I originally wrote this essay in 2002 in response to another blogger’s dismay that the Bush administration was defending in federal court the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individual Americans to own firearms. Its original title was, “Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment: Why the right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right of a sovereign people.” The other blogger held keeping guns away from ordinary people was “the dividing line of civilization.” I’ve herein removed references to the other blog and offer it now simply as a reflection on what’s at stake regarding the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This edit springs from Joe Katzman’s essay at Winds of Change, “Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right.”

I think the fundamental dividing line is whether sovereignty resides in the people or in the government. I wrote about this a long time ago, as blogs go. It was so excellent ( that I’ll repeat part of it:

Sovereignty means the source of authority in the state. Americans see the people as the only legitimate source of political legitimacy. In the United States, the state’s authority lies in the voters. In America, the state apparatus grants no rights at all to the people because the government has no rights to grant. All rights reside in the people to begin with. The American founders understood that human rights are simply a fact of human existence.

Therefore, in America, the people grant powers to the government, but no rights. Yet, sadly, I still hear in conversation with my fellow Americans statements such as, “The First Amendment gives us free speech.” In fact, the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole give or grant no rights at all: all rights automatically are always held by the people in the first place. The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the power of the government — to make darn sure that government apparatchiks didn’t step on the rights of the people.

That is as clear a “dividing line” of civilization as is ever going to be found. If indeed the ultimate authority of the state is to be found in the people (as a condition of nature, as the Founders understood), then the people must also have the ultimate power to protect their sovereignty. That means, bluntly, the power of coercion. And coercion necessarily includes the use of violence.

In fact, civilization’s very existence rests on coercion. Mahatma Gandhi explicitly recognized this fact. His struggle was not whether the state (that is, Britain) should use force, but whether it was justly using force. Christian philosopher-ethicist Jacques Ellul in writing about violence observed (go to bottom of linked page):

Violence is to be found everywhere and at all times, even where people pretend that it does not exist. . . every state is founded on violence and cannot maintain itself save by and through violence.

Ellul disagrees with the the classic distinction between violence and force: it’s lawyers who have
invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising “force” and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence. All states are established by violence. A government stays in power by violence or its threat and the threat is meaningless unless it can be and is employed. “Everywhere we turn,” writes Ellul, “we find society riddled with violence. Violence is its natural condition, as Thomas Hobbes saw clearly.”

If you don’t believe this, try not paying your taxes. The government will treat you with violence. We obey the law because fundamentally the state compels us to obey it with violence or the threat thereof.

When sovereignty resides in the people, there is a self-check on state power. Sometimes this self-check does not seem very strong, but in the end it always prevails unless the people surrender their sovereignty. (Remember, the Germans elected Hitler dictator, and it was the last decision they got to make for many long, bloody years.)

The Founders clearly understood something: a people armed are much less likely to surrender their
sovereignty than otherwise. If necessary, an armed people can defend their rights by wielding the ultimate power of sovereignty, violence. It may be defense against a foreign invader (which in the Founders’ day was a quite real threat) or it may be against a sovereignty-grabbing domestic government, which the Federalist Papers show was of even greater fear to the Founders than foreign invasion. In either case, the ability of the people themselves to exercise the ultimate state power was crucial. That was why the 2A insists that the people are the militia: an armed people are the sovereign state.

Of course, we have come a long way since a yeoman farmer could grab old Betsy off the mantle and go redcoat hunting. The threat of foreign invasion is nil, although the threat of terrorism in the US by foreign powers is real. Even so, few kinds of potential terrorist acts here will likely be the kind that armed citizens will be able to stop. Many Israeli citizens go armed, but terrorism there continues. So the present crisis does not, in my view, buttress much the argument for the right of individual citizens to be armed, except perhaps obliquely.

A much greater and more insidious threat to popular sovereignty is the swallowing of sovereign authority and power by the federal, state or local governments. This danger remains real (heck, it’s going on!) but it is a topic for another post.

