Let's see if this still works...

 
CHICKEN HAWKS: Things have calmed down for me, so now I have some time to post some thoughts on one of the current vogue thoughts of the antiwarriors, the Chicken Hawks

A problem with referring to certain people as Chicken Hawks is that the Consititutional provisions that the President be the Commander-in-Chief and that only Congress has the power to declare war virtually guarantees that civilians with little or no military experience are ultimately responsible for military matters. Of course, the Framers wanted that way. Wars could be authorized only by people who were responsible to the voters, rather than a unelected general. This would put a limit on any sort of military adventurism, and have wars fought only when there was support from the public (not that it has always quite worked that way).

Of the 42 men who have been President (yes, I know Dubya is #43, but Grover Cleveland gets counted twice for his nonconsecutive terms), only Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower could conceivably owe their elections to their popularity as war leaders. Even that is kind of iffy: Washington and Grant spent some of their prewar adult lives as civilians. Even Eisenhower may qualify as a Chicken Hawk: A military man who sat out World War I stateside becomes President and threatens a nuclear strike over the stalemate in Korea, and sends in the 101st Airborne to desegregate the schools in Little Rock. That may be a stretch, but if Dubya and Reagan can be considered Chicken Hawks for their combat-free military services, then why not Ike, too?

Of course, there were other Presidents with military experience, such as Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor. There were a series of Civil War veterans in the late 19th century, and, more recently, World War II veterans. However, the Civil War and World War II are uncommon among American wars - wars that required vast amounts of manpower, and where every male of a certain age group can and did serve. If the antiwarriors are looking for veterans to run the government, it may be helpful to fight a huge war every 30 years or so to replenish the supply. I somehow doubt they'll go for that. Of course, anybody interested in becoming a politician can always volunteer for military service. That, however, gives us two problems. First, you'd have to decide early in life to become a politician, which is not something a lot of people do. Second, most of the Presidents with military experience have been officers. Do we really want a military run by people who are there solely to put their time in until they're ready to run for office?

I find the Chicken Hawk argument confused. It appears that the trend in modern warfare these days is to fight small wars against unconventional forces. Even a larger war against Iraq will not require the huge armies that fought some of our previous conflicts. That being the case, the trend will be to have small, highly trained combat forces (not the sort of thing an aspiring future President will likely sign up for) with large non-combat units, either to support the combat groups or to function as some sort of civil affairs unit to act as a government until a civilian foreign government can take over. The fact that war seems to be a less and less popular way to settle disputes is a good thing, but it also means that the people called on to decide when a war becomes necessary are more and more likely to be life-long civilians.

Ultimately, the Chicken Hawk name-calling represents a lot of what I don't like about the arguments of the anti-war folks. Rather than make a case on the merits of not fighting a war, they choose to impugn those who make a case for fighting a war. If there are reasons for not going to war, then state them. If there are no reasons against a war, then calling people Chicken Hawks is nothing more than an admission that one has no moral or intellectual ground to stand on, and so must resort to hurling insults.

 
MARY MCGRORY: From Ms. McGrory's Thursday column on Colin Powell.

Secretary of State Colin Powell goes to South Africa next week to represent the president at a global warming parley, which is being heavily attended by world leaders.

I have two problems with this. (1) It is a summit on sustainable growth, rather than global warming (although I suspect there are those who would find a way to connect the two), (2) it is taking place this week. Indeed, the State Department's Calendar of International Events makes no mention of any global warming parleys. But, again, it is probably safe to say that there are people willing to use whatever soapbox is available to rail against global warming.

It's looking bad when the very first sentence has mistakes...

Having gotten in her digs on global warming, McGrory then moves on to her main topic, which, not surprisingly, is not about Colin Powell. That's one thing I have always found frustrating about her columns - her ability to go off on some subject marginally related to what the column's headline is. I'm not sure who is responsible at the Washington Post for coming up with this, but it might be helpful if they actually read Mary McGrory's column.

Anyway, back to the real topic of the column: Two lawsuits brought by the International Labor Rights Fund, one accusing Exxon Mobil of encouraging terrorism in Indonesia, and the other accusing Unocal of using forced labor in Burma.

Oh, by the way, another McGrory mistake:

If Exxon Mobil was driven away from the wells by protesting peasants, the Chinese might move in and make the millions.

Too late. Exxon Mobil closed down its fields in the Aceh province (the area of the violence spelled out in the lawsuit) in March. Of course, one can't blame Exxon Mobil for doing that - kidnappings, potshots at airplanes; it's a dangerous place.

Both lawsuits are still pending, so all there is in the way of evidence is the ILRF saying that the oil companies do these things, and the companies denying it.

McGrory then gets in a paragraph on the Middle East:

Colin Powell might like to take a hand. He is not heeded on the Middle East, where the president is said to wish to spread democracy far and wide. Bush still has to prove it is not a cover story for his assaults on Palestinians, whom he has instructed to democratize and hold a "free and fair election," which has to come out the way he says. If Powell is asked by ragged Third Worlders whose side he is on, he may get away with saying he's on theirs -- there's no danger of upsetting Ariel Sharon.

Uh, Mary, isn't that exactly what you have been wanting? The American President and Secretary of State, deeply involved with other countries, getting rid of thug regimes that torture, execute without trial, and launch deadly attacks against innocent civilians?

