Andrew Hagen

Sometimes looking through old magazines gives you a perspective you had forgotten for a long time. Sometimes you find a nugget of wisdom. Other times, you are simply shocked.

In an opinion piece published shortly after the World Trade Center attack of 1993, Georgetown University law professor and attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights David Cole wrote:

Several of the men arrested for the World Trade Center bombing and the alleged plot to attack buildings and tunnels in New York City happened to be Arab immigrants. The public response has been to focus not on criminal activity but on Arabs and immigrants as a class.

(* The Nation, July 26/August 2, 1993) They just happened to be Arab immigrants. What a wild coincidence. You might just happen to get the flu, or even cancer. The alleged plot involving bridges and tunnels was in fact real. Regardless of whether civil rights were trampled after the 1993 bombing, which killed 6 people, it is apparent that US actions were unfortunately insufficient to prevent the 9/11 attacks, which killed over 3,000. Near the end, Cole says:

America must be ready to respond to acts of terror, carried out or planned, with the full force of law. For those who kill or injure civilians for political ends, long prison terms and deportation are appropriate; punishing immigrants who merely associate with unpopular groups is not.

(† Id.)

What I see here is evidence that the left-wing approach to terrorism was flawed far before 9/11. Today we understand that terrorism is not merely a law enforcement problem; it is also a military problem. One might reference the 1986 Libya incident. We understand that punishment of terrorists is not enough; we must prevent terrorism. Above all, we understand that terrorism doesn’t just happen. The terrorism we are fighting occurs as a result of free choices made within the political context of the largely Arab and entirely Muslim militancy that takes as its project the conquest of the world and the establishment of Saudi and Taliban-style societies everywhere.

Democratic Congressman from Georgia Jim Marshall says the media picture of Iraq is bleaker than the reality. (*) (†) Democratic Congressman from Montana Ike Skelton agrees. (‡) USA Today admits the truth. (§)

Have you been watching the news lately? Have you been reading newspapers, or picking up Time or Newsweek? Well, you just might have the impression that the multinational, US-led liberation effort in Iraq has been a complete failure. Over 300 American troops killed. Almost one more killed every single day. It is an occupation (that is somehow worse than Saddam’s). All these Iraqis hate us now. The power is off! The power is off! A high estimate of $87 billion for all American operations in Iraq for a year, including a whopping $20 billion to get Iraq back on its feet. Twenty billion dollars? That is way too generous. We should send them nothing more than a lump of coal. It’s a quagmire. It’s Vietnam all over again. It’s the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world. Additionally, George Bush did not even apologize to the UN for the complete and utterly disastrous, cataclysmic failure of everything he hath wrought in Mesopotamia. What gall! Etc, etc.

Just like an acid flashback from one’s hippy days spent burning draft cards experienced by a deskbound 24-hour news channel middle-aged anchor, however, everything isn’t quite as it seems.

Let me first give you what might be the most important statement you have never heard about Iraq until now: Our military and peacetime efforts in Iraq have been a magnificient, stupendous success, far beyond what we could have hoped for. We have won the war, and we are winning the peace.

We should be applauding and cheering on our military and civilian representatives in Iraq as they continue to perform miracle after miracle in the land Saddam nearly murdered. The seething and the whining have got to stop, not because dissent is unwelcome, but because there is nothing in reality to seethe or whine about. If you wonder why 300+ of America’s finest men and women have died in Iraq, it was and is in no small part to secure that very beloved freedom of dissent and certain other liberties to a people who seven months ago had little hope of even surviving in a country that its own people called “the meat grinder.” Remember that next time you exercise your freedom of dissent. In fighting the terror-supporting dictator, our servicemen and women also fought to protect our country and the entire free world. Just like those in the Afghan campaign, the parents, the children, the wives and husbands of those who lost their lives in Iraq are owed a special gratitude by their countrymen, and should know that their loved ones possess an honor above what a regular citizen can accomplish. Those who have helped to liberate will live on in human hearts forever.

