Grim Assessment

they are all saying this election is about "changing directin" in the Iraq war. Which can only mean retreating into a fantasyland.

I fear this view is correct:

This is probably what will happen to America. There is now a much smaller chance that the terrorist problem can be resolved at a low level of conflict. There is a great likelihood that it will be allowed by neglect or paralysis to metastize into a canker which will develop into a catastrophic confrontation in five or ten years time. A likelihood, but not a certainty.

The comparison with Israel fails in that the US is the world's security Central Banker. The sheriff of last resort. Other countries could wobble as long as the Central Banker stood firm. Now the Central Banker itself is wobbling. The UK, Europe, etc could count on America to be the security underwriter of last resort. But who will come to America's rescue if America will not come to it's own?

If America is lucky then a national security consensus can be rebuilt before the catastrophe. But America's lucky streak has just come to an end. One philosophical way to look at it is that September 11 simply wasn't enough to fatally damage the appeasers. That plus the missteps of the Republicans. There are some who argue that the Democratic party itself will start to show strains when it tries to govern, because of tensions between its left and right wings. But if it hasn't happened yet, why should it happen now? No. Washington is too insular. It will take external shocks: sad, hearbreaking ones to wake it up. I don't know where it will come from but I'm sure the enemy is thinking to provide it.

At any rate, it's a new political game. With North Korea, Iran, Iraq on the burner and Nancy Pelosi running the House there will be enormous stresses and it may be a challenge to simply hold against the threat. The time of easy security is past. Now the world must fight for its life.

Maybe, just maybe, if they don't now have to worry about losing Congress, the administration can take some real action now.

Unfortunately, the new "bipartisanship" will likely lead to open borders. And the repealing of the economy-saving tax cuts to "pay for the war" which will actually reduce tax revenue (it's up, did you know?) and send us into a recession.

Snatching Defeat

Encouraging news out of Iraq today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's former second in command, now a fugitive with a $10 million bounty on his head, has ordered Sunni insurgents loyal to the former president to cease attacks, according to government and parliamentary officials who claimed knowledge of the developments.

This could be significant; this al-Douri is the most important figure from the "deck" that was never rounded up and is likely a key figure in the organized Sunni insurgency.

Four officials in the Iraqi government and parliament, each in a position to hear about largely secret efforts to reach accord with members of the Sunni insurgency, said former Iraqi vice president Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri has ordered insurgent leaders who are linked to Saddam's ousted Baath Party to end attacks within the past two days.

With cut-and-run Democrats apparently gaining power, will that order be reversed?

Would that order have come much earlier,saving lives, had there been no question our effort would be steadfast?

Talking heads on the news attributing Democrat gains to us "losing" in Iraq.

Repeat the Big Lie often enough and it becomes as good as true.

John Kerry's website is clear about this; speaking of this election,

Winning means forcing an end to the disastrous war in Iraq, and getting our heroes home.

Meanwhile,

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops have broken the back of an insurgency by Taliban militants near the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, the scene of fierce recent fighting, Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Tuesday.

Canada has 2,300 soldiers based in Kandahar. Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, most of them in battles in the south of the country over the past few months.

Although an opinion poll over the weekend showed most Canadians pessimistic about the future of the mission and want the troops to come home, O'Connor struck an upbeat tone.

"It is a critical time in the south. ... I believe that we are going to succeed," he said in a Parliamentary debate on the Canadian military.

Not if Canadians declare themselves defeated and bring everyone home first, O'Connor!

Once upon a time, a mighty superpower found there were lots of foreigners clamoring to cross their borders in a vast migration. It seemed like an ok deal; after all, these new immigrants were willing to do jobs the citizens weren't. That nation soon collapsed, for lack of interest in keeping it alive.

I'm speaking of course of Rome letting in the various Goths, letting them look after the borders.

Didn't work out too well when the Vandals, Huns and Mongols arrived.

It's amazing how the attitude of giving up is seen to be sophisticated.

The disappointment is that this result will seem to vindicate the predictions of our real enemies and embolden them.

The good news, however, is many of these new Democrats being elected are apparently actually strongly conservative in their outlook, and several more states passed ballot measures banning gay "marriage."

I eagerly await the outcome of Michigan's Proposal 2 discarding the blight of official discrimination ("affirmative action")...

