A few days ago I wondered about the “little or no reflection by the major media on their own hysteria” about Haditha.

The latest rumination from the New York Times, instead, with squad leader SSgt Wuterich’s Article 32 hearing beginning, wonders why the entire U.S. military justice system can’t seem to agree with its hysteria. Generalizing from its own partial and hasty viewpoint the NYT’s says,

In Iraq and in the United States, the killings were viewed as cold-blooded vengeance.

It’s not until half-way through a lengthy piece of bemoaning that the prosecution has been unable to prove guilt that a sober voice is briefly introduced:

“It certainly erodes that sense that what they did was wrong,” Elizabeth L. Hillman, a legal historian who teaches military law at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, said of the outcomes so far. “When the story broke, it seemed like we understood what happened; there didn’t seem to be much doubt. But we didn’t know.”

But, that doesn’t stop the NYT’s from returning to its wail, ending on this absurd note that runs counter to justice requiring innocence unless proven guilty:

“We can’t say those guys didn’t commit a crime,” said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. “We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute.”

The NYT’s stubborn refusal to face the facts even runs counter to other journalists and experts who have closely followed the cases.

For example, the Camp Pendleton area’s North County Times, which has closely reported the cases, points out this expected defense that runs counter to the prosecution’s contentions, contentions which in other cases have been found unconvincing against contrary evidence:

Wuterich's attorneys are expected to argue that Dela Cruz fired first at those men. They point to a forensic reconstruction by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which used aerial surveillance tapes to reconstruct what happened near the car.

A government investigator is expected to testify that the Iraqis were running away, leading Wuterich to believe they were insurgents involved in the attack. Attorneys for Wuterich say the tapes show Dela Cruz is the more likely killer based on his position and Wuterich's in relation to the slain men.

"The forensic evidence rules out to a scientific certainty Dela Cruz's version of events," attorney Puckett said.

There is little doubt that SSgt Wuterich’s leadership position will place him under greater scrutiny for his actions. This is, also, a two-sided examination. Experienced combat veterans may see a young man who acted with leadership in making fast decisions under fire, fulfilling his responsibilities to his men and mission.

The NYT’s has had more time to deliberate, but doesn’t seem to have grown any wiser, or respectful of justice requiring adequate proof of guilt, rather than the NYT’s hysteric and unfair continuing attempts at justifiying its own rush to judgment.

The NYT's might do better to wait, watch and see what comes out at the hearing rather than denying facts and justice, particularly in advance.

My most recent column for the Washington Examiner was published on the 16th. I'm late in posting it at Democracy Project, but here are some additional examples of perfidy among Middle East studies professors, and some observations, not found in the original essay. I argue that Middle East studies professors cry "censorship" whenever they're confronted with critiques of their work.

The article proved to have much longer legs than I'd anticipated, which I think is the result of having said something close to the right thing at the right time: academics have become so paranoid, so unused to receiving criticism from mere mortals (not that they believe in anything immortal beyond their own reputations), that directed critiques of their works send them into a collective tailspin.

That was certainly the case this round, in which I took on Lisa Anderson of Columbia University, as well as some lesser lights scattered around the country (the link is to a slightly modified form post at Campus Watch).

Academics have construed debates over what they say and write as efforts to censor them, as if merely reporting their words and critiquing their ideas is the equivalent of shouting them down or shutting them up.

Then again, if your public statements resemble what follows, you have every reason to try and prevent others from disseminating your words to the wider public.

For example:

Jessica Stern, Harvard: "Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap."

Mansour Farhang, Bennington College: "If you put a gun to my head and said choose between Ahmadinejad and Bush, I might say, 'Shoot.'"

Or Fawaz Gerges, Sarah Lawrence College: "I really believe that both the Jews and the Palestinians, basically, are, have suffered from similar historical injustices."

And that's just from the repertoire of professors of Middle East studies. Throw in other disciplines, from so-called ethnic studies (that would be Ward Churchill's specialty--or is it former specialty?) to U.S. history to English literature and, most recently, the absurdities of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, and you'll discern a systemic problem with American higher education: the insistence by many professors on the left to attack America's institutions, freedoms, history, and people without consequence or debate.

The Haditha cases, so far, are progressing as I’d expected: hollow or weak charges, inadequate investigations, able defense work revealing much not covered or downplayed by the initial news reporting rush to judgment, judicial relief for the defendants (although their lives and pockets, otherwise, have been scarred and picked clean), and little or no reflection by the major media on their own hysteria.

If you haven’t kept up, or need a review, over the past one-plus year, I’ve posted many analyses (see here for links) of the Haditha incident, the charges and proceedings against several Marines.

The most significant case, that of Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, is now scheduled to begin next Thursday. As I’ve pointed out before, most lately here, due to his rank and leadership during the incident SSgt Wuterich may expect a tougher time than the other enlisted Marines. As I also pointed out, there seems, again, to be evidence that may contradict the themes presented in the media.

In the Washington Post’s reporting of the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s recommendation that Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum’s charges be dismissed, the following concluding paragraph has been often picked up by others, interpreted to indicate weakness in the charges against SSgt Wuterich:

"On 19 November 2005, in the mere seconds LCpl Tatum had to make a decision, he acted in accord with training, to engage targets that a fellow Marine was firing at, without time to fully assess the situation and reflect on what SSgt Wuterich was doing," Ware wrote. "It is only in hindsight that we can start to question why SSgt Wuterich was firing his weapon at children and conclude that LCpl Tatum should have deemed such actions were unwarranted."

That interpretation may be correct, but is too hasty and incomplete.

Judicial proceedings are retrospective, or hindsight, by their very nature. What is crucial is whether there is credible evidence to support the charges. Of course, it is also crucial to the deliberations whether that evidence is credible to those who actually have experienced and understand similar conditions.

That’s where the importance to the justice enters of the hearings being conducted by recent combat veterans, and not journalists or politicians from an armchair.

The same Marine legal officer, Lt Col Paul Ware presided over LCpl Sharratt and LCpl Tatum’s hearings, and will over SSgt Wuterich’s.

There’s a distinct difference between Ware’s analyses of Sharratt and Tatum’s charges. Whereas, Ware found those against Sharratt simply “incredible,” Ware did not use that term for Tatum’s. Instead, (pdf of Ware’s analysis here) Ware just did not find the evidence enough to proceed.

Ware said as to Iraqi deaths in first house,

The government fails to provide evidence sufficient to make a finding that there are reasonable grounds to charge the accused with any criminal offense in relation to events that occurred in house 1.

Ware adds the charges’ verge into theory and are unrealistic to the circumstances.

[P]ursuing charges for offenses in house 1 under this theory [distinguish “between hostile targets and innocents before firing his weapon” in combat] would significantly impact combat operations and is an unwarranted, ill conceived, and dangerous application of restraint.

Regarding the second house in which Iraqis were killed, Ware’s recommendation is more circumspect, and rests on similar grounds of inadequate evidence, but does not necessarily find them “incredible”:

Although an Article 32 is not a forum to resolve issues of admissibility at a trial, it is important to advise when evidence produced at an Article 32 is unlikely to be admissible or there are questions as to its admissibility.

Ware concludes, therefore,

There is insufficient evidence to find reasonable grounds for offenses charged based on events in house 1 and although there are reasonable grounds for charges arising out of the events in house 2, I do not recommend referral of those charges. The evidentiary hurdles are too great…

Ware puts great weight on what he called a “key issue,”

Does criminal liability apply to a Marine, if that Marine reasonably relies on another Marine’s perception of hostile intent or act and does not personally observe any hostile intent or act, and subsequently it is found that the Marine who made the hostile act or intent determination was either negligently mistaken or willfully ignoring the rules of engagement?

As it should be, there is no indication in Ware’s recommendations for Sharratt or Tatum that Ware will do anything less than carefully weigh the evidence and its value in proving a case regarding Wuterich.

Until Wuterich’s hearing unfolds, it’s premature to predict what may transpire, except that there will be due consideration of evidence and conditions, of “facts and circumstances,” as normal to judicial determinations.

From Ware’s “key issue” question, it appears that Ware will be looking closely at SSgt Wuterich’s leadership decisions, both as to “facts and circumstances.”

Lt Gen James Mattis is the convening authority over the cases. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is his responsibility to either accept or reduce Article 32 recommendations.

From a comment made on Lt Gen Mattis’ behalf by a spokesman regarding another separate incident, it appears that rank is one of the matters that Mattis deems important:

"He (Mattis) balanced many factors to include their military experience, relative rank and position of authority and their specific involvement in the death of the Iraqi man as it was determined through the military legal process," Lt. Col. Sean Gibson wrote in response to questions about Mattis' decision [in Hamdamia cases].

The interviews conducted by Mark Walker, the North County Times (San Diego-Camp Pendleton area) reporter who has provided ongoing coverage of the Haditha cases, speak to contending expectations:

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps judge and attorney and now a recognized authority on the law of war, said after reading Ware's report that he concurs with the recommendation.

"I have said since the outset that this would be a difficult case to prove because all of this occurred in the course of a combat operation," said Solis, who teaches military law at Georgetown University.

Ware's references to Wuterich taking the lead in storming the houses suggest that the staff sergeant may have more difficulty explaining away the charges, Solis said.

"The ground has been laid in this report for a hard case against Wuterich," he said.

But Neal Puckett, Wuterich's lead attorney, disagreed with that assessment.

