Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings:
(Part I of II)

[Update: I made a few revisions to the originally posted material including the addition of a footnote. -ISM 8/15/08 1:00pm]

As a prefatory sequence of sorts, here are the threads preceding this one which are applicable in some form or another:

On the Atomic Bombings of Japan--Part I by "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

My Preliminary Musings on the Anniversary of Hiroshima, on Revisiting This Subject, and on "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

Some Additional Musings on the Subject of the Atomic Bombings Subject and the Importance of Doing My Part to Facilitate Potentially Fruitful Dialogue (circa August 7, 2007)

Principles of Proper Dialogue -Part of a 2007 Joint Declaration by Shawn and "Blackadder" (circa August 10, 2008)

There is also the second part of the response "Blackadder" which he posted on the anniversary of Nagasaki (August 9, 2008) which I will link to soon. But first is my response to his posting from August 6th in its entirety. The words of "Blackadder" words will be in dark green font with any quoted sources in that same font italicized. My sources will be in dark blue font. Without further ado...

A little over a year ago, Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum issued a challenge to Catholics to debate him on the morality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of WWII (he was pro). I accepted the challenge, and we emailed back and forth about logistics, and I prepared an initial post setting out the against side of the question. Unfortunately the proposed debate never ended up happening, for reasons that I won’t go into now.

It is not so much that I am "pro" atomic bombing but in terms of dialogual or debate positions, in the situation so noted I do take a position of advocacy for their usage. Nor will I go into the reasons at the present time for why the original dialogue did not pan except to note that the challenge was a dialogue not a debate but that is neither here nor there as long as the same principles are adhered to in either format; namely, those set down in the posting from August 10, 2008 as linked to in the preamble of this response.

Since today is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I thought I would post what would have been my initial contribution to the debate. As it is rather long, I have broken it up into two parts.

I will endeavour if at all possible to respond in two parts for the sake of uniformity.

During our email exchange, Shawn and I had agreed that, in order for the bombings to be justified from a Catholic perspective, it had to be the case both that:

1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of civilians; and

2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

I was willing to approach it from these two points this is true but these are not the only points on which I view this action as having some justification. Nor I might add did I exhaust or fully develop all the arguments that can be advanced for my position either in 2005 or in 2006. However, as "Blackadder" was willing to meet the criteria I set down for public dialogue on these matters and was least willing to present some fixed points of reference rather than a bunch of unsubstantiated emotionalist laden assertions and blatant fallacious attempts at appealing to authority (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam){1}, I agreed to approach the subject through those prisms for the sake of seeing a productive dialogue on these matters coalesce.

I should also note that I actually did not agree with the wording of one of the above points of reference and suggested an alternative at the time. When apprised of what we agreed upon in the precise wording thereof, "Blackadder" graciously made a public correction in the following clarification posted at the end of the note which I will quote at this time:

UPDATE: References in the above post to “civilians” should refer to “noncombatants.” My apologies. Shawn, who was originally to be my interlocutor, offers responses here.

I appreciate this clarification being made when it was brought to his attention. I believed when I did so that the misrepresentation was unintentional and therefore gladly accept his apology on the matter. I will endeavour to explain a bit about why I use this distinction which to some may appear to be a matter of semantics when indeed it is anything but. But first the intentions of this part of "Blackadder's" response needs to be considered...

This post addresses the first condition, and argues that the bombings did, in fact, involve the intentional targeting of civilians. In the second part, I will argue that the second condition, proportionality, was also not met.

One of the points that I made repeatedly in 2005 and 2006 but which none of my critics wanted to deal with is the issue of military conscription. I will note in a footnote some of the bits from that point where the matter was covered in 2005{2} and 2006{3} before dealing with this factor as I decided to reinforce it further in a posting from 2007 -the latter of which I will now quote at length:

[T]here is a mistake when discussing the subject of warfare with classifying people simply as "military" and "civilian." I will admit to having done this at times in the past but I also did so under the assumption that people would properly understand the murky nature of how these categories really existed in wartime Japan. However, since this has not happened as I had hoped, it seems appropriate in lieu of a recent dialogue challenge on the subject in question to tend to this key point; ergo the reason for the post you are now reading.

There is not in many circumstances the fine line in this area that people may like. For example, there is the talk about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "civilians" when in fact most of them were conscripted{1} and thus properly recognized as "military." But even with those who were not conscripted, does that make them immediately a "civilian" which by its very usage implies non-combatant status??? For those who are familiar with the situation of wartime Japan, the answer to this obviously is no.

Indeed I use and have used the following principle as an acid test of sorts to know if a person I am discussing these matters with should or should not be taken seriously:

--Is a little child with bombs strapped to it who is instructed by their parents to walk up to a soldier and detonate the bomb a "civilian"??? How about if they are trained to roll under and try and blow up a tank???{2}

The brief answer to these questions is "no", the long answer to them is "hell no." The proper distinction to be made here is not "military" and "civilian" but "combatant" and "non-combatant." And the examples above as well as others which could be noted{3} coalesce to paint a reality about the situation there which the overwhelming majority of commentators on this subject do not get. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa July 31, 2007)]

Here are the footnotes from that text:

{1} All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 6, 2005)]

{2} See footnote one.

