Not only was that the song the band played when General Cornwallis’ army marched out of Yorktown to surrender to George Washington, it could also be the theme song of this firearms-related ruling of the Supreme Court. Just look at which justices voted which way and see whether you agree.

I have a 2X teleconverter for Minolta 35mm cameras that I am selling on eBay.

It is an MC mount. I used it on my XG-1 and X-700 cameras. There is no minimum and no reserve on this auction.

Fawaz Turki, a senior coilumnist for Arab News, has a thought-provoking piece entitled, “America’s ‘Wacky Ideas About Islam’ and the Gulf In Understanding: The shocking lack of knowledge in the United States about Islam is matched only by an even greater intellectual shortfall in the Arab World in understanding the West.”

Turki bemoans how little Americans, including academics, actually know about the Arab lands and Islam, for example,

Perhaps then, Americans would come to realize, for example, that jihad (struggle by an individual, or collectively a community, to transcend the limitations of the self through spiritual discipline) does not translate as “holy war,” that Allahu Akbar (a call by a Muslim in a moment of crisis, or wonderment at the objective world, to assert that “God is greater” than the challenges at hand) does not mean “God is great,” and that shahid (a fallen patriot who dies defending his holy cause) is not a martyr, a term unique to Christian iconography denoting a person in early Christianity who refused to renounce his religion and died defending it. ...

And so Turki proves guilty (a little) of the very misunderstanding he accuses the West of. As I happened to have explained in last Sunday’s sermon, “Recovering martyrdom,” Christians are made martyrs not by dying while defending the Christian faith, for in Christian history martyrdom has always been passively attained. Christians who refuse to renounce their faith under persecution, even at the cost of their lives, may come to be acclaimed as martyrs. This is qualitatively different than the Muslim concept of shahid, in which giving actual offensive battle in war can be seen as a true act of worship.

Nonetheless, it not a major nit to pick in an otherwise decent article, and I have to plead guilty to referring to shahidis as martyrs myself (although Turki doesn’t address that al Qaeda itself calls suicide bombings “martrydom operations”).

But this part caught my eye:

There is no doubt about the fact that for Americans—who have yet have to recognize their ignorance about the issue—an intimate acquaintance with Islam will be enriching not only for practical reasons of national security … but for intellectual reasons as well. When you get to know a person’s religion, you get to know their expression of human spirit, their inward preoccupations and their archetypal concerns. After all, there are many junctures where Islam and Christianity intersect, representing a basis for unity for the two worlds they define. What divides Muslims and Christians in modern times are not their religions—which are not antithetical by any means—but their politics.

I applaud Turki’s apparent attempt to separate mosque and state, but it’s a wet firecracker. He glosses over the fact that Arab politics, especially in Saudi Arabia, are generally controlled by Islam. It’s impossible for America to relate to the Arab countries purely on the basis of politics and not religion.

Furthermore, Turki seems unaware of the very vast chasm separating basic Christian doctrines and theology from that of Islam, only three examples of which are Original Sin (a concept that does not exist in Islam), the divinity of Jesus Christ (renounced as heresy in Islam) and divine atonement for human sin (nowhere in Islamic theology). Those are just starting points.

Those religious differences “divide” Christianity and Islam only because Islam is politically intolerant of Christianity. It’s all fine for Turki to say, “Can’t we we all just get along?” when getting along means I as a Christian cannot freely practice or proselytize in almost any Muslim country. If he really believes that our respective religions “are not antithetical by any means” then let him campaign in Saudi Arabia for full religious freedom for Christianity there.

Nonetheless, Turki does admit his own society has a long way to go:

But what of the unutterable monotony of debate by Arab critics about the Euro-American world? We complain, often bitterly, as I have just done, about how little Westerners know about our societies. But in the end, I have to say this: Despite their at times inescapable sense of triviality and dissimulation, American commentators, analysts and academics still know more about the Arab world than their counterparts there know about the United States.

