell me what's going on. If I can get the Web logs from the people who were actually involved, I'll take that. A really remarkable thing came out from the BBC, where they asked amateur photographers to send them pictures. So they're jumping onto the trend that's going to grow and grow and grow. With the Columbia disaster, where did the pictures come from? Not from professional journalists. The typical news article consists of quotes from interviews and a little bit of connective stuff and some facts, or whatever. Mostly it's quotes from people. If I can get the quotes with no middleman in between - what exactly did CNN add to all the pictures? Maybe they earned their salaries a little bit, but web logs have become journalism, and it's much richer. Journalism is a high calling, but it's really no more than points of view on what's taking place. I think the pros are going to use this tech, and they are doing it more and more.

Adds Bill, "Freelance journalist Glenn Fleishman has some thoughts on the question. So does journalist and blogger Jeff Walsh. Also, the topic comes up from time to time at Corante.com's blog on blogging."

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2003 09:55:00 AM. Permalink |

Gods and Generals: some impressions on Holy War
Ted Turner seems determined to make a trilogy of Civil War movies that lasts as long as the war did - the first war movies to be told in real time. At least, that what it seemed like sitting through the second movie of the trilogy, Gods and Generals. A la Star Wars, this series made the middle movie, Gettysburg, first, in 1993. G&G; is a prequel, beginning before the Battle of Bull Run in 1861 and ending at the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863.

A better name for G&G; might have been: Gods and Generals - the Stonewall Story. The figure of Confederate General Thomas J. Jackson, who earned the moniker Stonewall at the first Battle of Bull Run, dominates the movie. Stephen Lang plays the part with an intensity that would have done the man proud, even though not altogether accurate in some niggling details. (For example, Jackson sucked on lemons incessantly, but the movie makes do with an occasional swig of lemonade.)

My personal connection to Stonewall is that he nearly killed my great-great grandfather at Chancellorsville. Capt. Thomas McCreary, my paternal grandfather's grandfather, was a member of the 145th Pennsylvania during the battle. It was McCreary's eighth and last major engagement. His leg was shot off and he was discharged. He went to medical school and opened a practice after the war.

The battle sequence at Chancellorsville is the highlight of the whole movie. It is exceptionally well filmed and well paced. It tells the story of one of the most astounding feats of American arms ever. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was badly outnumbered by the Union Army of the Potomac under the command of Gen. Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, who did not live up to his nickname that day. Lee knew Hooker from before the war, and guessed correctly that he, Lee, could do what every tactics manual said never to do when defending against a superior foe: split his forces and fight in essence two battles.

Jackson marched his corps for several miles all the way to the far end of Hooker's right flank, where the Union 11th Corps was encamped in leisure. Jackson's men stormed out of the woods and overran 11th Corps with no warning. 11th Corps ran like rabbits. Union resistance did not halt the advance; only darkness and the confusion of the CSA formations becoming broken up did so.

The movie is 216 minutes of running time. It has been criticized for being a Southern apologia because it attempts to show that the Southern troops were defending more than slavery. The Southern generals, especially Jackson and Lee, are presented with a human face. Jackson even assures his slave cook, Jim, "Your people will be freed, in God's time." But Jackson is in no hurry to help God make that time come.

Jackson, though, was a real-life Calvinist predestinarian. And such does the movie present him to be. Fearless under fire, he assures his aide that he is in no greater danger in battle than in his bed. God, he says, has numbered his days; when they run out, they run out, but he will not die before then no matter what. Hence, he accepts the carnage of war as a mystery of the way God's will is being worked out.

As my son said, there sure is a lot of praying in the movie, mostly by Jackson and some other Southerners. Jackson prays for victory. He thanks God for making him an instrument of God's will, and for God's will to be accomplished. But there is never a scintilla that Jackson considers that his own actions might not be accomplishing God's will. The faith of the Union figures is not so verbose, but it is just as certain. Col. Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels in a reprise role) is a devout man, but in northeast Yankee fashion, it is a private thing, mostly, that impels him to wage holy war against the South, just as the South is waging holy war against him. Chamberlain tells his brother that if they both have to die to free the slaves, then so be it.

Modern Americans probably don't realize that while the Civil War was a Holy War on both sides, it didn't start out that way. Quite correctly, Chamberlain points out to his brother that freeing the slaves was not an original war aim, but because the war was joined, there could be no acceptable outcome that didn't end slavery. The reason the war went on so long and became so ruthless was that Holy War can never accept any outcome but total victory.

Later historians would wrap the mantle of Wilsonian idealism about American Holy War as the concept became secularized in the 20th century. American holy warriors, like Wilson, resist taking up the sword for any reason except the most severe, and even then only reluctantly. But once the sword is raised, the evil must be crushed utterly. The transcendent cause demands it.

But I digress. Overall, G&G; is worth seeing. Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee is impressive, most of all because of the stunning visual similarity he bears to the real Lee. Compare:

. . . .

Do I recommend God's and Generals? Of course, if only for the reason that no other movies o