It has been said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. There is a third way for the people to surrender their sovereignty. It is by failing to resist those who act destructively toward the common welfare of the people. In terms of the founding documents, there are people among us who deliberately damage the ability of the people to pursue happiness, live their lives in liberty, “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” for themselves and their posterity.

We call them criminals. Many are violent. If the sovereign people surrender their freedom to live in peace, pursuing happiness by peaceful, lawful means, they have surrendered their sovereignty. They are no longer free. Only if the people are armed can this surrender be avoided. This a lesson that Great Britain and Australia are bitterly learning now. Having disarmed their people about five years ago (because the people there are subjects, not sovereigns), they now discover that criminal violence against persons and property is way up. (See here and here and here. )

Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. (citation)

Do not count on the police to maintain domestic tranquility in the final analysis. Their role is certainly important in enforcement, but they are reactive. They do not generally stop criminals; they apprehend them. But no criminal actually believes he will be caught, else he would not commit the crime.

Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or
property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. If the police arrive on time (problematic), they use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely “contracted out” his wielding of deadly force or the threat of it.

Let me repeat: There is no moral difference between arming oneself for self defense and forming, arming and using a police force. Using arms for self defense is an act of protecting the sovereignty of the people.

I have heard this point in rebuttal to Second Amendment rights: I don’t understand why anyone
would want to own a gun. Guns are not fun; they are not macho . . .

Well, I have just explained keeping arms is a fundamental right of sovereignty and the means of
retention thereof, including for self defense. Self defense is a very powerful incentive to want a gun. As the old western saying went, “God made some men big and some little, but Colonel Colt made them all the same size.” Hence the original six-shooter’s nickname, The Equalizer. However, guns are also implements of sport. Rifle, pistol and shotgun shooting are Olympic events. And shooting sports are, well, sports. See this post, for example.

“Guns are not fun, they are not macho. . .” No, toys are fun, and guns are not toys. That’s why I never permitted my kids to play with toy guns. “Toy guns” is an oxymoron. But a basketball is not “fun,” either; it is the basketball game that is fun. Similarly, a sporting firearm, by itself, is not fun, but shooting sports are fun - not the laugh-out-loud, clap-your-hands- kind of fun, but the fun that comes from honing a physical skill and performing it expertly. Some people don’t enjoy shooting sports, but millions do. Shall the gun-control curmudgeons have the right to deny me my sport?

I have heard some of my friends tell me yes. Only they put it this way: “No one really needs a gun.” Well, that’s false; re-read what I wrote above. But more frightening is the notion that we should define our freedoms based on what we think someone else “needs” to do. One lady told me, “No one needs an AK-47 to hunt deer.” Well, yes, that’s true, and in fact an AK-47 would be a rather miserable hunting gun. But freedom is not about what we “need,” is about being able to do what we want. And if someone wants to hunt with an AK-47, then as misguided as that is, gun-wise, he should be able to do so.

Look at it this way: no one needs a BMW or a Cadillac. A Chevy will do just as well. People buy a luxury auto not because they need it over a Chevy but because they want it. No other reason.

As for the “macho” bit, this is a non-sequitur. Personally, I don’t feel more manly on the firing range. If manliness was the issue, I would not be teaching my wife and daughter to shoot, lest their skills threaten my macho image (and my wife is a good shot).

But maybe there are some men who doubt themselves, who think that a gun compensates for their perception of lack of manliness. So what? The issue is not what they think of their firearm, or what it may do to their self-image, but only - only - whether they use it safely and lawfully. There is no other issue involved. “Machismo” as a criticism of gun ownership is a patriarchal argument anyway, since it inherently fails to account for ownership of guns by women.

Let me make this point again. It’s important. The freedom of a sovereign people does not spring from having or doing only what they “need,” but being able to do and have what they want.

The “need” of a gun for self defense is real and legitimate, more so for some people than others. But my “want” for a gun for recreation and sport is also legitimate and cannot be obviated without making me less free.

Another criticism: “guns are dangerous. The kill people.” I am reminded of Robert Heinlein’s observation, “There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.” (Yes, women, too.) Guns are not dangerous. Criminals are dangerous. Terrorists are dangerous. People handling firearms unsafely are dangerous. And guns commit no crimes nor accidents. I have, as a sheriff’s department volunteer, been to many fatal scenes of auto accidents, but I do not say, “look what the cars did,” because the car didn’t do it. The drivers did.

