Interesting commentary with lots of poll data about why American Jews instinctively vote with the Left, despite the seemingly obvious danger in which that places the state of Israel. The key paragraph:

To the question, ‘Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons,’ 47% of Jews said they’d oppose America moving to save Israel from nuclear annihilation, 42% would support it, and 11% were unsure.

This is perhaps the clearest indication that a significant segment of the Jewish community either doesn’t give a damn about Israel or is delusional.

A few personal anecdotes (for whatever they’re worth):

I went to high school with many ethnic Jews (about 22% of my school in fact) and while many brought unleavened bread to lunch during passover week, most could not tell me what passover was all about. They knew the ethnic side of the story, at least the food part of the deal, as many, understandably, complained the entire week - but the ones I spoke to did not know its history. Being an evangelical Christian, I knew all about the lamb’s blood on the door post and the angel of death “passing over” these homes on the eve of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, but most thought I was crazy and just looked at me with blank stares as if to say: “Lamb’s blood? Whatever man, I just know I have to eat bad food during this week.” Some even commented that I was dead wrong. “Passover had nothing to do with that,” they said.

In graduate school I encountered a woman of Jewish heritage who told me that the only reason the United States protects the state of Israel is because the Christian fundamentalists in this country believe that Jesus Christ will return to the temple mount to usher in the end times (as if somehow Christ couldn’t descend from heaven, return to Israel, rebuild the temple, and establish his kingdom on earth without it being in the hands of the Jews or without the United States’ support). She seemed to believe that supporting the state of Israel equated to ushering in a Christ-centered end times, rather than simply supporting the Jewish state’s right to exist. As she didn’t believe in Christ, then she couldn’t support Israel. I found her reasoning rather puzzling. While she can certainly believe whatever she wants about the end times and Jesus Christ, she seemed to believe that the state of Israel was a Christian thing and should not be of Jewish concern.

I think most American Jews share this sentiment. They are ethnic Jews only. They eat unleavened bread, they don’t eat pork, they send their children to Hebrew school to learn the language, they throw bar/bat mitzvahs for their 13 year-olds, but they generally aren’t religious Jews and they largely, surprisingly, do not seem to care about the state of Israel. Or as the article stated, maybe they do care and it’s just not their top priority or they’re delusional.

That’s the bumper-sticker I want!

This is relatively old news, but gross misconceptions about the Iraq War continue to pervade the public discourse (primarily on the left, although in fairness the right doesn’t appear to know how to counter the misconceptions effectively). Plus, during the election I believe that it was an area where McCain allowed himself to be tied to President Bush unnecessarily, thus benefiting Obama.

It appears to me that the mantra “Bush lied, people died” has become the common wisdom on the Left and has become the main argument for withdrawing troops immediately from the region. (Note:what passes for truth on the Left generally amounts to a pithy statement about a complicated issue that can fit onto a bumper sticker).

“Bush lied…”

Webster’s dictionary defines a lie as

an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.

Thus, in order for the “Bush lied” part of the maxim to be true, one of two things must be true:

1. Bush knew absolutely that Saddam did not have WMD

2. Bush believed it highly likely that Saddam did not have WMD

Now, the judgment that Saddam had WMD hung on several points (at least those that are unclassified):

1. The human source known as Curveball, an Iraqi who claimed (falsely as it turns out) to have inside knowledge of Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons operations. His primary claim was that Saddam had reconstituted his chemical/biological weapons program via mobile facilities.

2. Satellite photos that indicated the presence of heavy-duty flatbed trucks, forklifts (necessary for transporting chemical weapons) and decontamination trailers (in case of emergency) at Al-Musayib, known prior to Operation Desert Storm to have been a chemical weapons facility.

3.The fact that the intelligence community had failed to accurately assess Saddam’s chemical, biological and nuclear programs (which proved to be extensive) prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991. As the intelligence community had failed to accurately assess his weapons programs previously, analysts overcompensated and made leaps of faith that should not have been made.

4. Saddam relied on various deception campaigns (including the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors). He wanted the West to believe that he had WMD. Obviously at the time, the West did not know that they were deception campaigns, but hindsight is 20/20. (Note: the motive for these deception campaigns is still unclear. In the collective Western mind it makes no sense to fake that you have WMD when the world’s superpower says that it will invade your country and kill you if you have WMD, but clearly Saddam’s decision-making calculus was different. He called our bluff, thinking we would not invade, and it didn’t work out in his favor. We misread him and he misread us. Most believe that Saddam wanted the West to believe he had WMD because he wanted Iran (and his own people) to believe that he had WMD as a deterrent to a threat on his power and as a status symbol.)

