I'm not alone in noting that one of the reasons for the negativity on President Bush being a function of his effectiveness - Nathan of Brain Fertilizer (who goes into the blogroll) wrote on that topic the same day.

When politicians act on hatred of success, they do themselves and their constituents a major disservice. Especially when they act solely on that motivation. The Republicans in Congress were actually able to overcome that under President Clinton. They continued to move on welfare reform, even though in the end it became a political feather in President Clinton's cap. They did it because it was the right thing to do. The Democrats in Congress, and the candidates for Presidential nomination, haven't figured that out. The Democrat opposition to the recent Medicare bill was a case in point. Despite the fact that they wanted it for their constituents, they were willing to attempt a filibuster simply to deny President Bush a victory. Not for a win of their own, just a chance to thwart the President. All of the Democrat candidates should be hoping for US progress in Iraq and continuing growth in the economy, even if it diminishes their own political chances. They should be saying that they, too, send their best wishes to the troops in Iraq, and applaud the President's visit, or at least not criticize it.

But that isn't what they are doing. They are seeing President Bush succeed, and getting crazed. And that's a shame, for them, and for all of us.

Apparently a whole bunch of protestors turned on Jesse Jackson at a protest function. (Thanks to Instapundit for the link.)

The money quote for me?

In response to the reporter asking "Reverend Jackson why he felt like so much verbal venom was aimed in his direction."

"They lashed out at Dr. King, they lashed out at Nelson Mandela, they lashed out at Jesus, so all of those who fight for change become the object of frustration" uttered the Reverend.

You may go and puke now.

In one of my International Relations classes many years ago, we did an exercise where we played a model of nuclear disarmament negotiation. I guess that dates me a bit. In the mid-80's, disarmament was all the rage. We were even talking about it at West Point.

As I recall, the model that we played was something that the actual negotiators did for practice (one of the advantages of the Military Academy, I guess). The rules went like this. Each side got 100 points to assign to various weapon systems, and then the other side got to take away 10 points worth. (I don't remember the details exactly - it could have been more, like 20 or 25.) The basis of the game is like ensuring fairness when cutting a piece of cake in two - one person cuts, the other person chooses. I think we did it for 4 rounds, and the results of each round were fed into a computer (not sure if it was PC or mainframe based at the time) and each move was scored for its effect on the "stability" of the system. We knew generally what factors were said to comprise stability - essentially if one side had something that the other side couldn't readily counter or account for - i.e., if you had something that you could defeat the other side with - then that made things less stable. On the US side of things, the MX missile system and our sub-based systems made things less stable.

That seemed silly to me, trying to negotiate to "parity." I believe in MacArthur's dictum that there is "no subsitute for victory." Our first move kept things in the stable territory, and the guys playing the Soviets did the same thing. But I looked at how they had "priced" their systems, and I saw how we could win - we could take several thousand of their weapons in exchange for getting about 100 or so of our oldest and least reliable systems off the table, while keeping our most modern systems. It took some convincing, but we decided to do what I suggested. It worked as I had predicted, we improved the reliability of the US stockpile, and we got rid of a sizable percentage of the Soviet arsenal in one move. Win-win, in my book. But the computer hated it. We took a nosedive out of the "stable zone," into a danger zone, with that one move.

Well, my team got nervous with that - they wanted to be where the model wanted us to be. So even though I argued that we could essentially halve the Soviet arsenal at little cost to our own, we ended up splitting the difference between my path toward victory and what the demands of stability were. So the next round, we still depleted the Soviets more than us, but we lost what to me were critical assets that we did not have to lose. And the score crept back toward the stability zone, but we were still in "danger." The last round, my team ended up sacrificing to the god of stability, putting the modern systems up cheap, practically giving them away (the equivalent of unilateral disarmament) so that the model thought we were winning. It worked, and we just barely got into the zone. That was the damage my one really good stroke had done to our position.

