Author: Gunner

  • Quote of the Week, 9 OCT 06

    The strategist is he who always keeps the objective of the war in sight and the objective of the war is never military and is always political.

    —Alfred Thayer Mahan

  • Poll: Perry Leads Governor Race amid Voter Hostility

    The lastest polling results in the Texas gubernatorial race have been released and Republican incumbent Rick Perry continues to hold a broad lead in a crowded field.

    Nearly two-thirds of Texas voters want one of Gov. Rick Perry’s challengers to beat him in the upcoming election, but none of his opponents has enough support right now to win, a newspaper poll shows.

    The statewide poll conducted for The Dallas Morning News found that 38 percent of likely voters back Perry’s re-election in the Nov. 7 election.

    It found 18 percent support independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn, 15 percent support Democrat Chris Bell and 14 percent support independent Kinky Friedman.

    “There is an anti-Perry vote, and clearly somebody should have been able to beat him. But the anti-Perry vote is split three ways,” said pollster Mickey Blum.

    The poll had a 3.5 percent margin of error and showed 14 percent of respondents as undecided. Two key points should be kept in mind when looking at these results. First, a plurality is all that is needed to win so there is no hope for any in the field to force a run-off. Second, the poll did not include Libertarian candidate James Werner, quite probably knocking off some of the undecideds. Because of these two factors, Perry’s 20-point lead over his nearest rival is quite substantial with only 32 days remaining in the campaign.

    All of the involved camps immediately tried to spin the results in their favor. First comes the following from the Governor’s campaign:

    Perry campaign spokesman Robert Black said the governor will take the election with more than the 38 percent shown by the poll.

    “Come Election Day, that number is going to be quite a bit higher because people are going to look at the record,” Black said.

    Stating that the governor will take more than the poll shows is merely stating that he will pick up at least some of the undecideds. Barring a dramatic change in the campaign, that seems a very safe minimum bet.

    The Bell camp also addressed the poll results.

    Bell’s campaign spokeswoman, Heather Guntert, predicted Democrats will back the party’s nominee on Nov. 7. The poll shows he is “vulnerable,” she said.

    That’s some pretty sloppy writing there, as I assume Ms. Guntert was referring to Perry as vulnerable. Unfortunately for Ms. Guntert’s cause, Bell’s poll results are probably not too far below his name recognition figures right now. In fact, should Bell not garner 20 percent of the final balloting, the Democrats run the risk of being classified as a minor party under Texas law and be forced to jump through more hoops to get their candidates on future ballots.

    Strayhorn’s campaign chimed in on the poll.

    Brad McClellan, Strayhorn’s campaign manager, said Strayhorn will win if Perry stays below 40 percent, adding: “People don’t want four more years of the same.”

    Again, barring a dramatic development, the numbers don’t add up for this claim. Perry could actually lose ground and still win by a healthy margin.

    Finally, a Friedman campaign official threw in the Kinky spin.

    Friedman’s campaign said the poll doesn’t reflect Texans who don’t normally vote but will turn out to support Friedman.

    “These polls don’t mean much to us, but if Kinky is polling at 14 percent among likely voters, we’re happy,” said spokeswoman Laura Stromberg.

    Yes, Kinky will get out some that would not have otherwise voted; likewise, he will draw some from the established parties and possibly be particularly damaging to the Libertarians. That said, his is an entertaining but hopeless candidacy.

    Related — Campaign Sites of Declared Candidates:

    Rick Perry (R, Incumbent)
    Chris Bell (D)
    James Werner (L)
    Carole Keeton Strayhorn (Ind.)
    Richard “Kinky” Friedman (Ind.)

  • Al-Qaida’s Narrative of Doubt

    Austin Bay examines a recently released piece of captured intel and shows how it demonstrates growing doubts about success in Iraq, but these are not the kind of doubts that have been repeatedly trumpeted from the mainstream media and Congressman John Murtha (D-IsForDefeat).

    Several declassified al-Qaida documents — one discovered after the June 2006 air strike that killed al-Qaida’s Iraqi emir, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — strongly suggest al-Qaida’s leaders fear they are losing the War on Terror.

    On Sept. 18, Iraqi National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rabi released a letter from al-Qaida commander “Atiyah” (a pseudonym) to Zarqawi. West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center (ctc.usma.edu) has the letter archived online.

    The letter features al-Qaida’s usual religious panegyrics, but also contains strong evidence of fear, doubt and impending defeat. It seems five years of continual defeat (and that is what the record is) have shaken the 9-11 certitude of al-Qaida’s senior fanatics.

    Let’s establish the broader context of Atiyah’s letter.

    Accurate insight into an enemy’s assessment of an ongoing war is immensely valuable to political leaders and military commanders. With notable exceptions, such “mid-conflict” insight is also quite rare.

