A man in the arena

Heritage Foundation fellow Peter Brookes has a new column on Iran. He argues that, in the face of diplomatic failure, Israel will probably strike Iran’s nuclear sites. He also lays out a scenario where all out war does not break out in the Middle East. It is not an unreasonable idea. But the possibility of much more dire consequences should make the leaders of the West very nervous. Some kind of engagement is becoming a necessity. At the very least, a diplomatic solution must be vigorously attempted by the U.S. and Europe. A long shot remains better that no shot at all.

Michelle Malkin has an interesting post on the composition of the blogosphere. It is a response to an LA Time’s piece attacking the in-egalitarian nature of blogs. The author complains about both the commercialization of blogs and the power of a “charmed circle of bloggers.”

Welcome to Economics 101. If you can make money on something, and it isn’t outlawed by the government, people will make money. If the writing is compromised, than readers can always read other blogs. There are thousands of blogs because the only cost of starting and maintaining a simple blog is the opportunity cost of the blogger’s time. With low start up costs and differentiated products the blogosphere comes very close to a text book definition of monopolistic competition. Ignore the word monopoly here, this the type of market that is meant when people describe the free market. It is a good thing.

And if you have thousands of people reading and writing blogs some are going to do it better than others. A few bloogers will develop blogs interesting enough to attract large numbers of readers. If you will allow me to steal from John Adams, a natural aristocracy will develop. This is also a good thing.

Hopefully, with time and hard work, this blog can someday join their ranks.

Bush has said, once again, that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. “Our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.” Unfortunately this is a meaningless statement. Diplomacy won’t work, and the United States will not attack Iran. Why does he even talk about it?

If only this was a joke. The Germany Army has pulled out of the annual U.S. Army sponsored Land Combat Expo in Europe. The reason is that they are offended by a NY Post column written by a retired U.S Army Officer who will be speaking at the Expo.

This may or may not be another indicator that Europe and the U.S. are suffering from irreconcilable differences. But the real issue is when did the Germans get so soft? The land of Luther’s 95 theses can’t handle an 800 word column? What the hell.

Credit: Instapundit.

Your humble author usually cannot stomach a Paul Krugman column. After years of telling libertarian and conservative friends that Krugman was the man to read regarding economic policy, a well-balanced liberal, he obtained a New York Times column and threw his credibility into the trash. Now the “lonely voice of truth in a sea of corruption” is almost comical in his good guy/bad guy accounts of American politics. He seems to have come across politics in his late 40s and become shocked, shocked that politicians are deceptive.

Having said that, when your favorite Aunt e-mails a column (NYTimes registration required) to you, you read it. Even if your favorite Aunt is a Trotskyite. Even worse: the column is partisan yet coherent.

Rest assured that it is riddled with Krugman’s usual witless commentary (see “Mr. Bush's infallibility complex”) and arguable statements. But Iraq is a mess, Bush has not articulated a plan, and if Kerry actually sticks to this argument for more than a week Bush could be in trouble.

Michael Ledeen has eviscerated George Will’s Iran column. Writing on National Review Online Ledeen takes him to task for his pessimism regarding regime change in Iran. Unfortunately Will’s column was not “silly”. Will is quite right that we don’t have the will to overthrow Iran. And Ledeen’s call for a war of “ideas and passions” is rhetorically pleasing, but of dubious value.

Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons. There is not much point in dithering about it. We are not going to stop them. We can’t afford another war. Europe is useless. And the Iranians obviously want the Bomb. George F. Will has, as usual, stated it best.

If there is any question it is this: what will Israel do? Will they hope on a mutually assured destruction (MAD) strategy to protect them, or will they hit Iraq? The Israelis tend toward action.

And every day, in every way, the Middle East gets worse.

The eminent columnist Robert Novak has penned a startling article. With any luck, or decency, he is wrong. His basic point is that whoever is President in 2005; he will pull out of Iraq early. Assume for a moment that he is correct. If you are a Kerry supporter, how does this move fit in with anything the man has said or done in the last two years? How can you believe he has any bigger goals then to get himself elected President? More decisively, if you support Bush, how can you vote for a man whose plan was to go into a ruined nation, raise hell, and leave it in chaos?

For the sake of our security and the Iraqis' futures may Novak be wrong.

It is always a good thing to have friends on the opposite side of the political spectrum, even if in recent years that has become more difficult. If you overcome the obstacles of our current culture, you will find that an intelligent antagonist can help bring perspective to any argument.