It is a legitimate concern that others who own guns handle them safely. Yet this concern needs to be put into context with other risks we all run every day. According to the NHTSA,

— 4,739 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2000, and another 78,000 were injured. On average, a pedestrian is killed every 111 minutes, and one is injured every seven minutes.

— In 2000, there were 5, 915 occupational fatalities, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

— In 2000, there were 600 accidental gun deaths, according to the National Safety Council (cited in Sports Afield.) This number was “25% fewer than in 1999, reflects a 58% drop since 1990, and is the lowest number of fatalities reported since records were first kept in 1903.”

My question is this: how are firearms themselves fearful? Guns are not fear-worthy, only shooters are. An average American is 10 times more likely to die on the job than from an accident involving his neighbor’s guns - or anyone else’s. In fact, according to the NSC tables, a person has one chance in 1.92 million of dying by a handgun this year (including by murder, not just accident) which is 2.5 times less than dying from taking a bath. From the accident and safety standpoint, firearms ownership is one of the safest things Americans do. The chances of dying by means of long guns are several multiples lower than by handgun.

If a person fears the possibility of gun accidents, then that person should consider why the fatality rate from firearms continues to decline:

“Much of the credit,” notes Bob Delfay, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), “goes to the thousands of volunteers in hunter safety education, the National Rifle Association, Boy Scouts and 4-H firearm safety instruction who are making a positive contribution to increased safe ownership of firearms and enjoyment of the shooting sports.”

Those who fear gun accidents should consider aiding this effort. They should become safety
certified by the National Rifle Association and teach firearms safety. Or they can coordinate with their sheriff’s department for a deputy to teach classes in various venues. I think that firearms safety should be taught in middle school - a mandatory class, with alternate-year refresher sessions through high school.

In general terms, I think that most of the opposition to keeping and bearing arms by ordinary citizens springs from non-rational bases. I didn’t say irrational, as in crazy, I said non-rational. The desire to eliminate firearms from American’s hands is for many people a emotive reaction rather than a thoughtful one. Education and experience will overcome this, just as education and experience overcame the non-rational fear people used to have of AIDS and AIDS victims.

But I think that others, mostly the various gun-control groups, really just can’t stand freedom
exercised by others. They want to live their lives a certain way and make sure that everyone else does, too. They seek a highly ordered, regimented society made up of people just like them. This desire to control others is pernicious and dangerous. They are “invincibly ignorant” in their campaigns because the actual facts about guns in America mean nothing to them. They simply do not want you or me to own a gun, period, no matter for what reason. They do not want us to be free and sovereign.

As for licensing and basic government control — I oppose licensing and basic government control because — am I getting the message through here? — I am sovereign in America, not the government, and I do not permit the government to regulate my sovereignty.

Experience in Britain and Australia proves that “licensing and basic government control” don’t
prevent firearms murders. All three nations have draconian firearms restrictions and controls, but in the first two nations, illegal gun violence has risen directly as legal gun ownership has been oppressed.

Because of the press of other matters, I am not going to blog this week. I’ll be back online June 6, maybe a day or so before. Have a great Memorial Day weekend and please remember to honor the men and women who died in service to our country.

The ministers of defense and the interior for Iraq have confirmed that al Qaeda’s terrorist commander in Iraq, Musab Abu al Zarqawi, has been wounded. Islamist-sympathizing web sites have been reporting such for a few days, but no independent confirmation had been made until today.

Iraq’s interior and defense ministers said Thursday they have information that al-Zarqawi has been wounded — apparent confirmation of recent rumors that the Jordanian-born terrorist leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was injured. But the officials said they did not know how severe the injury might be.

Meanwhile, a host of sometimes-dueling statements posted by militants on Web sites made it clear there could be confusion within the group itself — or perhaps even a leadership struggle — over al-Zarqawi’s status.