"We believe the report reflects favorably on our case," Puckett said, declining further comment.

I’ll have more comments as there are more solid indications, rather than conjecture. There’s already been too much, most of it by Iraq war opponents wrong, but we should be more judicious, as the Marine Corps has been.

Foreign Policy Magazine published its third annual Terrorism Index to much interest by the New York and Washington intelligentsia because it reveals that we are losing the War on Terror (here, and here):

According to the magazine, the survey's respondents are "the very people who have run the United States’ national security apparatus during the past half century" such as "people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, senior White House aides, top commanders in the U.S. military, seasoned intelligence professionals, and distinguished academics...[e]ighty percent of the experts have served in the U.S. government—including more than half in the Executive Branch, 32 percent in the military, and 21 percent in the intelligence community."

Like that's a good thing? Weren't these the same people who got us into the 9/11 mess in the first place? Isn't that the verdict of a recently declassified report by the Central Intelligence Agency (as tipped by Publius Pundit):

U.S. spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet "by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created." The CIA's analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. "A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all," the report found.

It's truly ironic that Foreign Policy, calls on the people who created the problem to ask if they agree with President Bush's solution. Of course these folks don't agree with President Bush's solution because they are biased against his solution for one reason or another. Many are pacificists that believe any loss in American life is abhorent. Others are power hungry and wish to see nothing more than their party and their friends back in the White House. And many others who took the survey like Jim Woolsey, Dan Pipes, Marc Sageman, and others, views are underrepresented by a confluence of "realists" Republicans and anti-War Democrats who had reached a foregone conclusion that the War on Terror has been lost and the Surge in Iraq isn't working.

Today's Miami Herald contained a piece by Frida Ghitis reminding us why we as Americans must not give up on the promotion of democracy as our core foreign policy objective even though it's messy, even though it costs American lives, even though it diverts our attention from domestic policy interests.

There’s as much division in Congress today over Iraq and what kind of, if any, war the U.S. is in as there was in the early ‘70’s over Vietnam. What’s different is the extent to which the divisions now exhibit themselves cloaked in legal process arguments.

The causes are several: New types of enemies, clearly not part of a anything close to a conventional national military; The increased sway of lawyers throughout our society and their priorities for process over defense; and, The decline in military veterans among our senators and congressmen, at the lowest point since during World War II, having less sensitivity to internal military concerns.

In an earlier column I described the intrusion of an inadequately trained Judge Advocate General corps into rules-of-engagement issues.

The arguments over how to deal with enemy detainees is the most prominent example. Some argue for complete access to U.S. courts and procedures, though detainees are not U.S. residents and the nature of battlefield or intelligence information and capture cannot by nature approximate domestic police arrest nor can battlefield or intelligence evidence be as certain or open as in domestic cases.

The Bush administration sought to treat such detainees as outside ordinary U.S. judicial procedures, through military commissions. A majority of the Supreme Court in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, found these procedures inadequate, primarily for not being specifically enough authorized by Congress, which has that authority.

Some in Congress argued for full access by “alien unlawful enemy combatants” to U.S. civilians’ courts and rights, or via the U.S. military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The considerations of the nature and locale of the detainees, and of the evidence and procedures that are appropriate to fairness and national security, led to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Many procedures are based upon UCMJ. Of note is that the process includes appeal at end of process to the U.S. District Court in D.C. and from there to the Supreme Court. It does not include habeas corpus challenges by detainees to the U.S.’ right to detain or try them.

In the Senate, the vote was 65-34, all but one opposed being Democrats. In the House, the vote was 250-170, all but seven opposed being Democrats.

With the increase in number of Democrats in the current Congress, and their control, like bills have been introduced by Democrats in House and Senate to amend the Military Commissions Act. (HR 1415 and S576; details here) Most notably, the bill would allow habeas corpus challenges by detainees to their detention or trial, and “provide for expedited judicial review of civil actions that challenges any provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.” It would, also, “include as War Crime offenses the denial of trial rights.”

In effect, the operations of the military commissions would become utterly bogged down in a multitude of legal challenges.

These amendments reflect both a prioritization of inapplicable legal process over either traditional or common-sense laws of warfare and, as dangerously, an abuse of legal process to serve their priority of politically battling against prosecution of the war in Iraq and the broader battle against enemy jihadists.

The relatively low number of veterans in Congress during World War II did not undermine unity in conduct of that war. Today,

Partisanship might explain more about lawmakers' positions than military backgrounds. William Bianco, professor of political science at Indiana University, said his study on voting patterns showed that, "in the main, veterans look like nonveterans in Congress, on any dimension we can measure."

However,

"My concern is in the nuance military issues -- veterans' benefits, military construction costs, the backlog in rebuilding [damaged] equipment -- issues that aren't sexy," said McCausland, director of national security affairs at Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, a Washington law firm.

That division is being seen in a bill introduced by San Diego Democrat Congresswoman Susan Davis, now chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, to amend the UCMJ.

The UCMJ was signed into law in 1950, to bring all the services under the same rules. There were years of studies and hearings, with inputs from all sources. The Harvard law professor who chaired the drafting committee, explained that the uniform rules “would provide full protection of the rights of persons subject to the Code without undue interference with appropriate military discipline and the exercise of appropriate military functions.”

Since, changes in the military’s judicial system have been comparatively few, reflecting the respect it has engendered and the care of legislators to interfere with the self-management needs of the armed services. Changes have been deeply studied and widely supported across the aisles in Congress.

The 1983 Military Justice Act expanded the rights of appeal. It was unanimously approved in the Senate and House Armed Service Committees. The highest UCMJ appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), is actually comprised of civilian judges appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It was deemed appropriate to allow appeals to the Supreme Court of decisions by CAAF, but appeals by defendants whose appeal for consideration by CAAF are denied cannot proceed to the Supreme Court for an override. The Justice Department said,

To limit direct appealability in such a way would permit the Supreme Court to consider issues of public importance but would preserve the role of the Court of Military Appeals [CAAF’s previous name, before 1994] as the primary civilian interpreter of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Congresswoman Davis’ bill (HR3174) would allow defendants to appeal to the Supreme Court even if their appeal to CAAF was declined. She had introduced it in 2005 (HR1364), with five Democrat co-sponsors, and it failed to garner wider Congressional support. She has reintroduced it, now with seven Democrat co-sponsors (notably including the addition of current House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton, for added wind in its sails).

In 1983, the Senate Armed Services Committee report (linked above) said it

“…believes that the question of what cases are heard by the Court of Military Appeals is a matter of internal management…However, the Committee would hope that the Court of Military Appeals would examine its current rules and procedures…in light of the “key” to access to the Supreme Court that it would hold if this bill were enacted.

All the military law experts that I consulted specifically to the point agreed that CAAF has been quite broad in the appeals it has allowed.

Scott Silliman is professor of Practice of Law and Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University’s School of Law. He wrote to me:

I'm not sure the change is necessary. The USCAAF has historically "tilted" on the side of taking a case, rather than denying a petition; and the Court has sometimes even found an issue on which to grant, even though it was not raised in the petition. Thus, although some might deem this "necessary", I don't; but I also don't take a strong position against it.

In a call to the office of preceeding House Armed Services Committee chair, combat veteran Duncan Hunter, the successful and fair operations of CAAF were reviewed, and I was informed:

I feel that the current appellate system that exists within the armed services is sufficient to ensure that service member’s rights are protected. Consequently, I do not feel that any changes to the appeals process are warranted at this time.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, who has supported habeas corpus for detainees, disagrees, feeling, “It’s a matter of simple fairness.” In an email to me, Fidell says:

General and special courts-martials ought to be subject to at least the possibility of Supreme Court review regardless of the issue(s) the accused seeks to raise, just like convictions in the civilian federal district courts. If the issue is frivolous or clearly without merit, the Court will deny certiorari [petition for review] (as it has done in the vast majority of military certiorari petitions in the last 20+ years).

It well may be a matter of simple fairness, as Fidell says, and the Military Officers Association of America agrees in an email to me: “MOAA believes, as a matter of legal principle, that both the government and a military defendant should have equal appeal rights under the law.”

But, the matter is not quite that “simple.”

The operation of our military is not just a “matter of legal principle,” but primarily a matter of effectiveness. The UCMJ is not deemed ineffective, or even unfair in actual operation. The minor Congressional support for Congresswoman Davis’ bill runs contrary to the care that Congress has previously taken to deeply study and widely support any changes in UCMJ.

Eugene Fidell wrote me that, “I would hope the corrective legislation did not get tangled up in – or held hostage for – the issues relating to detainees, military commissions, and habeas ‘stripping.’ “

A worthy wish. However, for the lack of adequate practical cause, study and support, and the extent of partisanship that has infected the overall issues of military missions and operations, furthering that divide by hasty or only legalistic treatment of Congresswoman Davis’ bill is not in the best interests of Congress, our military, or us as citizens dependent upon their sober judgment.

Lisa Anderson, the former dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, fears that an apparently unmentionable, yet alluded to, group is threatening the academic freedom of professors of Middle East studies. She made the claim yesterday's edition of the Web publication Inside Higher Ed.

The article caught my eye, as the unmentionable organization is clearly Campus Watch, which I direct. Even though her words were hardly complimentary--she warned ominously that "Young scholars of Middle Eastern literature or history are finding themselves ‘grilled' about their political views in job interviews, and in some cases losing job offers as a result of their answers"--I was happy to see them. It gives me a sense of accomplishment to know that those of us dedicated to critiquing academe are getting the attention of those inside the academy's walls.