{3} See this link which was appended to a footnote in my August 17, 2005 posting on Hiroshima. (It is in footnote six and reviewing my accompanying commentary on it for the context in which it was used would also be advised.)

I will for the sake of keeping this response reasonably short not unpack all the factors involved in the above referenced material. Suffice to say, this matter is one involving a lot of factors and is not done justice by the simplistic approaches so many would apply to it. (And which "Blackadder" to his credit has not done.)

It’s true that there were military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this fact alone does not establish that the bombings did not target civilians. Suppose that we are in battle and you are taken captive by an enemy solder who is using you as a human shield. Unfortunately for him, I really dislike you and have been plotting your death for some time. I think to myself “Ah, here’s my chance to get rid of Shawn!” So I throw my hand grenade at you and kill you both. In this scenario, I have intentionally killed you. The fact that I also intentionally killed an enemy solder might provide a pretext for my action, but it doesn’t change the fact that I really did intend your death. Likewise, if the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the purpose of killing civilians as well as enemy solders, then the fact that there was a military base in Hiroshima does not alter this fact, and will not serve to justify the bombing.

However well his analogy works for the first example, it does not for the second because of the precise nature of the point in which I took issue with the first of "Blackadder" theses initially: the use of the term "civilian." The readers can peruse the parts referenced in the material of my last comments to understand that this was not as simple as "targeting civilians" as "Blackadder" has (undoubtedly in good faith) presumed.

To start with, the lions share of the population (basically everyone between roughly fifteen and forty-five) were conscripted. Furthermore, even those not falling under this classification were trained to attack soldiers with anything they can get their hands on. Even small children were taught to strap bombs on themselves and roll under tanks. This is why I insisted at the outset on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants" and thus be properly viewed as unlawful combatants and not "civilians" in the proper sense of the latter term.

If we look at the minutes of the Target Committee meeting where the initial list of targets for the bombing were drawn up we see that Hiroshima was selected as a bombing site not despite the civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, but specifically because of those deaths.

Here is what the report said about Hiroshima:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

There is a lot in that paragraph but I will try to avoid excessive post length and unnecessary tangents by unpacking it at this time.

The meeting minutes state that “for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.” The minutes also cite Hiroshima as being a particularly good target because it “has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed.” Likewise, the Interim Committee, headed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and created by President Truman to deal with the bomb planning, agreed in its May 1945 meeting that “the bomb be used without prior warning against Japan at earliest opportunity, the targets to be a military target surrounded by workers houses.”

"Blackadder" quotes the minutes of the meeting accurately but I want to briefly touch on this to contextualize them. The concern with regards to the bomb drop was insuring that it would not be wasted -this is what the report meant when it set down the principle that "for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb." As Hiroshima was the initial usage of the weapon, this explains why it was used as it was in that respect.

Another reason it was important to inflict as much damage as possible with the weapon was that there was not a proliferation of supply of these things yet the impression needed to be given that there was. This was not only the case as far as attempting to break the will of the Japanese and hasten an end to the war but also to make a statement to the Soviet Union: yes there was more than one message being sent with the usage of the bomb.

As for not giving notice of the bombing, I will deal with this as well later on.

Far from being an unintended side effect, then, the death of a large number of civilians was part of the reason that Hiroshima was selected as a target site.

There were a variety of reasons for the selection of Hiroshima as a target site. As far as the status of the population there, again, I point the reader to the distinction on this made earlier as when the terms are properly understood.

Now it’s true that President Truman did indicate in his diary entry for July 25, 1945 that the bomb was going to be used against a “purely military” target. It’s not clear to me whether this was a rationalization on Truman’s part, or whether he was duped or just didn’t comprehend what it was that the people who planned the bombing were telling him, but the entry is clearly not an accurate reflection of how the bombing occurred.

Readers can consider a city fortified with significant military installations{4} not counting the building of various munitions which was taking place in private residences throughout Hiroshima{5}, the presence of a quarter of a million soldiers{6}, an overwhelmingly conscripted population{7}, and what was noted earlier in this thread about the training and mentality of even those who did not fall under the status of conscription{8} as to whether what was being dealt with could be rationally styled as a "purely military" target or not.

Truman says that the target was “purely military” (which it wasn’t)

This is at a minimum a controvertible proposition for reasons I noted in the previous paragraph.

[A]nd that the U.S. was going to “issue a warning statement” prior to the bombing (which it didn’t).

But indeed a warning statement was issued. If "Blackadder" would like, I will track down the pamphlet text and present it to him. I point the readers at this time to what President Truman noted in a December 1945 letter to a Dr. Compton on an article written for The Atlantic Monthly on the use of the bombs. Here is the relevant part of that correspondence:

"The Japanese were given fair warning..."