None of this is meant to excuse the US Intelligence Community or President Bush from relying on false intelligence reports to invade Iraq in 2003. The intelligence community (and the intelligence communities of nearly every other country in the world) simply blew it. The “slam dunk” clanged embarrassingly off the back of the rim. However, relying on the experts who turned out to be wrong does not amount to “Bush lied.” Ultimately, it is the President who makes decisions, so the responsibility does lie as his feet, but it does not amount to lying as he had no reason to believe that his experts (and those of all his allies) were wrong. His experts simply got it wrong. [As an aside, this amounts to an intelligence error - incorrectly assessing something to be true when it is false - and not an intelligence failure - failing to adequately warn or prepare the executive for a situation that occurred.] Similar to when FDR’s experts failed to alert him to the possibility of a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, when Truman’s experts failed to anticipate that the Chinese would intervene on behalf of North Korea, or when Kennedy’s experts told him, two days prior to the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba, that the Soviets would never attempt to place missiles in Cuba. (Note that all three examples are of Democratic administrations, two of which caused mass casualties and one brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, yet these three presidents are never reviled as “the worst President ever.”  On the contrary, the first two are widely considered to be in the top ten and JFK is held up by the liberal establishment as a great man and wonderful leader, an agent of change if you will.)

Some make the argument that the Bush administration pressured the intelligence community into giving them the answer they wanted to hear, namely that Saddam had WMD. This is a joke.

1.) This would also mean that the intelligence communities of Britain, France, Germany, and Israel (among others) were also pressured to provide “the right answer” to the Bush administration. Seeing as they did not want the US to invade Iraq (and at least Britain provided troops as well), why would they do that? You’d have to believe in really large conspiracy theories (such as “blood for oil” to believe this.

2.) What respectable person in their right mind knowingly distorts the truth simply because they are nagged about it? Just because a question is asked often doesn’t mean that the answer should change if the truth remains the same. (eg. is Churchill dead? Yes. Is Churchill dead? Yes. Is Churchill dead? Yes. Is Churchill dead? No, he’s actually living in my attic.) It’s absurd. Analysts aren’t teenagers at a party bowing to peer pressure to smoke pot, they’re professionals who make these sorts of difficult judgments for a living. Do they have their own biases? Certainly. Do they personally favor policy decisions over others? I’m sure they do. But do they deliberately distort the truth because the President asks them if they’re sure about a particular issue? No.

Other issues to address:

“The war is unjust…”

While there are additional reasons, for the basic reason that it’s never morally wrong to depose of an authoritarian leader who slaughters his own people, I believe the Iraq War is just. Now, one can make the argument that the Iraq War is imprudent, but making the argument that God’s idea of justice would somehow side with Saddam is laughable.

“The US should withdrawal immediately…”

The American people generally did not turn against the war until it realized that it would not be an easy victory and that if Saddam didn’t have WMD, they didn’t know why we were fighting it (a communication/leadership failure on the part of the administration). Well, the US should not withdraw troops immediately simply because the war is difficult or because the President relied on faulty intelligence. The reason the US invaded Iraq was to depose of Saddam Hussein who (mistakenly) was believed to have WMD that not only would have destabilized the region, but that he would give (or threaten to give) to non-state actors to use against the United States. Now, as it turns out, that judgment was incorrect; however, now that we’ve deposed Saddam, it would be morally unethical to just up and leave because its easier for us to do it that way. The fact that we have to stay and clean up the mess has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam didn’t have WMD.

Consider a parable: The local police break down the door of a house in the neighborhood, storm into the residence and kill the husband/father as he tries to escape, setting the house ablaze in the process. The police were after the man because they believed that he was the ringleader of a drug cartel. This turned out to be false upon subsequent analysis, but it was discovered that the husband/father had not only beaten his wife over a period of twenty-five years, but that he had also sexually abused their children, their neighbor’s children and had threatened all those in the neighborhood with violence, even killing some in order to establish his authority. Legally, the actions of the police were probably wrong as their judgment (or probable cause) for obtaining the warrant was incorrect. But morally, it’s hard to fault the police as they did away with a horrible man. Nonetheless, the police cannot simply leave the wife and children to fend for themselves because the man they killed (while deplorable) was not the ringleader of the drug cartel as they had initially suspected. That would be morally reprehensible. The right thing to do is for the police to buy the family a new home and seek counseling for the wife and the children while ensuring that the neighborhood is safe and stable enough to avoid becoming a target of nearby neighborhood gangs.