None of the statements could be independently verified, but many of them were posted on a Web site known as a clearinghouse for al-Zarqawi, thus increasing their chances of being credible.

Austin Bay wrote yesterday that the earlier information might be part of a deception plan:

Sure, spreading the rumor of a wound could be a smokescreen, to try to sidetrack coalition intelligence (ie, direct assets to search for a wounded man). The rumor might also be political preparation on Al Qaeda’s part. Shiek Zarqawi may be in a bad way and Al Qaeda has a “mythic investment” in Z-Man. At some point we’ll know.

No longer a rumor, it seems.

Update: Austin just posted an update of his own inn which he postulates that Zarqawi’s wounds are actually good news for al Qaeda:

Strategically, however, he’s in the process of engineering his own movement’s defeat. His “bloodbath tactics” have backfired in Iraq and –according to several analysts– are in the process of turning Arab public opinion against Al Qaeda. He’s brought Islamist terror to the center of the Arab world, and Islamist terror kills Arabs and Muslims without mercy. As for operational success? That’s a tougher call. He’s failed to ignite any kind of mass uprising against the Iraqi government. Instead of baiting Shias and Kurds into a civil war he’s hardened their political resolve– a Kurd is now Iraq’s president. He has played a key role in sustaining Iraq’s Sunni holdouts– in part terrorizing Sunnis who might consider a deal with the Iraqi government. That’s a “negative” kind of success (ie, he’s not inspiring, he’s enforcing).

Has Zarqawi been wounded or is he dead? Or is he being “withdrawn from the combat zone?” I raise these questions because at this point in time Zarqawi may be more valuable to Al Qaeda as a “mythic warrior” or “ghost.” It’s tough to kill a myth and darned hard to kill a ghost. Here’s the argument: Zarqawi’s damaged goods, physically and politically. From Al Qaeda’s point of view, and possibly Saddam’s henchmen, it’s time to get Z-Man out of Iraq, and then have Al-Jazeera and Newsweek turn him into Robin Hood.

Perhaps the table is being set for Z-man’s near-future anointing by al Qaeda as a martyr-hero-warrior.

The commanding general of the 2d Marine Division has ordered that prosecution be halted of Marine Reserve 2nd. Lt. Ilario Pantano, who was investigated for killing two Iraqi terrorists without justification.

The two Iraqis were killed during an April 2004 search outside a suspected terrorist hideout in Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Pantano contended he shot them in self-defense after the men disobeyed his instructions and made a menacing move toward him.

Prosecutors alleged Pantano intended to make an example of the men by shooting them 60 times and hanging a sign over their bodies “No better friend, no worse enemy,” a Marine slogan. While citing self-defense as his motive, Pantano did not deny hanging the sign or shooting the men repeatedly.

However, Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, 2MARDIV’s commander, apparently agreed with defense counsels that evidence presented was insufficient that the killings themselves were unjustified.

Arthur Chrenkoff observes that Islamist online bulletin board have seen 70 “get well” messages posted about wounded terrorist, head of al Qaeda in Iraq, now reportedly being treated in another country. Says Arthur,

… 70 messages of support in a few hours? C’mon people - we can do better than that. Forget “Get well, al-Zarqawi”, it’s time for the launch of the official “Get caught, al-Zarqawi” campaign.”

He invites his readers to write in your “get caught” wishes for Al Qaeda’s Number 1 in Iraq. “And let’s show jihadis we can run a successful “‘million prayers of capture campaign.’”

Leave your best wishes for Zarqawi here!

Local news radio stations are reporting that agents of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations, acting on federally-provided information, are arresting members of the Tennessee state legislature even as I write. The arrests are taking place at the state capitol itself. At least three legislators have been seen being led away in handcuffs. The arrests are reportedly being made on corruption charges.

According to news reports, the number of members expected to be arrested may be 10-12 and will include members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Sen. John Ford (D.-Memphis) is reported absent from the capitol today. Commentators were speculating he had either been arrested elsewhere or was in custody and naming other members as part of a plea bargain.