That bothered me that we were training our negotiators to work not for victory, but for a tie. The assumption was that if there wasn't a tie on the nuclear front, that the side that had the least assurance of being in a tie - i.e., the losers - were going to go ahead and strike first, so even if we had "won" the battle of disarmament, we all lost in the end. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

What made me think of this was a Sally Quinn piece in the Washington Post about Ahmed Chalabi. As happens often in the Post, an article that seems actually insightful about Iraq ends up in the Style section. What struck me was the opening paragraph:

He smiles a knowing smile. He's got this baby in the bag. But then, he always does. That's what makes his detractors crazy -- and his supporters so loyal. Never, they say, underestimate Ahmed Chalabi. It is always a mistake.

Ms. Quinn has wrapped up the core of our supercharged political atmosphere, not just Ahmed Chalabi. Success makes detractors crazy, and supporters loyal. I wrote a few weeks ago about a David Broder column where he praised Bob Michel, the former Republican Minority Leader in the House. Of course Democrats liked him - he was a force for "stability" - permanent rule of the House by Democrats - rather than for victory. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, was about winning, and he did. And he was reviled, and loved for it. President Clinton engendered that same kind of love and hate. Why were his supporters so loyal, his detractors so crazed? Because, agree with him or not, he was successful at achieving his goals. Senator Jesse Helms wasn't just "Senator No," he was Senator "No, not if you don't do it my way." On the flip side, President George H. W. Bush lost on the "no new taxes" pledge, and tried to accomodate the Democrats. He was opposed, not reviled. But he lost.

Generally, I think, the polarizing figures in politics are those that are successful at doing what they aim to do. And that is why we see such division over this President Bush. He has been succeeding in achieving his goals, in this country, with or without Democrats, in the world, with or without the support of France. This drives his opponents crazy, and it makes his supporters loyal.

As pittspilot notes below, the trip to Baghdad was part political theater, and people want it. But people criticize it because it was a sign of victory. And in that, I think we should take heart. Yes, it is disgusting to read what some are saying about it, but the point of it was not to win over the Angry Left, but to boost the morale of the troops and demonstrate American resolve and power. And with those things, we will win.

Bush's campaign Web site already has signed up 6 million supporters, 10 times the number that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has, and the Bush operation is in the middle of an unprecedented drive to register 3 million new Republican voters. The campaign has set county vote targets in some states and has begun training thousands of volunteers who will recruit an army of door-to-door canvassers for the final days of the election next November.

Link from Drudge.

The Democrats are all hip and stuff, but as President Bush used to say as a candidate, "If Al Gore invented the internet, how come all the web sites start with W - W - W?" (Yeah, I know, Gore never said he invented the internet. He just took the initiative in creating it.) The first internet political fundraising campaign I ever saw was for Judge Roy Moore. Yeah, that guy. And it was the first time I ever gave money to a campaign. Plus, Patrick Ruffini is in on this thing.

One of the differences between great Presidents and mediocre Presidents is their understanding of the Presidency as theatre. Carter did not understand this, neither did Ford. If Carter had understood this he would never have made the "malaise" speech, and Ford would have avoided those tumbles. Bush Sr. also did not understand this. Reagan, however, understood this facet of the Presidency better then any other President in the 19th Century, although Clinton understood it as well. Clinton was just not able to pull off the theatrics as well as Reagan (Clinton's visit to Normandy, for example) or used them at inoppurtune times. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky). It appears that GWB understands this as well as Reagan, and may surpass the master yet. While GWB may not have the rheotorical skill of Reagan, he makes it work. And both of them played the role physically as well. Reagan, after Hinkley shot him, and GWB with his landing on the carrier, and this latest masterful piece of political theater, the trip to Baghdad.

The current field of Democrats clearly does not understand this facet of politics. The comments from the group make this quite clear.

Kerry campaign "When Thanksgiving is over, I hope the president will take the time to correct his failed policy in Iraq that has placed our soldiers in a shooting gallery."

Dean campaign "It's nice that he made it over there today, but this visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place."

And so on. (Thanks to Best of the Web for collating the comments in one spot)

Only Gephardt kept his mouth shut.