And in the case of Hiroshima, they were warned. While the evidence itself may not change his overall view on the subject, I trust at the very least "Blackadder" would revise the statement he made about there being no warning given upon being made privy to it.

Personally, I’m inclined towards the dupe scenario. When Truman saw the photographs of the Hiroshima aftermath on August 10 (the day after Nagasaki), he ordered a halt to any further bombing, saying that he couldn’t bear the thought of killing “all those kids.” And in 1948, he discussed the matter with Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David Lilienthal, who quoted him as follows:

I don’t think we ought to use this thing [the A-Bomb] unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that (here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively) that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon. (I shall never forget this particular expression). It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.

The problem with this quote is it is after the fact and at a point where it is possible that President Truman was having some issues of conscience due to what happened. Who in his position would not have in the immediate aftermath of such an event??? However, Truman with the passing of time did not change his mind on what he viewed was the correctness of his action even if in the final years of his presidency he did at times lament some of the effects of the choice he made.

It appears that Truman went from a position of certainty in the heat of the war which (after it was over) he had some struggles of conscience about pertaining to the derivative effects of those events. The certainty of 1945 and 1946 was replaced by 1948 of some regret as to the effects of the bomb -a view that carried through the remainder of his presidency in 1953.

However, it is similarly evident if you review the statements and correspondence after Truman left office that he had after time and reflection ceased to have such waverings on the matter -review his writings after 1955 to see precisely what I am referring to.

In any event, since Hiroshima was selected as a bombing target specifically because of the high number of civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, the first condition is not met.

As I have demonstrated that the classification of much of the Japanese population of Hiroshima as "civilian" does not meet the proper understanding of this term, the first condition "Blackadder" presented far from not being met is actually sustained. Before moving onto part two in the coming days, I want to thank "Blackadder" for his refreshingly rational and charitable approach to this delicate and often emotionally-charged subject matter.

Notes:

{1} Essentially, I realized through experience on the issue in question the Pandora's Box that is involved in discussing it. Part of the reason for this is the emotions that an issue such as this can have. With the overall lack of anything resembling rational thought and logical analysis of issues in society at large, I should have realized that such a situation could have occurred which did but alas, I was naive in trusting friends to act as friends. And when considering the number of times this subject has been on the verge of being rehashed in the past year -and how I have managed to skirt it through a proper appeal to principled rationale[...] the time has come in my mind for a careful reappraisal of my normative approach to this matter.

As much as I tire of hearing about this issue[...] from the usual suspects[...], it also stands to reason that no subject can be shut off from being discussed indefinitely. For those reasons, and to insure that the subject is neither (i) completely neglected or (ii) handled in the embarrassing fashions to which I have unfortunately witnessed on not a few occasions, I will despite my reluctance agree to discuss it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]

{2} Again readers, I have not merely made assertions as to Hiroshima being a military target (as [XXXX] has in saying it was not) but I have actually set forth arguments and stated evidences that anyone can verify. And while I could draw out this post with yet further reinforcements of my assertions, I will remember my readers and their patience and stick to one for now: Wikipedia. This is generally a source I do not like for various and sundry reasons but I will use it as a lawyer uses a “hostile witness” in court to point out some facts on this matter that seem to elude my good (but misinformed) friend [XXXX]:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force. [Wikipedia: Entry on Hiroshima]

I will return to these points later on when delving into my copy of American Caesar and pointing out where Doug Long is deceptive in quoting the source. But before doing that, let us deal with the subject of conscription since it also changes the landscape of this issue and is a detriment to [XXXX's] argument:

The opposite of voluntary enrollment is conscription, carried out by the nation-state. The resulting military force lacks the moral characteristics of a volunteer army; it is essentially a machine requiring severe discipline, its cohesion being maintained by the threat of punishment. Its great problems, desertion and slackness among the troops, can be kept within bounds only by strong organization and leadership…

[Most often], conscription is part of a program of universal military service accepted by the public and carried out in cooperation with it. [Encyclopedia Brittanica Fifteenth Edition: Excerpt from War, the Theory and Conduct of Macropaedia Volume XXIX, pg. 705 (c. 1985)]

Obviously, where you have conscription taking place of giant chunks of the population, that changes the dynamic of a key point of the argument altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

There was also this addition to the above material:

The best and most obvious place from which to start this examination in my humble opinion is with the Supreme Commander of the Pacific himself one General Douglas MacArthur. Doug Long starts his quote-fest by quoting from American Caesar which was William Manchester’s well written biography on the man. As I happen to own the very same William Manchester biography of General MacArthur being cited, I will deal with that source first. Starting on page 510, the following is outlined after discussing the inter-service rivalry between MacArthur, Le May, and Nimitz, the following words from pages 510-511 of American Caesar set the stage for putting Doug Long’s quote into proper context:

Hirohito’s generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for “Ketsu-Go,” Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation’s ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen –a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]