Now for the facts on Iraq. For those who wish to not be willfully ignorant, the President (you know the one, the Antichrist of the Left) has a special section of his web site dedicated to all of the progress made in Iraq. (*)

But hey, you read the newspaper. Why should you read that? The truth hurts. The media, American and international, are not reporting the basic facts. Why not, you ask? Well, I’m tempted to make some comment here about Ivy League J-school types who are addicted to the narcissistic, cynical, incestuous media echo chamber that must always be tilted at such an angle to maximize the news of the day so as to, in form of a pithy phrase, “get W.” But let’s try not to overdiagnose. George is getting some negative flak on Iraq. He deserves some. The man declared victory on an aircraft carrier, and our young men are still being killed. The job isn’t done. Yet, it’s getting done.

Did you know that impartial observers in Iraq have said, again and again, that the peacetime efforts in Iraq are going well? Probably not, unless you have been accessing certain web sites. The links do exist. Read what the media doesn’t want you to see, if you dare.

Iraqis don’t want us to leave. (†)

Iraqis want to convince Americans that Iraqis are not all people who throw stones at soldiers. (‡)

Sometimes even the media has to admit that things are going great. (§)

A judge learns the truth. (**)

A soldier says the media is not getting it right. Iraq is getting on its feet. (††)

Thousands of new schools are being built. New textbooks, with Saddam’s militarism expunged, are being written. Malnourished kids are getting food. The hospitals are getting better and better stocked with medicine. Our troops are making friends with the Iraqi people on a person-to-person basis. Electrical and water infrastructure are being rebuilt, and in some cases for the first time built. The oil is flowing again, and the oil revenues are securely in the hands of the Iraqi people themselves. Self-government is approaching rapidly. Elections will probably be held next year. Iraq now has dozens and dozens of new, independent newspapers.

The media just reports the negatives. Sure, there is some light resistance left in Iraq. There was light resistance in Germany for months after World War II was over. This kind of thing always happens when you take over a country. The establishment Left doesn’t understand this because they have a personal distaste for reading military history, a topic I happen to enjoy.

What is remarkable is how weak the resistance has been. We should have anticipated taking upwards of 1,000 deaths by now, not 300. Furthermore, much of the resistance seems to be coming from what our military is calling “foreign fighters.” The Iraqis themselves do not want our troops to leave. They are giving our troops intelligence and cooperation. The long, hot Iraqi summer is nearly over, and now all these gains can be fully consolidated. The Saddam loyalists had their best chance of a “Tet Offensive” style attack in the hot summer. It didn’t happen. The security situation is getting better and better. More and more Iraqis are being trained as police officers, border guards, and soldiers. The restoration of an independent Iraq is within view.

All of that is nice, but the only thing that really matters is that the spirit of freedom has blown onto a previously stagnant, forsaken land.

So, no, Nathan Newman, I do not regret supporting the liberation. (‡‡) I do not regret it one bit. Because even if it all turned to hell tomorrow—and it won’t—we gave some people something they never had before: freedom. Once you are free, the memory of what it’s like never leaves you. Even if it is taken from you, the memory never leaves you. You will always pine for it. You will always work for it. You will always know how great, how grand this world can be. Freedom is the removal of limits from human potential. It is worth a terrible price.

I wonder what would today’s establishment Left have said about the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, or World War II had they lived in those times. I wonder if they would side with the tyrants and the oppressors, or would they steadfastly defend liberty as their predecessors did.

I ask myself that, and I don’t want to answer. It breaks my heart.

Thomas Paine didn’t risk life and limb in America and France so that people in only some parts of the world would be free.

Do you think Voltaire would have cared about whether Saddam was toppled? I think he would have cheered.

How about Frederick Douglass? Would he have given voice to the struggle of Iraqis, just as he did for slaves and women? I believe so.

Would it be possible that Susan B. Anthony would have smiled to see dawn break on a benighted land? (§§) It happens that I think she would have.