Sen. Ford has been under investigation for weeks regarding allegations of graft and corruption (one example here). The state attorney general’s office provided an attorney to the state senate to help conduct the investigation, at the senate’s request.

Sen. Ford is the uncle of U.S. Representative Harold Ford, Jr., who is widely regarded as a rising star of the national Democratic party. In fact, this week Harold Ford filed papers to run for the US Senate against Republican Bill Frist, presently the Senate majority leader.

UD: WATE (Knoxville, Tenn.) reports,

NASHVILLE (WATE) — Federal officials arrested four Tennessee legislators Thursday morning, according to sources in Nashville. The charges reportedly stem from a federal investigation into business dealings of state Sen. John Ford of Memphis.

The lawmakers arrested are Ford, Sen. Ward Crutchfield, (D) Chattanooga; Sen. Kathryn Bowers, (D) Memphis; Rep. Chris Newton, (R) Cleveland.

Martin Grusin, an attorney for Sen. Ford, confirmed the senator was arrested. Grusin said Ford was headed to a court hearing in Memphis.

A news conference is scheduled at the U.S. attorney’s office in Memphis at noon, Knoxville time [11 a.m., CDT].

The Tennessean says that two of the arrested legislators had been interviewed by the FBI:

FBI agents had interviewed Newton and Bowers earlier this month about a bill sponsored by all four lawmakers, among others, Newton said Monday.

The bill would have allowed electronic recycling companies to contract with the state to dispose of surplus state computer equipment not claimed by school districts. Newton said it was pushed by E-Cycle Management Inc., an Atlanta-area company, and Charles Love, a Hamilton County school board member and lobbyist.

Stay tuned.

UD: Bill Hobbs specializes in Tenessee politics, and he’s covering this like a rug.

I haven’t dropped off. My schedule is very crammed, so free ice cream will be intermittent for the near future - probably the next several days. In the meantime, please surf over to the nice sites listed in my Blogroll in the left column!

[Note from Donald Sensing - the author, John Krenson, has extensive overseas military experience in eastern Europe going back well into the 1990s. He is also a veteran of the Afghanistan campaign. I am proud to call him my friend and welcome him as a contributor. I have included some biographical information at the end of the post.]

Debate rages over the two traditional roles of the Guard – the war time mission and the civil defense/natural disaster mission. In wartime should the Guard be relied upon for combat forces or for support forces? Should the civil defense role of the Guard be expanded to or even limited to border security of the Homeland? Yet not many know that a third mission has developed quietly - and yet not quite so quietly – over the last dozen years that has had unforeseen significant impact on the War on Terror.

Some Background

The long term role of the National Guard has long been and seems even more today to be of considerable debate. Before examining this role three historical points come to mind including recent history and current events.

The National Guard has made up a significant percentage of forces used in nearly every major war or conflict with the exception of Vietnam. Consider the following numbers:

Civil War – 96% of Union troops provided by state militias; 80% of Confederate troops from state militias.

WW I – Nearly 400,000 National Guard/Reserve troops served.

WW II – Almost 300,000 National Guard/Reserve troops served.

Since then:

And since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the National Guard has provided 352,000 personnel for active duty.

During the Gulf War of 1990-1991, combat maneuver units of the Army National Guard were held and “recycled” through training over and over again and were not deployed. A National Guard brigade was finally certified as combat ready at the National Training Center (NTC) in California on the last day of combat in the Gulf War after spending nearly four months at NTC (note that active duty combat units spent 7 to 8 months training in the deserts of Saudi Arabia before engaging in combat). However over 235,000 Guard and Reserve troops served in varying capacities in the Gulf War including tens of thousands in Saudi Arabia and later Kuwait.

It has been widely reported that Guard and Reserve forces now make up nearly 40% of US forces in Iraq alone and these include multiple Guard combat units from combat Divisions on down to independent support Companies.

(For an interesting history of the Guard from 1980 through 1999 see here.)

Regardless of the debate for the future of the Guard and Reserve it is clear both in history and current operations that the United States has relied heavily and successfully on the Guard and Reserve in times of significant war and conflict, including all three main types of units, combat units, combat support and combat service support organizations.