I have already discussed the concept of military conscription in part I of this thread so readers need to account for what was noted there when reading the above words from Mr. Manchester's book. From there the book discusses a dovish contingent that was also present. According to the book (pg. 511) everyone MacArthur talked to in the War Department believed that Japan could hold out for at least two more years. From there, the book quotes some Japanese persons with retrospect statements about how “Japan was finished” all of that is towards the end of page 511 leading into page 512 where the citation from Long is made. I will interact with these quotes shortly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

{3} [I]t is not only arguable that more lives were saved than lost, it is an indisputable fact as anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of the war situation in Japan during WWII is well aware. Secondly, the idea that there were all of these "innocents" in Japan and that their deaths was a means to achieve the end (rather than a derivative effect of the action taken) is also misguided. All that is required is for the good effect to be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. And with most of the populace in Japan under conscription, there were very few who could be called "innocent" and even with those that were who died it does not get in the way of a proper understanding of the principle of double effect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 23, 2006)]

{4} To note a couple of the earliest examples from these archives:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets as a result of the voluminous output of military equipment and munitions that was done in those cities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

I already noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military centers of wartime Japan where carriers, aircrafts, torpedoes, and other munitions were built; ergo they can be properly considered military targets. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{5} As you may know, there [were] munitions being built in individual houses as well as in plants in the towns of greater military significance (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I am unaware of any similar phenomenon in America during the war -I mean there were "victory gardens" as we know and the saving of resources for the war effort. However, there is a difference between food and the materials for potential munitions and machinery and the actual construction of such things from the materials themselves in housing units. However the conventional lines are blurred by the situation in wartime Japan, this is one line that I feel is of no small importance though (due to what else was covered in my own arguments) I did not raise this issue as yet another argument for my position. (There were a few arguments I either did not include or barely touched on as I only have so much time and when virtually no one wanted to have a civil dialogue on these matters, I saw no reason to expend the additional time on the matter delving into other matters.) [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa July 5, 2008)]

{6} There were 10,000 military aircraft targeted for Kamikaze missions against the US military along with roughly a quarter million or more soldiers in Hiroshima alone. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{7} See footnotes two and three.

{8} I noted this earlier in the present posting both in the text as well as in a footnote quoting something I wrote back in 2005. (See the quote from Manchester in footnote two.)

On Principles of Proper Dialogue:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)


I have decided to post this thread for reasons already noted on this weblog and to put into context any responses I make to the material posted back on August 6th to the web by "Blackadder." (Thus far, I have written two postings on the subject -one on August 6th and one on August 7th but they do not deal with the substance of the arguments advanced by "Blackadder.") Before tending to that, I wanted to follow up those preliminary postings with a text comprising most of what was at one point going to be a joint declaration preceding his opening statement on a dialogue we were going to have but which real life unfortunately intervened on last year. So with certain omissions to the text pertaining to specific applications for that project (and which are noted in the aforementioned posting), here is the part dealing with general dialogual principles for those who are interested in seeing some of the principles that make me tick when engaging others in the arena of ideas. Without further ado...

The purpose of this joint statement of principles is to accompany the dialogue on the atomic weapon usages of 1945 as proposed by Shawn and accepted by "Blackadder." We want to in issuing it highlight some principles that we both believe are essential for proper discourse on any subject. This posting therefore will serve as the start of the dialogue and will encompass both general dialogual principles as well as particular applications of procedure for the dialogue we intend to undertake in the coming weeks.

General Dialogual Principles:

It is with no small degree of chagrin that we take a jaded view of the lacuna in modern life of genuine dialogue. The latter when properly understood is both difficult and also potentially rewarding. Most definitely it is not aimless bantering or a series of monologues as much of what passes today for "dialogue" actually is. Instead, dialogue properly conceived and carried out contains a dynamic constituent to it.

As Catholics we are the beneficiaries of ancient truths which to some extent admit of variations in application depending on particular times, circumstances, etc. However, there are also core principles which do not admit of an expiration date and which sadly we see given little if any accounting these days in much of what passes for public discourse. The degree of ignorance of people (some of whom considering what they claim for themselves should know better) of fundamental principles of proper conduct is appalling. There are however two ways to deal with this. We can either curse the darkness or try and light a few candles. With this statement of joint principles as well as the dialogue to follow, we intend to aim at the second approach.

We have an interest both for ourselves individually as well as to assist the common good generally in handling this matter in accordance with principles that are at the core of how Catholics should conduct themselves when confronting another person with opposing views. But these are not principles which are strictly speaking matters of faith only. We believe faith and reason cannot contradict and that reason is a natural light given to us all by the Creator as one way we are made in His image. It is therefore a crime to denigrate reason the way many people do and sadly, not a few Catholics fall prey to this.

We intend in this dialogue to show a proper respect for the rigours of proper logic and reasoning while doing our best to set an example for others of how a dialogue should be conducted. We trust that readers will see if they are of good will that in the sources about to be cited, while of an authoritative character for Catholics, the principles being touched on are and should be by logical extension universal. For example, there should be a general principle of what is and is not a dialogue and how one is properly conducted. We intend to propose one in this thread which will serve as a point of reference for us in the following undertaking but which has an applicability which we believe is universal.