So I wrote a column about Anderson, and the reasons behind our efforts to improve Middle East studies, for the Washington Examiner. The paper's version of the essay is here, and my slightly amended version is at Campus Watch.

Foreign Affairs, the Council of Foreign Relation's journal asked each of the presidential candidates to put pen to paper and set out their foreign policy agenda. Rudy Guiliani's essay caught my eye, because so much of what he says conforms to the philosophy of this website and a robust Republicanism. Here are some of the opening passages:

We are all members of the 9/11 generation.

The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.

[]

Achieving a realistic peace means balancing realism and idealism in our foreign policy. America is a nation that loves peace and hates war. At the core of all Americans is the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that proceed from God but must be protected by the state. Americans believe that to the extent that nations recognize these rights within their own laws and customs, peace with them is achievable. To the extent that they do not, violence and disorder are much more likely. Preserving and extending American ideals must remain the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic. But unless we pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not be achieved.

Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.

A realistic peace is not a peace to be achieved by embracing the "realist" school of foreign policy thought. That doctrine defines America's interests too narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our values. To rely solely on this type of realism would be to cede the advantage to our enemies in the complex war of ideas and ideals. It would also place too great a hope in the potential for diplomatic accommodation with hostile states. And it would exaggerate America's weaknesses and downplay America's strengths. Our economy is the strongest in the developed world. Our political system is far more stable than those of the world's rising economic giants. And the United States is the world's premier magnet for global talent and capital.

Still, the realist school offers some valuable insights, in particular its insistence on seeing the world as it is and on tempering our expectations of what American foreign policy can achieve. We cannot achieve peace by promising too much or indulging false hopes

Update: Rudy Giuliani's campaign mentioned this post in its recent What they Are Saying about the Mayor's Essay.

Update #2: Bruce Kesler alerts me to this piece by Max Boot on Commentary's site about the Giuliani piece.

Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers are central to many of the debates and difficulties we experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their guidance, training, and advice regarding rules-of- engagement (ROE) is seen by many experienced combat soldiers and Marines, and law of war experts, as inadequate to the challenges and mission.

Service as a JAG officer is remote from the glamour in the popular TV series. Their duties include many mundane fiscal or contractual issues, for example. As one young JAG officer commented,

I don’t know of any other legal job where you get this many hands-on experiences in so many different areas this early in your career.

This may well serve them in their later civilian careers, but their service to the front-lines is too often deficient.

This isn’t just a matter of restrictive or impractical ROE, but of execution of other front-line responsibilities.

For example, in dismissing criminal charges against JAG Captain Randy Stone for inadequate investigation of Haditha – noting this as his first such assignment and his “attentiveness to training the Marines in the law of war and rules of engagement” -- LtGen James Mattis did distinguish these charges from a lesser fault of possibly being “remiss.” In Stone’s statement to his Article 32 hearing, “Stone said he received almost zero training for his job before joining the battalion in Iraq in September 2005.” Mattis enjoined Stone, “It is incumbent on him to ensure that the lessons he has learned provide guidance for future judge advocates…”

More frequently we hear from combat soldiers and Marines that JAG officers have designed or interpreted rules-of-engagement in an excessively restrictive or impractical way.

The November 2006 report to the Surgeon General by the Mental Health Advisory Team in Iraq found that:

Every groups of Soldiers and Marines interviewed reported that they felt the existing ROE tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war.

A soldier expresses his disgust:

I can’t even tell you how pissed it makes me to hear a JAG officer suck in breath as he tries to think real hard how to explain the murky depths of our ROE. A system that used to be a way of allowing soldiers to avoid hurting civilians by using certain weapon systems at certain times has once again degenerated into a complex “Cover Your Ass” legal trick for higher command. Believe me, it isn’t there because Colonels and Generals WANT us to fight this way, it is there because YOU do.

His last point does get to one of the difficulties faced by JAG. ROE reflect more than just the immediate conditions faced on the front-line, but also the clarity of the overall mission and the restraints deemed important in agreed laws of armed conflict.

The problem occurs when the mission decided by political and military leadership is hazy or poorly formulated, as in whether our troops are to quell militias or not, or eliminate entrenched enemy sanctuaries, or even put first priority upon their own safety.

This is compounded when, as one military law expert told me, JAG officers aren’t even versed in more expansive domestic guidelines and court decisions governing FBI or police use of deadly force.

Some posit that counterinsurgency requires that the troops’ own safety should be secondary. That is nonsense. Successful counterinsurgency does not preclude use of deadly force to protect oneself and comrades or to allow enemies to act with impunity. The, finally, energetic offensives since General Petraeus took command witness that fact.

Interviews with JAG officers for a review of the issues in the Christian Science Monitor, for example, had this exchange.

Another JAG officer told me of "statistics" and "studies" showing that soldiers in Iraq have itchy trigger fingers. Yet when I asked for the studies to support these statistics, none were provided. Several JAG officers expressed concern that CNN (yes, they mention that network byname) would report too much carnage if the restrictions did not exist.

Holding fire may appease CNN, but it can only delight and encourage America's terrorist enemies and protract the war in Iraq.

Among the faults in prior strategy that General Petraeus set to correct is that soldiers fighting insurgents and terrorists don’t have clear guidance on the use of force.

Accordingly, for example, in March 2006, Major General Black, Army Judge Advocate General, launched a survey among JAG officers “to assess how Rules of Engagement training is being conducted throughout the Army.”

It’s more than a bit late for that, as it is for the Army to rediscover counterinsurgency doctrine ignored since our hard-earned competence in Vietnam under General Abrams.

Hopefully, not too late.

For many years, the media has been pressing for a federal shield law that would allow reporters to keep their sources anonymous. Primarily for practical reasons of greater national security risks if such a shield existed, this has been resisted. But there are many other concerns, of a citizen’s right to privacy, for example, or a reporter’s ordinary citizen responsibilities for criminal behavior.

The legislation keeps getting pushed by its proponents, and has been adjusted to supposedly reduce some concerns, but the core issues remain.

A current example comes from a case in which some in the federal government violated the Privacy Act in leaking information about a bioterrorism expert investigated in the 2001 anthrax mailings. The reporters who received this info and published it are ordered by a federal district judge to reveal their sources.

“Denying civil litigants access to the identity of government officials who have allegedly leaked information to reporters would effectively leave Privacy Act violations immune from judicial condemnation,” Judge Walton wrote, “while leaving potential leakers virtually undeterred from engaging in such misbehavior.”

The Newspaper Association of America is jubilant that its members have succeeded with their uniform editorials in obtaining such legislation to move forward in the House and Senate.

"The Free Flow of Information Act establishes important ground rules
that balance the public interest in both the free flow of information and the fair administration of justice.”

Not so fast with that one.

Gabriel Schoenfeld has testified and written critical commentary on shield law proposals. His most recent comment reveals another weakness in the proposed legislation that places reporters above the law and exempt from ordinary citizen responsibilities.

At issue is a loophole in the proposed bill. In cases in which journalists are themselves eyewitnesses to a crime, the shield would not apply. Thus, if Dana Priest found herself in a bank that was being robbed, she, like all other witnesses, would have an obligation to testify before a grand jury about what she heard and saw. She could not, under the proposed shield law, claim exemption, even if she subsequently wrote a news article about the holdup.

But this eyewitness exception itself has an exception in the proposed legislation. If the crime in question involved the unauthorized disclosure of classified government information to a journalist, than the eyewitness exception would not apply, and the journalist’s shield would remain in force.

To this, the Justice Department objects out such a provision “would permit [a] journalist to participate intentionally in violation of the criminal laws of the United States—indeed, as the recipient of the disclosure, to cause the crime to occur—with impunity.” This would put the journalist-source privilege on a completely different plane from other, long-recognized privileges, like the attorney-client privilege, which “does not apply where the attorney participates in crime.”

Who appointed reporters as above the law?

Two of the cases arising from the Haditha incidents that await determination are important to our conclusions.

Together with, but distinct from, the prior cases we will have a more complete understanding of both Marine justice and of the conditions under which Marines operate. The charges in each case are for largely separate actions within that day, and the involvement and responsibility of each defendant differed.

In the prior cases, the charges were either found without merit, “incredible” in the words of the Investigating Officer in the case of Lance Corporal Sharratt, or forwarded to possible administrative action and not court martial in the case of Captain Stone. (The Article 32 recommendation for Lance Corporal Tatum has not yet been announced.)

In both cases, the adjourning officer, Lt Gen James Mattis, under his authority to accept or reduce the recommendation of the Investigating Officer in Article 32 hearings, chose to dismiss the charges against Sharratt and Stone.

Mattis commented that Sharratt “did his best to live up to the standards, followed by U.S. fighting men throughout our many wars, in the face of life and death decisions made in a matter of seconds in combat.” Mattis commented that Stone may have committed “error of omission or commission” as a junior and new legal advisor with the Marines, but any such “does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice” and Mattis has that Stone “now understands the absolute necessity for objective inquiry into the combat actions of our Marines in such an environment, especially when innocent lives are lost.”

Not only did the prosecution fail to offer a compelling case to the Article 32 hearings, but the level of involvement of Sharratt and Stone was deemed not central to either the course of events or its reporting, respectively.

