While the national corporate media has covered the outcome of this case, their analysis has been (and will be) long on the sensationalism of the arguments between these two sides, and very short on what the opinion actually says. For those who are interested in the actual language and analysis of the Heller decision, as well as some educated guesses as to the likely directions this decision will take us in the future, this analysis will deal with the issues of importance that stand out to both practicing criminal defense attorney and political science professor.

The most important things about Heller, other than the mere fact that it squarely addresses the Second Amendment, are that it is far more comprehensive than the national media are explaining. This is no mere overturning of the District of Columbia's pervasive gun ban, it absolutely establishes that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to own and use firearms, as separate and distinct from any government controlled military organization. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, carefully analyzes each and every word of the Amendment, and does so from both a linguistic, legal, and historical perspective. He defines "arms", "bear", "people", "right", "keep", "militia", "state", and fully deconstructs how they are put together. There is nothing left to define here, no words about which the meaning can be speculated, and no syntax structure left to be manipulated. Short of outright overturn of the decision (which every Supreme Court abhors to do), the individual nature of this right is now set in stone. Further, Justice Scalia (rightly) heaps scorn on some of the more obtuse and insultingly disingenuous arguments that have been made to eviscerate the meaning of the Second Amendment over the last few decades. We begin our examination of Heller with its disposal of those "chestnuts".

For at least a couple of decades, we've been forced to endure the catchphrase that the Second Amendment only would allow private ownership of muskets and muzzleloaders, since that was what the founders were calling firearms. This was what would be called a "compromise position" uttered by the self congratulatory, semi-educated, through a haze of clove cigarette smoke. Justice Scalia harshly brought them to reality with the following:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 19th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima faciae, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The second venerable "chestnut" that has long been a lamppost for gun opponents to slouch against during any debate, has been to claim that the Second Amendment is only a "collective" right, indicating that it has to do with "militia service" or some existent group organized by the government, such as police forces, National Guard Units, or the proverbial "posse". While Justice Scalia spends considerable time on the exploration of the "militia" idea, before disposing of the gun opponents agenda for that phrase, he deals a swift death blow to the idea that the Second Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. He notes that the Second Amendment specifically says the "right of the people", and goes on to add that;

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology.[direct quote removed] All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

In footnote here he says that Justice Stevens contention that the right is conditioned on membership in a militia, and is "primarily collective in nature", Justice Scalia calls "deadwrong", citing McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479(1985) which defined the historical origins of another individual right set forth in the Bill of Rights. Writing for the majority Justice Scalia notes that, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right." In fact, he says, "We start therefore with the presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The opinion spends much of its length dealing with just how, precisely; the "militia" concept is entwined with the right to bear arms. In short, he says that the Second Amendment is divided into two distinct parts. The part that talks about "militia" is what he calls a "prefatory clause", a phrase used only to clarify or justify the important part of the statement, the "operative clause". The operative clause here is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

He clearly states that the operative clause is based on the long standing conflicts in England, where the government sought to disarm groups that opposed it, to better establish tyranny, and is the codification of a pre-existing right. Hence, the word "infringed", making it clear that the people already have a right to keep and bear arms. Had the amendment been designed to give a heretofore unknown right to the people, it would have read something like, "…does hereby grant to the people a right to keep and bear arms". (The founders were followers of the philosophy of the 18th century liberals philosophers, like John Locke, and believed that humans had inalienable rights, not that humans were only to be "given" rights by a sovereign.)

He says that the prefatory clause does not serve as a limit on the operative clause, and that "…operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues….[if]the prologue itself should be one of the factors that go into the determination of whether the operative provision is ambiguous [that] would cause the prologue to be used to produce ambiguity rather than resolve it."

He notes that the Constitution itself empowers congress to make a Navy and to raise Armies, but that the militias are something different. He argues that the plain language and history indicate the militias were pre-existing to the government, and were composed of all able bodied men, armed with their personal weapons. He conveys that there were many reasons the founders felt that a militia would be "necessary to the security of a free state", among them repelling invasion. Though he does not mention it specifically, it is worth noting that Admiral Yamamoto advised the Japanese military ruling council against a land invasion of California, primarily because the large number of armed citizens would make it an ungovernable quagmire. This shows that the founders belief that the security of the nation would be bolstered by having an armed populace was borne out, at least through the 20th century. Scalia also draws attention to the writings of Hamilton describing that a nation of armed, able bodied men, are better able to resist tyranny, and also spends some time discussing the history of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants for control of the monarchy, as the origins of this knowledge of armed resistance to tyranny. Thus he illuminates that the prefatory phrase about the militia is merely explanatory as to the operative phrase of just why it is so important that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The fundamental right established, the remaining three elements of this decision, upon which so many people waited so anxiously, were how the court was to deal with "crime", "regulation", and the types of "arms" protected.

Justice Scalia repeatedly referred to the right to use firearms to protect oneself in the home or on ones property. Over and over again, this entered into his analysis at all levels. This established two things never before addressed by the Court. First, that the 2nd Amendment is now related to an individual's right of self defense, not merely as a mechanism for defense of the nation against foreign aggression or domestic tyranny. Secondly it clearly establishes the right of a person to use a firearm in self defense. This second point, while it has escaped comment in the popular media, was hammered home, by repetition, throughout the opinion. By choosing this language, Judge Scalia laid a bulwark against any future efforts to undermine this right of self defense, such as is currently happening in England. There, many recent cases have found persons convicted for using deadly force to defend themselves from violent attack. It seems likely Judge Scalia took this opportunity to prevent such a perversion of justice from finding roots here in America. He goes so far as to call it the "core lawful purpose of self defense".

The court acknowledges the difficulties posed to communities by "handgun violence" but says that the Constitution leaves communities with a variety of tools for combating the problem, "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". To wit, governments and communities can't absolutely prohibit handguns, "held and used for self defense in the home".

As to the right of the government(s) to regulate ownership of firearms, the court clearly states that some regulations are permissible.. The court notes that like most rights, this right is not unlimited. Just as there are permissible limits on the freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice ones religions, so too there are reasonable limits that can be placed on ones right to keep and bear armaments. Scalia and the court note that the longstanding prohibitions which prevent convicted felons, or the mentally ill from owning firearms is permissible, as are restrictions preventing the carrying of firearms into sensitive locations. Specifically named are schools, and government buildings. Likewise the opinion specifically permits laws which impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Scalia says these are merely examples, and are not to be seen as the complete list, so we can presume that many more specific restrictions will not be undone by this opinion. It seems the BATF officers who conduct checks on gun stores and licensed dealers will not need to be updating their resume's, nor will the wand wielding inspectors at our courts, schools, and airports. However, the strong wording on the right to use a firearm to defend oneself in the home makes it likely any "school zone" bans which overlap anyone individuals private residence are likely defunct.

Lastly, the court did give some guidance in the area of the types of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, the area of great interest to both the enemies of gun ownership and firearms enthusiasts alike. Over the last couple of decades, this has been the central arena in the battle over guns in the US. Though this decision in no way creates a definitive list of what specific guns can be regulated or to degree, there is some pretty strong language limiting the governments reach in this regard.. On several occasion in the opinion, the court specifically upholds the ban on sawed off shotguns, as an example of the type of permissible regulation of weapons that are "unsafe" and not typical of the weapons used by the average soldier. The opinion cites the colonial regulations on the storage of gunpowder to minimize fire damage, and a singular colonial era regulation on keeping a loaded firearm for its danger to firefighters. This analysis would indicate that the government may prohibit ownership of particularly unusual or dangerous armaments. Do not expect regulations prohibiting flame throwers, rocket launchers, explosives or heavy weapons to be invalidated. However, this does not seem to extend to any weapons commonly used by the average soldier, or citizen. The popularity and utility of handguns, for use in personal self defense is given a great deal of discussion, and it seems that any "handgun" ban is going to be absolutely unconstitutional. Justice Scalia notes that many people prefer handguns for defense within the home because of their ease of handling in close quarters, and the fact that they free a second hand to do such necessary tasks as dialing the police, and though he doesn't mention it, hold a flashlight.