Perhaps the Republicans will learn to get back to Reaganite roots.

The Only Issue

A comprehensive essay on the only issue that matters this election season by renowned science fiction and fantasy writer, Orson Scott Card, begins like this:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

In the middle, it explains,

Because even more than they fear terrorist bombs, the pro-democracy forces within Iraq and Afghanistan fear American withdrawal. Every speech threatening withdrawal is a bomb going off in Baghdad, killing, not people, but the will to resist the tyrants.

Bin Laden predicted it [cut and run]. The Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly.

That is certainly not what most who call for withdrawal intend. They see Americans dying and they have no hope of victory. The Iraq War (as they call it) is costing lives and shows no sign of ending. Meanwhile, Iran is getting nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them, Syria and Iran are sponsoring continuing and escalating attacks on Israel -- how can we possibly "win" a war that threatens constantly to widen? Let's cut our losses, retire to our shores, and ...

And will you please stop and think for a moment?

There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.

Every American in the world then becomes a target. And, because we have announced that we will do nothing to protect them, we will soon be trading only with nations that have enough strength to protect their own shores and borders.

Only ... what nations are those?

It then ends with an outline of how there's an actual strategy for victory that is working, but just takes time:

The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning and that the course President Bush is pursuing is, in fact, the wisest one.

Critics of Bush love to cite the many "mistakes" his administration has made. Most of these "mistakes" are arguable -- are they mistakes at all? -- and when you sum up the others, with any kind of rational understanding of military history, the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history, with the fewest mistakes. And most of the mistakes we've made are the kind that become clear to morning-after quarterbacks but were difficult to avoid in the fog of war.

Worse yet, Bush's opponents invariably depict these mistakes as being the result of deliberately chosen policies -- a ludicrous charge, but one that is taken seriously by an astonishing number of people who should know better. The game, you see, is blame. It's not enough to say, Bush made a mistake. You have to say, Bush deliberately did it wrong for evil purposes and he must be punished.

It's well worth reading in full.

It's Election Day

Voting is one of the greatest freedoms we have. For Idaho voters, I encourage you to vote for Jerry Brady over "Butch" Otter for Governor, and for those in the 1st Congressional District, I likewise encourage you to vote for Larry Grant over Bill Sali as our new Congressman. I've written before about why I support Larry Grant, but as good as Larry is, an equally good reason to support him is because of how bad a candidate Mr. Sali is. Despite his promise, on statewide TV, to reveal his position on Proposition 2, he still has not done so. I don't think there's any doubt that the reason for his reticence is his desire to avoid going against his New York bankrollers / leash-holders who paid petition signature collectors to get the issue on the ballot. More than 8 times as much money has been spent in support of Mr. Sali from out of state as he has collected from Idahoans -- that should tell you where his bread is buttered. He's the wrong man at the wrong time.

Update 0007 07 Nov: On Sunday, I predicted, for the record, to my son and wife that the Dolphins would beat the Bears, but since I didn't put it on my blog, it didn't really count as a "public" prediction. (And yes, I did it before the game started. I just figured that the Dolphins always seem to beat Chicago when the Bears have a chance to go undefeated -- at least, they did in 1985.) Therefore, I'll put out for public abuse my predictions for this election: I think the Dems will pick up 22 House seats and 4 Senate seats, leaving control of the chambers split -- which I think is a good thing.

As far as the Idaho races go, I really don't have a good enough feel of how us Idahoans vote in close elections to make an educated guess.

Update 1103 07 Nov: Despite my earlier threat to cast a straight Democratic ballot, I ended up voting for a few Republicans -- none in any of the competitive races, however. (I don't consider the Lt. Gov. race, where the current Governor is running for his old job, as competitive.) I voted at 10:30am (I had a 7am meeting, so I took a long lunch), and the polling place was busier than I've ever seen it by a factor of 5. Since I'm in one of the most conservative precincts in the state, I'm not sure if that's a "good" thing for Democrats. More later tonight after I get back from work.

Update 2217 07 Nov: Updates on the results as they come in are in the extended entry.

Based on the long lines reported in Idaho, I'd say it looks pretty good for the Democrats; people don't wait hours to vote to maintain the status quo. With control of the House going to the Dems, it looks like the big question here in Idaho is whether we're going to be represented by a powerless minority party extremist or someone who provides an important moderating influence on the new Democratic majority. Early returns can be found here.