The Article 32 hearing of battalion commander Lt. Col. Chessani recommended proceeding to court martial for inadequate investigation and reporting of Haditha. I discussed the finding and some contrary testimony here. There’s no doubt Chessani had command investigation and reporting responsibilities. There remains doubt whether in the circumstances of the day, the reports he had, and other responsibilities he was derelict in them.

The Article 32 hearing of Staff Sergeant Wuterich is set to start in late August. His leadership position and role in the killing of five Iraqis who’d exited their nearby taxi is held by the prosecution to be a clearer instance of chargeable conduct. While strongly maintaining his innocence, SSgt Wuterich’s defense has been fairly quiet of late, but one may expect a vigorous defense once the Article 32 hearing commences. For instance, an eyewitness to the aftermath of the taxi killings maintains that he saw AK-47’s stacked against the car. This was only recently revealed to the defense. Chessani’s lawyer, feeling his case as well is affected, said this was a “very serious omission,” also affecting Chessani’s defense. The witness’ observation undermines that the Iraqi’s were unarmed civilians who happened to wander into the area.

In the cases of Lt Col Chessani and SSgt Wuterich one may expect their rank to have more influence on Lt Gen Mattis’ considerations than in the prior cases.

An indication of Mattis’ thinking came from his spokesman in a separate set of cases.

"He (Mattis) balanced many factors to include their military experience, relative rank and position of authority and their specific involvement in the death of the Iraqi man as it was determined through the military legal process," Lt. Col. Sean Gibson wrote in response to questions about Mattis' decision [in Hamdamia cases].

In addition to facts and circumstances in each case, and relative involvement and authority, another issue remains key, rules of engagement, and their background to the cases.

The Los Angeles Times’ reporter on the cases, presents the contending ROE issues and says:

But the definitions of positive identification, hostile intent and hostile action are subjective, and thus can change from one area to the next, one day to the next, according to testimony.

The hearing officers and juries have been combat veterans, as is Lt Gen Mattis. Their first-hand experience with how “gray” and difficult it is to apply ROE in actual combat -- and the practicalities, as distinct from an armchair, retrospectively, or by those without such experience, is a key element underlying the judgments being made.

It should be no other way. That’s why we have a military justice system, to particularly reflect and reflect upon unique facts and circumstances rather than theories of war.

John Miller’s discussion of academic Middle East Studies, in Philanthropy Magazine, “Clash of Cultures,” focuses on “how donors can increase understanding of the Middle East.” Miller draws upon his experience authoring a study of the Olin Foundation’s effectiveness.

It is important reading for that. Quickly summing, Miller cites Daniel Pipes, a leading critic of academic Middle East Studies departments:

"The key is to keep the money out of the hands of the university, so that donor intent can be preserved," says Pipes. Contributions to colleges and universities require careful oversight.

Miller ends by considering the role that returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan may come to play:

If one of the problems associated with the study of the Middle East is that not enough serious people have engaged the subject, then that may change before long: Thousands of American soldiers are now spending months and years over there. Upon their return to the United States, most will want to return to their ordinary pursuits, as veterans always have done. Some members of this group, however, may want to devote themselves to understanding the region, possibly even making careers of it -- a direction they would not have chosen but for their experience. "I think we're going to see a big influx," says Bromund of Yale. Their views are likely to be quite different from those of students who have never put on a military uniform.

If they are to be welcomed and have influence in the field (say, compared to the exclusionary experiences of returning Vietnam veterans and of some Vietnam scholars even today), then Miller’s final question will have to be answered by philanthropists:

Will they receive the training they seek? Philanthropists may want to make sure the answer is yes.

Health care cost savings do not require government-run universal care to accomplish them. All that government-run universal care adds to the equation is rationing and lesser quality care.

David Leonhardt’s column in The New York Times, “Free Lunch on Health? Think Again,” dissects the claim that more preventive care will save health dollars.

In fact, studies have shown that preventive care — be it cancer screening, smoking cessation or plain old checkups — usually ends up costing money. It makes people healthier, but it’s not free….

For a new program to work, it has to reach people who are not being helped by whatever exists now — and who thus will be among the most difficult and expensive patients to treat. The program would also have to treat a whole lot of people who never would have gotten sick….

Persuading people otherwise — persuading them that basic care is sometimes cheaper and better — will be difficult. Sometimes insurance plans will simply have to say no to questionable care, over the opposition of doctors’ groups with a financial interest in the status quo. But it’s the only way to “save money and improve quality and cover everybody,” as Mrs. Clinton says.

She and her rivals, John Edwards and Barack Obama, deserve a lot of credit for laying out such detailed, promising reform plans. Mrs. Clinton has gone so far as to say that “too much of the money we spend is wasted on care that doesn’t improve health.” But the candidates are still avoiding the toughest part of the discussion: when and how to say no.

“Fundamentally, if you’re going to control health care costs, it involves denying people care they want — or things they’ve been trained to think they want,” Mr. Gruber [an M.I.T. economist who helped design the universal-coverage plan in Massachusetts] says. “There is no easy answer.”

The Left’s young booster of universal care, Ezra Klein, likes Leonhardt’s column, because he sees it as affirmation of his meme, but adds his “easy answer” anyway:

Instead, the more achievable goal is to move towards a universal system that's more cost-effective, which is, in fact, very much the same thing as saving money, and towards an integrated system that readies the ground for tougher cost control mechanisms down the road.

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest primer on “Key Information on Health Care Costs and Their Impact,” concludes that U.S. health care costs grow faster than our economy overall because:

· Wealthier countries can afford to spend more on health care technologies;
· The U.S. population is getting older and disease prevalence has changed;
· Insurance coverage has increased;
· Americans pay a lower share of health expenses than they used to…Between 1970 and 2005, the share of personal health expenditures paid directly out-of-pocket by consumers fell from about 40 percent to 15 percent.

The Kaiser report discusses various difficult efficiencies “such as increasing the use of electronic medical records, and other information technology, promoting evidence-based medicine, provider pay-for-performance, consumer-directed health care, or disease management”:

Successfully implementing these policies, which is not an easy task, would likely reduce the amount that we pay on average for care, but they are likely not a longer-run solution for addressing the rate of cost growth.

Further, Kaiser’s report says:

Over the long run, bringing health spending growth closer to the rate of overall economic growth would likely require finding ways to slow the development and diffusion of new health care technologies and practices….although such interventions present serious practical and philosophical challenges.

The report reminds us of the “widespread criticism” of Britain’s national health system for excluding treatments.

In short, the only promise that government-run universal care will deliver is rationing, not better care.

At least Klein and Kaiser are (sort of) honest about it. Our presidential prospectives might try the same (at least sort of).

Editor & Publisher is the leading industry chronicler of current news reportage. Its, and the major media’s, own reportage of itself, however, leaves questions about focus and completeness.

Sig Christenson, military affairs reporter for the San Antonio Express-News and co-founder of Military Reporters and Editors, is a decent man and brave reporter, who has returned to Iraq numerous times and not shied from danger. Christenson has strong critical views on the war, which others may disagree with but he’s earned the right to them.

E&P features Christenson’s criticism of reporting from the field in Iraq.

In Christenson’s piece, he notes the very few reporters in Iraq,

Petraeus’s aide Boylan said the Express-News, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Atlanta Journal Constitution are the only regional papers that have consistently sent reporting teams to cover the war in Iraq.

Television is a waste. Production values have nosedived in network news’ entertainment era. Frankly, it’s hard to call a CNN story about fighting in Diyala province “news” when it uses background footage from another part of Iraq.

TV news crews typically have more money than newspapers but seem rudderless when it comes to ethically reporting a story. That’s the way it is in 2007.

Christenson notes that the military has been cooperative:

On the ground, reporters I know say their overall experiences with the troops have been good. Petraeus prides himself on providing media access to all levels of the military and he has made good on pledges to do so, at least in my case.

But, Christenson rues both that much “good news” isn’t being reported as well as “bad news.”

The biggest problem isn’t that reporters aren’t telling all those good stories that make you feel warm and happy about the war, but that the corps of journalists is too small. If there were more reporters in Iraq, you might well see more happy news amid the bombings, massacres and offensives. You also would see more misery – broken homes, refugees, widows, orphans, crime and poverty so crushing it takes your breath away. As it stands, reporting in Iraq is simply too dangerous and expensive for most news organizations….

Think of Iraq as Katrina squared and it makes sense for the media to launch a surge of its own, if only because our credibility is at stake. Let us have no one say of the media in this era, as Senator Hiram Johnson did in 1917, “The first casualty when war comes, is truth.”

Also, a casualty of war is when E&P cherry-picks what news of war is relevant.

For example, E&P’s search engine reveals no recent linkage to New York Times’ Baghdad bureau chief and war correspondent John Burns positive report on the “surge” and warning about consequences of premature withdrawal.

Neither does E&P’s search engine reveal recent linkage to the fables of Scott Beauchamp trumpeted and defended by The New Republic, even when virtually every part is disproven and Beauchamp himself is reported to have recanted.

Indeed, although the contretemps over the Beauchamp story garnered coverage in major newspapers, mostly repeating New Republic’s defense, a check of this morning’s (6:27AM, Pacific) News.Google shows none reporting his and New Republic’s discrediting.

