Clinton & UN discover violence in Syria; more on Libya

Today's new warnings to Syria will likely to have the same effect as before, which is nothing:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to refrain from violence as the United Nations called on the Syrian regime to halt its "assault on its own people."

At the end of last March, after the US & NATO attacks on the Libyan Qadaffi regime began, Clinton was asked about the comparison between the situations in Libya & Syria.  The printed words do not convey her stifled guffaw in her answer:

"There's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities than police actions that frankly have exceeded the use of force that anyone would like to see," Clinton said comparing Libya and Syria.

I've asked before what difference it makes about Libya's air power when the vast majority of the NATO attacks are against ground targets. Obama had said that there was a potential for the death of 1,000 people in Libya without some sort of response to Qadaffi's war on his own people, in order to justify our intervention.  The death toll in Syria "has exceeded 1,100, with up to 10,000 detained".  Now comes word of another 21 deaths today.  One could say that this begs the question, but this is more like grovelling.

True, a move on the Syrian regime invites the attention of their Iranian ally.  I would say that that would be all the more reason to crack Assad, but first the Libyan problem must be dealt with.  That involves NATO, in both instances.  NATO was created to take on the Soviet Union & the Warsaw Pact.  Here we see that it can barely manage to handle half of Libya.

*****
Update: Soon-to-retire Defence Secretary Robert Gates, seeing the light at the end of his tunnel, is becoming more comfortably candid with his assessments, such as 'US taxpayers are paying 75% of the financial burden of the [NATO] alliance'.  He praised the contributions & effort of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, & Norway, though he notably said nothing about the UK, France & Italy, who pushed the US into the problem, & he went on to say that after only eleven weeks of the campaign, European countries are pulling back because their stocks of munitions are getting low.  He said that the alliance faces a "dim, if not dismal future", &

Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

Defence officials originally told Congress that it would estimate $750 million for the operation through Sepetmber.  We've already blown through that, & now we're being asked for another $100 million.  Gates said that the 28 members of NATO voted for the operation, yet only a third have contributed to the effort.  He went on to say that European countries have cut back so much on their defence budgets that many could not participate, even if they wanted to.

This is another example of Europe resting under the umbrella of American protection, while criticising us for our military presence.  This is an element that has prolonged the season of lotus-eating on the Continent.

Alabama signs "toughest" immigration bill

You can put Arizona on the back burner for the moment.  Gov. Robert Bentley (R-Alabama) just signed a "tough new illegal immigaration" law.

Alabama’s governor on Thursday signed a tough new illegal immigration crackdown that contains provisions requiring public schools to determine students’ immigration status and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.

The bill also allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if they’re stopped for any other reason. Alabama employers also are now required to use a federal system called E-Verify to determine if new workers are in the country legally.

The usual suspects (ACLU, SPLC) immediately branded it as "clearly unconstitutional . . . mean-spirited, racist" & will bring suits to halt it, just as was done in Arizona & Georgia (though Arizona had the added honour of being directly sued by the DOJ of the Obama administration; some of the more 'controversial' aspects of the Arizona law was blocked in federal court, but the judgment is still being appealed).

The topic of the E-Verify system is interesting, though.  My wife works in real estate in the local area, & includes property management.  In the near past, she would run the prospective tenant's social security number through their verification system, which would yield a result of (1) whether the number was valid or not, & (2) the date of issue.  In some instances, she would check on, say, a couple in their twenties, with a valid SSN but with a date of issue in the early 1940s.  When confronted with this curious result, they would sheepishly say something to the effect of "oops - must be some mistake", then walk out, never to be seen again.  My wife had no follow-through on the matter (this in an area where there are public health centers that cater only to those who speak no English), but she found shortly thereafter that the date of issue in the reports was dropped.  Upon inquiry, she was stonewalled as to the reason for its deletion.  This brings to mind the question of how efficient this E-Verify system will be.  This state (bluer than blue) is debating whether to pick up the system as well, & it's meeting with some strong opposition.

*****
Update:  Well, so much for Arizona on the back burner - this just in:

First, the Obama administration fails to do its job on the border.  Then it sues Arizona to prevent us from helping to fight illegal immigration.  Then it tries to create a false sense of sense of complacency by arguing that the border is safe, when it isn’t.  Now it argues that persons should be able to register to vote without providing adequate information enabling verification of citizenship, thus enabling illegal aliens to register to vote.  This is contrary to the interests of the people of the United States of America. [emphasis mine]

Remembering D-Day

Scott Johnson at Power Line commemorates this 67th anniversary of D-Day, and has resurrected two great articles.  The first, ‘Too Much, Too Late’, is by Professor David Gelertner of Yale, originally published in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.  Prof Gelertner takes on the phrase ‘the greatest generation’ by the sanctimonious pandering of the “cultural establishment . . . especially intense among members of the 1960s generation who once chose to treat all present and former veterans like dirt”.  He continues by saying that if we cared about the topic of World War II, our children should be taught at least four topics:

The major battles of the war -- When I was a child in the 1960s, names like Corregidor and Iwo Jima were still sacred, and pronounced everywhere with respect. . . . Today the Battle of Midway has become niche-market nostalgia material, and most children (and many adults) have never heard of it.  Thus we honor "the greatest generation."