Of great interest in light of the recent battles fought over "assault style weapons", was a singular paragraph of great depth and analysis, that this author has yet to see addressed in the popular media. It is almost a summation of the entire analysis of the 2nd Amendment;

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias of the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large….But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This seems to say that like the analysis of the right of speech to be extended to our fax machines and cell phones, the right to militarily useful weapons should be protected. Light machine guns, and squad automatic weapons are probably not protected and may be "infringed", but the average infantryman's rifle, "M-16 rifles and the like", appear to be protected specifically by the Second Amendment. At least, for as long as the Supreme Court stands as it does today.

That said, the opinion does expose some weaknesses in the protection if affords. The exceptions made for regulation and licensing of firearms would be deeply disturbing if adopted on a wider scale than by the small political areas that will now be losing their comprehensive bans. The weakness in the decision, specifically, is that there is great deference shown to "licensing", which is treated as an acceptable accommodation to the right, for the District of Columbia. If licensing is a permissible way to regulate handguns, then by analogy, it would be permissible for the Federal government to potentially require licensing of all firearms. To allow this to occur would build a fatal weakness into our basic freedom, since registration makes later confiscation, by tyrant or invader, not only possible but likely. Historical examples of registration based confiscation are common, and not limited to the activities of the Nazi's, both in Germany and immediately upon conquest of a neighboring state which "enjoyed" a gun registration scheme.

Also, there is the phraseology that places it within governmental power to regulate the commercial sale and interstate commercial transport of arms. This may be the single greatest threat to our continued enjoyment of the benefits of the Second Amendment. There have been and continue to be ongoing attempts to prohibit or limit the person to person sale of firearms, without involving a "licensed" intermediary. These efforts to "close the gun show loophole" are largely unopposed by the firearms manufacture and retail industries, because they see the used gun market as competition to their revenue flow. However, this simple custom in the law is the razor thin edge between our current system and de facto national registration. This is not merely speculation, for this author personally seen basic, simple, felony criminal cases in Arizona, which directly demonstrated the existence of national gun registration as early as the year 2003.

In the several months before these cases went to trial, the prosecution was able to send the serial number of a pistol to the BATF, who contacted a licensed gun dealer in an outlying city in Arizona. That dealer FAXed the firearm purchase form, which had been filled out nearly 10 years prior, at the purchase of the pistol by an individual now accused of the crime. During trial, the local deputy county prosecutor was able to produce a copy of the actual form filled out by the defendant, with his handwriting, and signature, from a lawful purchase nearly a decade old. Bear in mind, this was not a federal crime, or even a high profile crime (the accused had no criminal record, and there were no injuries). If a low level, local, prosecutor, chasing down a simple local crime, can easily acquire the purchase forms from a lawful firearms purchase, nearly a decade old, from merely a manufacturers serial number, how is that not a national registration scheme already in place? The only current limitation on this registration scheme is that if a "gun confiscator" came to the addresses on each of those forms, the persons named could now answer, "I sold it to some guy 5 years ago". If the Heller decision permits laws to be passed which require all purchases to be either from licensed dealers, or that the transaction be done through a licensed dealer, the we automatically have national gun registration. The first and most important step for confiscation by either invader or tyrant.

While Justice Scalia concludes the majority opinion by writing "it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it will unfortunately require ongoing activism and vigilance to make sure another government body does not make it moot.

By David Roth

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Mr. Obama may now attest to being a "Christian" and that certainly is his right. Many of us change religious affiliation over the course of our lives. We may be born to a Methodist family, but later choose to become Catholic, or Buddhist. We can convert to Judaism from Christianity or we may be born and raised as an orthodox Jew, only to suffer a crisis of faith in college, and become Atheist. We may choose to leave our faith when we marry, and join the faith of our spouse and their family. Some people change religious affiliation several times during their lives. Our right to change our beliefs and religious affiliations is a precious thing to Americans, enshrined in our Constitution and in our entire history as a people, many of whom came here for the very reason of escaping oppression so that they might have freedom to practice their religion of choice.

However, this kind of decision, to change faiths, is not one taken lightly, and is usually something that political figures are willing to discuss. It offers them an opportunity to humanize themselves to the public, on a topic that is considered fairly non-controversial. Questions of faith or religious changes are typically "soft ball" question for a political figure. Presidents such as Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan spoke easily about how their faith fluctuated in their lives, and how they felt those changes were a positive influence in their lives. When senator Leiberman was a vice-presidential candidate, he had no difficulty in discussing his Judaism, or how he felt it impacted his life, family, and world view. John F. Kennedy directly addressed his Catholic faith and how he perceived its role (or lack thereof) on his job as President.

Yet for some reason, Mr. Obama is not only permitted to answer questions of faith obliquely, or merely with a simple declarative that, "I'm Christian." Mr. Obama has said, "I've been a Christian for fifteen years." Ok, we accept that. That's fine Senator, but what were you 16 years ago? What was your faith when you were 21 years old and graduating from college? We do have a right to know, and we would like you to help us to know you better, by explaining your decision to make that change. Were you ever a Muslim? This simple, direct, basic question, remains unasked. Why should this be so? How can it be there is such reluctance to ask something so obvious?

Is Mr. Obama afraid to tell us that for most of his life he was a Muslim? If he became a Christian 15 years ago, by his statement, what was he before that? Athiest? Jewish? Zoroasterian? If he is afraid to tell us that, then is he being fully honest and forthright with us? If he won't be fully honest and forthright on something so basic, how can we possibly trust him with the office of the Presidency?

It is obvious from Mr. Obama's very name, that for some portion of his life he was a Muslim. "Barak" is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew word "baruch" which means "blessed." Hussein is the name of the son in law of Mohammed, and the founder of the Shiite version of Islam. Obama is a known Islamic surname in his father's native country of Kenya. We know that Mr. Obama's stepfather was a Muslim as well, from Indonesia, so his mother at least had a warm regard for the teachings of Islam, since both her first and second husbands were both Muslims. So, why would Mr. Obama be so reluctant to share this basic fact of his life with the American public?

This is more than merely an academic question, and has even deeper implications than merely his personal degree of "openness." While Islam is open to conversion, and anyone of any faith may convert to Islam from another religion, converting to another religion from Islam is strictly forbidden. In fact, converting from Islam, to any other faith, is called "apostasy" and the Koran imposes a death penalty for it. This is not some obscure, unpracticed, "dead letter" of Sharia law. Earlier this year, Iranian Shiite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, proposed a law that would restore the death sentence for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Under the current laws as practiced in Iran, those charged with converting are prosecuted and face jail time for vague crimes like "blasphemy" and "insulting Islam", as a compromise from the death penalty mandated by Sharia law. "Egyptian Islamic Jihad", assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat with merely the unfounded allegation of apostasy. In many parts of the world, "honor killings" take place as Muslim family members kill their own children for marrying outside the faith. So, if Mr. Obama admits to having converted from Islam, or merely the fact that it is known that he did so, means that he is marked for death by all fully observant Muslims in the world. This is something the American public should be allowed to consider, in their decision as to whether they should choose to make him the President of the United States.