What the current crop of Democrats do not get, is it that the people of this country, me included, want some political theatre, with our politics. Politics is the grand game played on an international scale. The President is the United States personified. The current occupant of the office of the Presidency has been were other great men have sat. Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and others. I need to believe that the man occupying that office is not an "ordinary" chap. The job is too big and the responsibilities too heavy for an "ordinary" man. We are in a war and we need our Churchill striding through the ruins of a bombed out London. We need our Reagan telling the enemy that they are an "Evil Empire." We need our President to act boldly, to cheer up the troops, to do what we all wish we could do. To liven up the spirits of those brave troops in the line of danger.

Did you hear the cheers of those troops? Did you shed a tear with Bush? Did you smile as wide as those troops did when they surrounded the President? I did. And I cannot imagine any other person vying for leadership doing the same. Clinton may have tried, but it would have come off contrived. Clinton played a role. Reagan lived the role, understood the history, and the symbolism. Reagan respected the symbology of the Presidency. Bush does too.

Now, of course, those on the left will refer to my thoughts as a form of psychological facism. (I just learned about this) Of course, this is a form of propaganda. And as with everything, it can be carried too far. Nazism and facism were political symbology carried way too far. But every society has a need for political theatre. It is part of the glue of our society.

His speech in Baghdad.

I'm with the President, MSG Johnson!

Rich Galen isn't doing the regular Mullings anymore- now its a blog from Iraq. Here's a picture from his travels:

HONOLULU — The United States will reassign some troops from South Korea to Afghanistan and Iraq and shift most of the 7,000 people in its headquarters in Seoul out of the capital beginning within a year, military officials say.

Thought also is being given to disbanding the United Nations headquarters in South Korea and ending the practice of keeping a four-star general in command of operations in the country.

The moves are part of a gradual disengagement of U.S. land forces from Korea and a greater reliance on sea power to maintain the American security posture in Asia.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld flew through northeastern Asia last week, sprinkling clues about the future of U.S. military dispositions even as he reaffirmed U.S. treaty commitments to South Korea and Japan. Other officials filled in details.

A primary reason for pulling back from South Korea is that the United States needs the 17,000 soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division elsewhere. As Mr. Rumsfeld and military leaders have said repeatedly, U.S. forces are stretched thin. The U.S. Army has only 10 divisions and cannot afford to have one tied down in Korea.

Good idea! Of course it's just a start. But who would have thought such a thing at the beginning of this year?

If I ever get around to doing categories, "Some days" will be one of them. For those days where I just shake my head.

Today's headshaker - Chris Muir or Ted Rall? Yep, a "Day by Day" that has hit the Godwin limit, comparing the Bush administration to Nazis. Nice.

Blaster's Blog is the #2 on Google for "monkey bongs"!!

But some days I want to just kick Allah in the nuts.

The Republicans are running their first ad. The Democrats want it pulled. The Democrats think that pointing out that they are critical of the President on the war on terror is somehow questioning their patriotism.

Oh, yes, the old "you can't respond to our criticism with criticism" trick. Truth hurts, I guess.

Then Christopher Hitchens is your man. I mean, who else would write a hit piece on Mother Theresa. And now he's gone after the only American saint and royalty - President Kennedy.

Actually, an interesting piece. But if Hitchens hadn't voluntarily quit the Left, they would have thrown him out for that one.

To help out Kim du Toit. Went to the K-Mart in Herndon, VA, and in the sporting goods area, even though they had a promotional flyer advertising ammo, and hunting gear, and a sign explaining that you couldn't buy ammunition if you were a felon under Virginia law, I find that they no longer sell ammo. K-Mart still does, this particular K-Mart does not. I mean, it's about 11 miles to NRA headquarters from that K-Mart. But then again, maybe its good, because it is only a mile or so from the (former) headquarters of Safa.

At any rate, I failed to acquire 100 rounds of 9mm. I hope Kim doesn't call me a bad name.