The Left has always stood for the liberation of the world. Every social form and cultural structure that oppresses has to be reformed or removed. According to the establishment cranks who dominate the Left, however, the Left now stands to destroy the United States of America and every other democracy by means of terrorism. And as for those who suffer tyranny, if you are being tyrannized by a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male, you are in luck. They will perhaps liberate you. If you are being tyrannized by someone who doesn’t quite fit that description, however, you are out of luck. You should be happy to be oppressed. At least you are living in a way that is culturally authentic. You should be proud to be tyrannized in that context. Oh, what glory to be a slave to a non-Wasp!

And I am supposed to care what these people think? They are not even true to their self-professed left-wing values.

Sorry, Salon, but as a pro-war, pro-freedom left-winger, I have zero regrets. (***) The liberation is going to be a huge, tremendous sucess. You’ll not see us of the freedom Left twisting in the wind, as much as you, the sicko sadistic Salon, would love to see it. We are the ones on the Left who have our integrity. (Sidenote: Is Salon really offering writing classes? Writing classes? Is that supposed to be some kind of hilarious jest? I had not realized that Strunk & White had been surpassed. Run, don’t walk, to the nearest computer. You, too, can learn to write just like they do on Salon. Come to think of it, if a lot of people did that, the world would truly become a dishonest, cynical, unfunny place filled with verbiage. Kind of like Saddam’s Info Ministry.)

“Where are the weapons of mass destruction?” asks Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean and Michael Moore and all the rest, using the question to charge President Bush and 500 other members of the Administration and many others besides with lying. Apparently there was a big conspiracy and these latter-day Woodward and Bernsteins, these Zolas, have just blown the lid off the biggest scandal since the Dreyfus Affair. Somebody get these fellas a prize.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? It’s a good question, but it’s not a rhetorical question, as the Left’s favored attack dogs of the moment have been using it. It’s not a political thrust or slash. It’s a genuine question that we have got to investigate. Where did they go? We don’t know. (†††) If Syria or terrorists got them, we need to know so that we can act.

By the way, one might not have realized in the waterfall of disinformation that is the media today that Al Qaeda was indeed in Iraq. Al Qaeda branch group Ansar Al-Islam operated an open and notorious terrorist base in Iraq. (‡‡‡) During the course of the war, the base was destroyed. Current information says that Saddam did not support Ansar. He did, however, allow Ansar to exist in the country he was ruling. Under the Bush Doctrine, invoked in Afghanistan, state support and state toleration of terrorists is the same thing. Somehow, this point is never made in the media.

In Saddam’s Iraq, we had a country that tolerated Al Qaeda, supported Palestinian Arab terrorism, either had weapons of mass destruction or worked very hard to cover up the lack of them, tyrannized its own people, and launched offensive wars against its neighbors. You will not find one single other country with that combination of factors anywhere on the globe. No, this isn’t what Bush says was the justification. It’s what I say was the justification. It’s why I supported the war, and why I am glad to have done so.

Now France is calling for immediate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi governing council, and elections called within a few weeks. (§§§) This is a deeply cynical move by the French. Jacques Chirac seems to be making some kind of maneuver whereby he and his business friends could more easily cash in on Iraq’s oil wealth. The Iraqi people are not ready for self-government. The Iraqi system of law is not ready. Iraqi law enforcement is not ready. You do not go into a nation, knock over its cruel dictator of thirty years, and immediately hold elections and leave. Chirac’s mad plan would create a power vacuum in Iraq that the French would no doubt love to exploit. It is infuriating to watch as Aaron Brown and the rest of the news media investigate this proposal as if it had any level of seriousness. Anyone minimally acquainted with the French Revolution and such events as the Reign of Terror should know better than to suggest the creation of a political anarchy in a country with a sub-par security situation.

But maybe that’s the point. We know France wants the US-led effort in Iraq to fail. We know that France views the US as a “hyperpower” that must be counterbalanced by the European Union, which sure enough will be French-dominated.

If France and Chirac really thought that the Iraq effort was about to fail, they would never make this proposal. They would not make any proposal. They would
just sit back, wait for it to happen, and then revel in the catastrophe. Yet, the French are trying to take an active role in Iraq. They are meddling, trying to either riip off the Iraqi people or create political anarchy in the newest member of the free world.