Beauchamp RecantsThe Weekly Standard - 7 hours agoby Michael Goldfarb THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the ...The Beauchamp Affair Atlantic OnlineMilitary Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies FAIRall 4 news articles »

Pvt. Beauchamp: Proud of Being Ashamed?Yahoo! News - 17 hours agoThis passage from Augustine came to mind as I read Pvt. Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist in The New Republic (TNR), for Beauchamp, far from being "ashamed of ...Breaking: Beauchamp signs military statement recanting TNR pieces Hot AirTime To Show Foer The Door Town Hallall 4 news articles »

Scott Thomas Beauchamp Recanted His Stories To Military ...Reiten Television KXMB Bismarck, ND - 2 hours agoTHE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock ...
The Short Happy Life of Scott Beauchamp, Fabulist...Power Line, MN - 11 hours agoTHE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock ...New Republic Freelancer Recants Tales NewsBustersall 2 news articles »

Indeed, ““The first casualty when war comes, is truth.”

Especially when the major media choose sides.

In a famous passage in his Confessions, St. Augustine admits that as a young boy he ran with a bad crowd and fabricated stories to impress his friends.

I was ashamed among other youths that my viciousness was less than theirs: I heard them boasting of their exploits...not only for the pleasure of the act but for the pleasure of the boasting....and when I lacked opportunity to equal others in vice, I invented things I had not done, lest I might be held cowardly for being innocent, or contemptible for being chaste....Someone cries, ‘Come on, let’s do it’--and we would be ashamed to be ashamed.

Who among us, at some point in our lives, has not so intensely desired to belong to the group that we ended up apologizing for our virtues and boasting of our vices? It could have taken the form of remaining silent when we should have spoken out. The point, of course, is to grow out of it. Augustine was referring to when he was 16 years old. As one grows older, the fear of appearing virtuous before bad people is replaced by the desire to be virtuous with good people. It’s called character.

This passage from Augustine came to mind as I read Pvt. Beauchamp’s Baghdad Diarist in The New Republic (TNR), for Beauchamp, far from being “ashamed of being ashamed,” is actually proud of being ashamed. After describing how he mocked and humiliated a woman horribly scarred by an IED, Beauchamp writes:

Even as I was reveling in the laughter my words had provoked, I was simultaneously horrified and ashamed at what I had just said. In a strange way, though, I found the shame comforting. I was relieved to still be shocked by my own cruelty--to still be able to recognize that the things we soldiers found funny were not, in fact, funny.

It’s an odd sense of shame. It provides no antecedent restraint on Beauchamp’s behavior but kicks in only after he’s already demonstrated, by his actions, both his cruelty and his shamelessness. Nonetheless, Beauchamp takes pride in being ashamed, for it proves, at least to him, his superiority to some of his fellow soldiers.

But Beauchamp knows he’s describing sociopathic behavior, for he asks, “Am I a monster? I have never thought of myself as a cruel person. Indeed, I have always had compassion for those with disabilities. I once worked at a summer camp for developmentally disabled children.” So what would explain the behavior? Why do he and his comrades find despicable behavior funny? Beauchamp’s answer: “That is how war works: it degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception.”

Here, finally, is the master narrative sought by TNR. Because war “degrades every part of you,” soldiers can’t be expected to make normal moral decisions. Bad behavior? The war made them do it. See what the bad war does to good people? It turns former camp counselors into sociopaths.

But no self-respecting soldier wants TNR’s bogus absolution. Soldiers pride themselves on being held to a higher standard than the rest of us, and to deny them the dignity of being moral agents renders meaningless the distinction between a dishonorable discharge and a Bronze Star. If soldiers no longer merit praise or blame, just sympathy, their service becomes meaningless.

TNR shows no awareness of this, and its attempt to defend its own journalistic malpractice is truly a wonder to behold. TNR editor Franklin Foer’s first defense claimed that the objections raised about the story “really boil down to, would American soldiers be capable of doing things like the things described in the diarist. The practical jokes are exceptionally mild compared to things that have been documented by the U.S. military.” We now know that Mr. Foer never believed it was about “practical jokes,” for he now says that TNR published Beauchamp’s piece because it “was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war...[it] was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers.”

As Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said of the press coverage of the Duke lacrosse team, “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” Similarly, Mr. Foer has his narrative--“the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”— but the facts keep getting in the way. TNR now admits that the disturbing behavior Beauchamp claimed he engaged in actually occurred in Kuwait, before he had seen a single day of combat. So now the story is about the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of...” Well, of what, exactly? Of merely being member of the U.S. Army? Is that the new narrative?

This also explains why Beauchamp’s “confession of shame” sounds so contrived. It is contrived. Beauchamp imagined how he would feel if he had done the things he described in the pages of TNR. What he describes is not shame but moral smugness.

Why was TNR unable to recognize this? Because the editors have a peculiar understanding of journalistic truth and simply no understanding whatsoever of the concept of “honor” as it applies to the military, a combination that in turn makes them oblivious to the reality of slander.

When Beauchamp lies about the who, what, where, and when of his dispatch, it is for TNR merely an “error,” a “discrepancy,” or a regrettable “mistake.” Morally speaking, it’s the equivalent of a typo.

But in ordinary life, lying is immoral. In the military, in addition to being immoral it is dishonorable. And to be falsely accused of dishonorable behavior is to be slandered. None of this seems to register with TNR or, unfortunately, with Beauchamp.

TNR is in effect saying, we know that bad things happen, therefore something like what we published probably happened at some time. Yes, but did it happen when and as you said it did? It may not matter to TNR, but it matters to the soldiers at Foward Operating Base Falcon. They have been accused of dishonorable behavior. If the accusation is false, they have been slandered.

At this point, I expect nothing more from TNR than more demonstrations of the fine art of ex post facto fact checking. But what about Pvt. Beauchamp?

He stands at a crossroads with his whole his life before him. Frankly, I hope the demands of military justice are satisfied by merely letting him finish his service. He must live with himself among his betters, and for now that is both a fitting punishment and an opportunity. The opportunity is one to which Beauchamp himself alludes on a blog he kept while in Germany. (I’ve taken the liberty of turning his blogese into standard English.) Beauchamp writes:

I know that NOT participating in a war (and such a misguided one at that) should be considered better than wanting to be in one just to write a book...but you know, maybe I’d rather be a good man than a good artist...be both? Some can and some can’t...I guess it all depends on how great an artist, or how great a man they want to be. Sometimes it feels like I have to choose between being totally loyal to thoughts of my future family OR totally loyal to chasing down the muse. Must find a middle ground.

When it comes to being a good man or something else, there is no middle ground. You’re either trying to become a better man, or you’re not; you’re moving in one direction or the other.

Pvt. Beauchamp has two choices.

He can await his discharge and then return to testify before Congress as the victim veteran in the “proud of being ashamed” mode. He might even run for Congress himself. He wouldn’t be the first.

Or, he can use his remaining time in the military to earn an honorable discharge. He could try to leave the military as a better man than when he entered. There are hints from his blog that he was already moving in that direction.

I would urge Pvt. Beauchamp to look at those in his unit, some of whom he surely respects and admires. Imitate them, and in the process you will become a better soldier, a better friend, a better husband, one day a better father, and...in the end, a better writer.

That will also leave you with something far better than the anemic sense of shame you describe; it will leave you with a sense of honor. And though TNR may no longer be interested in what you write, you will surely have become a better man.

Michael Moore’s latest documentary film, Sicko is a tedious two hour propaganda infomercial on the merits of government-run socialized medicine, that demonizes the American capitalist free market claiming its systemic greed and evil is epitomized by the blunders of profit driven managed health care. Some of my coworkers, who were falling all over themselves to sing the praises of the wit and humor of Mr. Moore’s new flick, admonished me not to offer my disparaging opinions of Moore until I first saw it.

Fortuitously, I had the benefit of watching the movie Sicko after channel surfing to a live Andre Rieu concert at Radio City Music Hall on WLIW, performing everything under the sun from Sousa marches to Strauss waltzes. The last performance was a breathtaking presentation of "America the Beautiful" by the orchestra and the Harlem Gospel Choir. This spectacle had everyone in the audience up on their feet singing along with tears in their eyes and with applauding arms raised high over their heads. As the hair stood up on the back of my neck, I realized that this multi-racial, multi-ethnic New York audience understood at that moment the vital spirit of freedom and independence which courses through the veins of every red-blooded sovereign American, which is something that Mr. Moore does not appreciate, nor do the lemmings who flock to his socialist causes. Following Andre Rieu’s sensational concert, I did not find Mr. Moore’s new flick humorous or witty.

Sicko seemed to play a single note of sniveling mockery throughout the entire film. The documentary mocked the alleged canards of free market conservatives and their attacks on Mr. Moore’s socialist underpinnings as if the Red Scare was targeting him and his pet socialist projects. His caricature of anti-communist propaganda of the 1950’s reminded me of the frenzied war on drugs of the same decade demonizing Marijuana as the “killer weed.” This hyperbole enabled the legalize Marijuana lobby to deceive the public into believing that Marijuana was the innocuous victim of these overblown scare tactics. Mr. Moore uses a similar deceptive treatment in the film to cast socialized medicine as the blameless and beneficial victim of conservative critics’ McCarthyite red-baiting campaigns.

The prosperous Mr. Moore speaks for the vast uninsured suffering poor of America offering a solution to the high price of health insurance, which allegedly deprives them of treatment and in some cases leads to death. He visits the countries of Cuba, France and Canada in order to emulate their model of state-run health care. But I wonder if Michael Moore would run to these countries for treatment if he were seriously ill.