I figured the Insta- and Sully-lanche of the Stephen Hayes Weekly Standard article reporting on a leaked classified memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee written by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith would gather some notice from the media. But it hasn't, and even Slate wonders why. The Department of Defense released a non-denial denial, and Hayes has responded. He covers much of the same ground, but reproduces more of the memo:

31. An Oct 2002 [U.S. intelligence agency] report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that two al Qaeda members involved a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11. The US attack on Afghanistan deprived al Qaeda of its protected base and caused its operatives to disperse to many other regions where they would need weapons to arm themselves against the local government security and police apparatus (i.e. Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines). And since the US has been targeting al Qaeda's sources of funding, some cells may need additional money to continue operations.

Holy Schneikeys!!!! I wish that Hayes would just reproduce the whole report.

Andrew Sullivan thinks there is some kind of cover-up going on. It is a good question. The Pentagon's non-denial denial verifies that it is an authentic document. If we have reliable reports like that, how could that blow sources and methods to release it? And then there is also the whole unresolved Atta in Prague thing. And of course the anthrax. This is getting curioser and curioser.

I had heard about the Seattle "not in my name" moron protestors that planned to have a demonstration outside a Tacoma Army base where about 3500 reservists were going to be entering for an Iraqi deployment.

I have been down lately about the American populaces understanding of the stakes involved, and I was terribly angry on hearing this story. Some troops about to leave for Iraq, and the last thing they see on US soil are anti-war protestors.

I was overjoyed to the point of having tears in my eyes to see what actually happened. About 30 anti-war protestors showed up, but more then 4000 people showed up to give support.

Analog Kid has incredible pictures and the great story. Instead of these troops leaving thinking that the nation has turned our back on them, they will know that we support them. Great job to those folks.

The right to sodomy recently discovered by the Supreme Court of the United States now makes for a right to gay marriage in Massachusetts. This engineer's eye sees weirdness in the decision that the state cannot forbid marriage between two persons of the same sex, and yet implicitly assumes that marriage is only between two people. I know that legal types can see things in words that us regular folks can't. I emailed Instapundit about it, but as he gets about a zillion emails a day, I don't expect an answer.

I wonder if there are any legal types around here who have an opinion...

Evidently, parents are still sending their kids to stay with Michael Jackson. I hope they enjoy the money.

The American people are learning a piece of jargon the hard way - experience. This piece of jargon is IED - Improvised Explosive Device. We hear it more often on the news because they are the weapon of choice by those who oppose us in Iraq - that includes the AQ types who have come in from without and the post-Ba'athists. John of Argghhh has posted an unclassified briefing on the IED threat in Iraq, as well as some analysis. He says, in part:

My read, it's going to get worse before it gets better - but it will get better (that's a pure military perspective, the political situation can change all that pretty quickly).

They (the goblins) are learning and adapting. So are we. Right now, I think the goblins are ahead, though not by all that much. As we redirect resources and effort to the problem, it's going to get harder for them to carry out these attacks. That doesn't mean they are going to end, for the goblins are clever to, they will also adapt.

The first thing to take away from the briefing is that this is the very essence of assymetrical warfare. An artillery shell hidden under a pile of rocks, a couple of goons to plant it, one of them sticks around to press the button. On our side, we lose a vehicle, some high tech equipment, maybe a soldier or two. For use to put an artillery shell onto a target, you have to have some watchful eyes on the ground, protected by a ground force, while a battery of gun tubes, supplied by a long train, exists to pull the lanyard. Sure, our SF guys do this with less, but the conventional forces have to have that whole scenario. And if we get a hit, we maybe take out a few bad guys, maybe a fixed facility. That round would cost the US forces tens of thousands of dollars to put it on target (though the incremental cost of adding tens or hundreds more shells to that attack is not all that high). This is what Secretary Rumsfeld meant when he wrote: "The cost-benefit ratio is against us!"

I am actually kind of surprised at how non-advanced these IED's are. They are about as simple as they come - modified military munitions, blasting caps and plastic explosive in the fuse well, and a human being to pull the trigger. That the number of radio controlled devices has increased is a minor technological change, though I imagine the classified version of this briefing has information about the sources of the RF controllers - whether they are military or commercial, new or leftovers from the prior regime. The sourcing is much more important than the technology. And hiding them under a pile of rocks? I expected that the locations of the devices would be more, well, devious.