The deep importance of this question does not end there. While the Koran forbids apostasy, it does make specific mention of allowing Muslims to "pretend" to convert to other religions, for convenience, to protect their life, or to advance themselves in the parts of the world that remain "unconquered" by Islam. Could it be that Mr. Obama is following this prescription of his Islamic faith? Could it be that Mr. Obama is merely "pretending" to be Christian, to advance himself, while secretly still being a Muslim in his heart? It may be so, because he stated quite clearly in his book "Audacity of Hope" that, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." If he is merely feigning Christianity, that might explain how he can sit in the pews of Jeremiah Wrights Church for over a decade, and never pay any attention to what the man was saying up there. Once again this is something the voting public has a right to know about a man who wants to be president. Someone needs to be brave enough to press this question which must be asked.

We absolutely have the right to know if the man who wants to be president of the United States of America is either "marked for death," like Salmon Rushdie, or if he is furtively practicing a religion different from the one he claims. These aren't academic questions, these aren't salacious rumors, and these aren't intolerance or racism. These are fundamental questions as to his suitability for that office, which go to his truthfulness, his candor, and other personal baggage that he will carry into the oval office with him.

Americans are a tolerant people. We value our religious and ethnic diversity. We cherish our right to have personal religious beliefs, and to feel free to express those beliefs. Mr. Obama should not be so afraid to share with the public his personal religious and philosophical journey. However, his furtiveness in this regard should greatly inform us as to the dangers he may present, and be attempting to conceal. Putting limits on questions about his religious background, family, and even name, is a catastrophic failure by the press, in its primary duty to our democracy. Such blanket prohibitions about asking questions this vital, in this case, makes the "Fourth Estate" look more like a "Fifth Column."

By David Roth

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

The Democrats are aware of this and face the same issues. Anyone who has been paying attention to politics knows that John McCain has been on the opposite side of the Republican base for years. He has favored gun bans, opposed tax cuts, sponsored McCain/Feingold (which creates a campaign finance system that most favors democrats), and supports the democratic position on Illegal Aliens. In short, much of the far lefts agenda will be successfully promulgated under a McCain administration for the exact reasons that Ms. Coulter ably notes. However, when you take this a step further, you realize that actually more of the far lefts agenda will be successfully completed if McCain is president than if a democrat is president, since many Republicans in congress will be more compliant if President McCain favors a bill. Further, the Democratic Party will not have to accept any responsibility for either the calamitous results of their programs, or the upcoming recession. Neither will they have to take any heat from their base about failing to immediately withdraw from Iraq, a policy which both parties realize is a strategic impossibility at this point, due to the oil economic issues. Likewise, they know that many of their wildest policies will be unpopular with a large segment of the population, so they want to avoid any backlash similar to the one that happened in 1994. With McCain in the White House, the democrats will have carte blanche to legislate their hearts desires, with the immunity and impunity of still having a Republican to blame it all on.

Across the aisle, the Republican base knows that Hillary Clinton has some very strange ideas, and none of her husbands charisma. So, if she were elected president, there would likely be two solid years of her attempts to promulgate terribly unpopular programs, which would be stymied in a closely divided congress, while the international situation and the economic woes can be solidly laid at the feet of the Democrats. After all, if the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, frustration directed at Republicans rings rather hollow. In all likelihood this is the only foreseeable means by which Republicans could regain control of either house of Congress.

So, in 2008, we may well find ourselves playing a game of "Presidential Hot Potato". Experienced and cagey Democrats may desperately want to lose this election. They may, like Sen. Kennedy, endorse Barak Hussein O'Bama, in the hopes that a wildly left wing black man, with connections to Islam, cannot possibly beat any Republican, that party may shove forward, regardless of how "soft headed" or inept. Likewise, the Republican base may want to "take a dive" here, and let Hillary or Hussein become president, so as to recapture congress in 2010 (Hillary being the safer bet, since Hussein O'Bama is much more likely to do things in foreign policy from which we will never be able to recover). The Presidency in 2008 is a "hot potato" which each parties "base" voters may want their party to avoid.

The result may be something extraordinarily strange and will befuddle all the pollsters. In the general election, we may see core Democrats crossing party lines to vote for McCain, since he is the candidate most likely to shepherd through the legislation of their hearts desires, while simultaneously giving their party political cover from their unpopular agenda. With this going on, the Republican base, combining revulsion for McCain, with some political savvy about losing some battles to win the war, may be willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. Since so much is currently at stake in the world, it reminds this author of the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times".

David Roth

Jan 31, 2008

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Though the kidnappers demanded that the US arrest and return the Shah to Iran, the main reason for the attack was to bring attention and popularity to the Mullah's version of how the revolution should proceed. It was a successful strike for the islamists to wrest the popular revolution from the hands of secular socialists, and morph it into a radical religious movement. Even when the embassy was taken, the "students" would periodically release "discovered evidence" to paint moderates or the mullah's domestic political enemies as CIA spies, or collaborators. They used this means to create a "terror" phase of the revolution reminiscent of the terror phase of the French Revolution. It is typical for revolutions go through this stage, but in Iran killings consolidated the hold of a political religious class. The dreams and aspirations of those members of Iranian society who dreamed of a post Shah Iran as a progressive, secular, state, evaporated as their political leaders will killed or driven into exile.

However, the grim, austere, joyless world view offered by the Mullahs and Sharia law does not enjoy much popular appeal in its application. The Mullahs discovered what so many revolutionaries did before, that running a country is much harder than whipping up the emotion necessary to overthrow it. Ahmadinijad and the Mullahs had to fall back on "the perpetual revolution" as discovered by Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, and Fidel Castro. Maintenance of loyalty to the revolution, and hence the regime, was dependant upon a constant struggle against outside powers who sought to overthrow the great revolution. While the Embassy hostages were still in Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, sensing weakness in the chaos of post revolution Iran, attacked. The Mullah's revolution found a benefit in having a surplus of enemies. While the Iranian people felt besieged by Sunni Iraq, embargoed and vilified by the western world, and threatened by the "atheist" Soviet Union, the Mullahs did not need to offer anything attractive by way of governance. They merely had to call for unity in the face of enemies.

Ahmadinijad has problems at home. He and the Mullahs face a population that is one of the youngest in the world in terms of demographics. The Iraq war and the prolific birth rate have changed the face of the country he helped overthrow. Few of Iranians alive today were even born when the Americans were held hostage, and fewer still remember life under the Shah Pahlavi. The people of Iran are young and feel constrained by the oppressive rules of Sharia. They are using cell phones to transmit all sorts of subversive mpeg files to each other as humor, from a young woman using karate on the morality police who have come to chastise her for "indecency", to computer animations that transform Ahmadinijad's image into that of a monkey. While there is still a nationalist spirit and an autonomic hatred of the West, in practical terms the populace is tired of the Islamic Revolution. It is a very short step for them to stop supporting the regime, and make the intellectual leap to supporting western values in addition to the western lifestyle they crave. The moment that happens, Ahmadinijad and the Mullahs are out of power.

So, why is Ahmadinijad smiling? He is prepared to return to the successful tactics of his youth in politics. He can bolster his domestic powerbase by creating enemies which his public must fear. He can antagonize the West, and get sanctions so the economic problems aren't his government's fault. He can eliminate his political opponents and have them killed by claiming they are CIA spies. Finally, I suspect, he may plan to drastically reduce that burgeoning population of young people.