The ancient concept of dialogue was codified by Pope Paul VI in his inaugural encyclical letter as "[the] internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity" (Ecclesiam Suam). It therefore must have charity at its core which St. Paul declared was "patent, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, seeks not its own interests, is not quick tempered, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, does not brood over injury, does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (cf. 1 Cor. xiii,4-6).

So if dialogue has at its core charity and all that term encompasses, this by logical extension means that the parties actually listen to one another. Clarifications if requested by one party are complied with by the other. If in the process, someone encounters a principle, an argument, an approach to something different than what they have seen before, it involves considering that information and seeking as far as possible to assimilate it into the matrix of their own view to the extent they can. It may even require modifying one's view either in part or wholly.

Dialogue is indeed all too rare today because it takes genuine effort and shuns the kinds of strawman caricatures, sound-bytes, etc. that play into what passes for much of modern discourse. Pope Paul noted that the following characteristics should accompany a dialogue and we note them here as principles that we will endeavour to follow at all times on the subject before us as much as any other.

First of all, dialogue requires by its very nature clarity or as Pope Paul noted "the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We will strive at all times to be intelligible to both each other as well as the readers of what we will present.

Second, dialogue requires a degree of humility because as Pope Paul noted "[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity" Ecclesiam Suam 81).

We will certainly strive to persuade others to give consideration of our positions as they will be outlined. We will also in recognizing these principles not make a demand on each other or others -viewing what we will say and how we shall say it as either standing or falling on its own merits or lack thereof.

Third, dialogue requires a confidence by both parties "not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We expressly recognize in each other the good will to dialogue and would ask of those reviewing what we will present the same courtesy as well.

Fourthly, dialogue requires adaptation to the characteristics of the audience or "allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). This is a difficult areas to navigate because people's understanding can vary significantly; we will however do our best which is all anyone can do really. Having noted the principles and procedures we intend to follow, a bit needs to be said on the subject of criticism itself.

Society today has an overly critical component to it that often seems to want to criticize as if the latter is an end in and of itself instead of a means to an end. Fundamentally and in principle, neither of us has a problem with criticism -indeed we intend to criticize the positions of the other on the subject in question. But we do not intend criticism for the sake of criticism as that is of no value. In a dialogue, criticism can suit a useful purpose to enable people to explain themselves better, to account for weaknesses in one's position, etc. and therefore be of a constructive nature. It can also give people cause to reassess their views and (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) "question a bit of their own infallibility."

We are both willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong and indeed it would seem strange for us to expect either each other or anyone reading what we write to reconsider their views where ours may be different if we somehow were unwilling to do the same thing ourselves.

Another problem of modern life is the loss of a habit of mind that allows differentiation of arguments from quarrels with the result that disagreements or attempts at correction tend to be destructive rather than constructive. This is a trap we intend to avoid to the best of our abilities.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

It does not take long for things to change for someone -consider the example of comedian Bernie Mac in these two articles from April 7th and April 9th respectively:

Mac in stable condition, expects release in weeks

Actor, comedian and exasperated dad Mac dies at 50

Things can turn that fast and one of my favourite modern comedians has now passed on. Rest in peace Bernie and may your comic legacy live on.

Miscellaneous Threads and Musings:

To supply a brief reprieve from the subjects of the two most recent threads via the Times Online...

Tribute to Aleksandr Solzhentisyn

Many today may not know about him but he was convicted without a trial of being critical of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin and spent eight years in the Soviet gulags. Upon emerging he wrote in a variety of ways about the experience as well as what it was like to live under a genuine tyrannical regime.{1}

Whatever one wants to say about the complex man that was Aleksandr Solzhentisyn, he was at bottom a man who stood on principles and suffered for them. His Gulag Archipelago should be mandatory reviewing for any naive promoter of communism's lesser-developed cousin socialism in any of its current or past manifestations.

Georgia 'downs two Russian warplanes' as countries move to brink of war (Times Online)

Georgia says Russian tanks mean 'war' in South Ossetia (Times Online)

There is a reason why I started this thing off with the part on Solzhentisyn because it helps those who may have forgotten (or do not know) of the sordid past of the former Soviet Union of which Russia was among the principle parts thereof.

And finally, from the formerly explicitly communist{2} to the still communist, the Olympics have opened in China and I will watch not a single event in a kind of protest against the human rights atrocities committed by China.

Notes:

{1} Briefly to Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers: no, the current presidential administration in no way whatsoever is a tyrannical regime however much you may delude yourselves into thinking it is.

{2} I have never been so sure that there is not an implicit communism involved still in some nations of the former Soviet Union (particularly Russia) but that is perhaps a subject for another time perhaps.

I originally put up a notifications post back on August 4th a variety of posting projects I intended to complete before the end of this current blogging cycle. And as with all intentions, they are sometimes sidelined by events or circumstances that cannot be foreseen at the time they are enunciated.