Many years ago in a Temp, AZ used CD store, your humble author had an argument with a man of the Left named B. B was a businessman, investor, blues singer, concerned American, card carrying member of the ACLU, literally, and all around great guy. The argument revolved around the ACLU. B made the now clichéd statement “How can you be against an organization that exists to protect the Bill of Rights?” His reaction to the answer to this question is revealing.

When confronted with the idea that the ACLU is only defending one interpretation of the Bill of Rights, he reacted indignantly. When confronted with the idea that reasonable people can disagree on whether regulations on Campaign Financing are violations of Free Speech, he agreed in principle. Accepting these premises, and the fact that the ACLU has a specific opinion in support of Campaign Finance regulations, he agreed that the ACLU had a specific agenda in its cases regarding the Bill of Rights. But he stated that this agenda was one he agreed on.

This did not change his mind. But it changed the terms of the debate. Instead of the facile argument about defending the Bill of Rights, he would now have to argue more honestly about defending a specific reading of these rights. If you believe your argument is strong, a discussion based on true premises is to your advantage. And in the battle over Freedom, the advantage is to the Right.

The Wall Street Journal has a well written column on Kerry’s new advisors. The long and the short of it is that the last minute substitution of advisors is a very bad sign. It is worth reading.

Of course this is what Kerry does. He did it in is only tough Senate race against Weld in ’96, and he did it in the primaries this year. He doesn’t push hard until the game is almost over. But he pulls out the victory.

Remember two vital facts: he is a great campaigner, and the press leans his way. When his surge forward begins it will be The Story all over the media. And Kerry will slide to a very narrow victory.

Great writers transcend their times. It may be early to place Allan Bloom in this category, but his 80’s bestseller The Closing of the American Mind still speaks to us today. Fortunately, Michelle Malkin is bearing the brunt of his thesis.

Bloom’s book is a self-contained liberal arts education. And within its broad scope he makes a comparison between the atmosphere on the campuses of U.S. universities in the 1960s and the atmosphere on the campuses of German universities in the 1930s. Philosophically both eras manipulated Nietzsche’s writings. Radical 60s professors, such as Marcuse, even drew intellectual power from the radical theorists of Germany’s philosophy specifically Heidegger. Their radical nihilism was used to discredit the logic of their adversaries by questioning motives not by questioning premises. The tactics of Nazi Brown Shirts who burned books were replicated by the Black Power take over of university buildings. Many Ivy League professors, including Bloom, fled to Canadian campuses to teach in a more even handed environment. In both eras radicals created an atmosphere that silenced dissent with the threat, and reality, of violence.

Malkin has given us a new thesis that challenges an idea that most thought uncontroversial. In her new book, and in syndicated columns, she has argued that the Internment of U.S. citizens in World War II were justified. This, needless to say, causes controversy. But when she goes to a university to speak in an open forum, in this instance at U.C. Berkeley (http://users.lmi.net/zombie/malkin/), she is not just met with vigorous debate. She is shouted down by radical protesters. Their goal is not the refutation of an argument; their goal is the silence of debate. Bloom’s analysis remains valid.

But Malkin is strong enough to stand up to the radicals. And she continues to speak. Hopefully honorable adversaries will argue with her points. In the face of threats to academic freedom the scholar’s responsibility to the truth is doubled. Malkin is owed our gratitude for reminding us of this duty.

The Closing of the American Mind on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671657151/qid=1095347504/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-6410822-1493430?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

“I will give them the chance to make mistakes out there.”
- Rep. Porter Goss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20308-2004Sep14.html

It is a truism in Military and Intelligence circles that the zero defect mentality is the guiding maxim of leadership. A mistake free bland record is a surer guide to promotion than a string of successes broken by one error. Many onerous and stifling decisions are made by leaders who know that the subordinate’s mistakes will destroy the leader’s career. In other words, a leader wants a team that never drops the ball. He demands whatever is necessary to hold on to the ball, because at the end of the day keeping the ball is far better for his career that putting points on the scoreboard. But the players are human beings who inevitably will fumble. A leader needs to accept this fact and still encourage the risk taking needed to score. This type of leadership strengthens the entire team. If, as CIA Director, Porter Goss stays true to his word he will begin to change the mentality of intelligence teams all over the government. The cultural change would be a real step in improving the defense of this nation. That alone is worth his confirmation.

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation, which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.

Ronald Reagan