One of the primary roles of the Guard during the Cold war was to provide strategic depth as a deterrent to the Soviet behemoth. The elimination of that strategic need as much as any other reason has led to the debate of the future role of the Guard and Reserve. So what is the mission of the Guard in particular?

The Roles

Traditionally the Guard has two missions, which can be easily gleaned from, say, the standing missions for a National Guard Military Police Battalion:

a. The battalion’s federal-service mission is to provide command, control, and coordination for combat, combat support and combat service support operation of all Military Police elements assigned or attached.

b. The battalion’s peacetime State Mission statement is to conduct operations in support of the protection of life and property and the preservation of peace, order and public safety as directed by the Governor of the State and the Adjutant General.

I seek here neither seek to frame nor resolve the debate over the future priority of these two roles or how they are carried out, nor even address the proposed role of using the Guard to exclusively protect the nation’s borders (another debate indeed). I wish to inform readers of what has developed over the last 12 years as a non-traditional role or mission of the Guard as an instrument in improving interoperability between United States and “partner” nations’ forces. The United States has come to rely upon the National Guard for aiding in the development of foreign armies - particularly those of the former Soviet Bloc in Europe and Central Asia. And this has been going on since 1993. Surprised?

Who Knew?

Here is a basic summary of the history of this involvement:

The National Guard State Partnership Program was established in 1993 in response to the radically changed political-military situation following the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Authorities questioned how the National Guard, having provided the United States with strategic credibility during the Cold War, could continue to be relevant in an era when defense of the Fulda Gap was no longer the driving force behind America’s national defense strategy.

Mindful of the uniqueness and strengths of the Guard’s citizen-soldiers, the National Guard Bureau foresaw a unique opportunity to make a lasting contribution to solidifying the newly established peace. Our response was the State Partnership Program (SPP). Elegantly simple in concept, the SPP sought to link the National Guards of the States of the United States with Ministries of Defense of the emerging democratic nations of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia in cooperative activities of mutual benefit. In no way seeking to replace the bilateral relationships appropriate to national level diplomacy, the SPP aimed to enhance those connections by bringing “Hometown America” onto the international stage through personal, sustained relationships. These associations would build a “Bridge to America,” establishing and nurturing bonds of mutual understanding at the grass roots level.

What is particularly interesting is that NATO determined a similar need and thus established the better known Partnership For Peace program in 1994 - a year after the establishment of the SPP. Since then the SPP has become the primary means of US support to the PFP program and consists of 41 State National Guard programs plus those of Guam and Puerto Rico. This map displays National Guard states and their partner nations:

Primary objectives include -

— familiarizing partner nations with our equipment, tactics and training methods,

— the crucial role of our noncommissioned officers corps,

— demonstrating the importance and success of suborning the military to civil authority.

A significant purpose of this program is also to provide humanitarian aid, the injection of economic aid through the money spent on exercises and by US National Guard troops on the local economy while serving there, and the development of relationships and trust between the two nations – the US and the respective partner. Exercises often include a healthy dose of cultural activities designed for the expenditure of money and the social interaction between soldiers as they learn to trust one another, to develop an appreciation and respect for one another’s culture, and to learn how to interact breaking through cultural, ethnic, and language barriers. The impact on the local citizenry is positive and important as well.

A High-Payoff Target

The payoff has been significant and I can at least anecdotally attest that my experience as a Tennessee Army National Guard officer in nearly a dozen SPP exchanges – both in Bulgaria and with Bulgarians visiting Tennessee – helped me immensely in working successfully with an international staff during my service in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. I have heard the same from frontline Tennessee Guard soldiers who participated in previous PFP/SPP exercises in regard to their work with Iraqi and other Coalition soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result of our work in PFP/SPP the Coalition environment was not strange and unfamiliar to us and actually caused us to look forward to working with soldiers of other nations.

The relationships developed and nurtured through SPP with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have also been instrumental in our success in Afghanistan. The integration of new US allies from the former East Bloc – significant OIF troop contributors such as Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria – has been smoothed by years of the SPP/PFP relationship with National Guard states. It is through the SPP that these soldiers have learned how to work with US soldiers, tactics, and equipment whether those units be from their partner National Guard states or from the active component.