The bestiality of the Japanese -- If we forget this we dishonor the thousands who were tortured and murdered, and put ourselves in danger of believing the soul-corroding lie that all cultures are equally bad or good.  Some Americans nowadays seem to think America's behavior during the war was worse than Japan's -- we did intern many loyal Americans of Japanese descent.  That was unforgivable -- and unspeakably trivial compared to Japan's unique achievement, mass murder one atrocity at a time. . . . In the Japanese-occupied Philippines alone, at least 131,028 civilians and Allied prisoners of war were murdered.  The Japanese committed crimes against Allied POWs and Asians that would be hard still, today, for a respectable newspaper even to describe. . . .

The attitude of American intellectuals – such as “Our entry into the war, under the slogan of 'Stop Hitler!' would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. . . . The American masses can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties." . . . Why rake up these Profiles in Disgrace?  Because in the Iraq War era they have a painfully familiar ring.

The veterans’ neglected voice -- World War II produced an extraordinary literature of first-person soldier narratives -- most of them out of print or unknown. . . . The Library of America includes two volumes on "Reporting World War II," but where are the soldiers' memoirs versus the reporters'?

Next is ‘First Wave at Omaha Beach’ by S L A Marshall, one of the best-known (and official) historians of World War II and Korea, published in The Atlantic in November 1960.  He begins by explaining how “the passing of the years and the retelling of the story have softened the horror of Omaha Beach on D Day.”  This has occurred, in his opinion, by the enormous amount of detail accumulated during the field research  (though he modestly neglects to mention that he was in charge of that research and that it began with the landing of his team while the battle was still being fought).  He draws you into the story by building on the fact that Omaha Beach (one of five assault beaches, in addition to the paratroop landing zones inland) covered a two-division front landing (enormous, to the uninitiated) but only six rifle companies were relatively effective as units during the initial assault.  He goes on to explain, from his faded notes, what can best be discerned about the fate of the first wave of the assault, comprising Able and Baker Companies, 116th Infantry, 29th Division.

Normally, I would say ‘read the whole thing’.  Rather, I implore you to read it all, and I wish that, if any one article on the topic could be thrust upon our atrophied and effete public education system, it should be this.

These articles should not be lost, and my thanks go to Scott Johnson for providing them.

One of the early comments to the Power Line post sums it up succinctly, and quotes W H Auden’s ‘Epitaph for an Unknown Soldier’:

To save your world you asked this man to die:
Would this man, could he see you now, ask “Why?”

*****

Update:  Donald Sensing makes a superb contribution as always.

It is hard to find another moment in all history when so much rested on an outcome of one day as rested on the success of the Allies' landings on Normandy.

 *****
Update:  From the sublime to the ridiculous - the representative sent by the Obama administration to  this year's commemeration at Normandy was . . . John Kerry?  He wants photo ops with the soldiers of the 'greatest generation', but the next generation he condemned as committing atrocities "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”.  Liberals believe that human nature has a history, or varies according to the environment.

After this, what next – Jane Fonda baking cookies for the Marine Corps Foundation?

Gov. Rick Perry & public prayer in Texas

Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) has fought US District Judge Fred Biery's decision that a high school cannot have a benediction or invocation at at graduation because the speakers "are prohibited from calling the crowd to pray or deliver a message that can be considered a prayer".  In response, Perry said

This reprehensible action taken by a federal judge underscores the increasingly inappropriate federal encroachment into the lives of Americans by unconstitutionally banning prayer at a Texas high school graduation.

As you would expect, the suit to ban praying at the graduation was filed by the Americans United for Separation of Church & State.

The Fifth Circuit Court has seen fit to judge otherwise, though.

We are not persuaded that plaintiffs have shown that they are substantially likely to prevail on the merits, particularly on the issue that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school sponsored.

Perry's response to the ruling was quick & unequivocal:

I'm proud that the Fifth Circuit Court has overturned the lower court's order that banned prayer at a Texas high school graduation. I'm thankful for Attorney General Abbott's leadership in ensuring the First Amendment, which prohibits governments from interfering with Americans' rights to freely express their religious beliefs, is protected. Texas will continue to fight for the rights of all those who wish to pray in our state.

Further:

The First Amendment prohibits governments from interfering with Americans' rights to freely express their religious beliefs, and accordingly the U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that Congress may convene every day with a prayer.

The agnostic family that brought the suit through the AUSCS said that if prayer were allowed, then their son would not attend the ceremonies.  Well, I salute the courage of your convictions.  Now stay home.

