Kevin at Dean’s World discusses what happened to old-style socialists - they became environmentalists. Citing Ilana Mercer’s observation that “environmentalism is socialism reborn,”

The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.”

A good discussion follows; as Kevin says, “I can’t really see where she, or he, is wrong.” Oh, and did you know that in the last 100 years, the news media have “reported on four seperate climate changes in the last 100 years. Cooling, then warming, then cooling again and now warming again.”

See also Michael Crichton’s in-depth analyses about environmentalism as fundamentalist religion and how “global warming” is a marketing and ideological phenomenon, but not a scientific conclusion.

Many links at Jules Crittenden’s post of the execution, “Drink Up,” including a link to Sky News’ video of the moments immediately preceding Saddam’s last drop.

Just over a year ago I posted an essay on this site regarding the execution of Tookie Williams. I treated that execution from the perspective of a military man and an ordained Catholic deacon. While acknowledging that there are times when the death penalty may be morally justifiable based on traditional and contemporary Catholic theology, I found that the execution of Tookie Williams could not be justified.

Today I experience the same struggle regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein. Today, using the same theological methodology, I find his execution morally justified.

The Church has traditionally left the question of capital punishment as a moral decision - that is, there is not an absolutist position as there is with, for example, abortion. Even as the contemporary Church has been “tightening the noose” on the moral justification of the death penalty (pardon the analogy) it has still not declared an authoritative absolutist position (I realize this matters not to many non-Catholics, but it is important to Catholics and it does carry a certain amount of weight politically in the world). Cardinal Renato Martino, a former Vatican envoy to the UN and top prelate for justice issues, has condemned the execution of Saddam; that’s his opinion and perhaps he accurately reflects the opinion of others in the Vatican, perhaps the Pope himself. Martino has also been known to make past ridiculous and irresponsible positions particularly with regard to Iraq.

But a case for the morality of Saddam’s execution can be made. As I wrote before:

For Catholics, we turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a summary of how we apply the teachings of Christ through His revelation - Scripture and Tradition - to our modern world today. It is indeed faith seeking understanding. In the current edition of the Catechism, promulgated in the 1980s, the Church states in paragraph 2266 “…the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”

The Catholic Church has taught for centuries that humans have a right for legitimate defense. That is the basis for just war, self-defense as well as for capital punishment. War, self-defense and the death penalty are justified when they are the only reasonable means left for security - be it the security of the individual in the case of the home invader, the security of the community from the murderer or the security of the nation from terrorists. One may kill in order to protect, which is distinct from murder.

And yet the late Pope John Paul II is well known for his preaching against capital punishment. For his reasoning we have only to look at paragraph 2267 of the Catechism “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

That paragraph is the basis for the Catholic Church’s well documented and forceful current teaching against capital punishment in the world and particularly in the West today - that indeed we do not need capital punishment to protect ourselves since we have the capacity to secure society from the worst human threats among us once we have captured them. Herein lies the true argument: do we have that capacity?

I would argue that many societies do not, particularly in the Third World. We cannot self-righteously take away a critical means for their self-defense when they lack the sophistication of a proper and secure penal system. This was the condition throughout the world not long ago and still in many parts of the world today. It is very likely the condition for countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq as they must secure themselves from terrorists still at large and even from those captured. Some argue it is still the condition today in the West and even here in the US with the unlimited opportunities for appeals and technicalities in having proper convictions overturned. Some would argue then that we have not developed a mature and secure enough system and environment to render capital punishment unnecessary.

Iraq does not have the capacity to protect itself from Saddam for the long term. Yes, the Baathists are likely rendered ineffective, yes the Sunnis are now a minority that is for the most part currently not a threat; yes the US has effectively jailed Saddam with little to no risk of his escape. But one day we might leave. Even if we don’t leave, one day he would be turned over to Iraqis. A life sentence in the third world is far more meaningless than many would argue it is even in America. Bribes can do things in the Middle East that are often not possible here (for example no one can seriously contemplate a release of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph due to a bribe - or any reason for that matter).

However small, there is the chance Saddam Hussein could go free. The weight of that possibility has continued to weigh heavy on the minds of Iraqis who still fear him even while incarcerated. The psychological impact of his continued existence and the three ring circus of his court case can arguably be said to have harmed our credibility and that of the various Iraqi governments of the last three years (interim and elected) resulting in more deaths during the current fight. For the long term bloodless means are insufficient for legitimate defense from Saddam. For the good of Iraq and for the good of the cause of freedom and peace in the Middle East, Saddam’s execution has had to happen. As the only reliable recourse available, for their protection - and for ours - the moral case for the execution of Saddam Hussein can legitimately be made.

In, “Are sheiks the key to success in Iraq?” I summarized some arguments for and against using the tribal sheiks in Iraq to defeat the various insurgencies. Now Time magazine snapshots the successes - and the concerns - of the alliance between a US Marine commander in al Anbar and a powerful sheik there.