The French government knows more than the media knows. The French government must realize that the Americans are going to succeed in Iraq. Otherwise, why would the French government meddle?

It extends. Why is the establishment Left seething and whining? Because they realize that freedom and liberty will win out in Iraq. Their only way to “win” is to get the troops home prematurely so that Iraq will revert to anarchy and then, inevitably, dictatorship. A free, prosperous, just, and democratic Iraq will make them look the fools, and that would be unthinkable. The Machiavellians of the establishment Left— yes, I know all about you—must know this and are surely acting on it.

There is something to be said, however, for American ingenuity and can-do attitude. There is also something to be said for the courage of the Iraqi people. They survived Saddam. Do not underestimate these Iraqi people. They will see Iraq into a new and better age.

Yet, we must deal with this media blitz of scream therapy calling to “Vietnamize” the liberation, not by turning over security duty to Iraqis, but by turning the liberation into a manipulable media event. There is only one response to this menace. It is time, alas, to unleash the most feared, most devastating, weapon, the most powerful, most deadly, most awesome force that humans can wield. It is time to uncork the lighning. I’m not kidding. It’s time to get ruthless with these people for once and for all. It is time to bring the genie out of the bottle. It is time to let loose and let fly with full thunder and fury. It is time for. . . patience.

Yes, patience. It is time for patience. We must give our military and civillan representatives and the Iraqis themselves time to get done what needs to be done. I am extremely confident it will be done. The mission will be a success. Victory is not yet ours, but is near.

When the dust clears, besides France, the biggest loser will be the establishment Left. What will the Democratic Party candidate say in 2004, when it all becomes apparent? I have no idea, nor do I really care anymore. It will be ugly, and I will not enjoy seeing the establishment Left twist in the wind, even as I cheer on the freedom of Iraq.

The recent technical difficulties are resolved. Thank you for your patience.

A good site with 9/11 stories but without the corporate schlock is Voices. (*)

Many Americans have not recognized that we are fighting the terrorists for our survival, Clifford D. May says. (†)

An important theoretical concern is: what, if any, is the nature of the Islamic state? (‡) (§) (**) Mirror. Indeed.

Today, there are two possible paths ahead for Muslims. One is for them to expend political energy trying to set up an Islamic state in order to revive the umma in its pristine form. Their attempt will place them in a position of hostility with the non-Islamic world. The other path ahead is for Muslims to ponder the broader political message of their religion in a way that is applicable to them no matter what kind of state they inhabit.

(††)

Charles Moore finds Islam frightening. (‡‡)

Laurie Mylroie continues to blame Iraq for 9/11. (§§) There is evidence for it, contrary to what the media says. Yet, she admits, there is insufficient evidence to constitute proof. She takes note that the “Ramzi Yousef” family, supposedly at the heart of Al Qaeda, may not be what it seems. Their “identities are based on documents in Kuwait, above all[,] interior-ministry files, that pre-date Kuwait’s liberation from Iraqi occupation in 1991. Those documents are not reliable, because Iraq had custody of those files, [sic] while it occupied Kuwait.” There is more evidence besides.

Jack Schafer intrigues a solution to questions concerning the real motivation to liberate Iraq. (***) Perhaps the invasion marked a certain little remarked upon shift of US policy. Before, the US tolerated official ambiguity from rogue states regarding weapons of mass destruction. With Iraq, that era is over. (†††) Iran and North Korea are each very ambiguous about their weapons of mass destruction.

A US official says that Iran is already in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (‡‡‡) Iran’s nuclear development program has been a matter of concern. This statement represents another notch on the ratchet.

We should start addressing Iran now, not later, says Michael Ledeen. (§§§) I tend to agree. My guess is that President Bush plans to militarily challenge the Iranian regime after the 2004 election cycle. He may consider that politically expedient. I disagree. Bush’s strength is foreign policy and national security. Without a war going on, the public’s attention will shift to the economy.