In the case of the projects noted in that thread, they have had to be sidelined for the next blogging cycle either wholly or in part because one of the very few individuals who contacted me last year possessing both the rational and charitable equipment to be worth dialoguing on the subject of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.{1} They contacted me unexpectedly the following day mentioning that they planned to post what was once going to be their opening statement on that venture to the web on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.

Upon their courteous notification of this intention, I did not have time to say much; however saying something seemed appropriate nonetheless. For that reason, I responded to this turn of events publicly except with yesterday's outline posting where this matter was discussed. In the interest of fairness, I wanted to balance my disappointment with the many online Catholics with apologetics pretensions who could not even make it out of the starting blocks to discuss this subject intelligently as well as charitably with the few who in my estimation could -as well as give some props in particular to the individual I chose to pursue that non-realized (at the time, unfortunately) ambition.

So the purpose of this posting is to shelve the projects outlined on August 4th until at least the 22nd and in the meantime to do my part to supply the counter position. I had dismissed from my mind the intention of saying anything on this subject in the current year but then these points were reflected upon which gave me sufficient cause for reconsideration.

--If it is ever to be discussed and be a "live issue" then it is at this time of year.{2}

--Merely cursing the darkness in light of the legions who approach these matters with not only insufficient knowledge but questionable ethics is an inadequate way of seeing such things eventually remedied if there is to be any possibility (however remote) of that happening.

--When someone is willing to go over these matters without the usual hysterics, misplaced accusations of "unorthodoxy" or "disobedience", and overall lack of principles such as charity and ethics, then there is an obligation to do so in the interest of furthering the cause of principled, ethical, charitable, and just downright honourable dialogue.{3}

So for those reasons, I have suspended the previously outlined projects either wholly or in part to tend to this matter and some other ones with the latter being of significantly smaller scale or requiring much less effort and resources than the former.

Notes:

{1} I outlined a format for a possible dialogue back on July 22nd and Mark and numerous others fell so seriously short of qualifying that they almost made a prophet out of me yet again. I say almost because I did actually receive a communique a few days back from someone who has expressed interest in a dialogue on these matters and I am in the process of setting an agreeable parameter down for seeing if this can occur. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 6, 2007)]

{2} Namely, the month of August at least the first half of it anyway.

{3} This is always the hardest to find in direct proportion to either the complexity of the subject in discussion and/or the passions that said subjects can stir up in the people who discuss them as a rule.

As today's anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was fast approaching, it had been brought to my attention by the individual I was going to dialogue on these matters last year{1} that they intended to post what was going to be their opening statement on the matter to another website. I had intended to spend the actual anniversaries of those events this year not commenting on the events until the anniversaries themselves had passed but it seems appropriate to say something at least briefly on this circumstance and the individual involved.

Admittedly after the experience of the two years previous to 2007{2}, I had gotten to the point last year at this time where I had decided that if this issue was going to be discussed by me at all in a public fashion that a serious vetting process was in order to make sure I was not going to waste my time on anyone not worthy of dialogue. As a result, I jadedly posted a challenge to any Catholic who wanted to dialogue on those subjects who could fulfill the most rudimentary of criteria for not only a potentially fruitful endeavour but in doing so actually give me reason to reconsider my reluctance to revisit this subject again in light of the way I had seen some people I once respected disgrace themselves on this subject in past years. Predictably some who were neither ethically nor intellectually equipped to discuss this issue weighed in and they were dispatched with so easily it was not even funny.{3} And the lack of worthy foils was predictable though that some would emerge who were was to these eyes a most pleasant surprise.

For out of the responses I got to that posting with pretensions of accepting the challenge, only two{4} were in my mind both intelligent enough to pique my interest but more importantly{5} possessing of the proper disposition to handle this matter equitably. As one of them happened to be someone who sent me an intelligent and obviously thought out criticism of one of my other weblog postings, I decided to go with the other individual upon whom I want to speak briefly about at the present time.

The individual who passed muster whom I decided to pursue dialogue with goes by the online pseudonym "Blackadder."{6} I proceeded to secure his concurrence on what was to be a joint declaration of dialogual principles preceding the planned dialogue. And in the interest of disclosure, they happen to be someone I have a good deal of respect for. Intellectually he is certainly a worthy foil but even more important is his general approach to subject matters in general. I am going to after this posting put up the first two thirds of the joint declaration from last year which is the part dealing with general dialogual principles. The last third which dealt with particular applications for our once-planned dialogue{7} will be omitted at this time though should he want to respond amicably to what I plan to write in response to his statement, I will supplement that omitted part to this weblog to the extent that it would apply to the matter in question.{8}

Anyway, more could be noted but before I link to where he posted the opening statement, I want to make the contents of that joint declaration known to all so that readers who want to know in advance what I expect of someone who would want to discuss these or any other matters with me. And that posting will be one of the next ones made to this weblog modified in the manner so noted above.

