Month: June 2005

My Irony Meter Exploded Again…

by

And I had just replaced it after the last time… Via Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons comes this White House Press Release: “President’s Statement on United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture On United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide … Read more

Freedom and Equality on the March!

by

The Netherlands and Belgium. Canada and Spain. "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," [Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero] told the chamber. In the US there’s a … Read more

Failure Is Always An Option

by

by hilzoy Billmon has a very interesting post on Iraq called ‘Failure Is An Option’. He makes a lot of points, some of which I disagree with, but all of which are worth reading. But the point made in his title is a really important one that I’ve been thinking of writing about for a … Read more

Establishing My Religion

by

by hilzoy

I have been reading the oddest thing: Scalia’s dissent in McCreary County v. ACLU (pdf). It’s very peculiar in its own right, and even more peculiar as an illustration of originalist legal theories in action. McCreary County is one of the Ten Commandments cases that were handed down on Monday; it concerns a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse. The majority said that the display of the Ten Commandments in this case was unconstitutional. Scalia disagrees on various grounds; the one that interests me is his claim that putting up the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not favor one religion over another (pp. 53-55).

I could understand (though I would not agree with) an originalist who said: look, what ‘establish’ means, in the establishment clause, is: to make some religion the official religion of the government. Via the fourteenth amendment, this extends to other units of government, like counties. But putting up a display in a courthouse is not an establishment of religion in this sense. So even if McCreary County had chosen to display the Catholic catechism, the Augsburg Confession, or the Qur’an, that would have been fine. Scalia does say that “governmental invocation of God is not an establishment.” But for some reason he does not conclude that it is acceptable for a public building to display the text of some specific religion; only for such a building to display texts common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Why? I don’t know about you, but I think the answer has to involve a penumbra or an emanation.)

I could also understand an originalist who tried to argue that displaying the Ten Commandments did not count as establishing a religion unless the display somehow indicated which of the several religions that take the Ten Commandments to be sacred it favored. But while that argument would be understandable, it would also be stupid and unworkable, not least because it would require a clear account of what counts as ‘one religion’. (Is establishing Christianity OK so long as the government does not choose between Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Is establishing Pentacostalism OK so long as one does not specify which of the roughly 11,000 Pentacostal denominations now in existence one prefers? And so on.)

But Scalia does not rely explicitly on the claim that the Ten Commandments are not the province of any one religion either. Instead, he argues that because the Ten Commandments are viewed as sacred by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and because these three religions are the most popular monotheistic religions in the country, it is acceptable to display the Ten Commandments in a public building. And what I cannot understand is how on earth he manages to get this out of the text of the establishment clause in a way that even pretends to be consistent with his general views on legal interpretation.

(Note: I am not a lawyer, of course, but I am about to pretend. Be warned. It may not be pretty. Also: I started thinking about this because I was appalled by the idea that you could ‘establish’ anything on which Christianity, Judaism. and Islam all agreed; but as I thought more I ended up being more interested in the question: how did a smart guy like Scalia convince himself that what he says has anything at all to do with originalism?)

Read more

Cupboards Well-Stocked With Things To Diminish

by

Barely adequate.  Bush’s speech last night did pull the Administration back from Cheney’s "last throes" remark.  That’s good, because Cheney’s claim was ridiculous given the facts on the ground.  Indeed, in less-partisan times, one might even call it a flat-out lie.

So, at least we’re no longer at the brink of a self-inflicted Vietnamization.  Bush also hit the high points, forthrightly stated the difficulty of our task in Iraq, and showed a willingness to stick it out. 

After the say, however, comes the do.  It will be hard to do the right thing in Iraq.  We had cupboards well-stocked of goodwill; reserves of will to win aplenty.  Those cupboards are now nearly bare.  The public is no longer buying Cheney’s glib pronouncements of imminent victory or premature claims of "Mission Accomplished".  The worm is turning on Iraq, and we must complete the mission before it does.