Recent Iranian history is the subject of a New York Review. (****)

Despite the trenchant logic and stupendously eloquent observations of the intelligentsia (††††), Mark Steyn still says we’re winning the war. (‡‡‡‡)

Brendan O’Neill makes the best case for blowback yet. (§§§§) In assisting the mujahadeen of Afghanistan to fight in Bosnia, the US may have unwittingly and unfortunately have assisted them to form Al Qaeda. Look for another round of Clinton-bashing to take this angle.

Bernard-Henri Levy says we can’t trust Pakistan. (*****)

The Palestinian people are reproducing rapidly in an effort to overwhelm Israel through biology, says Douglas Davis. (†††††)

Writing for the Jersusalem Post, Caroline Glick has an interesting idea on how to fight terrorism. She would take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook.

Recognizing the true nature of the USSR, Reagan came forward and adopted the Soviet view of the rivalry and set out to ensure that the US, not the USSR, would be the side left standing. During his presidency, Reagan consciously engaged the Soviets at every level. In championing human rights and labeling the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” Reagan launched an ideological and political battle against the Kremlin. In fighting the Soviets in Nicaragua, Grenada, and Afghanistan, Reagan forced the Soviets onto the military defensive and emerged victorious. In launching Star Wars Reagan brought the technological advantages of a free society to bear against the intellectually barren Soviets. Within a decade, the most feared regime in the world was no more.

(‡‡‡‡‡) This could apply both to Israel’s struggle to survive the terrorist onslaught, and to the general War on Terrorism.

Melanie Phillips feels the lash of anti-Semitism in Britain. (§§§§§) The Left in general is facing indictment for Jew hatred. (******)

Buzzflash interviews Paul Krugman. (††††††) Krugman repeats his charge that the Bush Administration aims to undo all governmental reforms made since the Progressive Era of the late 19th Century. He also says, “The general modus operandi of the Bushies is that they don’t make policies to deal with problems. They use problems to justify things they wanted to do anyway.”

William L. Anderson criticizes Krugman’s economics. (‡‡‡‡‡‡)

Tammy Bruce summarizes the case against the State of California’s move to hand out driver’s licenses like they were candy. (§§§§§§)

Will lowering agricultural tariffs in industrialized countries help poor Third World peasant-farmers? No, says Michael Lind, arguing that the mechanization of corporate agribusiness will put them out of business, just as it has put many American family famers out of business. (*******)

Famed anthropologist Margaret Mead’s posthumuous reputation is under fire for supposedly falsifying research data. (†††††††)

Finally, Keith Windschuttle takes Noam Chomsky apart for rationalizing the 9/11 attacks. (‡‡‡‡‡‡‡)

Walid Phares makes a good case for what Osama Bin Laden must have wanted in ordering the 9/11 attacks. (*) War is what he was after, Phares writes. War is also what he got, but, contrary to his expectations, it was not the kind of war that would benefit the would-be Caliph.

Too many times in America today people are asking, “Are we safer now than we were at the time of the 9/11 attacks?” That is the wrong question. We are fighting a war. To be victorious in war, you must have strategy. You may attack the enemy ferociously at one point, then suddenly break off that attack, and attack him briefly at another. You may feint. You may at times run for cover. You may delay. You may use the advantage of surprise. The point is not to always be increasing one’s security, but to always come closer to establishing victory.

In World War II, we did not ask whether the invasion of Sicily made America safer. We did not ask whether the Battle of Guadalcanal or the Battle of the Coral Sea made us safer. None of these significant military engagements made America safer in any direct manner. They did, however, bring World War II closer to a successful end.

Similarly, the liberation of Iraq may make America safer, but, of course, it will not be the final, decisive operation against terrorism. Iraq’s liberation does bring us closer to winning the war. A major terror-supporting regime is gone, and a toehold is created that will be useful to secure triumph.

The question we should ask today is, “Are we closer now to winning the war than we were at the time of the 9/11 attacks?” This gets to the heart of the matter. In my view, the answer is yes.