Ahmadinijad plans to launch a war. In earlier essays I discussed the means and methods by which Iran may choose to inflict nuclear terrorism on the United States and Israel. This suicidal tactic, a virtual "bomb belt" for his whole country, is very much in line with the martyr complex of Shiite Islam. Another, parallel maneuver he may implement as soon as this summer is also viable from his perspective. In fact, some of the recent developments across the Middle East may be preparatory maneuvers for just this action. Ahmadinijad may choose to launch another pan-Mid-East war this Fall along the lines of the 1967 Six-Day-War. Iranian controlled Hezbollah in Lebanon, combined with Syrian forces, may attack northern Israel and the Golan Heights. Hamas may have taken absolute military control of Gaza, so that it can launch a simultaneous ground offensive into Southern Israel, picking up "the Egyptian front." Iran would send forces to attack Israel, passing through northern Iraq (Kurdistan) to link up with Hezbollah and Syria. This would mean a massive Iranian army attempting to roll over the small U.S. force in Iraq, which has been re-tooled for peace keeping duties rather than large scale, heavy unit, maneuver warfare. No doubt that U.S. air superiority and advanced technology weapon systems will make mincemeat of the massive Iranian army, but that would suit Ahmadinijad just fine. The Iranian army will be composed of all those unreliable young men who may choose to reject Islamism, unless they personally suffer horribly at the hands of the Americans. The effect of the massive casualties would be magnified through out the remaining Iranian population, who would lose friends, relatives, lovers and children. The Mullahs could then take to the international, sympathetic airwaves, decrying the brutality of the U.S., and at home elevate a whole generation of good Shiite martyrs.

This is the strategy for the whole new generation of Islamic political leaders. They have yet to prove their strength of will, after having taken over from their fathers. Hafez Assad is gone, as are Arafat, Nasser, Yassin and Khomeini. For a new generation of Islamic political leaders, in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and amongst the Palestinians, it would be a win-win war. They get to prove to their populations that they are willing to attack the Zionists and Crusaders rather than just talk about it, and simultaneously kill off a large, potentially uncontrollable part of their own population, all while fanning the fires of rage that sustain their legitimacy, without having to produce results.

As Osama bin Laden said, "the West values life, while we value death." Massive casualties are bad for our politicians, but good for theirs. One best not play games against opponents, unless you know what their win conditions are. One hopes that our political leaders have, like Thomas Jefferson's reading the Koran, taken the time to get to know our enemies.

By David Roth

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Response from Mark L.
As Christians we know the ending don't we?

What good is a right to privacy in your personal papers and effects from government intrusion, if private citizens regularly wander through your house taking pictures of all your documents and possessions, and then sell them to the government agent standing outside your back door? It is even worse when the private citizens doing that business get a plethora of incentives, subsidies, and contracts, to engage themselves in the business of rifling through their neighbor’s houses. Let’s not forget that it was IBM that provided the census data management systems for Hitler to locate the Jews for rounding up in the holocaust.

The constitutional protections and legislation have severely lagged behind the technology, and I fear that all semblance of privacy is being lost to the twin headed monster of Big Government, and Big Business. The technical name for that style of governance is "Fascism." It may be convenient for national security types to hunt bad guys, but it is easy for a change in governance to redefine "bad guys." An example of the sliding scale by which the government and even differing administrations redefine who they want to persecute, is going on beneath the ripples we see in the new ‘right’ now. I'm not in the pornography business, but it sure doesn't seem like a threat to national security. Yet I know for a fact that the Feds are already using the laws written to combat terrorism and drugs to trace and prosecute pornography, and I'm not even talking child porn. This is one of the underlying (and under reported) elements of the Alberto Gonzales federal prosecutor firings. A lot of the prosecutors were not "putting enough effort" into pursuing those cases. Who is to say the next administration may target gun owners? Or bloggers they think contribute to "radical right wing sites", or supporters of Don Imus? How far can this go in the days of criminalized "hate speech?"

What we need is legislation, or a Supreme Court Ruling, that neither big business nor the government want to implement. Our personal information and credit reports should be private. We need federal legislation, extending to all states, that the right to privacy includes any and all personally identifiable financial/demographic/medical information. It should be a crime to transmit, but not to store and retain that information. The violation would be to transmit that information to a person or entity other than the person to which it pertains (any third party), without the written consent of the person to which the information pertains. The crime should be punishable by fine per incidence of unauthorized sharing of information, and should also be a cause for civil liability with a minimum presumed damage amount stated in the statute. This way persons applying for credit, or a lease, could voluntarily allow their data to be examined when they seek to accrue a benefit by assuring their creditor of their good history, however it wouldn't allow nosy persons/entities to snoop at their records without their knowledge or consent.

There should also be an exemption from this law for law enforcement, but acquiring the information, when personalized, should require a warrant, just like searching a person’s house, and the acquisition of a particularized warrant would exempt and immunize the agent and agency from the application statute on individual cases.

This is the only way a ‘right’ to privacy will continue to have any meaningful existence in this country into the 21st century. Otherwise, technology has rendered it a sham.

By David Roth
May 18, 2007

RESPONSE from Carol U.:
May 19, 2007

I hate to disagree. Reason being that a month ago I got a letter from TJX, parent company of TJ Max and Marshalls, etc. Someone had hacked into their files and they were concerned and wanted me to know and wanted to inform me as to what to do to see if my identity had been stolen. Since I did not have their credit card I wondered shy I had gotten the letter so I called. I was informed that since I had returned something to one of their stores without a receipt they used my driver's license and took down the number and since in AZ you can use your SSN as your license number they wanted me to be aware. When I moved to AZ, I did use my SSN as my driver’s license number. I thought it was a good idea. Then with all this identity theft going on I changed it several years ago. Not only did the company make me aware of all this but they provided me with the names, phone numbers, etc of the Credit Companies so that I could make sure that all was correct on my credit report. I did inform Equifax, etc and in a very timely manner I received my credit report from all three companies. I was happy to see that all was in order, that no one had stolen my identity and used it and all was right with the world. I do not consider it a violation of my privacy as long as I have nothing to hide in my financial life I am glad that someone has all my information at their fingertips. I guess I am a little jaded coming from my professional background but the only thing I care about is someone stealing all this info and using it in a negative manner. I think that there are far more important issues to get excited about.

RESPONSE to Carol from Red State Patriot:
May 20, 2007

Carol, never be hesitant to disagree!!! Good for you. We’re glad to see that people are thinking. That's the point.

I would like to respectfully suggest to you that the author was making an extremely important point that still remains unaddressed: The information (which the government is not allowed to collect and store in a database by law), is made freely available to the government by organizations such as Equifax. If the government is not allowed to collect and store such personal data for privacy reasons and the Bill of Rights, then it is a bit ludicrous that organizations such as Equifax, TRW and others, protected and facilitated by federal legislation, simply collect the information and provide it to the government upon their request. Such personal data and information would require a search warrant if it were being directly sought by the government.

In other words, an act which would otherwise be illegal is somehow OK, if you can get a third party to do for you what you by law cannot.

Congress might as well just repeal the Bill of Rights if the intent of the 4th Amendment is so easily circumvented. But that would take a Constitutional Amendment which is a long and tedious process. Better to just ignore the Bill of Rights.

The 4th Amendment reads in summary: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The plain language reading is pretty clear. One can do the “dance of the seven maidens” trying to read into the plain wording something that is not being elucidated. The 4th Amendment was intended as a protection of the citizen (you and me) from the government. Are we going to ignore the 4th Amendment’s provisions? We can’t just
equivocate and say, “I have nothing to hide.” That’s not the point. There are much bigger issues at stake. It is your incremental loss of your property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Each of the first ten Amendments is a form of “property rights.”