    […]

    That’s why the National Security Agency and other present-day spy shops release captured al-Qaida communications with great reluctance.

    They should be less reluctant. Here’s why. Information Age media — swamped with ideological and political Sturm und Drang — are a key battlefield in this war.

    In America’s open society, people constantly take public counsel of the fears. Sowing doubt about current leadership is a fundamental opposition tactic in every democratic election.

    Thus America’s “narrative of doubt” tends to dominate the global media — with a corrosive effect on America’s ability to wage ideological and political war.

    […]

    Which is why the rare glimpse, like Atiyah’s letter to Zarqawi, is truly big news.

    “The path is long and difficult,” Atiyah writes, “and the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous, and he can take quite a bit of punishment, as well.” Atiyah’s assessment seems to be a major change in tune and tone. Previous al-Qaida documents touted the Clinton administration’s withdrawal from Somalia as the template for American action.

    Atiyah adds that al-Qaida’s leaders “wish that they had a way to talk to you (Zarqawi) … however, they too are occupied with vicious enemies here (presumably in Pakistan). They are also weak, and we ask God that He strengthen them and mend their fractures.”

    […]

    Al-Qaida’s leaders also fear they are losing the war for hearts and minds. Atiyah senses a souring of “the hearts of the people toward us.”

    Hat tip to Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette, who earlier provided his thoughts on the captured letter.

  • Tonight’s Good Reads and a Video

    Just a little link dump on what I feel I should recommend among my readings and watchings today.

    97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can’t Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

    Today’s Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

    Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens’ travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

    Only 94 more to go as the column begins chronicling the ways in which the modern Democrats suffer in comparison to their historical predecessors, fine figures that I may have had domestic disagreements with but showed major spine on the international stage on our country’s behalf. Hat tip to Hyscience.

    Big differences seen in party views on patriotism

    There is no doubt about Americans’ patriotism. We consistently score higher than other countries on polls gauging how patriotic citizens are. We see this every Fourth of July as Americans proudly display the flag and sing the national anthem and watch fireworks.

    However, there are some who are weary of our patriotism and they are not shy about telling us so. Howard Zinn, the leftist historian, advised us on the Fourth to “put away our flags” and to renounce “nationalism.” Mark Kurlansky, a popular historian, wrote how he was sick and tired of the Founding Fathers. Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks opined that she just didn’t “understand the necessity for patriotism.”

    I myself have no discomfort in questioning the patriotism — or wisdom and common sense, for that matter — of many of my fellow Americans on the far left. Hat tip to Wizbang!‘s Lorie Byrd, who receives a prominent plug in the piece.

    The New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus

    There are innumerable positives in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the new law on the treatment of enemy combatants that President Bush will soon sign. Among the best is Congress’s refusal to grant habeas-corpus rights to alien terrorists. After all, the terrorists already have them.

    That the critique on this entirely appropriate measure has been dead wrong is given away by its full-throated hysteria. Typical was Richard Epstein, a distinguished constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, who admonished the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration and a compliant Republican Congress were unconstitutionally “suspend[ing]” the great writ. The New York Times editorial board, in its signature hyperbole, railed that “[d]etainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment.” What bunkum.

    First, Congress cannot “suspend” habeas corpus by denying it to people who have no right to it in the first place.

    Quite right. It should also be noted that the overwhelming bulk of the detainees in question should not legally fall under the domain of any protections based upon the Geneva accords to which the United States is actually a signatory. In other words, both under domestic and international law, screw ’em. Hat tip to Raven at And Rightly So.

    Traitors to the Enlightenment

    The first Western Enlightenment of the Greek fifth-century B.C. sought to explain natural phenomena through reason rather than superstition alone. Ethics were to be discussed in the realm of logic as well as religion. Much of what Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and the Sophists thought may today seem self-evident, if not at times nonsensical. But that century was the beginning of the uniquely Western attempt to bring to the human experience empiricism, self-criticism, irony, and tolerance in thinking.

    The second European Enlightenment of the late 18th century followed from the earlier spirit of the Renaissance. For all the excesses and arrogance in its thinking that pure reason might itself dethrone religion — as if science could explain all the mysteries of the human condition — the Enlightenment nevertheless established the Western blueprint for a humane and ordered society.

    But now all that hard-won effort of some 2,500 years is at risk. The new enemies of Reason are not the enraged democrats who executed Socrates, the Christian zealots who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity, or the Nazis who burned books. No, they are a pampered and scared Western public that caves to barbarism — dwarves who sit on the shoulders of dead giants, and believe that their present exalted position is somehow related to their own cowardly sense of accommodation.

    What would a Socrates, Galileo, Descartes, or Locke believe of the present decay in Europe — that all their bold and courageous thinking, won at such a great cost, would have devolved into such cheap surrender to fanaticism?