[Update: Some additional reflections were posted subsequent to this entry which can be viewed here. -ISM 8/8/08 12:30pm]

Notes:

{1} Until a variety of outside issues intervened and made the subject no longer of timely significance.

{2} Outlined in a scroll format here for those who are interested.

{3} Though admittedly I had a bit of schadenfraude in even more minutely steamrolling the pretensions of one of them later on.

{4} In the interest of disclosure I should note that I have no doubt that a third individual (someone I have had some challenging and enjoyable dialogues with in the past which are posted to the archives of this weblog) if they had the time and were actively involved in the blogsosphere at this time last year would also have made a worthy foil for this endeavour. I may mention their name at some point but for now this is all I will say on the matter.

{5} I am a realist and not an idealist. I know after years of observation, discussion board stuff, email correspondences, other forms of discussion, etc. that neophytes or those who are less-experienced in the more intricate issues will mess up. Heck, I expect neophytes to mess up!!! What is the indicator to me is what they do when they realize this.

The true mark of someone who is not wedded to their ego is the willingness to recognize and admit to error when they are apprised correctly on these matters. No one will do so perfectly all the time no matter how well they are learned because we all have issues over which we are more passionate about than others. But that does not mean there are lacking certain principles which can assist us on these matters. [Excerpt from a Forum Discussion (circa April 24, 2007)]

{6} Longtime readers probably are aware that Edmund Blackadder is one of my all time favourite characters so their choice of pseudonym was of course of interest to me.

{7} Who knows, we may have that dialogue again albeit in a different way than I originally envisioned it.

{8} As of the present writing, I am not sure on this point.

The Presidency is Not an Entry-Level Position

[Update: I have supplemented this posting with two additional footnotes (numbers three and four) to provide a bit more information than the post written after midnight last night had time for. -ISM 8/4/08 1:14pm]

Among the stack of books currently being read by your humble servant is one titled The Leaders We Deserve (And A Few We Didn't) about the presidents of the United States. The author has taken the initiative of avoiding the presumption of arbitrarily assigning a rank to various presidents on ideological pretenses as is the wont of most "historians" including some whose methodology this writer intends to post some critical bits on in the coming days.{1}

No, the author of the aforementioned book has sought to approach the subject of presidential rankings by analyzing forty U S Presidents{2} by six criteria{3} to ascertain where he believes they rank.{4} The methodology utilized solidified some traditional rankings (both high and low) but also made for some startling historical reappraisals.{5}

The present writer does not recommend this book simply because its author reaches many of the same conclusions with presidential rankings that your humble servant does -though that does not hurt of course.{6} Instead, it is being recommended despite our not finishing the work yet{7} because the approach to presidential ratings contained therein is so refreshingly original as well as provocative.

Notes:

{1} The bits mentioned here are the ones referred to in a recent notifications posting where I referred to "[a] few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush."

{2} The three presidents excluded in his examination are President William H. Harrison, President James A. Garfield, and President George W. Bush. The reason for their exclusion was either inadequate time in office as in the cases of Harrison and Garfield -the former dying a month into his term and the latter being assassinated and dying less than a year into his term- and in the case of President George W. Bush because he is still in office when the book was published.

{3} The points of scoring are as follows: (i) character, (ii) vision, (iii) competence, (iv) economic policy, (v) defense, national security, foreign policy, (vi) preserving and extending freedom.

{4} As a result of the scoring system he uses, there are several ties (sometimes multiple ties) in the ratings approach.

{5} Both presidents traditionally ranked higher who ended up somewhat or significantly lower as well as the converse phenomenon.

{6} And while overall our views converge, there are some rankings which we take issue with for a variety of reasons.

{7} Something we do not do often but with this book we are far enough along to know it will turn out at least good if not better than that; ergo we recommend it at this time.

Points to Ponder:

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. [Sun Tzu]

Points to Ponder:

With all the mistakes that have been made, political leaders of the United States have done many things right, or we would not have the great country we have. We should not lose sight of this.

It is understandable that people are sometimes turned off by politics and politicians. Nevertheless, presidents and those in places of leadership, make decisions that can have far-reaching implications, for good or evil. No wonder the Scriptures tell us to pray “for kings, and for all who are in authority” (1 Tim. 2:1,2).

When leaders do not hold the highest spiritual standards or may be ungodly, we should still pray for them. Their decisions, despite this, can still turn things around for good. The classic example
is Cyrus. The Lord anointed him, though he did not know the Lord, so that he blessed the people of God, releasing them from slavery in Babylon (Isa. 45:1-4, 13; Ezra 1:1-4). [Ralph Woodrow]

Notification of Some Upcoming Posts:

There are many projects which are unfinished -some of which have been in that state for some time now. One of the problems of time constraints is finishing in a timely fashion everything we intend to finish but there is also a benefit to the manner in which we approach subjects whereby we utilize timeless principles which accompany contemporary situations.