The point remains, though, that even these very simple means of attacks are effective - the damage done to the M-1 amazes me. And even with a high dud rate, the bad guys are scoring points with the media. For example, the system that was used to attack Wolfowitz's hotel misfired about 80%. It still made an impact, literally and figuratively.

The fact that most of these are command detonated - i.e., someone has to be nearby - and are very simple - i.e., quick to set up - means that the best defense is a good offense. We can't simply defend our way out them. Up-armoring vehicles increases our costs, and doesn't stop the attacks. It will save lives, but you'll still get a picture of a burning truck on CNN. Patrolling the route may have the same effect, but hiding an explosive under a pile of rocks and running a wire doesn't take that long. Stopping to check out every pile of rocks is an even bigger hazard. Now the bad guys just need to pile up some rocks, and they get a perfect setup for an ambush. That is no reason not to take defensive measures, however.

It sounds like a tough situation, and the reason why is because it is. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a problem. I don't know that it gets worse before it gets better, but it doesn't get better until it gets better, and it is impossible to predict when that might be. The important thing remains steadfastness in the face of this. Noone wants to see more of our soldiers killed - except maybe Ted Rall and that lot - but we must see this through. While the Japanese and South Koreans may be skittish in the face of this, the British, the Italians, and the Australians are resolute. And we must be also.

For a number of years during the Clinton Administration, I would repeatedly point out to friends and relatives that I thought the next President would face an impossible challenge. Just as Vietnam put us in a hole against the USSR, the years before 9/11 put us far back in the battle to stop non-proliferation and the rise of Islamofacism. I do not only blame Clinton for this, I believe that Bush Sr. and Reagan also share some of the blame. Reagan's share is mitigated by the fact of dealing with the USSR. However, Clinton must have the lion share of the blame. By the mid-90's the problem had become as clear as the smirk on Clinton's face. The only action Clinton really took, apart from the sporadic bombing of Iraq, was the action in the Balkans. And this may have done more harm then good. However, it did halt the spread of Wahhabism in that region.

In any event, by the time of 9/11, it was very late in the game. Pakistan and India were nuclear. Iran and N. Korea were close. Non-proliferation was breaking down on multiple fronts. The Administration was in a very tight spot. I supported the action in Iraq because I thought it may have the outside shot of stopping proliferation attempts in Iran. However, I think it took too long for us to complete the action, and the pacification of Iraq will take too long for us to consolidate our strategy. In the race to stop non-proliferation, especially for the Islamofacists, we started too late, and put too little into it when we began. The harping by the anti-war crowd did not help either. The Administration tried to make the case. Not as well as I would have liked, but they tried.

I think we are starting to see Administration action recognizing this state of affairs. It is not crystal clear, but my take on events lead me to believe this.

1. I think that Kevin over at Incestuous Amplifications reads that USA article correctly. It does smell like a deal in the works, and the question is why. Kevin appears to think that the Administration is thinking election, and while that is surely a factor, I don't think it is determinative.

2. The myriad of uncontested stories about speeding up returning self-governance to the Iraqis. Along with our allies also beginning to back off.

3. Our lackluster action towards Iran on both the terrorist front and the nuclear weapons front Then there is the apparent split between the UK and the Administration over Iran

The Bush Administration has been remarkably clear up until the war in Iraq. I think they knew that the war was our attempt at putting out the fires of non-proliferation. However, I fear our situation was analogous to those San Diego Firefighters. We have arrived at the fires too late. The tinder, left from years of neglect is there, the resources are inadequate, and a hot wind blows fiercely. And there is no letup in sight. When this thing takes off, it is going to be very, very ugly. I think the Administration is recognizing that they cannot stop the fire. They cannot put out N. Korea, Iran, and deal with Iraq, let alone Syria and Libya. The attack on Iraq did not stop Iran or Syria, and appears to have taught them how to deal with the US. We will not get the UN to deal with the situation in time. The Israeli's also appear to recognize the writing on the wall. Their response also suggests that they are helpless to stop it. Hence the wobbliness that has characterized Israeli policies lately.