SPP has also prepared our troops – the limited number exposed to SPP in the National Guard – for working with soldiers of other nations and cultures. While active forces have trained for years in and along with other nations, the National Guard is leading the way for real coalition integration with our new allies.

I am certain the debate over the Guard and Reserve will rage on. Whether to cut reliance on combat units in the Guard or to shift our mission to a glorified border patrol there will be those in the bowels of the Pentagon and at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)/NATO who will keep a sharp eye on preserving the ever increasing important role of the National Guard in mentoring and improving the interoperability of our new partner nations – the partners who also just happen to be the nations who’ve stepped up to the plate in recent years. They are truly partners for true peace.

Maj. John Krenson is a Tennessee Army National Guard officer and independent civilian businessman – a true traditional Guardsman. He is a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom having served as the Chief Intelligence Liaison Officer between US Coalition Forces and NATO Forces in Kabul, Afghanistan. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for exceptionally meritorious service there and now serves as the Operations Officer for the 168th Military Police Battalion, Tennessee Army National Guard. Maj. Krenson has been involved in PFP/SPP programs since 1996 having visited Bulgaria four times and having received Bulgarian officers in Tennessee nearly half a dozen times. He is currently the lead US planner for the largest SPP event in the history of the program.

Long ago Mark Twain wrote of the German language,

German ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it. … an average sentence in a newspaper is a sublime and impressive curiosity that occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all 10 parts of speech-not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary.

So reported Rick Atkinson in his article, “Ignoring Marktwainsgermanwarning” in The WaPo in 1994. The WaPo piece appeared when I was stationed at the Pentagon. For a long time afterward, the paper ran letters occasionally on the topic of “Marktwainsgermanwarning,” generally about the syntactical idiosyncracies of Deutsch.

I wrote one such letter which was, alas, never printed. Somehow, it has survived on my computer to this day, despite the fact my present computer is at least the fifth since then. I stumbled across it and discerned immediately what Yoda’s major malfunction is: he’s really German!

Here’s the text of my letter to the Post 10 years ago:

A shortcomment on this ongoingdebate I have. In German biglongwordsthatcontinueforeverwithnoendinsight there are. Bigdeal. Two biggerproblems there are. First, in the Germanlanguage, verbs at the end of sentences or clauses go. In normalconversation, which is a question or which is a declarativestatement vocalinflection indicates. But in the writtentexts, only at the endofsentences with a period or a questionmark when you the difference can tell isn’t it? Second, negatives the noun not verb modify.

What the ruleimpact of this in English try to imagine would be. We ever where until there we got would we know are going? Many famoussayings notmemorable would be: “Before you leap look,” “Notcart before the horse put,” two examples are. Richard Nixon would have said, “I a notcrook am.” Connie Chung to the Newtmother would have said, “Why not you to me girltogirl it whisper?”

If you the Billandhillaryclintonhealthplan indecipherableandhardtounderstand as it written was think, it not according to germanizedbureacraticliterarystyle with all the verbs at the endofsentences be glad written was! Otherwise, we Harryandlouiseprotest would have had to hear, “To this listen! They my choice away take! I my notchoice to keep get! And this muchminemoney will cost! This stinks!”

And letterstotheeditor really, really no sense with Germanrules would make.

Truly yours I am,

Donald M. Sensing

This letter like it by Yoda sounds written was. So that his problem is. Great mystery solved. I congratulated should be!

Before commenting, please remember Rule No. 6!

The new Jar-Jar Yoda is

I saw SW3 late last night with Son Two. My one-word review: dull, dull, dull. It’s not that there’s no ak-shun, and it may have been the lateness of the 10 p.m. starting hour, but the movie simply never engaged me.p

The problem is that you know that the deadly conflicts between principals will leave them all alive. Yoda saber fights the emperor. It’s an intense fight, but who cares? You know neither will perish. Obi-Wan fights Anakin, who by then has already been knighted Darth Vader, and the only interesting thing about it is you learn why Vader will henceforth require a robotic, life-support exoskeleton. BTW, that part of the scene - it ends their hand-to-hand combat - is really quite gruesome.