How many think tanks are there in the Arab world that devote themselves to the study of the American world? How many Arab universities are there with American Studies departments? How many Arab researchers have written about the United States—its foreign policy, its social life, its popular culture, its history, its political system—with penetrative grasp, with resolute objectivity, a genuine focus on facts untainted by conspiracy theories and the rhetoric of the 1950s and 60s about those darned American imperialists lurking behind every one of our lamp posts?

Let’s see, that would be about, uh, none, I think.

We all have a long way to go. (hat tip: Watching America)

I followed a link to Reasoned Audacity from NRO and I have to call attention to its smear of the Army’s chief of staff, Gen.. Peter J. Schoomaker. I wrote Audacity’s author, Charmaine Yoest, protesting her post.

Yoest criticizes Gen.. Schoomaker’s policy of assigning women to Forward Support Battalions (FSBs). She also brings up the conflagration that killed the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas as well as the failed attempt to rescue American hostages from Iran known as “Desert One.”

I am a retired infantry officer. I am opposed to assigning women to combat roles and I am a small-government, original-intent, social and economic conservative. So, I am predisposed to agree with the intent of the post, which is that women should not be assigned to combat positions in the military. I also think that what happened at Waco was a travesty. But this post on Gen. Schoomaker is not an argument; it is a hit piece, pure and simple.

The author spent almost no time analyzing Gen. Schoomaker’s decision to assign women to FSBs. She simply asserts that it is illegal, implies that it is immoral, and distorts how FSBs operate. Then she moves on to ad hominem attacks against Gen. Schoomaker. “So who is this man?” she asks.

She could have at least done her readers the courtesy of linking to his official biography. If her readers went there they would find out that he served 31 years before being appointed as chief of staff. In addition to his first assignment to Special Forces Operation Detachment – D (popularly known as Delta Force and which Ms. Yoest gets wrong in her post), in which he participated in the Desert One operation, he was assigned to Delta Force two more times, the last time as its commander. They would also see that in addition to Desert One, he participated in the invasions of Grenada and Panama, Desert Shield/Desert Storm and our operations in Haiti.

Instead Ms. Yoest focuses on two assignments; Desert One and his time as the Assistant Division Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division. In each she attempts to associate Gen. Schoomaker with a Democrat President who is unpopular her readers and with failures for which Gen. Schoomaker can only be tangentially associated.

Desert One: She characterizes his participation as: “Failed in Desert One in Iran under President Carter. He commanded a Squadron in the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment in the botched rescue attempt of embassy hostages in Iran, 1980. Dead soldiers. Ours.”

This is the equivalent of blaming the astronauts for the Challenger explosion. Her account is a gross distortion of the operation and falsely implies that Schoomaker was somehow responsible for the failure and the casualties. This is a lie. Reader’s can go to any account of the operation such as this one to see for themselves, but I will summarize here: Schoomaker commanded part the Delta team which was actually to land at the embassy and retrieve the hostages. In addition to his force, there were other Delta Force elements, Army Rangers, Special Forces and Pathfinders, Marine Helicopters, Air Force C-130s and C-141s, CIA agents and the task force headquarters. The overall assault was commanded by Colonel Charles Beckwith. The operation had many problems from the very beginning, none of which could in any way be the fault of Gen. Schoomaker, who was at the time a junior officer. The operation was ultimately aborted when one of the Marine Helicopters developed a leak in its hydraulic line while en route to the embassy. Once the mission was aborted the task force began to evacuate the area. One of the helicopters collided with one of the transport planes. During the ensuing fire, a number of service men were killed.

For Yoest to imply that these deaths were somehow Gen. Schoomaker’s fault is shameful. Delta Force is a “one strike and you are out” organization; the mere fact that Schoomaker served two more times at Delta should indicate that no one found any fault with his performance. Even worse, her characterization of Operation Eagle Claw (the official code name of the operation) as some sort of immoral failure that should taint all of the participants is shameful as well. These men put their lives on the line in one of the most complex and daring commando operations ever attempted in order to rescue fellow Americans. The lessons learned in this operation served as the foundation for our modern Special Operations Forces. I admire the courage and skill of the participants and am grateful for their service.

Finally, her apparent attempt to associate Schoomaker with the unpopularity of President Carter is particularly vile. I served under President Carter, too. Should I be ashamed? Or should our military refuse to serve our elected superiors when they don’t like them?

