Our Commander-in-Chief is oh so very sorry about those terrorist communication conduits korans being burned in Afghanistan. Yet still the murders and riots continue. It seems three-page letters aren’t enough. Why doesn’t our endless groveling work? Why doesn’t the Muslim Street™ accept our sincerity and our remorse and say “Fine, but please don’t make a habit of it, OK?” Why do they haaaaaaaate uuuuuuuus??!!
Go read Mark Steyn’s latest column on Afghanistan citizen Abdul Rahman’s death sentence* for converting from Islam to Christianity. A few gems:
As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: ”When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” That’s really the only issue: the Islamists know our side has tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that’s the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end.
I can understand why the president and the secretary of state would rather deal with this through back-channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies.
Remember that other country we liberated? The one that disappeared from the media’s radar after a successful election? It’s still there, and Chrenkoff’s got the latest good news.
As the old riddle goes, if a tree falls in the forest and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound? Or more importantly, if a country like Afghanistan is getting back on its feet and there’s no one to report it, does it actually happen? As far as the people of Afghanistan are concerned, thankfully yes; as far as the rest of the world, all too often the answer is no. That’s why it’s so important that the stories of Afghans – and those who are helping them – be told.
The Weekly Standard just published a bipartisan open letter urging an increase in the Army and Marine Corps. An excerpt:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today’s (and tomorrow’s) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that “overuse” in Iraq and Afghanistan could be
leading to a “broken force.” Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice’s term, a “generational commitment.” The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
Makes sense to me. But hey, what do I know? I was in the Coast Guard.
Arthur Chrenkoff isn’t being paid by the Bush Administration to round up good news from Iraq … but he should be.
As the Iraqi election approaches, bet on the terrorists lashing out in desperate spasms of violence as they see their doom approaching. When the mainstream media begins wailing about quagmires and bodybags, come back to Arthur Chrenkoff’s Good News In Iraq series for a reality check.
Remember, today’s MSM would have screamed about the Battle of Okinawa right up until V-J Day.
Enjoy Arthur Chrenkoff’s fifteenth roundup of positive events from the supposed “quagmire” that the MSM would have you believe is going to swallow us all.
It may be Monday, but there’s reason to smile: Arthur Chrenkoff just posted Part 6 of his Good News From Afghanistan series.
Arthur Chrenkoff keeps digging up good news from places you might be surprised to find it. He just posted his fifth installment on Afghanistan, so go read it.
Again with the beheadings.
Today the Islamists have sawn off the head of Jack Hensley of Marietta, Georgia. Yesterday they sawed off the head of Eugene Armstrong of Hillsdale, Michigan.
I’m not surprised. Hopefully we’ll preserve our collective outrage over this, but I suspect this kind of thing’s already becoming blasé in our jaded and media-saturated culture. Amid all the outrage expressed in the blogosphere, I’ve noticed a theme that needs correcting if we’re going to keep the right perspective. My blogging brethren often express their fury with epithets like “animals” and “subhuman scum” when they refer to the evil men who saw off captives’ heads in the name of a “merciful Allah.” It’s understandable to use those labels, but it’s not right because it lets these evil muslims off the hook for their actions.
We feel anger when we find out about these slaughters precisely because these evil men are more than just animals. They’re people, and that means they know better. When a cougar mauls a child, we hunt it down and kill it without much passion because it’s a dumb animal with no sense of morality. When men shoot fleeing children in the back or saw off the heads of helpless civilians, they earn our undying enmity because they know they’re committing evil.
For you left-leaning readers who feel uncomfortable with arguments based on right and wrong, think of this from a legal perspective. The Model Penal Code (which forms the basis for many states’ criminal codes) breaks down most crimes into four categories, asking whether the perpetrator committed the crime negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully. If a man fires a gun through a flimsy backstop in his backyard and the bullet accidentally kills his neighbor’s child, we’ll likely prosecute him for negligent homicide. But we hold him less culpable than the man who recklessly fires his gun into the air and kills the child playing in her yard two streets over. Worse still is the man who fires his rifle over a crowd of children, knowing he’ll probably kill someone. Worst of all is the man who fires a bullet into a fleeing child’s back for the purpose of killing her. Even our legal system emphasizes degrees of culpability and the importance of the perpetrator’s state of mind. It’s about as close to moral condemnation as our relativistic legal system ever gets.
I think the moral argument and our inherent sense of right and wrong provides the strongest foundation for holding these evil muslims responsible as people who consciously choose to do evil. You might find the legal approach more comfortable. Either way, intentions count for a lot.
From now on, I’m going to try extra hard not to understate the depths that these men have sunk to. I’m not going to call them animals or subhuman scum; these muslim death cultists are evil, and that’s why I’ll smile when they die violent and painful deaths.
I hope my fellow bloggers will do the same.
Arthur Chrenkoff sifts the news to bring us another basket of gems in Good news from Afghanistan, Part 3.
Arthur Chrenkoff continues his yeoman’s work by bringing us the seventh installment in his “Good News from Iraq” series. Good on ya, mate.