    Victor Davis Hanson is greatness once again, this time turning his guns on the Euro left and their current betrayal of the virtues of historical liberalism. Hat tip to Rightwingsparkle.

    Video: “No Excuses For Terror”

    Dovetailing nicely with the above VDH piece is a video in four parts from Britain’s Channel Five. So far I’ve only watched the first part but will catch the rest shortly. Already the piece does an excellent job of pointing out pointing out a wealth of historical hypocrisy coming from the Euro and global left, and I feel I can already label it as a must-see. Maybe it’s not a case of “know thy enemy,” but it certainly appears to be a case of “know those among you who play quite useful idiots for thy enemy.”

  • 5000 Years of History in 90 Seconds

    Here’s an animated look at the history of the Middle East. As a history buff, I find it interesting to watch as civilizations wax and wane through the region up until the creation of the outwardly-imposed artificial borders that play no small part in the area’s current state of unrest.

    Hat tip to Viking Pundit.

  • Sew Much Comfort

    Here’s a new-to-me charity that is dedicated to assisting some of those who have suffered and sacrificed in our military efforts.

    American military personnel are serving our country in a variety of dangerous situations and locations. As a result of discharging their duties, a number of them are seriously wounded or injured. Modern medical technology is having great success saving the lives of these hero’s; however, medicine doesn’t address some of their basic needs, such as clothing that will accommodate medical devices and situations – braces, fixators, casts, prosthetics and burns. Many of the wounded troops are left with a hospital gown as their only clothing option.

    […] Our mission is to design, create and deliver customized clothing for these brave troops. Adaptive clothing accommodates their medical devices and situations, provides ease of use, personal independence and minimizes the visual impact of their medical condition. The goal is provide each soldier with an individually designed and tailored wardrobe of adaptive clothing, in order to provide them comfort and maintain their dignity, thereby facilitating the healing process.

    Hat tip to Sgt. Hook, who dramatically demonstrates the need that the fine folk at Sew Much Comfort work to fulfill.

  • Entertainment Quick-hitters

    First, a reminder that Battlestar Galactica, the best show currently on TV, starts its third season in just three days. For those who haven’t heard, SciFi has created a series of BSG webisodes, nine of which have been released to date, that bridge the gap between the second and third seasons. Webisode one can be found here.

    Second, it’s hard to believe that tomorrow will be the beginning of the tenth season of South Park. Hat tip to Trying to Grok for this lengthy but interesting behind-the-scenes look at the show’s secrets.

  • On Frist, Afghanistan and Hedged Defeatism

    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist either leapt into the defeatist camp or was slightly misquoted when discussing our prospects in Afghanistan. Either way, I’m already quite fed up ith Frist for the night (see here).

    The Jawa Report‘s Dr. Rusty opines on the matter, and I can’t say that there’s much I disagree with in his words and I recommend that the reader peruse them all. In fact, I have previously stated many of his thoughts already, chief among these being that a large portion of our current problems in Iraq and Afghanistan stem from the fact that we never mercilessly made it clear to our enemies that they were beaten — at least not in a language that they would understand.

    My one withholding of agreement comes from the following from the good Dr. Rusty:

    If democracy in the Middle East is a grand experiment, then the null hypothesis has been disproven. No, the majority of Muslim nations are not yet ready for democracy. Give them another hundred years and we’ll run this experiment again.

    It was and still remains a noble experiment, one that may indeed save countless thousands — realistically even millions or billions — of lives, so I’m not as quick to jump ship on the idea. The Bush administration spoke of a period of many years, possibly decades, and the American people were on board; then the period of political sniping and media undermining, coupled with an MTv-type attention span by the American public, undercut the viability of a long-war effort. Unfortunately, the Long War remains to be fought and none of those who have hampered our efforts have provided legitimate alternatives.

    I have yet to give up hope on the possible seedings of democracy in our current theaters of operations. Still, I am willing to acknowledge the two alternatives that always stood off-stage ready to enter on cue: surrender, retreat and eventually sacrifice our hopes for our grandchildren’s world , or brutally move forward in a barbaric way that the U.N. and our overly-sensitive Euro “allies” will hate but has historically proven to be the language understood by enemies. The latter is especially valid when we are talking about a culture that seems often to only understand violence. Should our current efforts — grandiose, hopeful for the human spirit and self-limiting in their violent nature — fail upon the rocks of a reality presented us by our enemies and those who refuse to stand against them, then I will return to my initial reaction after 9/11. I will again want blood, and I mean blood in mass quantities. This time around, though, that want will stem from a calmer notion than revenge; instead it will stem from a rational approach toward the only remaining means for the survivability of Western civilization as we know and love it.

    I just haven’t thrown in the towel on the nice approach yet. After that, should it truly fail, then cry havoc and unleash all that phrase bloodily entails.