The movie has been rightly criticized as displaying terribly wooden dialog. Glenn Reynolds says it well:

My dean’s comment was that it would have played better as a silent movie, and he’s right — you might as well be reading the dialogue off of cards, because the actors sure sound like they’re reading the dialogue off of cards.

On the way out I commented to Thomas of Vader’s actor, “Hayden Christensen would be dangerous if he could act.” The young man in front of us chuckled and nodded his head.

I could never get passionate about the movie as a viewer because the actors never got passionate about the movie as, well, actors. They just recite lines and go through motions. And, I say again, you already know where they’ll wind up at the end of the movie. Unfortunately, there’s no suspense in learning how they’ll get there.

Anakin’s journey to becoming Vader seems forced. The key impulsion is his love for his wife Padme, but in a movie filled with passionless scenes, the ones between Padme and Anakin are most deficient and so poorly serve as the basis for Anakin’s crucial career decision. The screenplay attempts to show how Anakin was seduced by the Dark Side, mostly against his will, but only hints at the psycho-battle taking place inside his will and conscience. Again, Christensen’s performance is too flat and talentless to make the seduction work.

And when he flips, it’s dramatically rough. In the key scene of the whole movie, Anakin disarms (literally) the only Jedi who could have saved the Republic, who is promptly dispatched by Palpatine/Darth Sidious. All of a sudden, Anakin realizes that Palpatine is bad! In fact, Anakin slumps to a seat and actually utters, “What have I done?” But barely two lines later he is pledging his troth to the triumphant Palpatine.

I could not help but recall Alec Guinness (ironically who played OWK beginning in SW4), playing British Col. Nicholson, uttering “What have I done?” in the closing action of 1957’s The Bridge Over the River Kwai. The colonel’s words reveal his sudden, shocked gaze into his soul as he realizes he has become the Empire’s willing ally to the betrayal of all his training and everything his has held dearest for more than 20 years as a British officer. Nicholson redeems himself in the only way he can. Just when all seems lost, he returns to the loyalties of his oaths at the cost of his life but the defeat of the Empire (that part of it, anyway).

But Anakin? Introspection? Second thoughts? Nah. Admittedly, Anakin faces a different problem than Nicholson; the life at stake is not his own but his wife’s. But the facility with which Anakin abandons his oaths and training - his trust in the Jedi - seem implausible, even to save his wife’s life.

The movie is visually magnificent, but the “sets” are as soulless as the acting. CGI is technically marvelous, but it can’t make a movie compelling. As I wrote about Kingdom of Heaven’s major shortcoming,

Alfred Hitchcock told an interviewer once that the first requirement for making movies that people want to watch is not an all-star cast, exotic sets or compelling musical score or the like. It’s the script, said Hitch: “You simply have to have a story.”

Unlike KOH, SW3 does have a story, and it’s really a darn good, rolicking one. But it is badly told and we already know how it ends, anyway. I am not sure which is the larger flaw. Lucas couldn’t do anything about the latter; coupled with the former, it just torpedoes the flick. Tonight I’ll throw the original movie on the DVD player and enjoy how great the series used to be.

Overall, I give SW3 a charitable six light sabers out of 10.

Endnote - the politics: commentary about Lucas overlaying his political views about the Bush administration into the movie are founded but way overblown. I recall only two, brief such scenes, and the overlays were so obvious that they’re just groaners, that’s all. I don’t think the people near me made the connection, anyway.

And getting really sick of Yoda’s mangled syntax I am. Learn the Queen’s English he should. Cute it once was. Now very annoying it is.

Update: Timothy Goddard is keeping a running tally of up or down reviews from bloggers.

Update, 3-21: SW3’s opening day revenue of $50 million was the most first-day take of any movie in history.

Update again: The hands-down winning review goes to The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane, whose essay, “Space Case,” is criticism prose at its finest. As Yoda would mangly recommend, “The whole thing read you must!”