Waco: Here is how Yoest characterizes Schoomaker’s involvement: “Violated the Posse Comitatus Act in Waco. Working with General Wesley Clark as his assistant division commander, Schoomaker, Peter, J., (very quietly) met with Janet Reno, allowing the FBI use of Fort Hood. (Bloggers didn’t exist then.) The armor and military personnel present at the conflagration were Schoomaker’s, Peter J. Dead children. Dead babies. Dead women. Lots of them.” Subsequent paragraphs imply that Schoomaker was rewarded for his participation in the Waco raid with promotions by President Clinton.

What she neglected to mention is that he was pulled out of retirement by President Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield to serve as chief of staff of the Army. Gee, I if I was looking for a new Army chief of staff; my first choice would definitely be the protégé of my political enemies (President Clinton and Gen. Wesley Clark, former Democratic presidential candidate, who was commanding general of 1st Cavalry Division at the time of Waco), who has a record of violating Posse Comitatus, and the distinction of being heavily involved in an action that my core constituency regards as an atrocity. Are George Bush and Don Rumsfield really that stupid?

I don’t think so, but unlike Ms. Yoest, I am going to provide some evidence:

First, according to this CNN story (which took me all of five minutes to find), it may be that then- Brig. Gen. Schoomaker refused to participate in the planning of the Waco assault and correctly limited his involvement and that of his command to what was legally permitted. Her post does not mention this, even to discount it.

Second, the Department of Defense is specifically directed by Congress to provide support to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances. They are not allowed to arrest or conduct surveillance on US citizens or directly participate in law enforcement operations; but they are directed to provide certain types of training, logistical support (including the use of military bases) and equipment when it is requested. For an overview, go to this site , which has a reproduction of US Army Field Manual 27-100, “Legal Support to Operations.” It lays out the statutory authorizations for support and the type of support that can be provided.

Now Ms. Yoest, her readers, and many reading this post may disagree with these laws but they have been passed by Congress under both Democrat and Republican administrations, they have been challenged in court and upheld and therefore our military officers are obliged to follow them.

Her statement, without any context or background, begins with the assumption that any military support to law enforcement agencies is illegal and unconstitutional. It goes on to assert without any supporting evidence that Schoomaker’s participation in this action violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It strongly implies that Schoomaker did this on his own initiative as part of some unofficial conspiracy. All of which is untrue.

What is true is that some Army equipment and personnel were on or near the compound at Waco. What is in dispute, according to the accounts I have read, is exactly who they were, who ordered them to be there, and what level of participation they had in the events. There are conflicting accounts on all of these points. I have also read conflicting accounts as to whether the equipment on site belonged to Schoomaker’s 1st Cavalry Division or whether it was from a National Guard Unit that was not under Schoomaker’s authority.

I don’t like what happened at Waco. I suspect that some people involved may have committed illegal acts, but I am not in a position to judge the specifics of the case. But to suggest as Yoest does, that the mere use of Army facilities and equipment and Army training of law enforcement agents in the use of Army equipment is illegal on its face, is just wrong. To suggest that assistant division commanders simply decide to get involved in such operations is at best ignorant and at worst fraudulent. Then- Maj. Gen. Clark, the division commander, received some sort of directive from his superiors (possibly called “a request” but it was an order nonetheless) to support the FBI and he ordered his subordinate, Brig. Gen. Schoomaker, to participate in the support in some way. I can assure you that each step of the way was reviewed by Army lawyers to make sure it was legal. From what I can tell, Gen. Schoomaker participated in the support of law enforcement agencies as authorized by law. That is also what the Danforth investigation found. If the CNN story above is correct, then Schoomaker also refused requests for support that he thought (or his staff judge advocate told him) were improper.

For a quick review of the main issues surrounding the involvement of Generals Clark and Schoomaker, go here.

It may be that I am wrong and Schoomaker somehow did something wrong, but Yoest did not even attempt to prove that. What she did was shout: “Dead Babies! Schoomaker! Waco!” in the same sentence in a cheap attempt to score points in a policy debate on an entirely unrelated subject.