“Turning Iraq’s Tribes Against Al-Qaeda,” tells of one, “Sheikh Abdel Sittar Baziya, head of the Abu Risha tribe and a founder of the movement the Sahawat Al Anbar, or Awakening Council, an alliance pledged to fighting Al_Qaeda in Al Anbar province.” Sittar made his bones after the invasion as the head of a highway-banditry ring. He was arrested three times by American forces. He allied with al Qaeda for a time but turned against them when they tried to horn in on his highway-robbery rackets. He says he now opposes al Qaeda for religious and ideological reasons. But he’s also, for now anyway, a valuable ally of US forces in returning law and order to al Anbar. But, says US Col. Sean Mcfarland, “”Tribes are like countries . They don’t have friends, they have interests. Right now we’re both to them. Down the road, would they fight us if we overstayed out welcome? They might very well.”

Newsweek reports that despite the violence there, Iraq’s economy is “booming.” It’s a poor choice of words for the magazine, but an excellent article.

Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it’s doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

Much of the blogosphere complains that the MSM do not cover the good news from Iraq, so this article deserves widespread attention. Its punchline: “The withdrawal of a certain great power could drastically reduce the foreign money flow, and knock the crippled economy flat.” Yep.

Jules Crittenden reports that American generals in Iraq, recently reported to be against having more US troops, actually think it’s a topping idea.

Fact is, no one in the MSM actually knows what the generals are telling the president. Because the generals are telling the president, not the MSM.

BlogsofWar cites London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair (link):

“It is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War. It’s a much graver threat than that posed by Irish Republican terrorism.”

The blog also cites an ABC News site,

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, “It will be a miracle if there isn’t a terror attack over the holidays in London,” a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

That Islamist terrorists want to do ahrm to Britain is indisputable. And for sure the Queen’s officers know immeasurably more about the threat there than I. But I’m guessing the attacks, if they do come, will take place not long after New Years Day rather than between now and then.

“Hark, the angels aren’t singing in Bethlehem,” at American Thinker details the exodus of Christians from Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus. Sixty years ago, Bethlehem was 85 percent Christian. Today only 12 percent of its residents are. Here’s a cite from a British newspaper article:

… the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, are to lead a joint delegation to Bethlehem this week to express their solidarity with the beleaguered Christian populace.

The town, according to the Cardinal, is being “steadily strangled”.

The sense of a creeping Islamic fundamentalism is all around in Bethlehem.

As late as last year, “the British archbishop of Canterbury and the resident Greek Orthodox cleric, blamed the Israelis-naturally-” for the slow elimination of Bethlehem Christians; one wonders what they will have to say this year. Thinker’s writer Ethel C. Fenig predicts,

Oh sure, as usual, the religious dignitaries will again blame the Israelis. And in the meantime, the manager of the Christian radio station prepares to leave because, “As Christians, we have no future here,” he says. “We are melting away.”

I have to wonder how long it will be before Jerusalem follows.

From the mind and computer of the incomprable Scott Ott, here is is al Qaeda’s number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Christmas message to America.

Oct. 7, 2001 was World Communion Sunday. It was also the day that the air campaign against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan began. On that day, not knowing that the bombing raids would begin exactly during the time of our worship service, I concluded my sermon thus:

Today is the first Communion Sunday since al Qaeda killed six thousand of us. This Communion Sunday is a special one when Christians around the world recognize that we are one body in Christ. We reach out in the Lord’s spirit to share the bread and the cup, and we are praying for one another and the whole world.

Let us dare to pray that the day can come when we may welcome even Osama bin Laden and his cohorts into Christian communion as our brother in Christ. Let us pray and work for a day when the world’s hatred and rage and murderousness are overcome by the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. Let us pray for a day to come when we can kneel even with our present enemies at the altar of the Son of God and partake together of the goodness of Christ. Let us hope and work for the day when we break bread together with them on our knees.

Let people of Christian faith remember to pray for our enemies. Our Lord and Savior, whom our enemies know of, but do not actually know, commands it. And so we do it, even if sometimes it is through clenched teeth.

Iraq is an Arab country, which means that tribalism is one of the most important organizing factors of its society, probably second only to Islam. Hence, the office and role of tribal sheiks, for which there is no very close Western analog, is crucial. The Council on Foreign Relations explains the office of sheik within an Iraqi context,

What is a sheik?
In Arabic, sheik means leader, or simply a venerable male elder, and each level of tribal organization-tribe, clan, and house-generally has a sheik at its head, says Iraqi tribal expert Amatzia Baram, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington and a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Haifa in Israel. Because there are so many sheiks, finding one with a significant degree of authority can be a challenge for U.S. occupiers. Another problem: Saddam subverted the traditional tribal hierarchy and elevated many sheiks in return for their cooperation.

What is a sheik’s traditional role?
Sheiks are traditionally responsible for protecting their people from harm and guaranteeing them a basic level of economic well-being. They also act as mediators and judges, settle disputes, resolve property claims, and suggest marriages, among other roles. In exchange, they have their people’s allegiance, Baram says. For centuries, sheiks were appointed by a council of elders within a tribe, and a sheik’s authority was not unlimited. The British— who ruled Iraq between 1920 and 1932— eliminated some of these checks and balances to exercise stricter control over Iraq’s tribesmen. In essence, this turned tribal sheiks into the sole source of law and authority in wide stretches of Iraq’s countryside.