Among the projects we intend to either finish for posting in this blogging cycle or post{1} are the following:

--A response to an emailer taking issue with something we wrote on the subject of reason, faith, and atheism

--A few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush.{2}

--A posting on the concepts of consequentialism and proportionalism and how they are frequently distorted by not a few who have frequent recourse to them.{3}

--A response to an email criticism of something we wrote in 2005 on the subject of journalism and journalists.{4}

Those are the projects in arrears we intend to get to in this posting cycle.{5} However, if we can find the time to either finish or otherwise get to posting them, here are some other possibilities:

--The long-talked about and finished{6} posting on the necessary third way in politics that is needed between the nonsense approaches of the radical conservatives and the radical liberals which are unworkable and unconstitutional respectively.

--A response to an emailer taking issue with my views on the fundamental rights of man and on Bastiat's overarching theory on which they are heavily based{7} asserting an incompatibility with Catholic moral and philosophical principles. Coupled in this is a challenge to my presentation of the distributivist weltanschauung in postings of the past -particularly a series of them{8} from last year.

Anyway, those are some of the planned and additional possible postings to be completed and/or posted in the current posting cycle.

Notes:

{1} Some of them are already done but for a variety of reasons have not been posted yet.

{2} Who though we are not fond of him we nonetheless in the interest of being fair feel obligated to touch on some matters on the blog from other mediums.

{3} Much along the lines of the oft-reissued "'neo con' challenge" except the terms of obfuscation are different.

{4} Namely this posting:

On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)

{5} Which ends on August 21, 2008.

{6} It was completed last year but needs one final review before it can be posted.

{7} Though as we have noted in the past, we have actually developed further some concepts pertaining to Bastiat's theory -one of which was implied in his work but not explicitly stated and one which by logical extension is required to most fruitfully apply the theory to contemporary realities.

{8} Your host may link to the various threads in this footnote (or perhaps list them by name) at some point if he has the time to track them all down for the sake of greater completion.

Excerpts from Classic Writings:

Today's sampling is from one of the earliest writings that influenced my overall outlook on politics and geopolitical issues in general.

I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. "Republican candidates," Vice President Nixon has said, "should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart." President Eisenhower announced during his first term, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems." Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves "progressive" Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy.

The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. "We liberals," they say, "are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status." Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the "malefactors of great wealth."

Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place-that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual [p.5] desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,-in the name of a concern for "human beings"-regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.

The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul-which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about "the common man." It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.

Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.

The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.

So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with "democratic" Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.

In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom? [Senator Barry M. Goldwater The Conscience of a Conservative (circa 1960)]

Points to Ponder:

What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve. [Napolean Hill]

Points to Ponder:
(On the Passing of Tony Snow and Disgusting Leftists)

It should tell you something, when every time misfortune befalls a conservative, there’s a need to sanitize [the Daily Kos]. And I haven’t even bothered to look at other “liberal” (LOL) sites - there’s really nothing to be learned or gained by reading hateful celebrations over Snow’s tragic death. I find his passing sad enough; no need to add to it by lamenting the evil among our fellow Americans. [Beth Cleaver]

Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation:

I have very little of a positive nature to say about the current president. There, I have said it as succinctly as I can. But at the same time, those under the illusion that the current problems in the real estate sphere of the economy are to be laid primarily at his feet need to have their presuppositions challenged. I have for that reason dug up an old online article dealing with the real estate market from when President Bush was governor of Texas:

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (City Journal Winter 2000)

Pay particular note to this part of the article:

This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.

Nor for that matter is this the only part of the equation that could be mentioned -indeed the Clinton Administration's justice department threatening lenders with lawsuits for red lining if they did not make risky loans to particular demographics of the population who were serious credit risks is another factor altogether.{1}

When the mafia engages in this sort of thing, it is called "extortion" whereas when the federal government does it somehow these practices are supposed to be moral apparently. Pardon those of us who respect reason and logic and can recognize a violation of the law of non-contradiction when we see it but that is all on this subject for the present time.

Note:

{1} There is a whole can of worms on this subject which I do not have the time or inclination to delve into now but at some point in the future that may change.

Guest Editorial on Senator Barack Obama and His Approach to Iraq:
(By Senator John McCain)

No folks, Senator McCain does not know he is contributing a guest editorial to this humble weblog. However, as for some reason the New York Times would not let this text be published in their op-ed section in response to an earlier op-ed by Senator Obama, I am going to publish it in the same text and formatting as it reads on Drudge's site except with the customary features we use for guest editorials here including font colouring. Without further ado...

######################

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.


######################

Oh and lest I forget, Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed can be viewed here. To remind readers of our own view recently reiterated anew, see this thread for details:

Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)

Briefly on Democratic Party Complete Control of Goverment:
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)

This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...

Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?

Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.

Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.

Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.

If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?

We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.

The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.

Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.

The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}

President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.

By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.

Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.

Notes:

{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)

{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)

{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)

On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)

{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]

{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)

This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.

{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.

Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]

{7} Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]

{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.[...]

I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.

Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

{9} On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]