Terrorism in Boston: A Marine Tells It To You

Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

That the attackers were radical Islamic extremists from Chechnya was unsurprising as we had killed any number of their brethren murderers in Iraq and the same can be said of Afghanistan.

No doubt some are unsettled by the fact that the two terrorists had lived for a long period in the United States but not I.

Too many modern progressive Americans abandoned the idea that newcomers should embrace the core beliefs that once held the nation together; most obviously a submission to the values put forth in the Constitution. Instead, we replaced those tenets with a dubious form of individualism where “our common bond” came to be defined as superficial social interactions and certain minimal civil behaviors that, as this case so amply proves, allows the vilest of haters to pass as acceptable.

That gets to the crux of the matter: Why do they hate us?

Look to the Constitution as there is no other document that better serves to answer the question as to why radical Islamic terrorists hate America and therefore, any and all Americans. Of course, a quick corollary can be made to expand that hatred to all liberal democracies across the globe. Such is the perceived power and engendered fear associated with freedom and free societies by one-dimensional radicals.

Where to begin? The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the opening ten words defeats the ultimate goal of radical Islamic extremists everywhere: Islam will never be the established religion of the United States and, even worse, other religions not of the Book are not only permitted but treated equally with Islam.

Please do not read too much into this for hundreds of millions of Muslims are comfortable with the Constitution. It is equally true, however, that for Islamic extremists, like Chechen terrorists, the First Amendment is an affront to Allah and justifies the most savage of acts in revenge.

They see this as the wellspring of America’s war on Islam as the First Amendment eats away like a cancer at “true” Islamic values and everything else America does or does not do perpetuates this harm: our freedom of speech, our equal treatment of women under the law (which contradicts the Koran at a number of places, an unforgivable sin against Islam for the extremists), even the Thirteenth Amendment that bans slavery is a sinful act that raises America’s laws above those of a Koran that explicitly states that slaveholding is permissible but not a duty for a good Muslim.

I could go on but you get the point: Modern America’s values are deemed wrongfully incompatible with Islamic beliefs by the extremists and they will wage war against us to end our evil ways. 

We must also remember that their intolerant hate is not limited to America. India is well acquainted with these people’s hatred towards Hinduism. One of my favorite newspaper photo’s addressing this pan-hatred of other religions shows a Buddhist monk wearing his saffron robe in Southeast Asia while holding a placard declaring that, “The world is not just for Muslims” and the 2001 destruction of the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan statues by the Taliban sparked shock and outrage in nations like Japan and Korea. Finally, those who suffer greatest by the hand of Islamic extremists are the millions upon millions of Muslims who do not "measure up."

After having gone to far parts of the globe to combat these “haters,” I feel safe in writing that what sets the Islamic extremist, like a Chechen terrorist, apart from the mainstream is unbridled and arrogant intolerance, unquestioned surety in their beliefs, a conviction that their life is of little importance as heaven is the reward and, since they care not for their own life, the life of their enemy – an endlessly expanding group and the object unthinking hatred – is truly worthless and can be taken without compunction.

Semper Fi,

Mike

The question is raised: If you can't be trusted to make the simple decisions in life (ex, soda container sizes) how can you be trusted in things like voting? BH

PHILOSOPHER KING FOR THE NANNY STATE

Scott Johnson, Powerline

Bowdoin College government professor Jean Yarbrough takes up the case of Bowdoin College philosophy professor Sarah Conly in the RCP column “Zero calories to zero population.” In her RCP column Professor Yarbrough responds to Professor Conly’s New York Times column“Three cheers for the nanny state,” defending Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to ban super-size sodas within his jurisdiction. I think it’s fair to say that Professor Yarborough gives Professor Conly three raspberries, on a scale of 1 to 3.

Conly is a philosopher for the Age of Obama, out to teach us that we are too foolish (i.e., cognitively inept) to take responsibility for our own choices. Despite what you may suspect, Conly’s column is lacking in any hint of irony or satirical intent. She is not out to raise questions about the nanny state utopia. She is out to serve as its philosopher king.