“It wasn’t prudent for the US to invade Iraq…”

Now, that’s an argument with some merit that should be discussed in detail by the American public and by the country’s leaders. Most would agree that this question, too, has nothing to do with whether or not troops should remain in Iraq until the situation is fixed. (If you accidentally break a window under false pretenses, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stay to fix the window.) Sadly, this is not the debate that rages in our society today, nor is it the debate that the presidential candidates had on the campaign trail or during the debates. Essentially, the debates devolved to:

Obama: the war was a mistake (for unspecified reasons - presumably either because Bush lied or because it was a war for oil or because Americans are capitalists and capitalists are always imperialists or cynically because it was the message that won him the primary) and we should withdraw immediately, apologizing to anyone within earshot that we’re a terrible nation filled with mean-spirited, angry, bitter people who can’t speak languages other than English.

McCain: the war was not a mistake, because the Iraqi people are now free. It was going poorly until I supported the surge. We should stay there until the job is finished. (However, this completely bypasses what makes Americans the most upset: we entered the war based on faulty intelligence.)

The winning debate answer for McCain: you’re right, we relied on faulty intelligence to invade Iraq (thereby distancing himself from Bush) and that was a mistake [although as an aside, one could make other arguments to support an invasion of Iraq - violating UN resolutions, etc]; however, this does not change the fact that we need to win the war now that it has begun. However, this proves (as does 9/11 and other intelligence gaffes of the past twenty years) that our intelligence system needs to be reformed. Namely, we need to place more emphasis on human intelligence. As Americans, we’ve grown spoiled, thinking that we can keep peace and solve all problems without getting our hands dirty by engaging in the shadowy world of espionage. Some have gotten intellectually lazy, relying on wishful-thinking that the United Nations, a morally bankrupt, feckless organization that can’t and often doesn’t enforce its own resolutions, is the answer to all the world’s problems. Nevertheless, Bin Laden & Co. now view Iraq as the primary front against the free world and we must view it that way as well. We cannot leave, thus handing the war to the terrorists, simply because it did not go as smoothly as we planned and simply because it was not fought properly from the outset. We are a united country today because Lincoln refused to allow the South to secede, despite the fact that he mishandled the war (by appointing feckless generals like McClellan) for the first three years.

In sum: I am not advocating that war should never be questioned. But when questioned, it must be done so responsibly (not done so to undermine a particular policy while US troops are in the field) and the debate must focus on the right questions. “Bush lied, people died” is a ridiculous statement made by the ignorant and intellectually bereft who place a political party and ideology above their country’s best interests. It misinforms the (already ill-informed) American populace and distracts from the necessary debate: was it prudent for the US to use force (as opposed to a combination of other tools of tradecraft) to contain Saddam even if turned out that he had WMD?

Good communication is a staple of good leadership. It is the ingredient that moves the country with purpose, separating the great presidents from the good presidents. It is well-reasoned, bold, rooted in historical truths and in touch with the realities of this fallen world.

While I do not believe that Bush 43 has been the worst president ever (usually postulated by someone who couldn’t name 5 presidents between Jefferson and Kennedy, let alone describe their policies), I think we can all agree that he has not been a good communicator. I do not mean this in the same way with which Saturday Night Live, Michael Moore and the liberal establishment has so much fun. I mean that Bush has not done a good job of presenting his case to the American people. He has not presented a message that is well-reasoned, bold, rooted in history, philosophy or national purpose and given repeatedly with conviction. The president is required to be the chief educator and in this regard Bush has failed miserably. Many times, his administration has simply hid its head in the sand and allowed the media to lambaste its proposals while the people slowly start to nod their heads, eventually won over by conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated myths and poor logic.

People want to believe. A good communicator merely has to tap into that vein. Thus, the infatuation with Obama. But it remains to be seen whether Obama has the gifts of leadership and communication - I mean this sincerely not as hyperbole - because his words thus far have been empty. They mean nothing. Even disregarding his countless policy shifts from his days as Illinois Senator and campaigner in the Democratic primary to his campaigning for president as a “centrist,” his words are mere boilerplate. Obama has already begun to backpedal because it is unlikely that he will achieve even 20% of his stated goals. Most are simply unachievable, either because they are unaffordable, unpractical or against the reality of human nature. He is the perfect candidate for the MTV generation:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide for the sick… This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

Poetic? Sure. Well delivered? I suppose. Presented with conviction capturing that deep longing within us? Perhaps for some. But specific and unequivocal? Not so much. Courageous in the face of adversity? Not really. Rooted in history and experience? Absolutely not!