Many unconventional warfare specialists, mostly Army Green Berets and some US Marines, have been urging American tactics in Iraq to focus on cultivating tribal sheiks, bringing them into alliance by hook or by crook, including outright buying their loyalty (not considered improper there). In fact, ABC News tells how that could solve many problems.

[A] young captain serving in Iraq’s violent Al Anbar Province has offered a simple explanation of what the problem was in Iraq and how to solve it. Among his observations is the importance of having a moustache in Iraq.

In a military known for its sleep-inducing, graphically dizzying PowerPoint presentations, the young captain’s presentation, which has been unofficially circulating through the ranks, stands out. Using stick figures and simple language, it articulates the same goal as the president’s in Iraq.

The creator of this PowerPoint presentation, “How to Win in Al Anbar,” was Capt. Travis Patriquin.

But Patriquin will not see victory in Iraq. He was killed by the same improvised explosive device that killed Maj. Megan McClung of the Marine Corps last Wednesday [Dec. 13].

Patriquin had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. A gifted officer, he spoke numerous languages, including Arabic.

In PDF format, Capt. Patriquin’s slides are here. His principal arguments are that young men are reluctant to volunteer for the army because their primary protective loyalty is to their tribe, under the sheik’s direction, and the army will send them away from their tribal area. But, says Capt. Patriquin, young men will readily join the police because they are a local force. The implication is that the police should be strengthened at the expense of the army while co-opting sheiks into supporting that effort and goal.

I am forced to bow before Capt Patriquin’s superior training and expertise, and agree that co-opting sheiks is a good idea. But we have been trying to do that, perhaps not very programatically, for quite awhile. The CFR also cautions,

What are the arguments against working with tribes?
Engaging closely with tribal sheiks across Iraq shores up their power. Some scholars argue this could hurt a longer-term effort to create a unified national identity and a political party system in which Iraqis do not vote along strictly sectarian lines.

Okay, those are pretty brief and fairly weak counterpoints. ABC says, “”How to Win in Al Anbar” may not make it to the desk of the president, but maybe it should.” Okay, I am imagining I am the prez and this plan, more fully fleshed out than a stick-figure slideshow, does make it to my inbox. Here are my questions:

1. Would Capt. Patriquin’s strategy lead to a heavily militarized police force, more powerful than the Iraqi army? And would that be a good thing?

2. Does his plan risk bringing police forces more under local sheiks’ control than is wise, perhaps leading to heavily-armed, near autonomous police units under little non-tribal authority?

3. If so, why would that be a better status quo than the militia forces operating now?

4. On what basis can we be assured that we can win the loyalty of the sheiks over appeals or bribes by al Qaeda or Baathist revanchists? How will we know we’re not being played?

5. Do the appeals and tactics for dealing with Sunni sheiks differ from those dealing with Shia sheiks? How do we deal with competing religious loyalties while trying to engender a stronger Iraqi national identity?

6. Can sheiks undercut the popular authority of religious strong men like Moqtada al Sadr? Or the Islamist appeal of al Qaeda recruiters?

7. Does this plan offer near-term advantages, mainly the suppression of tyhe insurgencies, at the cost of longer-term goals, such as the democratization of Iraqi society? Is the tradeoff truly in US national interest?

8. What are the resources required - financial, materiel and manpower?

9. How long until this plan, if energetically implemented, begins to turn the tide? And what do we do otherwise while preparing to implement it, and while it is put into place?

10. What relationship does this plan have to the implementation of the new Iraqi national constitution?

11. Will Iraq’s national-level, elected leaders support this plan?

I am sure there are dozens of other such questions. God rest Capt. Patriquin’s soul, would that he were still alive to tell us more.

Not going to spend much time on this, but Glenn Reynolds linked to Popular Mechanics’ article about a potential non-nuclear warhead for ICBMs, scenarioed thus:

When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident’s four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.

Actually, the tungsten warheads wouldn’t detonate “just above the target,” but when they hit it. And they would be much more destructive than the strike of a big bullet because their speed, gained in the fall from outer space, would cause them to shatter with high-explosive force.

Thuis isn’t a new idea. It first came up in the 1950s and was originally envisioned as an orbiting platform from which the rods would be decelerated to suborbital speed, calculated to hit the target after a fiercely fast freefall. Wikipedia explains,

The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range. There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II treaty (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons.

The weapon inflicts damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometres per second. The amount of energy released by the largest version when it hits the ground is roughly comparable to a small nuclear weapon or very large conventional bomb. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 500 lb conventional bomb.

The “pole” shape is optimal because it enhances reentry and maximises the device’s ability to penetrate hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets. The smaller “crowbar” size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.

The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section.

No fallout, no hazard from duds and no toxic residue - it’s the environmentally friendly weapon!.