Professor Conly has devoted a whole book to the justification of “coercive paternalism.” Former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, you may not be surprised to learn, has warmly praised Conly’s book in the pages of the New York Review of Books. (Conly nevertheless goes too far for Sunstein.)

So what’s wrong with “coercive paternalism,” or its application to supersize soda? Professor Yarbrough comments:

Conly’s argument does raise important questions about liberty and dignity. For if we are so cognitively impaired that we cannot make wise choices about such minor matters, how can we be trusted with more important decisions? The logic of her argument points toward ever more intrusive government.

In her essay, Conly anticipates the objection that banning large size sodas is just the beginning; tomorrow these same bureaucrats will be telling you to “eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch ‘PBS NewsHour’ every day.” The reason this won’t happen is because sensible paternalism is based on a “cost-benefit analysis; if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law.” Should we be reassured?

Conly’s own research agenda is frightening. On the Bowdoin College Philosophy Department website, Conly states that her next project is tentatively entitled “One: Do We Have A Right to More Children?” In it, she proposes to argue that “opposition to population regulation is based on a number of mistakes: that the right to have a family doesn’t entail the right to have as many children as you may want; that the right to control one’s body is conditional on how much harm you are doing others; and that nothing in population regulation entails that those who break the law can be forced to have abortions, or subject to any sort of punishment that is horrific. If population growth is sufficiently dangerous, it is fair for us to impose restrictions on how many children we can give birth to.”

“Coercive Paternalism” may start with soda, but its reach extends to matters at the core of our understanding of liberty and human dignity.

Like the storied liberals of Bill Buckley’s ideal type, Professor Conly wants to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature of the water. It’s only for our own good. At the least, I should think we ought to be able to take a look at the MMPI on Professor Conly and on those who assume responsibility for the management of our lives.

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)
The Korean Situation (discussion continued below in two more posts)

The latest steps by North Korea have reconfirmed long-held polices by that nation while raising the risks of war to the highest level since the early 1990s.

What we have done right

The actions taken by the Obama administration during the last few weeks have been prudent, important and well founded. Washington has hit an ideal balance of showing strength and clarifying our position to protect the peace while not escalating tensions by making both calm and accurate public statements.

What we do wrong

The ongoing error committed by many, in and out of Washington, is what intelligence professionals call the “mistake of mirror imaging.” Whenever a situation or pending crisis occurs, there are intelligence gaps. The most common and dangerous mistake policy makers can make is to fill the gaps by assuming the other side is some sort of “mirror image” of our self or some other.

For example, if you do not know how local governments are run in country X, the error is to assume they are like American local governments or if you do not understand how their air force trains then you assume they train like the RAF. More dangerously, if you do not have intelligence on their rationale for starting a war or assessing their chances of victory then you assume they think like us. That type of “mirror image” thinking gets people killed.

The Risks

We run great risks in trying to determine what North Korea is going to do for several reasons, but here are the three most important:

First, the intelligence gaps at the North Korean strategic policy level are huge. No other society on earth is more closed and less transparent than North Korea.

Second, there is no other society on earth more determined to wage a war of conquest. The combined policies of Juche, or self-reliance, and Songun, or putting every resource immediately at the disposal of the armed forces, create a radically militarized and warped society.

Third, the disadvantage of a closed society cuts both ways. Virtually every key North Korean leader, especially those in uniform, has a very poor understanding of the United States and the Republic of Korea and is dismissive of the two allies’ military might.

Will there be War?

The greatest unfulfilled dream of the Kim Dynasty is the reunification of Korea under their rule. The “unknown” is how much of a priority the newest Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, places on a war of unification.

It still seems unlikely that Kim will call a meeting to order the army to invade South Korea.

The greater risk is that the Supreme Leader will order an uncontainable military provocation.

The fear is that North Korea will launch a “limited” military strike to trigger a South Korean response by inflicting death and destruction on South Korea. The Great Leader may then decided to escalate the “limited” incident to teach the South Koreans a lesson they will not soon forget.