Folks, we are losing this phase of the war. I do not want to sound like a defeatist, but I fear we need much more pressure applied to various parts of the world to stop this, and I don't see where the resources to apply that pressure will come from. Do you? If I seem like I want to convinced that everything is hunky-dory, and that we are not facing a hostile and wide ranging enemy armed with nuclear weapons in the very near future, then you are reading me correctly. To me this strongly parrallels the situation in the Rhineland in the 1930's, just with stakes that are much, much higher. I think we are facing the loss of phase one, and a very, very hard and dangerous phase two.

The Administration seems to know this, and is floundering in determining how to go about dealing with a hostile world filled with nuclear armed opponents. I don't blame them for floundering. I am floundering.

Please tell me how I am wrong. I want to be convinced.

David Broder had an op-ed on Veteran's day entitled Wanted: A Few Good Vets. In it he praises the draft for having created support for public schools and artistic events, among other things. And he laments the fact that our elected representatives are not veterans to the extent that they used to be.

But as usual, when you hear a liberal praising the draft, you have to wonder what the real agenda is. And in this case, Broder wants "civility" to return to Washington, and he thinks the draft will do it. He recited this story:

With another Veterans Day in mind, I turned to some words that Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican, delivered at a ceremony in the Capitol four months ago.

LaHood was introducing his predecessor and former boss, retired representative Bob Michel, the former House minority leader, who was one of four past members honored that day.

He spoke of Michel as a teacher whose example could well be emulated by the current generation of lawmakers. And one of the things he said he had learned from Michel was the difference between war and politics.

"Bob knew warfare firsthand -- not war in a Steven Spielberg movie or war fought in the pages of books, but real war." Michel was a combat infantryman in World War II. While still in his early twenties, he fought his way across France, Belgium and Germany. He was wounded by machine gun fire and received two Bronze Star medals for gallantry.

LaHood said that the wartime experience "is the reason he [Michel] never used macho phrases like 'warfare' and 'take no prisoners' when discussing politics with his staff. To Bob, the harsh, personal rhetoric of ideological warfare had no place in his office, no place in the House and no place in American politics. He knew that the rhetoric we use often shapes the political actions we take."

Yes, Bob Michel was the kind of Republican that David Broder likes - the kind that spent his entire legislative career in the minority. During his 14 years as Minority Leader, the Republican caucus never got close, and was never a serious challenge to Democrat dominance of the Congress. So of course Broder prefers him to Newt Gingrich, who is not a veteran, and used pugilistic language in politics. And was the first Republican Majority Leader in 40 years.

And Broder seems a bit hagiographic for the times of those WWII vets in charge of the government, but the truth of the matter is that these guys were in charge for Korea and Viet Nam. I am not saying that being a veteran is a bad thing, but it is clearly not the prescription for good government that Broder seems to remember it as.

Unfortunately, he is not alone in remembering things that way. I have heard G. Gordon Liddy say the exact same thing on his radio show, though I suspect that Liddy is not the sort of veteran that Broder is hoping for in government.

The Republicans are doing a 30 hour debate on judges. I thought that they were forcing Democrats to do a "real" filibuster - make them go through the process of holding the floor to delay debate. But that isn't it at all. This is supposed to be a long debate, and that it will raise American awareness of what is going on. I'm just guessing that folks who watch a lot of C-SPAN already know what is going on. If this is the Republican's "getting tough," I have a feeling that Tom Daschle is right: "We're tougher than they are."

Department of Veteran's Affairs Veteran's Day page. The Army's page. Drop by and read the history of this day. Read Donald Sensing's post. As always, a roundup at Winds Of Change.

If you are a vet (unfortunately not active duty), eat at McCormick & Schmicks.

General MacArthur gave a farewell speech at West Point, his famed "Duty, Honor, Country" speech. A speech for cadets, about officership. And in it, he gave the highest praise to the American soldier.

And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory?

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light.

And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.

Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory - always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country.

The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral laws and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the uplift of mankind. Its requirements are for the things that are right, and its restraints are from the things that are wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training - sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. No physical courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the Divine help which alone can sustain him. However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country, is the noblest development of mankind.