In addition, the U.S. Constitution provides several mechanisms for changing (amending) it, none of which include Congress unilaterally voting to change it; or the Executive Branch simply ignoring the Constitutional safeguards intended to protect citizens like you and me; or the federal Judiciary legislating constitutional changes from the bench.

As for the privacy dangers for citizens, I suspect the author envisions a fateful day when the government may use the information in some form of endgame when they decide to rule rather than govern, a day which might be much closer than most people consider possible. His assertions regarding IBM are a historical fact, sad to say, but you
probably already knew that. Data (and the information derived from the data) has historically been used for either good or evil, depending upon who was in control (the government or the citizens).

Anyway, good response. Keep reading. That's how we all keep abreast of important issues.

At the end of the 20th century, the Bi-Polar world ended with the implosion of the former Soviet Union. The US defense strategy and posture had been dictated by this bipolar conflict between industrialized powers for the better part of half of a century. It has been widely recognized that the defense strategy and military posture of the United States needed to be changed to reflect this change in the defense needs of the country. Donald Rumsfeld became a leading advocate to make these dramatic changes in a process that came to be called “transformation”. This change would dictate future needs in terms of acquisition of weapon systems, maintenance of existing systems, personnel needs and training. It was thought that shifts in technology and needs would allow the US military to “do more, with less”, using technology as a force multiplier.

The “War on Terror”, the proxy name for what is actually a war against the global Jihadist movement, made manifest the military needs in the new century far sooner than most had expected. At this juncture, it is now apparent that an essential element of the new armed forces structure was neglected when the US military was transformed. In addition to the recognition of a new strategic doctrine, we also need to address a new “goals and use” doctrine to accompany the new forces. The Cold War model included at least a presumptive “goals and use” doctrine which defined the mission of the Department of Defense as a defensive force, to be used for both deterrent and as a reactive force to curtail Soviet territorial aggression. A successful strategic doctrine must have defined not only its means, but its goals and an acknowledgement of its limitations; to wit, a defined strategy on when and how to engage an enemy.

Col. Harry Summers, in his book, “On Strategy, a Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War”, pointed out that any military is designed to “kill people and break things”. The same is true of a “transformed” US military. In our war with the global Jihad, we are unlikely to often encounter the type of fixed defenses and large mobile formations that modern warfare has been designed to defeat. Our opponents have a more dispersed nature, and are consequently harder to fix and destroy.

It would be a grave mistake to fundamentally alter the nature of our armed forces to solely fight lightly armed terrorists, insurgents, and guerillas. Although they may comprise most of our enemies in the foreseeable future, and although they do present a sufficient threat to national security that the military should be tasked with participating in the struggle against them, they do not pose a lethal threat to our polity. A redesign of our armed forces to wholly task them with this form of low intensity conflict would leave us vulnerable to the true, lethal, threat to our polity, traditional combined arms warfare. Worse still, history has shown us that traditional military means, methods, and materials are remarkably ill suited for fighting against a committed guerilla war. Often the reasons for this poor showing are political rather than military. It has been argued that in fighting guerilla forces, the goal is more political and psychological than military; therefore it should be unsurprising that the military is a poor tool, rendering a less than satisfactory result. Military force should only be used to achieve a military goal. Civilian leadership can define when it is in the nation’s interest to kill certain person(s) and destroy certain targets, and the US military can absolutely achieve unqualified success if tasked within those parameters. However, the military cannot, and should not, be tasked with achieving such nebulous goals as “create a stable environment”, or “establish a new government”, or “make an area safe for democracy”.

During the coming century, in our war with the Jihadists, and possibly in other conflicts as well, we will be faced with the need to destroy certain regimes. This will be because either they are supporting terrorism by providing terror groups with resources, recruits, and refuge, or because they are developing weapon systems that pose a threat to our vital national interest. This could be a direct threat from that country or its intention to provide that capability to others who threaten us. In either case, it will prove necessary to both destroy such regimes, and better still, deter regimes from undertaking those actions at all. As we find ourselves compelled to topple regimes, we will be faced with Colin Powell’s proposed dilemma, “If you break it, you bought it”. The United States traditional military forces and doctrine historically do not fare well in attempting occupation, and it diminishes our strength, agility, and deterrent capabilities to attempt it. Occupation almost always provides the grounds and means for an insurgency to spring up.

It would be possible to go further than that, and say Liberal Democracy’s have a poor record at defeating insurgencies, because that form of warfare is contrary to our reason for being. Insurgencies inherently come from some form of occupation, and Liberal Democracies don’t do occupation. We can “peace keep” between rival factions or a restless population for a short period of time while a normal order reestablishes itself, but if that normal order is not a pre-existing condition, a free society cannot use force to impose order on a population, simply because we refuse to do it at home, and therefore it runs contrary to our national character. The British couldn’t do it forever in their far flung empire and India, the French couldn’t through their empire and Algeria, even the Israeli’s couldn’t in the neighboring territories or Lebanon, and we can’t. The only states that have a prayer of doing “occupation” are states that are totalitarian at home as well. Their polity and their domestic methods make it far easier to adopt an imperial model, since their domestic sensibilities are no different. It is merely an expansion of their borders over other geographic space.

Worse still, it seems that prolonged occupation duties actually diminish the war fighting capabilities of a modern army. This stems from the fact that occupation duties bear more resemblance to police work than the aggressive, fast moving, patterns necessary for victory on the modern battlefield. In essence, the lessons learned and ingrained are the wrong ones. The problems for our military in the next century will require a solution that allows the maintenance of a capable armed force, which utilizes means, methods and doctrines that comport with these realities on the ground in every part of the global theater of operations.

The best method for maintaining a position to achieve our varied goals and objectives would entail minor alteration in our present force structures but a great change in our engagement doctrine. We may be required to periodically use military force to “peace keep” after a hostile regime has been destroyed by our conventional military forces. In addition, we may be called upon to engage in “Peacekeeping” operations as part of a multinational force pursuant to treaty obligations. Neither of these tasks should be undertaken by our main military forces, either rapid deployment or heavy units, since these operations “blunt the spear”. The United States Army needs at least one, possibly two Division size units, specifically tasked as “Peacekeeping” or “Follow On” force. These units would be trained and equipped for operations other than total war. They would be heavy in Special Forces liaison, intelligence, engineer units, military police, Psychological Operations, and Civil Affairs personnel. Their equipment would likewise be tailored to the task at hand, with a greater emphasis placed on high mobility, lightly armored vehicles, such as the Stryker, and less resources devoted to such weapon systems as heavy armor, and artillery. They would retain those air capabilities which have proven effective in urban battlefields of this new era. These forces would be specialized in all the lessons we have learned in such places as the former Yugoslavia, Panama, Mogadishu and Baghdad.

The change in our engagement doctrine would be the most critical and decisive element in this position shift for the 21st century. We shall need to recognize that military force cannot always be used along the models created in the 20th century wars in Europe. In fact, the use of that model is deceptive due to the scale of those conflicts. Although the United States succeeded in fundamentally changing the nature of the Japanese culture and possibly the German one, this was due to the appalling level of destruction these societies had endured during the conflict. We now know enough about psychology and group psychology to understand that in all likelihood, these were entire populations who were almost hypnotically suggestible, in a state of collective shock. It is almost forgotten how complete the destruction was of both of these countries and the staggering percentage of the population that had been killed. If we wish to reshape a countries whole culture and polity, we must be prepared to completely destroy its society and civilization, before attempting to replace it with something of our choosing. We cannot simply replace its potentate. If a hostile regime needs to be excised, we cannot plan to build a European style democracy in its stead, nor can we simply let the toxic regime continue if we cannot imagine a European style democracy taking its place. In the 21st century, it is unlikely we will have the political will or moral conviction to so devastate our opponent. We must also acknowledge our own weakness that prevents us from being able to conduct long occupations. Therefore, we are left with the lesser of two evils. We must be willing to use our conventional forces to decapitate rogue regimes, and then leave the locals to sort out a new government. Our brief stay afterwards by one or both of our follow on Divisions should not be treated as occupation, or an unlimited commitment to rebuilding. Rather it should be seen as short window of opportunity for the locals to put together a replacement government, the success or failure of which is entirely up to them. Internally, we must acknowledge that their success or failure is of little consequence to us. This type of military action would resuscitate a practice similar to what was once called "Punitive Expeditions".