If the military actions escalate beyond a local strike then the war hawks in North Korea – probably led by recently appointed military commander Kim Yong-chol – will begin to whisper to the Supreme Leader that we must strike now while we are ready and before the South Koreans can mobilize or the Americans come to their aid.

The Consequences

If, God forbid, a general war breaks out and North Korea targets the civilian population in Seoul, then the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women, and children will galvanize the South. There will soon arise a consensus that this can never be allowed to happen again. Outside diplomats, especially those in Beijing, may think a peace with a status quo ante may be possible, but the South Koreans who hold the bodies of their innocent dead children can and will drive the war to a different conclusion: the destruction of the Kim Dynasty.

China needs to understand this and needs to understand that supporting North Korea while South Korean and American soldiers are in battle will fundamentally redefine China’s relationship with the Pacific region and all for the worse. If North Korea begins a general war then the BEST solution for all, especially China, is the destruction of the North Korean regime. A unified Korea under the leadership in Seoul is in the best interests of the Korean people, and would also lead to the withdrawal of US forces on the Korean peninsula, a plus for everyone, to include the rulers in Beijing.

Semper Fi,

Mike

April 4, 2012 (continued from above)

Harry,

The NKs "know" they are tougher than the South Koreans, it is an article of faith and not subject to analysis or reflection. 

Also remember that until the mid-1970s, the NK standard of living was higher than that of South Korea (due to the fact that most of the 1950-1953 war was fought in the south and that Japan built all the industries and production facilities in the north because of access to water and hydroelectric power from the mountain dams they built (like the Chosin Reservoir)).

As for the spies, the message does not get through and here are two quick stories:

The #4 leader in NK, Hwang Jang-yop,  defected in the late 1990s and was flabbergasted at how strong and rich South Korea was -- showing that even the most senior leaders were living in a "dream world." 

On the other end of the spectrum, a special operations commando trained to infiltrate South Korea went on a mission that went bad and was captured at a farm house.

Asked why he did not eat and flee, he explained that he felt he had severals hours to get away as no farmers in NK have telephones in their homes -- only very senior communist party (WPK) officials have home phones.  

His conclusion: It was "impossible" for a South Korean farmer to telephone the police.

From top to bottom, the NKs underestimate their enemy (ROK/US). That is why a war of miscalculation keeps people awake at night: The NKs believe their own propaganda.

Mike

April 5, 2012 (continued from above)

RE: China

You are right, in my opinion, in concluding that China does not currently want a unified Korea under Seoul. My imperfect point was that we need to talk to the Chinese now and let them know where we stand and how that stand can benefit China if they think it through.

If we point out the history of German reunification in the 1990's then they should see that Korea would be tied up "fixing" the north for the next two decades, making it a non-existent threat. Add in the fact that their nightmare about a massive flow of refugees into NE China would go away as N Koreans want to go south plus the advantage mentioned about getting the US military out of the Korean peninsula and they might change their mind.

RE: Influencing NK Leaders

If I learned one thing over three decades of watching NK leaders, it is that when it comes to major policy positions they are going to do what they want to do -- and to hell with everyone else. 

Beyond bizarre extremes (we surrender unconditionally to NK's demands or we declare war on NK), almost everything we do or say is irrelevant on major NK policy choices. Our limited leverage only works when dealing with lower-tier policy issues.

And therein lies the rub.

We, and most of the rest of the international community, keep offering carrots and sticks to modify their behavior on big issues. For NK, if the pursuit of major policy coincides with getting rewarded then fine, they will take it, and if that means getting punished, they will take on that as well.

It is equally true that they will manipulate the negotiations to get everything they can get: Their philosophy is that that there is a sucker born everyday and someone has to fleece the fool so it may as well be NK.

The problem with that reality is that to many onlookers, the acceptance of rewards and punishments creates an illusion that outside influences can modify/change NK's stance on a major policy position, which of course, is untrue.

Add in the American control freaks on the right and left who feel Washington is sole source of world power, and you have a lot people running around with very wrongheaded ideas.

Mike

Sensory deprivation...