Nation columnist David Corn provides some interesting details on how the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is not matched by the commitment of President Bush and Congress. (*) Corn is disturbed that the Bush Administration may be holding back significant action because of fears that it will increase the size of government, and particularly increase the scope of federal regulation. Commercial undertakings from cargo to airlines are at the heart of the effort to secure the homeland, after all.

It appears that once again, President Bush is faced with a need to be pragmatic instead of remaining true to his conservative roots. Will he budge? My guess is that on this issue, the President take the risk of sticking with his ideological beliefs.

“The War on Terrorism” is not a satisfying name. It causes one to think of wars on poverty and drugs, wars without beginning or end. To dress up the name as “the Global War on Terrorism” doesn’t sound right, either. Perhaps just “the Global War” would suffice. Alternatively, the hidden nature of this war might lead us to call it “the Invisible War.” But key aspects of the war have been highly conspicuous, from the 9/11 attacks to the precision bombardment of Saddam’s palaces.

American intelligence and military officials are calling it “World War IV” according to Doug Saunders. (*). The Cold War assumes the role of the third world war. This is a new kind of warfare, as Brian Murphy reports. (†) James Woolsey says that it is not the type of fighting that should decide the name, but the site of the war, and today the entire world is a battleground. (‡) (§)

To get the name right, a better understanding of the war will be required. The best way to understand the war is to break it into parts, as Arnold Kling does. (**) Once we understand the parts, we can decide whether this is truly the fourth world war. We will know soon. Saunders and others believe this is a war on an ideology and so cannot come to an end. He fails to note, however, that a certain war on communist ideology, “the Cold War,” did come to a striking and unmistakable conclusion. We shall have a finale to this war, one way or another. Winning it, then, is of supreme importance.

Christopher Hitchens is concerned that America may get too weepy this September 11th. (*)

It was, after all, not just a tragedy, and not just a horrific crime, but a military attack on the American people as they merely went about their daily business. Hitchens is right to call for cold steel. This war is far from over. An exaggerated demand for stoicism, however, does not serve us well. There are still a few moments where we must be allowed to grieve. I’m sure Hitchens would agree, stiff upper lip and all.

The words and their meanings are not well known in the West. In his forthcoming Onward Muslim Soldiers, Robert B. Spencer walks his readers through some of the central tenets of Islam, known as jihad and dhimmitude, their radical interpretation, and the chilling implications for the War on Terrorism. Andrew G. Bostom reviews. (*)

Should a rapist receive the death penalty? What if it was a particularly heinous rape? What if there are multiple rapes? What if the victim is a child?

Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark Sherry F. Colb argues that consideration should be given to assessing capital punishment for rapists. (*)

Generally speaking, I disagree. It is a matter of deterrence. If rape and murder received the same punishment—the death penalty—a rapist would have an incentive to murder his rape victim. That way his rape victim could not later testify against him in court. Punishing murder more harshly than punishing rape may deter some murders. A rape victim is subject to a variety of psychological pressures, but her life of course still holds as much value as every other.

Updated 8 March 2004 for clarity.

Tony Judt sharply rebukes French communist philosopher Louis Althusser (*) in a reprint of a 7 March 1994 New Republic essay. (†) Althusser was a radical guru in the 60s. Judt finds that claims of Althusser’s intellectual respectability are not maintainable, even though such claims are still made in some learned halls here in the United States.

The issue of whether to fundamentally change the institution of marriage from the form it has taken for thousands of years into something new, that is, the gay marriage debate, is an overgrown swamp, with little clarity and less utility. Getting a footing is the first step through.

Some basic works on the gay marriage issue include a gay marriage legal pathfinder (*) and a bibliography. (†)

An organization for gay marriage is Freedom to Marry. (‡) The National Organization for Women is a supporter. (§) A conservative proponent is Andrew Sullivan. (**) The fight for gay marriage is largely being carried out in the courts, with some legislative lobbying as well.