Rather, here in the U.S. is where he would find the best medical advances and treatment in the world, as well as the finest, though flawed health care system as my own experience can bear out. A former uninsured friend who had a skimpy income and many health problems called and searched the internet to find a decent affordable health care plan a couple of years ago. He found a reasonable $129 per month policy from Vytra, a Long Island based insurance company that allowed access to a wide range of top New York physicians to treat his health conditions. American medical professionals commonly export our medical advances to countries throughout the world. My wife, who has advanced spinal scoliosis, sometimes has to choose other specialists when her current one has often been on tour in other countries that lack the capabilities commonly found here, lecturing at hospitals and treating patients with their expertise in back pain medicine. I’ve never known anyone to be denied health insurance coverage for the treatment of pre-existing conditions from the insurance plans I’ve encountered over the years. Another friend who found health care overpriced, chose to go on Medicaid to obtain affordable health care while she was pregnant and didn’t have a job. However after suffering the indignities of bureaucratic state-run medical care, she opted to go back to the far superior HMO health insurance plans and pay the high costs out of her own pocket. She cautions against the fraud, waste and corruption of government provided health care if the bureaucratic nightmare of Medicaid is any indication of what would happen if Mr. Moore and Hillary Clinton’s dream for universal healthcare would become a reality. If the Medicaid fiasco robs New York taxpayers of up to $18 billion in annually fraud according to a 2005 New York Times report, how much larger would that figure grow if healthcare becomes nationalized?

The purpose of this piece is not to fact check and counter Moore’s dubious use of statistics such as the claim that 50 million Americans are uninsured (most likely that figure, if accurate, reflects mostly immature and uninformed young adults) and that America has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba (who can believe statistics put out by the Cuban government?), and so forth. Other critics and reviewers have already been weighing in, dismissing it as irrelevant as Michael Moynihan’s review of Sicko in The New Yorker and Reason Magazine calls it “..a clumsy piece of agitprop that will likely have little lasting effect on the health care debate.” Canadian journalists have criticized Moore for taking great liberties with the facts and for his glamorization of their health care system where the claim that patients wait mere minutes for medical care is simply untrue. Peter Howell, of The Toronto Star said, "Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo." Mr. Moore’s comparison of the Cuban health care system to ours is a joke according to other reviewers. The impressive Havana Hospital and sparkling medical facilites that Mr. Moore films are set up as propaganda showcases for Hollywood that cater to a select few party officials and the military. As National Review editor Rich Lowery writes:

Ordinary Cubans experience the wasteland of the real system. Even aspirin and Pepto-Bismol can be rare, and there’s a black market for them. According to a report in the Canadian National Post: “Hospitals are falling apart, surgeons lack basic supplies and must reuse latex gloves. Patients must buy their sutures on the black market and provide bed sheets and food for extended hospital stays.”

Pandering to the French, Sicko portrays the inland “paradise” where mothers enjoy dollar a day child care and free government laundry services, and workers have the luxury of a 35-hour workweek, which actually cost the French economy their Airbus contact. While visiting France and praising a nationalized heath care system that takes care of everyone, Moore laments the failure of American capitalism to provide free health care for all stressing that people should be "taking care of each other, no matter the differences." However Mr. Moore doesn’t mention France’s unemployment rate of 9% and an economy that fosters a sky-high youth unemployment rate of over 20% which has fueled the riots throughout France. Obviously France doesn’t take care of its youth and the unassimilated North African immigrant population which has spread uncontrolled violence, unrest, and car burnings to Paris and over 300 French towns. Mr. Moore doesn’t discuss the vast exodus of workers seeking better opportunities in foreign lands. Nor does Mr. Moore mention that the people of France were so fed up with the government ownership of the economy and welfare state mentality that they recently elected Mr. Sarkozy in a landslide over Socialist Party contender Ségolène Royal, in order to immediately transition to market driven reforms.

As it is well known, the managed health care system where the insurance company rather than the physician controls all aspects of the patient’s medical care is clearly not working. However Mr. Moore’s solution for government care for all is jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The better solution, as Rudy Giuliani proposes, is allowing competitive markets to fix the problem, in contrast with a big government takeover, as Hillary’s universal healthcare plan requires. Medical choice and competition will lower the costs and improve the quality of medical services. Giuliani’s plan proposes tax incentives of $7500 in exemptions to individuals and $15,000 to families to help pay for the costs of private health coverage that they choose themselves, rather than their bosses choose for them. His plan will also bring down the costs of medical insurance by putting a cap on the sky-high malpractice and frivolous lawsuits, which have caused the insurance rates to soar. As Giuliani recently told New Hampshire voters:

"America's health-care system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates and wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracy. To reform, we must empower all Americans by increasing health-care choices and affordability." Giuliani describes Democrats'...health proposals "heavily influenced by Marxism. We've got to solve our health-care problems with American principles, not the principles of socialism."

No, that’s not 4th Grade Writing Primer; But, for those who wonder about all the talk of it, it’s 4th Generation Warfare Primer.

My good friend Mark Safranski, The ZenPundit, is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the thinking on how to handle the sociopoliticomilitary -- they are entwined -- challenges we face (plus he has gotten pretty good at cool graphics).

Many get lost in the verbiage of 4GW, and much of it is old wine in new bottles.

For my and my readers’ clarification, Mark offers the following.

Q: What is "Fourth Generation Warfare?"

According to advocates of this theory, Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) is a stage of conflict between nation-states and decentralized non-state opponents ( insurgents, tribes, organized crime, gangs, terrorists) where one of the most important variables in determining victory is the perceived moral legitimacy of the state. If the state collapses into anarchy or becomes so politically discredited that it no longer can maintain the loyalty of its citizens, then the 4GW forces "win".

Q: So then, how is 4GW any different from regular, old fashioned, guerilla warfare like in Vietnam or El Salvador ?

4GW is different from traditional insurgency for reasons of structure, motivation and environment.

The Communist guerilla armies in China, Vietnam and El Salvador were organized into rigid, well-disciplined, hierarchies that were trying to build-up in stages into a traditional, conventional army that could fight on an open battlefield, defeat their enemy and take over the state. 4GW forces are loose, decentralized, networks that share a common enemy but have various reasons for fighting. Often they don't care about taking over the government so much as being able to dominate their particular ethnic or religious community, smuggle contraband freely or make war against traditional enemies.

Finally, the geopolitical environment has changed due to globalization, the fall of the Soviet Union and the revolution in information technology to give advantages to small, fast-moving, "flat" networks over larger, slower, heavily centralized bureaucracies of nation-states.

Q: Who came up with this theory ? Is it widely accepted ?

4GW theory was first articulated by the William Lind and a number of military associates in 1989 with an article in the Marine Corps Gazette entitled " The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation".(1) Parallel contributions were made by the respected Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, in a series of books, starting in 1991. (2) 4GW theory also draws heavily upon the ideas of the late strategist Colonel John Boyd, USAF who was also deeply influential in the development of the Manuver Warfare doctrine of the U.S. Marine Corps, US Air Force Fighter Tactical doctrine; fighter aircraft design and the development of Network-centric Warfare programs. (3)

As a school of thought, 4GW remains generally unknown to the public but is highly controversial in military and political circles. This is due in no small part to the bitter criticisms some of its advocates have made of mainstream military thinking, Pentagon waste and the leadership qualities of senior officers, particularly in the U.S. Army. Academic historians and political scientists criticize the 4GW school for the use of " selective history" and for insufficient rigor in their definitions of 4GW.

On the other hand, the 4GW school has been far more accurate in their assessments of the problems posed by the Iraqi insurgency and their predictions of the outcome of the recent Israeli-Hezbollah War, than were mainstream military experts. For this reason and the public's revived interest in counterinsurgency due to "the Surge", more attention is being paid to 4GW concepts.

Q: What are the other generations of warfare? Why "generations" anyway?

Generations were used to create a loose historical taxonomy in which to categorize both methods of fighting war as well as the cultural and strategic mindsets behind them. It's probably an error to take this model too literally as a strict sequence of events. The other generations are:

First Generation(1GW): Warfare of the smoothbore musket and tightly disciplined columns of professional soldiers like those of Napoleon, Frederick the Great, George Washington and so on.

Second Generation (2GW): Warfare of annihilation by rigidly organized mass armies, often in fixed positions, heavily dependent on central organization and massed firepower. The Western Front in WWI is the paramount example.

Third Generation Warfare (3GW): Warfare of manuver, speed and shock where unit commanders are expected to exercise initiative to exploit opportunities. The German Blitzkrieg of early WWII was the first example, Manuver Warfare of the Marines is another.

There is much speculation about a possible emerging Fifth Generation (5GW). One 4GW expert, Colonel T.X. Hammes, author of The Sling and the Stone, claims it is here. William Lind, "the Father of Fourth Generation War" has replied with a decisive denial.(4) No consensus exists on what 5GW might look like, though suggestions of " superempowered individuals", secret conspiracies and John Robb's "Global Guerillas" thesis have been offered as possibilities. (5)

Q: Why is all of this important?