When faced with an intransigent insurgency, only the locals can sort out their own order in the long run. Consequently the US should not plan to stay any longer in a country we have toppled, than is necessary to stabilize the immediate aftermath when we create a power vacuum. The most advisable doctrine would be to pull out, yet leave them with the clear understanding that should the power that fills the vacuum antagonize us, it will soon go the way of the last one. We should shy away from long occupations, but we should not shy away from “repeated visitations” until even the most obtuse understand that if they want to stay in power, the one thing they absolutely cannot do is antagonize us.

By David Roth

So, the Democrats did not win this election, the Republicans lost it. Why? A combination of ideological and systemic reasons. I will deal with the systemic reasons first. If you look at the numbers of the seats that actually moved sides, they are fairly typical of the shifts that take place in a second term, off year, election. The only reason it stood out here were that the Republicans had been doing astonishingly well in all elections since '92, far better than any historical model would have projected. The historical pattern should have had the House shift back to the Democrats in '02. Further, the margins by which the Republicans held both houses were relatively slim, so a normal off year seat loss was enough to shift it. A lot of the "ideological" element claimed in the press, such as dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, unhappiness with the "direction the country is going," is all part of what I call "administration fatigue". Even Reagan experienced a similar slide, as did Clinton. His second term showed him with a significant loss in popularity even among Democrats, the "blue dress" thing was less causative than symptomatic. Presidents are guests in our homes, and their welcome wears out over the years.

That said, the Republicans made serious, and growing, mistakes since Bush came to office. While they controlled both houses of Congress and the Executive, they failed to deliver on the Contract with America that had brought them their Renaissance. They had jettisoned Newt over minor issues involving allegations of "if he should be allowed profits from book sales while he was speaker". This was mind boggling in its stupidity, and obvious capriciousness. Newt is a PhD. historian, a good writer, who was going to write and sell books regardless of any office he might hold. The idiocy is highlighted by the fact that the former democratic speaker had published and sold hundred's of thousands of copies of his book, while in office, though he had no qualifications and most of the pages were blank! Crates of the book were found stacked up in lobbyist offices where they had purchased them in bulk. The point of this discussion was that the Republican Party, after winning the 2000 presidential election, failed to deliver on core values when they finally had the opportunity. We do not have a flat tax, or sales tax, and still have the IRS. We still have Affirmative Action Programs, in fact they have been strengthened. We have a raft of new Federal Agencies and Regulations, as well as a giant socialized pharmaceutical program. Social Security has not been reformed in terms of either benefits or the eligibility age. The list is endless.

It is not that the Republicans made zero efforts here, it is that those efforts were desultory, lackluster, and leaderless. The real ideological leaders and speakers were driven from the party's leadership, and the remainder spends their time on the defensive about the ideas, not really understanding them well enough to articulately push them through. Having abandoned the field in the battle of ideas, the debate has devolved to the mainstream news and the Democrats versus the talk radio hosts. One can't remain in power if you refuse to fight for what you believe in. I suspect that many in the Republican leadership are simply cowed by being members of the Baby Boomer generation. For people of that age group, from Cindy Sheehan to George W. Bush, their formative years were dominated by the hippies, who sucked all the oxygen out of the room with the Marijuana smoke. Most conservatives of that age group are still apologetic about their values. They act as though the left truly does have the moral high ground, despite the clear verdict of history. Meanwhile, leftists of that generation continue to believe (erroneously) that the vast majority of Americans agree with their whacked out, Age of Aquarius, ideology. John Kerry's recent statements indicated he still believed that people who get bad grades in college get drafted! Both of their minds are stuck in 1969, and the world is viewed though the purple lens of little "John Lennon" glasses. Therefore, the boomer Democrats act with a wild, unwarranted overconfidence, and the boomer Republicans cower from a non-existent animosity towards their values.

How does all this relate to the Elections?

The Republicans need to get back to their basics, and clearly enunciate their values, goals, and objectives. They need to stop trying to be "Democrats Lite". The American people know leadership when they see it, and they like it. This even applies to Iraq. We can't go into a war with the idea that we are using the military to do some kind of social engineering and urban renewal. That's what the spooks and the Peace Corp are for. We went into Iraq to topple Saddam's regime, kill him, kill his top people, and any potential heirs. Why? Because he was a dangerous guy, in a dangerous region, and after 9/11 we can't take any chances. We did not go there to teach Iraqi women the finer points of political organizing, that's their business if they want it. As soon as Saddam is dead, we can go, we should admit it. If the Kurds want us to keep some air cover and advisors for them, they can request it, and we probably should. Their success would shame the rest of the region, by showing what people can truly do if they have the stones for it. As to the War on Terror, the same principles apply. While no US citizens are being held at Gitmo, no one in the Bush administration has bothered to point that out. Neither have we done any wiretapping of US citizen to citizen phone calls without a warrant. Our surveillance is the same surveillance of international calls the NSA has always done, but when Bush explains this, he doesn't do it in the loud, confrontational manner he need to use, when he knows the press won't give it honest coverage. We should be up-front with our policies and utterly disregard political correctness. Let the public know that we intend to keep a real close eye on Muslims, Mosques, and foreigners from places that are heavily Muslim, since that is where the Jihad is coming from. We don't need to be strip searching Irish grandmothers in airports, and we don't need to take away EVERYBODY's civil rights "just to be fair". If the Germans and Japanese declare war on us, we have every justification to surveill and investigate the Bund and the Hibachi houses, but we don't have a need to search the Irish Pubs or Mexican Grill's just to treat everybody equally. We wouldn't be at war with them. That would be absurd, as are our current, sweeping laws, which encompass everybody regardless of ideology, background, or even citizenship status. A lot of the Democrat's propaganda would be defused if we did this right. Let them call us "racist", and "unfair" all they want, they will lose the elections. Be straight, be honest, tell folks what we are doing, and don't feel the need to "Democrat-ize" everything.

The Democrats will be unable to keep the overconfident granola-heads who occupy all their leadership, and the leadership of all their co-traveling NGO's from misinterpreting this as a sweeping mandate for the Age of Aquarius, and will very soon begin to try to push through stuff that will be about as popular as HillaryCare. It will remind America what they really stand for, and clear the field for some solid Republican candidates in '08. Had this loss not occurred now, there would have been an overcorrection then, and the country would have been much worse off. In addition, I expect this power shift will embolden the Jihadists (including Iran), who will believe America is reacting like Spain. The loss of Rumsfeld and the placement of Gates (an FBI pinhead) will mean that the entire security apparatus will be headed by overcautious, risk-averse, bureaucrats, and the Jihadi's will get a rest and recoup period to regroup. From that, they too will successfully carry out some action against us that will be even less popular than HillaryCare. This will remind the American public that we really are at war with the same fanatics we have been fighting since we noticed it during the Carter administration.

A plain spoken, direct, unapologetic conservative, will have fertile soil in which to renew the movement in '08.