In contrast, listen to The Great Communicator sixteen years before he achieved the presidency:

The entire speech can be found here.  The speech transcript here.

What is the conservative narrative? In my opinion, the four pillars are:

1.)  Personal responsibility:  Police yourself dammit!  Work hard to get through school (on merit-based scholarships if possible).  Work hard to get a job you want.  Once you have it, work hard to get better at it (not just to move up the ladder but because it’s the right thing to do).  Live your life with integrity, whether or not you are monetarily rewarded for it.  Do not expect the government to save you from yourself or plan your future for you.  Spend less money than you make.  Put money away for your retirement.  With the exception of a reasonable mortgage or school loans (investments), do not rely on credit.  Pay your bills on time.  Do not play the lottery.  Do not blame others.  Own up to your mistakes and learn from them.  Respect your elders.  Help your neighbor.  Help the poor.  Volunteer.  Be generous.  Smile.  Teach your children to live the same way.

2.)  Limited government:  What government bureaucracy is more effective than the private sector?  What citizen would prefer to give his charitable donation to the government over a trusted, non-profit organization?  Then why do we want the government so involved in our lives?  Let it protect the nation, police the streets, maintain the integrity of our economic and social system by fighting corruption and social depravity (when possible and practical) and pass laws to perform all of the above.  (Addendum: Congress should never be able to approve its own raises.  Such tomfoolery should be submitted directly to the people for prompt rejection.  Nor should unrelated laws, such as earmarks, be hidden in extraordinarily long bills.  This is flat-out trickery and undermines the nature and spirit of representative democracy.)

3.)  Strong National defense:  The United States should do all it can to protect itself.  It should not answer to corrupt international bodies such as the United Nations, nor should it act the fool and blindly trust foreign entities that have historically proven themselves untrustworthy.  It should never let down its guard, hoping that the enemy will let down his.  It should not unilaterally disarm in good faith hoping  that other nations will follow.  It should not go to war until all other avenues have been exhausted and when it does go to war, the entire might of the nation should be behind the effort.  (Let’s stop playing down to the competition, shall we?)

4.)  Meritocracy:  Paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr., individuals should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  In short: race/gender based preferences are demeaning to all and are inherently unjust.

The election results of a week ago have discouraged many conservatives. And while a President Obama and a significant liberal majority in both houses of Congress led by the insufferable pair of Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid is a problem worthy of some discouragement, the real problem is sadly much larger.  As Mark Steyn writes in the November 17th print edition of National Review:

If the default mode of a society’s institutions is liberal, electing GOP legislators eventually accomplishes little more than letting a Republican driver take a turn steering the liberal bus. If Hollywood’s liberal, if the newspapers are liberal, if the pop stars are liberal, if the grade schools are liberal, if the very language is liberal to the point where all the nice words have been co-opted as a painless liberal sedative, a Republican legislature isn’t going to be a shining city on a hill so much as one of those atolls in the Maldives being incrementally swallowed by Al Gore’s rising sea levels… We have to get back in the game in all the arenas we’ve ceded to liberalism - from kindergarten to blockbuster movies.

While I don’t believe that this election shows that the US has fundamentally shifted to the left as much as it is tired of President Bush and the Republican brand, clearly there’s lots of work to do.  So, where do we begin?

I am currently reading a book entitled The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk. It is a fascinating read that describes, as its subtitle suggests, the struggle for empire in Central Asia. Through the use of story, biography and anecdote culled from the original manuscripts of those who lived it, Hopkirk outlines the centuries-long battle to lay claim to the vast region of difficult terrain between the great powers of the 17th to 20th centuries: Russia, British India, Persia, China and Mongolia. This should be required reading for anyone wishing to comment on the US involvement in Afghanistan or Central Asian/Mid-East policy in general. It also puts Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia in the proper context.

While I am only halfway through it, I can honestly say that I will never look at the “Stan” countries on the map quite the same. Who knew that Uzbekistan, et al had such a scintillating history? Why don’t they teach these things in school anymore?

- Norm