This is part & parcel of a long-running feud between social factions (to use the word of the Federalist Papers) over the Constitution's First Amendment (starting with what George Will calls "the five most sublime words in the English language"):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere is there a mention of the frequently quoted terms 'wall of separation between church & state', which derive from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Conneticut in 1802.  How the opinion of Jefferson is considered a source of law has never really been established in my mind. (If that holds sway, then wouldn't it be nice if the Federalist Papers were given equal consideration?)  The battle involves interpretation of what constitutes a "law respecting an establishment of religion", which could be held to apply only to the  US Congress until Gitlow vs New York in 1925 in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment (see here & here).  The argument is further constrained by the fact that some individual states maintained an established religion for some time after the ratification of the Constitution (e.g., Connecticut until 1818)

Yet there seem to be far fewer discussions of what follows thereafter: " . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  If atheists (who express a faith that there is no God), or agnostics for that matter (I would argue that philosophically they would have no standing in this case) speak to the issue that faith has no real impact on their lives, then it should not concern them that prayer is public.  It is an established right granted by the Creator & the government is proscribed from trying to diminish it.

*****
Update:  The story continues:

Gov. Rick Perry has proclaimed Saturday, Aug. 6th, as a Day of Prayer and Fasting for our Nation to seek God's guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation. . . .

"I urge all Americans of faith to pray on that day for the healing of our country, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of enduring values as our guiding force." . . .

Which brings out the usual list of critics.

Gurkha takes on 30 Taliban & wins

Corporal Dipprasad Pun of the Royal Gurkha Rifles was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (second only to the Victoria Cross) by the Queen, for action in Helmand province, Afghanistan in September 2010.

His position was almost overrun by Taliban fighters, and he engaged some 30 of them single-handed.  He expended 400 rounds of ammo until his rifle was out or jammed, then used 17 grenades and a claymore mine.  Finally, he beat the last of the enemy fighters with the tripod of his machine gun, yelling 'Marchu talai!', Nepalese for 'I will kill you'.

"I thought I was going to die . . . so I tried to kill as many as I could."

The BBC has video.

This serves as a reminder that one of Life's lessons is 'never take on a Gurkha'.

(H/T to Donald Sensing)

Afghan Taliban attacks Pakistan outposts

A large-scale attack ofTaliban fighters, amounting to what the Taliban claimed was practically a battalion of some 400 militants, struck from Afghanistan starting on Wednesday to over-run a Pakistani outpost at Shaltalo in the Dir tribal region, killing 27 security personnel & three civilians.  Today, a Pakistani counter-attack involving helicopters & artillery beat back a second attempt.

This comes after a previous report of a possible Pakistani operation in North Waziristan upon the urging of the US.  The commander of the region, LTG Asif Yasin Malik, had dismissed the reports, stating that the army will conduct operations at a time & place of its choosing, not at the behest of the US.  He went on to say "I cannot undertake multiple operations at the same time."

This move by the Taliban, after a similar attack some two months ago in a nearby area of the border, accentuates & capitalises on Pakistan’s inability to sufficiently mass its forces in the region & maintain flexibility.  Pakistan’s military & government continue to carry on a sub rosa struggle over some its elements’ support of the Taliban (first nurtured & then supported within Pakistan) & al Qaeda.  If, despite the comments of General Malik, there is an attempt on the part of the Pakistanis to start up offensive operations against the Taliban & al Qaeda in North Waziristan again (operations in the area have been off again, on again for several years now), the army would be pinned in the area of these cross-border raids, restricting its ability elsewhere.  This could be a move on the part of the Taliban to protect its interests in Waziristan by drawing away Pakistani troops, & could also perhaps give some plausible deniability to sympathetic elements in Pakistan.

European takes on Obama

Nile Gardiner of the Daily Telegraph, bucking the British equivalent of the MSM & the political elites of the UK, again provides a perspective on Obama & his chances – or lack thereof – in the upcoming 2012 election.

Unsurprisingly, the polls are again looking problematic for the president. The latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll shows just 25 percent of Americans strongly approving of Obama’s performance, with 36 percent strongly disapproving, for a Presidential Approval Index rating of minus 11 points. In a projected match up between Obama and a Republican opponent, the president now trails by two points according to Rasmussen – 43 to 45. The RealClear Politics poll of polls shows just over a third of Americans (34.5 percent) agreeing that the country is heading in the right direction, with nearly three fifths (56.8 percent) believing it is heading down the wrong track. That negative figure rises to a staggering 66 percent of likely voters in a new Rasmussen survey, including 41 percent of Democrats.

This comes after Obama returns to the US from a tour that seemed to end on a polite note but not the adulation that he is used to from his previous campaign trip.  A telling symbol was on his last stop, in a Poland still moody after Obama reneged on the anti-missile system that was to be emplaced against the threat of an Iranian nuclear programme.  The great & charismatic Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarnosc & almost personally responsible for the liberation of Poland from the Soviet empire, turned down an invitation to meet with Obama, saying essentially that he had nothing to say to him.  The story dominated the Polish press.

To me, this has an aroma of an Obama Rainbow Tour.