By David Roth
November 9, 2006

Every regional expert or even those with a passing interest in the Middle East knew the likely outcome of the removal of Saddam's tyranny. This region would return to its historical pattern of internecine violence between the Sunni's and the Shiites. This greater conflict would be further factionalized among various tribes, regions, and even families. It is this fractiousness, compounded by Islam, that has kept the whole region poverty stricken and ungovernable for centuries, if not millennia. Unless we wish to become a colonial power, and maintain Iraq as an occupied colony indefinitely, we need to define clear, obtainable objectives, and extricate ourselves once those objectives have been met. It is my belief that those objectives were known, and clearly identified at the beginning of this conflict, however I suspect that diplomacy and rhetoric have overtaken the original goals, and we are now suffering classic "mission creep".

In the debate prior to the conflict the Neo-Cons (myself included) were advocating the greater use of American military force in the world, to solve problems that had proven intractable to both diplomatic, political, and economic pressures. The events of September 11th 2001 served as a graphic, bloody, illustration of the point that problems cannot be left to fester indefinitely, simply because the necessary actions to alleviate them were unpalatable. It is through this juncture that Iraq is inextricably linked with Terrorism and the War on Terror. A number of States in the middle east were sponsors of Islamic terror, in its various forms, guises, and pseudonyms. While Saddam was harboring a number of well known international terrorists in Baghdad, he was presenting oversize checks for $25,000 in ceremonies to the families of suicide bombers from Israel and the territories. His regime supplied weapons, refuge, and training to virtually all of the alphabet soup of Islamic terror groups dating back to the inception of his regime. In this, he was like his nearby states of Iran, Syria, Libya, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon, as well as arguably Egypt and Saudi Arabia (although the support from those two states tended to be less direct and take the form of gifts from influential individuals rather than official state sponsorship).

Since at least the 1970's the United States had been attempting to use various means to halt this state sponsorship of terror groups, and curtail the promulgation of the Anti-Western Jihadist movement. Both Democrat and Republican administrations from Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, through Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, most methods had been exhausted. The US had tried to establish better cooperation with friendly governments, economic sanctions, foreign aid to buy them off, or even pitting opposing movements against one another and supplying both sides with armaments. Following the end of the Cold War, there was a belief that perhaps it would be best to just keep the US out of the region as much as possible, since our presence seemed to be a catalyst around which the Islamists could organize and focus their animus. We treated the problem as a "police/criminal" issue and used only prosecutorial powers to pursue immediate, specific, identifiable threats. These were handled individually as criminal conspiracies, rather than as part of a global ideological conflict. However, the long period of abandoning the field allowed for the development and deployment of those organizations which brought us 9/11/01.

The Bush administration was faced with the dilemma which had bedeviled each administration since the early 1970's, only they faced it with such inescapable clarity, that a new direction had to be taken. The Neo-Cons pointed out that post WWII terror groups had proven unable to function without some level of state sponsorship, or at the very least, state approval. The leftist terror groups of the 60's and early 70's (Red Brigade, Baader Meinhoff, Carlos the Jackal, etc.) had largely ceased to exist as soon as the communist sponsorship of the Soviet's, East German's, and Bulgarians had dried up. It was argued that likewise, Islamic terror groups thrived because they were the agents of a proxy war against the West and Western Civilization by the Islamic States.

The Iranian takeover of the US embassy, and Jimmy Carters timid, ineffective responses, emboldened the Muslim world to believe that the United States was a "paper tiger". They felt they were again in a position to challenge the Great Powers of the Western (Judeo/Christian) world. Enjoying a newfound petroleum wealth, the Islamic world was rejuvenating it's long war against the Judeo-Christian world (how little has changed can be easily noted in Joshua London's "Victory at Tripoli", recounting the Jefferson and Madison administrations' ineffective struggles with these same regions, then called the "Barbary Pirate States"). It was felt that the only way to deal a crippling blow to "Islamic Terror" was to create a hostile operational environment for them, as had happened for the older groups when their supporting states collapsed.

George Bush referred to this in a speech as "getting rid of the rats by draining the swamp". If the US wanted these Islamic states to stop helping the terrorists, it would have to convince them that it was actually perilous to them to keep it up. Since these states were usually despotism's, where a single individual, his family, and friends ran the country, it would not be possible to pressure them in the ordinary sense. Economic sanctions, diplomatic embarrassment, or trade embargo's would have little impact, since the controlling powers did not depend on the well being or approval of their constituents to remain in power. Even in the worst of times a despot can live a lavish life in splendor, regardless of the suffering of his people. Therefore, the only way to convince them to stop sponsoring terror and spreading the ideology that underlies the terrorist activities, was to directly threaten the despots and their families.

We needed to make an example of one of them. We needed to prove that we were willing and able to personally remove any one of them from power, as well as put an end to their dynasty. We picked Saddam.

The reasons for picking Saddam are apparent. He was in violation of a number of UN Security Council resolutions, any one of which technically gave us Causus Belli. In addition, we had been enforcing a "No Fly Zone" since Gulf 1, and so we had extensive knowledge of the theater of operations as well as his air defense systems, since he kept shooting at our planes for nine years. Further, he was not very popular even amongst the Arab leaders, so we expected diplomatic resistance to be half-hearted at best. Saddam was the low hanging fruit. Despite any allegations of WMD's, the need to free the Iraqi people from Tyranny, or some pabulum about "spreading democracy", the real reason for the Iraq invasion could not be openly stated, it had to be implied; "Muslim despots beware, either you shape up and turn your back on the terrorists, or Uncle Sam will come and depose you, impoverish you, hunt down your family, and arrest your friends. We aren't playing your game anymore". Any other protestations were mere "Public Relations".

The Islamic world got the message loud and clear, even if the American electorate did not. This is why the diplomatic circles have been so upset about "regime change." They pulled out all the stops and deployed every means at their disposal to prevent the US from doing this. They knew that if the US proved capable of doing this, the jig was up. They bought off every diplomat they could find with cash. They offered irresistible oil deals to every country willing to throw up diplomatic roadblocks. They contributed money to domestic politicians campaigns in various countries. They offered exclusive stories and special access to media outlets in exchange for the opportunity to push stories negative to the US campaign. They offered lucrative building and business contracts to influential businesses in countries that would be reluctant to lose these contracts with any regime change in Iraq.

They did everything they could to prevent our action, yet we acted anyway. We showed them we were willing and able to act decisively and unilaterally to unseat any one of them, if we so chose. They were crushed. We had delivered our message, and achieved our primary objective after almost a year to finally catch Saddam.

Then we went on to swallow our own Public Relations line, and "expanded" the mission to include unobtainable goals.

Our current reason for remaining in Iraq, if the Administration's spokespeople are to be believed, is to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq. Students of the region's culture and history have long agreed that this is unlikely to be an attainable goal. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the nature of democracy and its relationship to economic and cultural institutions that must be pre-established for the success of a democracy, but this may be summarized in the statement that we can't do it for them; they must establish a stable, representative government on their own.

As Colin Powell aptly put it, we broke Saddam's Iraq. However, to achieve our true objective, we don't have to buy it. This is a false dichotomy, foisted upon us by those who sought to preclude our taking any action, by requiring we also take on an unwinable action as in indivisible part of the first action. Our objective was achievable when we captured Saddam, and our interests probably would have been best served had we turned him over to the Kuwaitis for trial and execution. A withdrawal from the country following that would have led to complaints and recrimination, but it is hard to stir up hatred with so much crying about, "You left too soon", "we wanted you to stay", or possibly "please come back, it was so much better when you were here".