    There should be nothing agreeable about warfare. God forbid that I should recommend brutality, but we face facts like men. It is not a trade for a philosopher.

    —Prince de Linge, of Austria

  • Runners for Kofi Annan’s job

    I’ll admit that I cannot wait for the end of Kofi Annan’s posting at Turtle Bay, but there is no guarantee that his successor will be any better. Indeed, given the United Nation’s long-running record of corruption, inaction punctuated by meaningless action, and willingness to be highjacked by the whims of despotic regimes, I find actually little hope for improvement. Still, there is that little hope, so here’s a look at the current leading contenders for Kofi’s replacement.

    Kofi Annan is in the middle of his last UN General Assembly session as Secretary General. He must stand down by the end of the year, and the race to succeed him is gathering pace.

    Six people are in the running, but it is possible that Mr Annan’s successor will not be among them. There is still time for others to throw their hats into the ring.

    Traditionally, the UN Security Council recommends a candidate and the 192-member General Assembly approves the choice.

    The piece goes on to give a little background on each of the following:

    • Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, Afghanistan
    • Ban Ki-moon, South Korea
    • Prince Zeid Al-Hussein, Jordan
    • Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand
    • Shashi Tharoor, India
    • President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia
  • New Legislation May Pull Plug on Online Gambling

    In a word, stupid.

    The $12 billion online gambling industry could turn into a house of cards now that the Congress has passed a law banning the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers for Internet gaming, industry experts warn.

    President Bush is expected to sign the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which makes it illegal for banks, credit card companies and online payment systems to process payment to online gambling companies.

    Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee tacked the bill on to the popular Safe Port Act bill on Saturday, before Congress went into recess for November’s elections.

    The surprise passage of the law threw the online gambling industry into a tailspin Monday. Shares of publicly traded companies PartyGaming, Sportingbet and 888 Holdings tumbled in heavy trading on the London Stock Exchange, wiping out nearly $8 billion in market value. PartyGaming, the world’s largest online-gambling company, said it will stop taking bets from 920,000 active U.S. customers as soon as Bush signs the proposed law. Sportingbet said it is calling off its bid for World Gaming.

    Shares in the publicly traded PartyGaming plunged 60% to 81 cents on the British market and 888 Holdings said it is suspending online betting operations in the USA. Its shares tanked 48% to $1.42 on the British market.

    Sportingbet, which gleans more than half its business in the USA, said the bill’s impact is unclear. Sportingbet shares slumped 67% to $1.12 on the British market.

    “This develop is a significant setback for our company, our shareholders, our players and our industry,” said Mitch Garber, PartyGaming’s CEO.

    The federal government has been cracking down on Internet betting on sports, poker and other casino games that it considers illegal under the 1961 Wire Act. Considering that American bettors generate 50%-60% of industrywide revenue, many operators will be forced to either cash in their chips and go out of business or sell or merge with another provider, experts say.

    Roughly half the estimated 500 companies operating 2,300 gambling websites across the Caribbean, Central America and Europe could be wiped out, predicts Sue Schneider, publisher of Interactive Gaming News. The survivors will have to make do on sharply reduced revenue, while seeking ways around the U.S. ban and building up their business in Asia.

    After the bill is signed, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will have 270 days to determine how the law will be enforced.

    Most credit card companies already ban customers from paying gaming sites as the result of a settlement between New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and several major credit card issuers a few years ago.

    […]

    Unfortunately for players, the companies eliminated in the shakeout are more likely to be publicly traded operators that answer to regulators in Britain than privately held firms more likely disappear into the ether of the Web, warns Linda Goldstein, a partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

    “The upshot is the legislation will drive away larger, more reputable gaming operators, leaving consumers with less reliable options,” says Ken Dreifach, an Internet lawyer who once worked for Spitzer. That could expose consumers to more fraudulent operators, he says.

    Some gambling advocates are opting to continue fighting the good fight.

    Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, says he’ll seek congressional support for a legislative exception for online poker, similar to the carve-outs for fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries in the proposed law. Bolcerek argues poker is a uniquely American sport, enjoyed by 23 million Americans.

    “We believe poker is a skill game that should be separated from other forms of gambling,” he says.

    Yeah, good luck with that in the face of a federal government that is only seeking to protect its citizens from themselves. In his own words, Frist makes it abundantly clear that this is his driving motivation behind the legislation.

    Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we’ve watched this shadow industry explode.

    This is not the Gipper’s GOP, and neither is it the GOP that was spearheaded by Newt Gingrich and his 1994 Contract with America. No, this is the GOP that often sickens me with its big-government ways. Ah, but for a viable, genuinely conservative alternative that would work more resolutely on protecting me from expansionist and murderous radical Islamists than protecting me from going all-in with a low pair. Unfortunately, that certainly ain’t the Democrats.