That is wrong. Ms Yoest owes Gen. Schoomaker an apology.

From Donald Sensing - Charmaine responded to Patrick’s email to her late last night. I’ve read her response and I think it’s just a dodge: “Well, yeah, Patrick, good points, but it’s all still true.”

Patrick is right - she fails to tackle the women-in-combat issue on its own merits and so attacks Gen. Schoomaker personally. It is a cheap tactic, nothing but a smear campaign and not founded on facts. She evinces little evidence of actually knowing how the Army works at the level she feels so confident criticizing. You’d think that someone with her credentials would be less of an ideologue and more concerned with actual facts, but alas, no.

For the record, I happen to oppose any increased ground-combat role for women and actually think their combat roles should be scaled way down. But if I decide to address the topic on this blog, I sure won’t stoop to Charmaine’s level to do it.

Blogger Joe Gandelman writes The Moderate Voice. A former foreign correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor (IIRC), his blog is always informative and entertaining. And now it’s linked by Google News, which had this entry up last night:

Google first linked to Joe last week. Good on yer, Joe!

Thus sprach Liam Neeson’s character, Qui-Gon Jinn, in Star Wars I, The Phantom Menace, just as his submarine was about to be swallowed by a leviathan. But at the last moment an even huger leviathan ate the first one.

It’s a truism that just after you buy anything electronic you will soon afterward find the same thing cheaper elsewhere, or another thing better. So less than a week after getting my Kodak DX6490 ultrazoom digital camera, I see “there’s always a better camera.”

Now, I knew that the 6490 was not tip-top of the line when I bought it. It has a 10X zoom lens, but it isn’t stabilized. I leaned pretty hard toward the Canon S1 IS for that reason - the “IS” means, “Image Stabilization.” But the S1 IS is only 3.2 megapixels while the Kodak is four, so I opted for the Kodak for that reason and for its other features I related in my earlier post.

Now Canon has to go and announce the release of the S2 IS - basically the S1 upgraded to 12X lens and 5MP. It won’t be available until June 30, and I would not have waited that long since I needed a new camera for a trip we’re taking before then. But dadgum, the Canon is nice: full-screen video at 30 fps and you can use the zoom in video mode and you can take a still pic while videoing without interrupting the video recording. Uses AA batteries and SD cards. Perfect!

You can pre-order one now if you want.

After my upcoming vacation trip is over, you may see my Kodak on eBay.

Update: As Thomas Holsinger mentioned in a comment, when I was starting to research which camera to but he kindly sent me a CD with examples of stills and videos he took with his Canon S1 IS. The photos were great and the videos were really impressive - Tom said they were sharper than digital video. I was skeptical at the time, but since then I bought a digital video camera and now I see (literally) that Tom was right: the Canon’s video is better.

... but we got the next best thing

ABC News reports that al Qaeda’s chief in Iraq, terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, narrowly escaped being collared by American Task Force 626 in February, but his escape was so close we nabbed his driver and bodyguard.

We received good intel from a Zarqawi associate that he would be en route in a pickup truck to meet with lieutenants in Ramadi. TF 626 threw up security cordons which Zarqawi avoided by simply turning around and driving away. American troops gave chase but when they halted the truck Zarqawi was gone. But the nab proved fruitful nonetheless.

What the task force did find in the vehicle confirmed suspicions that Zarqawi had just escaped. The official said Zarqawi’s computer and 80,000 euros (about $104,000 U.S.) were discovered in the truck.

Finding the computer, said the official, “was a seminal event.” It had “a very big hard drive,” the official said, and recent pictures of Zarqawi. The official said Zarqawi’s driver and a bodyguard were taken into custody.

The senior military official said that they have since learned Zarqawi jumped out of the vehicle when it passed beneath an overpass, presumably to avoid detection from the air, and hid there before running to a safe house in Ramadi.

Interrogation of the driver and bodyguard and mining the computer have doubtless already proved to be an intelligence gold mine.

Bill Roggio has more worth reading, especially the implications of having an informer inside Zarqawi’s band and how that bodes ill for Zarqawi’s future.