It is highly unlikely that in the near or medium term future, that the United States will face a great power enemy on the open battlefield, at least on land. Our dominance in high tech, conventional, warfare is so great and fielding a comparable military force against ours is so mind-bogglingly expensive, that most great powers are content to be our allies or eschew direct military conflict.Instead, our state adversaries are likely to avoid our strengths ( nuclear or conventional war) and seek to harm us through terrorism, psychological warfare, criminal activity, subversion, guerilla warfare, cyberwar and other indirect methods.

At the same time, failed states and globalization have made it possible for non-state actors to wage war against us independently or in shifting alliances with like-minded groups or hostile states. Where we once faced one, large, enemy in the Soviet Union, today and in the future it will be more like a kaleidescope of transient foes or a swarm of angry hornets. Preparing to meet that kind of challenge means American leaders facing up to the concerns of the 4GW school or those raised by more traditional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism experts. The strategic threats we face as a nation are not going to go away on their own.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm
2. Van Creveld's most cited works by the 4GW school include The Transformation of War (1991); The Rise And Decline of The State (1999) and his recent The Changing Face of War ( 2006), where van Creveld explicitly argues for the overriding importance of the moral and political variables in modern warfare.
3. http://www.belisarius.com/modern_business_strategy/coram/boyd_at_tech.pdf ; for network-centric warfare and Boyd, see: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_1_54/ai_75762213/pg_10
4. http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_2_03_04.htm
5. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/10/the_changing_fa.html

Last April, I wrote “That’s anti-semitism”:

When, criticism of Israel is one-sided, slanted, or knowingly factually wrong, and far worse behavior by Palestinians is ignored, excused, or lies parroted, that IS anti-Semitism….

Appearing with or sharing a podium with such people, outside of civil debate, is to legitimize them. That IS anti-Semitism….

Earlier generations’ anti-Semitic tracts and common speech have largely disappeared from America. However, they have been replaced by thinly veiled stereotypes that essentially connect anyone associated with vigilant defense of America, Western civilization, or Israel as a colonialist oppressor, and commonly emphasize the role of Jews in such activity as demonstrating a conspiracy. This permeates the attacks on “neocons,” or AIPAC, for example. The deep roots of Arab oil money funding Democrats’ organizations and political activities, or paying for radicals’ chairs in academia, is not mentioned, and can only be motivated by animus or corrupt profiteering. That IS anti-Semitism.

I concluded:

Democrats learned during the late 1940’s and early 1950’s that the survival of their liberal agenda, not to mention of America, depended upon taking matters into their own hands and vigorously excluding communists and fellow-travelers from their ranks or tolerance.

If Democrats don’t similarly act responsibly today, that IS anti-Semitism.

All of the Democratic Party’s candidates for its presidential nomination just displayed their priority. They abandoned attendance at the Democratic Leadership Council’s annual convention, and trooped to the DailyKos convention instead.

As longtime Copley Press political correspondent George Condon noted:

The front-running candidates all are staying away from Nashville, Tenn., which this weekend is hosting the annual gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council, the business-friendly group of centrist Democrats that played a key role in guiding the party from Walter Mondale's defeat in the 1984 presidential election to Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996.

But all the candidates will be in Chicago next weekend for the second annual convention of Democratic-leaning Internet bloggers, a relatively new part of campaign infrastructure that wasn't even imagined when Mondale and Clinton were campaigning for votes. The occasion is “YearlyKos,” the brainchild of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the 35-year-old founder of Daily Kos, one of the most influential progressive blogs and one that has gained a bigger role in the fight for the Democratic nomination….

The Washington Post headlines:” 'Net Roots' Event Becomes Democrats' Other National Convention”

Dan Balz’ Washington Post blog reflects, “The Democratic Party has moved to the left since Bill Clinton left office and many independents have moved toward the Democrats because of the Iraq war,“ and quibbles:

There's no question that presidential candidates see more energy and activism on the left right now. There's also no question that candidates want to be seen embracing what is new, and anything related to the intersection of the internet and politics holds a fascination now for candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

So, who are too many of those with whom the Democrats’ leading contenders form a “popular front?”

A Daily Kos poster answers:

Ask Eyal Rosenberg who resigned as a diarist for the DailyKos on May 9 after in his words "all the Israel Hate spewing out of one too many diaries around here." As he wrote in his last post: "with this last post: Reading these past months on dkos has led me to believe that people here, under the 'progressive' banner, support views that end up in one place: Me dead." …

Mr. Rosenberg notes, contradicting Clinton spinmeister Wolfson, that the anti-Semitic attacks are not "isolated." In his brief time as a diarist (several months), he counted 5,000 Israel or Jewish references in the DailyKos. That's about 23 posts on Jews or Israel a day, most negative.

This past spring, during Passover, one of the site's diarists, a Belgian graphic artist, posted an image that morphs the face of Israel's minister of strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, with that of Adolf Hitler's shown holding a skull painted with a Star of David, under the caption "Zionism was and remains a racist ideology." …

The columnist concludes:

Martin Luther King Jr. said "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular — but one must take it simply because it is right." Translation: If you can't tell the YearlyKos there's no place for anti-Semitism you lack moral courage.

Condon quotes a veteran Democratic activist, that next year the candidate will “dance back to the middle.”

The behavior we’re witnessing: That IS anti-Semitism. Political and moral courage and integrity are not a “dance.”

Sudan refugees are desperate to find havens.

Israel is a favored destination.

Israel is ambivalent, wary of possible Muslim extremist infiltrators, but compassionate toward others fleeing a genocide. Israel’s Hasbara Committee describes the Israeli “Refugee Quandary.”

More than 2,000 African refugees, about half from Sudan, are provoking strong reactions in Israel. Some of these desperate people are Christians from Darfur [in Sudan], while many are Muslim. Regardless, none are Jewish. Opinions are divided between those who want to open Israel to refugees, remembering how borders were closed to Jews fleeing the Nazis, and those who want to deport the refugees who are already here and prevent others from crossing our borders, fearful of adding more non-Jews to our population….

The Sudanese refugees are victims of Arab racism, which is probably the reason that no aid has been forthcoming from the nearby Arab nations. Nor has there been much succor from non-Arab Muslims, whose countries constitute the majority of the Islamic peoples.

Cairo’s Al-Ahram doesn’t gloss over the situation:

Stories are rife about an increase in the numbers of Sudanese refugees fleeing Egypt for Israel. Dozens of Sudanese are reported to have crossed the border into Israel under the cover of darkness. Smuggling rings in Israel and Egypt are taking advantage of the desire of Sudanese refugees in Egypt to seek greener pastures in Israel and are making a killing out of the business….

While the problem is not new it is getting "worse" according to the Israelis. Khamis, one of the first Sudanese to cross the border from Egypt to Israel maintains that he does not regret the move. "In Israel Sudanese can earn $4 per hour. In Egypt such a wage is unheard of. Moreover, medical care and educational opportunities are far better in Israel than in Egypt."

Another Sudanese refugee in Israel, Daniel, described his ordeal. "We were smuggled across the wilderness of Sinai at night. There were Egyptian and Israeli military patrols and we were in constant danger of hitting a minefield. It was a hellish journey but we made it to the 'Promised Land'," he said.

Such stories have prompted many Sudanese to make the dangerous journey across the Sinai wastelands to Israel where, according to Mike Kagan of the American University in Cairo, some Sudanese refugees live for free on Israeli kibbutz's.

Yesterday, the desperate plight of Sudanese refugees at the Egypt-Israel border shocked Israelis anew:

Egyptian soldiers killed four Sudanese refugees near the Egypt-Israel border overnight Wednesday in full view of IDF troops, a shaken-sounding IDF soldier said in an interview with Channel 10, Thursday evening.

According to the soldier, female IDF troops operating night vision devices identified several refugees approaching the border in an attempt to infiltrate Israel and alerted other soldiers who arrived after a few minutes in an army jeep.

However, Egyptian troops who also discovered the refugees, fired upon them, immediately killing two and wounding a third. A fourth refugee ran towards the fence and an IDF soldier stretched out his hands, trying to help him cross.

At that point, the soldier recalled, two Egyptian soldiers arrived and started pulling at the refugee's legs.

"It was literally like we were playing 'tug of war' with this man," the soldier said. The soldier eventually loosened his grip on the man, fearing the Egyptians would shoot him.

"They were aiming loaded weapons straight at us, I was afraid they were going to shoot us," he said.

The Egyptians then carried the man several meters away from the border fence, and proceeded to beat him and another wounded refugee to death with stones and clubs.

"What happened there yesterday was a lynch. These are not men, they're animals. They killed him without even using firearms," the soldier said. "We just heard screams of pain and the sounds of beatings. Then the screams stopped."

The entire event was caught on IDF tapes, but the soldier said that his commanders, who were not at the site, would not dare watch them.
The entire incident took place on the Egyptian side of the border, IDF sources told Israel Radio later Thursday evening.

A Channel 10 commentator said the channel preferred not to show the tape, so as not to cause a diplomatic row with Egypt.

Consequently, Israel’s Knesset is moving toward added protections for Sudan’s refugees in Israel:

A majority of Knesset members signed a petition urging the government to refrain from deporting Sudanese refugees to Egypt until safe haven is found for them elsewhere.

As many as 1,400 refugees have reached Israel, crossing from their war torn homeland through Egypt. They fear return to Egypt, where they report abuse and in some cases killings by authorities.

Students from Jerusalem and Beersheva initiated the petition, Ha'aretz reported Friday, and obtained the signatures of 63 of 120 lawmakers in the Knesset. Signatories range from Effi Eitam of the right-wing National Religious Party to Dov Khenin of Hadash, formerly the Communist Party and include leaders of the Likud and Labor parties.