With that in mind, Herbert E. Meyer, a former CIA official with the Reagan Administration, offers the following advice:

Get Real with the Generals

First, you need to fight harder in Iraq.  You keep saying that you are giving our generals all the troops they want.  With all respect, sir, this couldn’t possibly be true.  In the history of the world there has never been a general who thought he had enough troops.  If your generals are telling you they have all the troops they want to finish the job in Iraq, either the generals are idiots – or they have gotten the word that asking for more troops will end their careers.  Sit down with your generals privately – just you and them — and find out how many troops they really think they need.  If they still insist they don’t want more troops on the ground in Iraq, then get yourself a new bunch of generals.  If they tell you they need another 250,000 soldiers and Marines – then fly them over from Korea, Germany or wherever they are stationed just as fast as possible.  If we haven’t got them to send – then order a draft.  One way or another, put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to secure that country — fast.  And while you’re at it, give the orders to either take out the governments of Syria and Iran or to hit them with so much force that they quit playing footsie with al Queda and the Baathists, because we cannot win in Iraq so long as Syria and Iran are providing support and sanctuary.  In short, do whatever is necessary, and do it now.

Emphasis mine.  As The Belgravia Dispatch notes, "Sit down with your generals privately" means without Rumsfeld, Cheney, or, indeed, anyone else in the room.  Just the President and the Generals; all cards on the table.  (By the way, if The Belgravia Dispatch is not yet a daily stop for you, it should be.)

When public opinion decisively tips against the war (as it, assuredly, soon will), it will be impossible to keep troops in the field.  When public opinion decisively tips against the war, the insurgents won’t need to beat us; we will have beaten ourselves.  A very public suicide; a disaster for Iraq, our national security, and the Middle East.

The time to win in Iraq is running out.  No more buck passing.  No more of Rumsfeld’s "it’s above my pay grade."  No more a strategy of "just enough."  Act.  For the good of your country and your administration, act now.

(Title cite.)

UPDATE:  A few changes for clarity.  Some of the readership point out, rightly, that a draft is a poor way to keep public opinion on your side.  Absolutely conceded; indeed, I originally bolded that section of the letter to highlight where I disagree with Mr. Meyer’s advice.  Sadly, I didn’t get around to including that discussion in the body of this comment.

But the core of Mr. Meyer’s advice is sound.  I don’t buy the dance of "we want to send troops, but the Generals won’t have them."  The Generals, I’m sure, are very aware that a larger footprint in Iraq will have some negative consequences.  But it seems that all this worrying about "larger footprints" is meaningless if the footprint you have just ain’t getting the job done.  It’s similar to being on a starvation diet, and yet all you talk about is how fat you could get if you eat more.  A strategic anorexia; not very becoming. 

Yeah, there’s a risk (how real?  who knows?  goes the Rumsfeld koan) more troops will enflame the insurgency.  But weigh that risk against the near certainty that the current level of troops cannot defeat the insurgency.  Cost-benefit yo’ ass.  Ain’t a few more troops — if we have them to send — worth the risk of a few months of bad press?  Would enough troops to secure the border with Syria make it more likely that we’ll fail?

(That’s one reason why I found Neurath’s Boat‘s critique of my last post on the subject less than convincing.)

Read more

Eminent Domain

by

When I first heard about the Kelo case I was worried because I thought there was a greater likelyhood of the Court expanding the eminent domain power than there was of them limiting it.  The drift from an already expansive meaning of public use to the very broad understanding of public purpose is unfortunate.  It … Read more

Ceci N’Est Pas Un Post

by

by hilzoy I was writing a long post on a Wall Street Journal OpEd that said that critics of the war were doing Zarqawi’s dirty work for him, but I’ve decided to bag it. If people are inclined to believe that any problems we might be having in Iraq are the fault not of the … Read more

Petition: Investigate Prisoner Abuse

by

by hilzoy Wes Clark has drafted a petition calling on Sen. John Warner, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to investigate the role of the Bush administration in the various prisoner abuse scandals. It reads: “Chairman Warner: I urge you to investigate the Bush Administration’s role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that … Read more

Belgravia, Rolling.

by

by von There’s a lot to criticize in Kerry’s NYT Op-Ed ("The Speech the President Should Give" — not presumptuous at all, is he?), but Greg Djerejian tags the key line: The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis … Read more

Iraq and the Occasional Communicator

by

by Charles

As anyone could probably guess, I voted for Bush in the last two elections and I generally agree with many, if not most, administration policies.  There are also some actions and policies I do not support, encapsulated best in this piece last August.  One of the biggest ongoing irritants for me is that, while Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is the Occasional Communicator and it’s hurting our progress in Iraq. Here’s the problem:

Read more