Opposition to gay marriage is led by the Alliance for Marriage. (††) The goal is to prevent the judicial creation of gay marriage by means of a constitutional amendment known as “the Federal Marriage Amendment.” Because it would of course amend the federal Constitution, in my view the better name would simply be “the marriage amendment.” The amendment is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

(‡‡) The amendment would constitutionalize marriage, leaving any recognition of civil unions to the states. Stanley Kurtz has frequently voiced his support for the marriage amendment. Kurtz has argued that gay marriage would put society down a slippery slope where quasi-marital or full marital recognition would necessarily be given to polyamorous marriages. (§§) Polyamory is the sexual union of multiple partners regardless of gender. Another staunch supporter of the marriage amendment is Maggie Gallagher. (***)

Most public statements on the issue have cited morality, implying that the other’s opposition to the issue is either in support of sin or hateful and unjust discrimination. It would be more productive to focus on the pragmatic arguments. For example, is it a good idea? Would it benefit society?

One open forum that seems to be dedicated to promoting such a pragmatic discussion is Marriage Debate. (†††)

Stanley Kurtz observes that many organs of the media have failed to cover the marriage amendment proposal that would constitutionalize marriage as a union of a woman and a man. (*) The situation was the same two years ago, leading Kurtz to believe that there is a media bias in favor of gay marriage. (†)

One of the best arguments against gay marriage that I’ve heard is the one that Kurtz makes. We should not implement this major change in society if there is not vigorous public debate on the issue. The debate thus far has been sporadic and halting.

The historian Thomas F. Madden has argued that the Crusades were fought by Christians for primarily defensive reasons. (*)

The Crusades were initiated after Muslims had invaded Europe from the west into the Iberian peninsula and France; from the south into Italy; and from the east into eastern Europe. The Crusades began after the Muslims had violently conquered what had been the predominatly Christian areas of North Africa and the Middle East. The various abuses and excesses perpetrated by the Crusaders are regrettable. The Crusades were ultimately unsuccessful in taking and keeping key areas of the Middle East, including Jerusalem. Yet, they were largely successful in slowing the advance of the conquering Islamic armies, allowing Christian Europe to prosper long enough to reach the Renaissance.

Howard Owens has more. (†)

Update: 6 December 2003. Edited for phrasing.

Thomas F. Madden has more. (‡) (§)

Victor Davis Hanson turns in one of the best expositions yet written on the meaning of the War on Terrorism. He writes in part:

[W]e are in a war with the latest face of an age-old enemy of civilization who hates the freedom of the individual, tolerance of diverse thoughts and practices, human rights, democracy, and modernism itself. Just as Stalinism, Nazism, fascism, and militarism hijacked the good peoples of Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, so too radical Islamic fundamentalism, working hand-in-glove with Middle East tyrannies, turns frustrations over indigenous failures into hatred of a prosperous and successful United States. And like past challenges to civilization, such barbarism thrives on Western appeasement and considers enlightened deference as weakness, if not decadence. Thus enemies like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Baathists can only be militarily defeated, and the victims of their nihilism aided and abetted by our own efforts at reconstruction and forgiveness—but in that order only.

(*) Don’t miss this one.

The so-called Muslim civil rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) continues to be the target of stinging commentary. (*) CAIR claims to speak for moderate Muslims even as it has been a venomous disparager of the US for its efforts in the War on Terrorism. The problem is that CAIR may not be launching its calumniations in good faith, but instead as an organization disloyal and hostile to our country.

It has long reached the point where CAIR must begin responding to the allegations that swirl around it, such as the charge that it has some tie to Hamas. (†) Until CAIR responds in a convincing manner, the media should stop quoting CAIR officials and cease from calling CAIR a civil rights organization.

Ibn Warraq has a long, thorough analysis of left-wing intellectual Edward Said’s 1979 book Orientalism. (*) Typically, academics cite Orientalism uncritically. This essay is a step in the right direction of a reassessment of Said’s work.

The record of former Vermont Governor and current Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean is criticized as that of an autocratic bumbler by fellow Vermonter John McClaughry. (*)