At the same time, as Solomonia comments, “They can't keep Hamas from smuggling in weapons, but unarmed desperate people, those they can beat to death.”

So, Israel’s Interior Minister calls for erecting added barriers at its border with Egypt, to prevent infiltration, arms, and refugees from crossing.

Not a simple quandary, is it?

A bet: Israel will be pilloried in the international media, whatever it does.

Human Rights Watch reports on Chinese repression of internal voices as part of China’s staging its Olympic Games next summer.

With one year left until the Beijing Olympics kicks off, the Chinese government has been "gagging" dissidents and clamping down on domestic journalists to stave off potential political instability, Human Rights Watch said Thursday.

China, long been criticized for its human rights record, views the Olympics as a huge source of pride. In order to control what the Communist government perceives as threats, it has choked any expressions of dissent more than one year before the Aug. 8, 2008 opening ceremony, the group said.

"The government seems afraid that its own citizens will embarrass it by speaking out about political and social problems, but China's leaders apparently don't realize authoritarian crackdowns are even more embarrassing," Brad Adams, Asia director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.In bidding for the games back in 2001, Chinese leaders promised International Olympic Committee members that the Olympics would lead to an improved climate for human rights and media freedom.

Instead, there has been "gagging of dissidents, a crackdown on activists and attempts to block independent media coverage," Adams said….

Human Rights Watch also criticized Beijing's ties with oppressive regimes and dictatorships in Sudan, Myanmar, Cambodia and Zimbabwe. China has been accused of not doing more to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million others displaced since February 2003.

Reporters Without Borders reports on China’s repression of Internet voices.

The closure of the civil rights website Zhonghua Shenzheng (http://www.shenzheng.cn) on the information ministry’s orders since 30 July was condemned today by Reporters Without Borders as yet another case of censorship of the Internet, which is still one of the few ways Chinese can access news and information that have not been vetted by the official agency Xinhua.

“At least 11 websites have been definitively or temporarily closed or blocked since 1 July, while others have been forced to remove content that upset the authorities,” the press freedom organisation said. “We are witnessing a crackdown on the Chinese Internet that could be linked to the preparation of the next Communist Party congress in October.”

Reporters Without Borders added: “The cyber-police and information ministry are intervening with increasing frequence …

China doesn’t tickle me Elmo either (having young children):

China leapt to the defense of its products Thursday after Mattel Inc. said it was recalling 1.5 million Chinese-made toys worldwide because their paint may contain too much lead.

The recalled toys made for Mattel's (Charts) Fisher-Price unit include popular preschool characters such as Elmo and Big Bird and dozens of other items. The case is the latest in a deluge of product safety scares that have tainted the "made in China" brand.

But, I’ve been looking out for Chinese and Vietnamese manufacture of toys, including give-aways with Kids Meals at McDonald’s, since I discovered they were produced with virtual slave-labor. See Things Not Jolie For Vietnamese and its links.

If you want to see the best dexterity message photos since our POW’s in Hanoi dexterously expressed the truth, go here.

BTW: I’ve been guest-posting at the very popular Gateway Pundit blog this week, while Jim Hoft is in Israel. Even from across the globe, Jim Hoft beat me to the kiss.

While at Gateway Pundit, stay around and see his photo-tours of Haifa, Jaffa, and Jerusalem.

You’ve heard of “blood diamonds,” sold to fund the operations of rebel and terrorist groups. Leonard DiCaprio even starred in a movie about it. Unfinished diamonds are difficult to identify. So, an international compact, the Kimberley Process, was started to

document and track all rough diamonds entering a participating country, with shippers placing stones in tamper-proof shipping crates and providing enough detailed information about their origins to prove they did not originate in a conflict zone.

Wikipedia outlines the U.S. follow-through on the Kimberley Process

On January 18, 2001, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13194 which prohibited the importation of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone into the United States in accordance with the UN resolutions.[16] President Bush on May 22, 2001 issued Executive Order 13213 which banned rough diamond importation from Liberia into the United States. Liberia had been recognized by the United Nations as acting as a pipeline for conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone.[17]

United States enacted the Clean Diamond Trade Act (CDTA) on April 25, 2003,[18] and implemented on July 29, 2003 by Executive Order 13312.[19][20] The CDTA installed the legislation to implement the KPCS in law in the United States. The implementation of this legislation was key to the success of the KPCS, as the United States is the largest consumer of diamonds. The CDTA states: 'As the consumer of a majority of the world’s supply of diamonds, the United States has an obligation to help sever the link between diamonds and conflict and press for implementation of an effective solution.[18]

There’s also, my name, blood trees.

NGO’s, like Global Witness, have studied and written extensively about the deforestation in countries where politicians line their pockets, destroy the culture and ability to survive of indigenous peoples (especially when they represent historic enemies of the regime), multinational businesses share in the profits, and international financial institutions that are supposed to help the poor fund many such projects.

I last wrote about this trade in blood trees, with links,in “Triangle of Death.”

Some in Congress are taking note, but their approach to the problem is not to fund beefed up customs inspections or require certifications, like with blood diamonds, but to enrich their political contributors, lawyers, in suing U.S. companies who usually have little ability to distinguish one tree and its origin from another in an imported finished product.

Senators Wyden and Kerry have introduced legislation that “would ban imports and sale in the United States of timber illegally harvested in such regions and levy fines of up to 10,000 dollars for transgressions.”

However, as the International Wood Products Association points out,

Creating new laws that make U.S. family businesses responsible for law enforcement in foreign countries, while at the same time not giving these companies any way to protect themselves against U.S. government prosecution, does nothing to stop this forest destruction….

Senator Wyden's legislation holds U.S. businesses and their customers personally responsible and subjects them to civil and criminal punishment for any illegal activity that occurs overseas in forests, sawmills, in transportation and through foreign ports thousands miles away from their U.S. business. All of this burden would come without any way for legal importers to protect themselves from this extended liability.

Of course, there’s some self-serving in the Association’s defense, but there’s also self-serving in the Senators’ approach, to enrich lawyers.

Wyden and Kerry’s legislation “would extend the Lacey Act - which prohibits importation of wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws - so it would apply to wood and timber products.”

Instead of monkeying around, Wyden and Kerry should redraft their legislation to model the Kimberley Process and to provide added resources to customs investigators and inspectors.

Doug Usher, at Politico, does a good job laying out the poll stats to ask: “Are voters ready for health care reform?” Usher observes from a number of polls:

Yet while public opinion seems to be driving debate toward congressional-led health care reform, a closer look at the polls shows that the public appetite for fundamental reform -- which could affect the health care delivery system for all Americans -- simply doesn't exist.

Instead, incremental reforms that improve on the current systems are favored. The overwhelming majority of voters are satisfied with their present arrangements, and don’t want to see a government doctor, directed by Hillary as to what and how she and distant bureaucrats prescribe, nor do voters want to pay more for such schemes, nor do voters want to join the queues for care like in England and Canada.

Most Americans aren’t as crazy as some Democrat politicians.

Don Luskin, SmartMoney columnist and proprietor of Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid blog, who can pierce the bloodshot eye of a besotten fool from a mile away, in personal communications finds me not conservative enough. (Incidentally, Don graciously gave me my start in blogging.)

Daniel Drezner, Tufts professor and proprietor of Daniel Drezners blog, probably finds me too conservative.

Getting two, not to mention 1,028 prominent economists to agree on something is a real trick.

I’m not in their league, but my undergrad major was in economics, so I’ll make it 1,029.

In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, 1,028 prominent economists have a full-page ad warning that Congress may repeat the mistake of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, opposed at that time also by 1,028 prominent economists: “They rightly predicted the tariffs would devastate the economy. And, in fact, the country subsequently plunged into the Great Depression.”

The current petition says (Luskin sent me an advance copy; a copy is up at his blog now),

We, the undersigned, have serious concerns about the recent protectionist sentiments coming from Congress, especially with regards to China….

As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy. Conversely, we believe that barriers to free trade destroy wealth and benefit no one in the long run….

There is no foundation in economics that supports punitive tariffs. China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest loans. Retaliatory tariffs on China are tantamount to taxing ourselves as punishment….

Congress hasn’t yet reached that point, but the fear that it might is palpable.

Drezner posits a question:

Clearly, Congress is upset about U.S. trade policy. And when congressmen are upset, stupid policies usually follow.
Here's a multiple-choice question to the proposers of the new China bill:
The American economy is experiencing rising interest rates and worries about rising inflation. Neither of these trends bodes well for average Americans.
What's the best way for Congress to exacerbate this trend?
A) Subpoenaing White House aides.
B) Getting mired down over earmark reform.
C) Fret about Congress' low standing in public opinion.
D) Raise the price and increase uncertainty of import flows?
I'm sure Chuck Schumer, eminent economist, will figure out the correct answer.

Drezner responds to another’s question:

In response to my last post on the rise of economic populism among Democrats (admittedly, one of a long series), Kevin Drum poses the following questions to yours truly:
· Thanks to many decades worth of trade agreements, trade is pretty darn free already. So while trade agreements may not be huge sources of job loss, signing additional trade agreements to get that last 10% of free trade isn't a likely source of huge economic gains either, is it? It seems as though both sides may be making mountains out of molehills here.
…
1) The trouble with populism is (mostly) not abo