Read or listen to the whole thing.

Instapundit links to a TCS article suggesting that the United States should employ "white hat" terrorists to test our airport security systems, the idea being to introduce a free market answer to security. Kind of like white hat hackers who use their computer skills to determine vulnerabilities for corporate computer systems, rather than for getting their jollies or stealing or destroying corporate data.

One of the bad things about having been on the bomb squad is that I know how to blow things up. In order to take bombs apart, you have to know how to make them. I know what I could do with my knowledge, but I'm a good guy. Part of my job then was do a little white hatting. Among our tasks was to train the military baggage screeners what to look for on their X-ray devices. Some of my guys did this and had some prepared packages and bags to send through. Some were fake bombs, some were common items that looked suspicious, and some were just regular carryon bags, clothes, toiletries, etc. Oh yeah, and a loaded .45. That bag went right through.

It wasn't technically in our purview - we were training for bomb awareness. But that pistol made it through the screeners anyway. And they knew for sure that there were things to look for in the prepared bags and packages.

Because of this, I think that white hat terrorists for profit is a bad idea. It is impossible to stop everything. A clever individual could create quite a little cottage industry in getting stuff past screeners. There is no doubt that in the absence of real terrorists to catch, these fake terrorists would become a priority. And these fake terrorists won't be doing what the real terrorists would. A stage prop gun is not a real gun. The visualization in the X-ray is only part of the detection scheme. Ever have the screener take your bag, wipe it with a swab and stick it in a machine? They are checking for chemical telltales that would point to explosives or ammunition. A stage prop gun won't give off those telltales. Besides, I am not sure when the last hijacking in the US occurred with a gun, but it has been a long time. If we set our screeners up to look for things the terrorists aren't doing, then they will miss the things they are doing. Because white hat terrorists trying to bring home a bounty aren't trying to be terrorists, and they don't share any of their goals or necessarily their techniques.

I think that Flight 93 put an effective end to the idea of terrorists using passenger airliners in another attack. The latest word is that they are thinking of using cargo planes from outside of the US. What bounty would be set on that? How about when someone came up with something that wasn't on the approved bounty list? That Heatwole kid that the author praises brought clay and bleach in a suntan lotion bottle on board the aircraft along with those boxcutters. Should we have a security policy that stops suntan lotion from coming on board? What would be the bounty on that?

I believe in the free market, but this is a bad application of it. The wrong things will be incented, and our security priorities will not be set by intelligence and threat, but by folks trying to make a buck.

But Kim du Toit is right:

Fashionista Patrick McDonald wears a jauntily cocked hat with his skirt at the reception for "Bravehearts: Men in Skirts." (Helayne Seidman - For The Washington Post)

Over at SGT Hook's, an EOD story (linked over from SGT Stryker):

This is Asberry's 14th IED disposal and he's due to rotate out soon. Another EOD man was recently killed at his work. It's hard to believe that anyone would want this job, but Asberry says he loves what he does. Admission to the seven-month-long school to qualify as an assistant is highly competitive.

Most of the soldiers of the 299 Engineers Battalion in Tikrit are interested in explosives. They do a lot of blowing up weapons caches around here, ranging from small arms to huge surface-to-air missiles and even jets, which have been found wrapped and buried underground, usually hastily and shallowly.

These guys have brass balls. Hook out.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. To me, those guys who jumped out of planes into enemy fire were the brave ones. And the guys who flew the helicopters. Oh, and the tankers. And all the rest. Blowing stuff up was just what we did. It was a cool job, but it was our job. I dunno if we were brave or just nuts, really. I mean, we think this kind of thing is actually funny:

At any rate, Hook is right - lots of bombs don't go off. And its because of guys and gals - EOD is not a combat position, so women are on the bomb squad - like these that a lot of them don't.

We get some here, but it's limited. What I think is weird is that this post keeps getting comments for penis enlargement.

I used to intensely dislike Christopher Hitchens, but he has changed.

His comments and restatement of the case for the War on Iraq are compellingly lucid and clear.