Apparently running out of column space to explore democracy in the Middle East more thoroughly, McGrory moves on to Nigeria, talking about several hundred women taking over a Chevron Texaco plant and threatening to strip naked unless reforms were made. Another McGrory error:

They caught the world's attention, especially after they threatened to take off their clothes, to emphasize their total have-not plight.

Actually, Mary, the disrobing was a threat to bring shame to the men, since public nudity by women is the ultimate shameful act. Imagine it as being the equivalent of a McGrory column appearing in the Washington Times.

Chevron Texaco did finally concede to the protesters' demands, agreeing to build a town hall, schools, and water and electrical systems.

McGrory's main point is that U.S. foreign policy puts profits ahead of people. But, if Chevron Texaco carries through with its promises in Nigeria, and if you believe what Unocal says it is doing in Burma, then the lives of the people there are improving. Of course, doing business in Third World kleptocracies and dictatorships is tricky, but what are the alternatives? Send in troops to overthrow the government, and create a new one from scratch? McGrory's complaints about Dubya's Palestinian remarks would make it appear that option is not viable. Let the NGOs have at it? Such organizations have either put more effort into raising money, or have their efforts blocked by the host governments when such government construe them as a threat.

What people need in the Third World are governments that are more responsive to them, rather than lining the pockets of the rulers. If the elimination of such governments is not viable, then some way is needed to help the people directly that, should the host government try to stop it, would result in an even bigger loss for the government. So, rather than shoot themselves in the foot (or the wallet), the local politicos let the foreigners do nice things. Right now, it seems to me that American businesses are the only organizations capable of doing just that. Of course, if they do violate human rights, they should be punished. But, to just get up and leave would also be a disaster.

It would be kind of nice to hear McGrory propose some viable alternatives to having to business with disreputable people abroad. It is too bad she chooses to spend more time Dubya-bashing than actually solving problems.

 
Slate's Carol Vinzant talks about the ugliness of the the state quarters. The headline doesn't quite match the story, since Ms. Vinzant's message seems to be that the quarters really don't express what makes each state great in its own unique way. Being a resident of Maryland, I would have to say that she hit the problems of Maryland's design right on. A crab would have been much more, uh, Marylandlike. Plus, a state that uses highway funds to fund an antismoking billboard campaign or denies a gun permit to a person on the grounds that he was arrested for something that may have been a felony, rather than an actual felony conviction, certain fits the description of a overweening, omnipresent state.

 
The Strategy Page's James Dunnigan writes on Palestinian suicide bombers, and the steps the Israelis have taken to stop them. One interesting quote:

Namely, the family home of the suicide bomber was destroyed. The bomber usually came from a family that housed several generations in one house (which was often the family's major asset. Before resuming this practice, the family actually profited from the bombing, receiving up to $30,000 for their son (or daughter's) sacrifice. Soon after the house destruction policy went into effect, there were reports of family's forcibly restraining adult children from joining the suicide bombing effort (or reporting the kid to the Israelis, who would then arrest the bomber volunteer.)

It does put some perspective on the pictures of people dressing up their little children as suicide bombers - maybe they're not interested in having their kids become martyrs, but just the cash they bring in.

I've heard and read similar things from cops on the parents of accused drug dealers. The child suddenly starts coming home wearing fancy new clothes and jewelry. Where did he get the money for that? Most jobs that teenagers do don't pay that much, so the obvious answer is that they're engaging in something illegal. Even worse, when the child is shot, the first questions the parents ask the police are things like, "Did anybody take his shoes?"

Of course, I don't advocate bulldozing the homes of suspected drug dealers. For one thing, their victims actively participate in their self-destruction, rather than be unwitting victims like the Israelis. But, it does appear that people are willing to overlook all sorts of sins for the right price, and only when the profit disappears do they react in a way that is more reasonable.

 
A COUPLE OF GUYS WHO NEED TO GET OUT MORE OFTEN: After the Wall Street Journal printed this editorial (it was on OpinionJournal on Saturday, but in the print edition before that), which castigated the "East Coast environmental crowd" for denouncing the President's plan for cleaning up forests to reduce the fire hazard, we get this from Tom Toles and Ben Sargent.

I suspect that Messrs. Toles and Sargent were merely supporting the WSJ's editorial by pointing out the folly of a discredited view point. I could be wrong, though.

 
REPARATIONS ROUNDUP: This past Saturday was the Millions for Reparation rally, which fell about 990,000 people short of the first million. David Horowitz weighs in at the History News Network, and Michael Moynihan was one of the first bloggers to report on Charles Barron's, uh, unfortunate remarks.

So, what does this all mean? The reparations movement really hurt themselves with this. First, they brought in a bunch of racist, loony left types to speak out. Their rhetoric has made it appear that reparations is little more than some fringe element thinking. Then again, maybe the organizers didn't have much choice - reparations aren't much more than a quick fix for black problems and a way to screw whitey, so the people who already think that way will be the most vocal supporters. Second, the lack of a crowd only reinforces the idea that this is a fringe proposal. If nobody cares enough to rally in support of reparations, then is it that big of a deal? It reminds me of the great health care caravan that the Clinton administration was going to use to demonstrate national support for his health plan. Alas, the crowds were small, and often there were more protesters than supporters. Anybody who thought that the polls running against nationalized health care were somehow wrong were relieved of that notion, and the caravan proved to be the final nail in the coffin. This rally may have the same result.