Update 2240 07 Nov: The link to the Secretary of State's statewide election results page is here. Sali's ahead by about 3%, but doing much worse than Otter, so when the more Democratic parts of the state come in, it should start trending to Grant.

Update 2252 07 Nov: According to the Idaho Statesman results page, Larry Grant has a 2,700 vote lead (11.1K to 8.4K), but the SoS office still has Sali with a 900 vote lead (9.9K vs. 9.0K). Strange...

Update 2302 07 Nov: Speaking of elections, Team NAVY has taken a huge lead in the Project Valour-IT Veteran's Day fundraising drive, providing Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops. (Team NAVY got a big push when the guys at Power Line joined the team.) Now that you don't have to give money to candidates anymore, you should consider donating to this worthy cause by clicking the "Make A Donation" button to the right.

Update 2331 07 Nov: Believe it or not, CNN seems to have the most useful graphic, showing in one place how all the counties are voting. The fact that Sali's only getting 50% of the vote in Canyon County should be very encouraging for Grant supporters.

Update 2346 07 Nov: Dennis Mansfield is providing commentary and results from Republican Party HQ, and Jill Kuraitis is doing the same from where the Dems are meeting.

Update 0035 08 Nov: The Congressional race for the district that includes Subase New London is very close -- the Republican incumbent, Robert Simmons, is down by 239 votes with 97% of the precincts reporting.
Here in the Idaho 1st District, Larry Grant is behind by 1,200 votes with 59% reporting, but based on which counties are still to report, it looks like Sali might just pull it out; I doubt he'll get 50% of the vote, though, so it won't exactly be a ringing mandate in a district that voted 68% for President Bush two years ago.

Update 0050 08 Nov: Unfortunately, I've gotta work tomorrow, so I'll have to find out how it all turns out in the morning. It's looking like control of the Senate will come down to the recount in Virginia; I'll admit that I would have rather had split chambers than Dem control of both, but hopefully this will convince the national Republican leaders that they need to make some changes -- and fast.

Bill Whittle Speaks -- Of A Child's Longing For Submarines

[Intel Source: Chapomatic] The incomparable Bill Whittle has emerged from wherever he hides at to grace us with another essay. This one starts out with a topic we all know about -- how submarines are so completely fascinating to children:

I grew up on an island. I was in the water almost every day. I wanted this Polaris Nuclear Sub more than I wanted the sun to rise. I had picked out a grotto where I could keep it docked. Taking the ferry across the bay from Hamilton, I would look over the rail in anticipation of the day when I would shadow that churning wake, the periscope a thin reed lost in the foam, pursuing those fat clueless prefects into a perfect firing position and their watery graves!

And I am not alone. In finding this picture, I discovered that there are thousands of boys like myself, begging and pleading for the six dollars and ninety-eight cents it costs to build a fully functional, 7-foot, 2-man nuclear submarine that had:

•Controls that work!
•Rockets that fire!
•Real Periscope!
•Firing torpedoes!
•Electrically lit instrument panel!

I stared at this ad for months and months on end as a small boy. And though I must have read each word a thousand times, I have no memory of the phrase “sturdily constructed of 200 lb. test fibreboard!” It finally fell to my father to inform me that “200 lb test fibreboard!” is, in fact, garden-variety cardboard. My immediate response was “but wouldn’t that get all soggy out in the ocean?” And I am deeply ashamed to admit that after all that time, it is only now, in posting this on the internet at 47 years of age, that I realized for the first time that the damn Polaris Nuclear Submarine doesn’t even have a propeller.

Well, that’s seven-year-old boys for you. Had I been so inclined, I was certainly smart enough to have determined that one could not build a Polaris Nuclear Sub with missiles and firing torpedoes and all the rest for $6.98. All $6.98 would buy you in 1967 was a cardboard box painted like a submarine.

Bill goes on to give a logic lesson to the loony left. Like all his writings, it's worth the time to sit back and give it a good read. You'll be glad you did.

And after you're done, make sure to vote tomorrow -- and, if you have time left over, please consider making a contribution to Project Valour-IT by clicking the "Make A Donation" button to the right. That's another thing you'll be glad you did.