We will soon be approaching a juncture where we will have a second opportunity to make our point, and score a propaganda victory across the Muslim world, as well as extricate ourselves from the fruitless exercise of "nation building."

At some point in the near future Saddam Hussein will be found guilty of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and a host of other offenses. We should begin a rapid withdrawal from the vast majority of Iraq as soon as he is put to death. The purpose of this withdrawal is far greater than just "taking an excuse to pull out". Across the Arab world, there was a tacit, though unhappy, understanding that this conflict was about vendetta. This is something that makes sense to the Arab mind. Saddam was stupid, he intentionally antagonized a great power. You can only do this for so long before that power will make you answer for your actions with your life. The current intelligence analysis that Iraq is serving as a catalyst for Jihad, and serves as a recruiting tool for Jihad around the world is true only to the extent that they believe the US is acting as a colonial power, having seized Iraq for the purpose of controlling the territory and it's oil. If, however, the US draws down its presence, largely removing ourselves from Iraq following Hussein's death, the other argument in the Islamic world will be proven true and hold sway, namely that the US went into Iraq to kill Saddam, and end his dynasty. It will show we have no interest in conquest, but rather that we are a very dangerous power, not to be idly taunted or baited. The Jihadi's do understand there are times when Christendom is too powerful to be defeated.

There is a valid argument to be made that our withdrawal following Saddam's demise would leave Iraq in a state of civil war, and possibly allow it to be taken over by Iran. These are both distinct possibilities, however I suspect that this will occur whenever we pull out, be that two years from now, or 20 years from now. I also suspect that either of those eventualities would in the end play into our hands and achieve long term benefits to our interests, but that is the subject of another essay.

It is sufficient to note that we need not "buy" all of Iraq's problems. If the US were to begin a major withdrawal following Saddam's execution, both our international friends and enemies would no longer have use of the argument that we are attempting to become a colonial power, or that we are acting for selfish interests. We would demonstrate that we have virtually no interest in what the Iraqi people choose to do with themselves, their territory, or their oil wealth. Should a regime come to power in Iraq that continues to behave in a manner we find unacceptable, by sponsoring terror or taunting us in other arena's, we can reinforce our message by militarily decapitating that regime as well. We should not shy away from "repeated visitations,",as they will serve to reinforce the message that the US is not to be trifled with. At some point, a Darwinian process will take hold throughout the world, and regimes will realize that the most certain way to lose power is to antagonize the U.S. hegemon. When we have convinced them to fear us and leave us alone, we will have achieved our objective, and at that point it will be "Mission Accomplished."

By David Roth

In the field of military science, great shifts in tactics occur very rarely, and often only in conjunction with the deployment of a new technology. The prescient General or Military commander sees how a shift in technology can change the strategic balance, and exploits it with a new tactic. Patton wrote about how the Tank and mechanized warfare could completely change the face or warfare, and render static defenses obsolete. The wehrmacht read his book and changed warfare forever with the blitzkrieg. Here, the Islamic world has taken a change in world technology, and utilized it to wholly change the way battles are fought, probably forever in the foreseeable future. However, this tactic is not dependent on the Muslims themselves possessing any new technology, the means were available at any point in history. Despite its simplicity, this tactic was not thought of, or deployed by any of the great generals. Alexander the Great never tried it, no Roman General ever considered it, not did Genghis Kahn, or any of the Prussian Generals. It was not described or even predicted by Sun Tzu, Napoleon, nor during WWI. Neither the Axis nor the Allies attempted it in any theatre of WWII. The Islamists have created an entirely new form of warfare, based on this new tactic, to which the Western armies seem particularly vulnerable.

For simplicities sake, we can refer to this new tactic as "whining."

The way this tactic is deployed, the numerically and technologically inferior force launches an unprovoked attack on a Western power. They really only need weapons little better than stone knives and bearskins. Due to the fact that it is an attack oriented on surprise, subterfuge, or stealth, they manage to inflict some damage on the Western power, even if that may only mean one or two casualties. The brilliance of the strategy only then comes into effect. Like Genghis Kahn, this original attack force flees, retreating to safe territory. Unlike Genghis Khan, who would have a militarily superior force waiting to pounce on the counter attack, the Muslim armies have no need of a counterstrike force. They break ranks, flee, and retreat into populated areas, dispersing into a population by shedding any uniforms or military accoutrements. The erstwhile attackers adopt a cringing pose to better blend in with non-combatants, and hide behind civilians, multinational or UN forces.

Rather than the former paradigm, where propaganda organs minimize ones own losses and maximize the enemies, in an attempt to effect morale on both sides, their political organs maximize images of their own casualties. They loudly proclaim the utterness of their own defeat and rout, launching into full "Whine" mode. They demand the world community protect them, and condemn the Western power for using such "brutal" means in defending itself. Brilliantly, they use the ineffectiveness of their own assault as a basis for a claim that they the aggrieved party. As an "aggrieved party" they then begin to make demands of the party they just attacked. The demands are for the attacked party to voluntarily concede those strategic objectives the attacker could not achieve by military force. By utilizing the world technological shift, created by having a 24 hour, mass media news cycle, they turn the victims into "aggressors," and in the end use their own military weakness as a basis for making demands of the more powerful state, requiring concessions and reparations.

In no previous conflict has any expansionist movement considered effectively using whining to achieve tactical victory.

Interestingly, whining, as a tactic, only works if your opponent is a good guy! One cannot imagine fighting Stalin by continually launching ineffective attacks on him, and then yelling about how badly he treated your country afterward. Similarly, it would be laughable to postulate a Polish aggression against Hitler's Germany, consisting of a few mortar attacks, followed by pleas to the world about how it shouldn't be invaded over a few measly mortar rounds. The Islamists use our civility and compassion against us. This use of kindness, to exploit the good party, is the very definition of pure, uncomplicated, and evil. It is a tactic of which comic book villains and Snidely Whiplash would be proud.

This strategy has been well known in individual human relations as "the Little Bully." In many families or schoolyards, a smaller or younger individual realizes that he or she can attack larger members with impunity if he cries loudly and piteously enough at any retaliation. However, this situation can only occur when there is a structure or individual with actual or perceived authority over both parties to the incident. Further, that authority must have a clouded sense of justice regarding the individuals appearing before it, either through ignorance of the events, a profound absence of wisdom, or at worst some pre-existing bias in favor of the "Little Bully". It may be that this new tactic is only now viable due to a strengthening of the influence of a "World Community".

If so, then it speaks poorly of the attentiveness, wisdom, and motivations of this developing "Community." This community cannot be said to be ignorant of the provocations of the Islamic states, since their attacks and bellicose statements are widely broadcast. This means that the "Community" is condemning the wrong parties, and giving succor to "the Little Bully" either from a profound absence of sound judgment, or a pernicious bias towards a favored little sociopath. The world "Community" is cast in the role of either the idiot, or the wicked stepmother. The long held dream of a "Community of Nations" will be soured and squandered, if that community continues to express a will that is foolish and bereft of merit. The world will indeed be in sorry shape if it’s military, economic, political, scientific, technological, and philosophical leaders can be overthrown by "whining."

By David Roth

It is shocking to many why he would be so deliberately provocative, while he should be acting in a fashion to reassure the international community that he is not a threat, so as to forestall diplomatic action, sanctions or even a military strike by the US he could not possibly win. Conversely, he seems to be doing everything in his power, from testing missiles and torpedo's to goading the West's sensitivities, in what appears to be a campaign to pick a fight. He is making statements that clearly place him on a war footing with Israel, and in violation of the UN onus about non-defensive warfare. He