First, most of the media are a bunch of equal opportunity A-holes.  They are sharks circling in the water, and when they smell blood they go for it, and they don’t care whether the blood comes from a Democrat or Republican.

Second, there are plenty of right-leaning media outlets to counterbalance the left-leaning ones.  Does anyone REALLY believe that Fox is “fair and balanced”?  Of course not.  Fox is ridiculously biased in our favor.  That’s why we like watching it.  And last I checked, Fox was crushing MSNBC in viewership.  And let’s not even get started on talk radio.

Third, who gets their political insight from the nightly news anymore?  I sure don’t.  I get most of my reporting and commentary from the internet, like I suspect most of you do too.  Well the internet belongs to nobody, Democrat or Republican.  Whatever you want to learn about, you can find on the internet.  Whatever you believe, you can publish on the internet.  It’s the wild west, total anarchy, and anarchy favors nobody … and everybody.

Fourth, successful Republican politicians learn to use the media to their advantage instead of complaining about it.  Like Ronald Reagan.  He was a master at using the media.  Ever hear Reagan whine about the media?  Here is a pretty extensive list of Reagan quotes.  None of them are about the media.  Complaining about the media in politics is like complaining that water is wet.  Stop complaining and start swimming.

Fifth, when our answer to every negative fact or bit of bad news is to blame biased MSM, we sound like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing paranoid kooks.  Sometimes, bad news is just bad news, not evidence of a conspiracy.  The funny thing is, all the lefty tin foil hats are equally convinced of media bias against them, since the news outlets are all corporate owned.  Their whining about “corporate news” sounds just as bad as ours.

Sixth, as long as we lean on that rhetorical crutch, we prevent ourselves from formulating actual cogent, persuasive arguments for our case.  Citing the MSM persuades nobody who is not already persuaded, and takes up brain cells, bandwidth, and copy space that could be used on persuasive analysis.

Finally, only losers complain about the referees.  Have you ever noticed that in nearly every single NFL game ever played, fans of the losing team complain that the officiating was bad?  Well, that’s what we sound like.  Winners find a way to win.  So stop snivelling, stop using Media Bias as your answer to every single issue on this forum, and get out there and make your case with facts and analysis.

1. Cheated on his first wife and and divorced her while she had cancer.
2. Cheated on his second wife for 5 years and divorced her while she had multiple sclerosis.
3. Lied about his affair while he led the effort to impeach President Clinton for lying about an affair.
4. Did all of the above while building a career as a public figure as a champion of families, traditional values, and moral standards.

OK.  Got it.

Before you go down this path, please consider the likely consequences of this outcome:

First, we are going to lose the election in a landslide.   The American people will excuse many things, but they will not excuse a hypocrite.  Newt is pretty much the world heavyweight champion of hypocrites.  If we pick him, it will make the entire Republican party look like hypocrites too.  Twelve years after trying to impeach a President for cheating on his spouse while in office and lying about it, we will have chosen to nominate for President a man who …  cheated on his spouse while in office and lied about it.  Shhhh, maybe nobody will notice the coincidence.

Second, we will forfeit the ability to defend family values and moral standards for at least a generation.  For example, do you oppose gay marriage?  Well, you can forget that.  Can you imagine the next time that comes up and we try to argue that it “undermines the institution of marriage”?  We will get laughed at.

Third, it’s going to destroy our general credibility, and expose us as a group willing to say and do anything to win.   We will demonstrate with our actions that we are willing to overlook a staggering character flaw as long as he says things we like about government and the economy and is strident in his criticism of those we dislike.  We will demonstrate that consistency of principles means nothing to us.

Character is doing the right thing even when it conflicts with your own interests and desires.  Re-read the four bullets at the top of this post.  Can you really claim that Newt is a man of good character?  That he is trustworthy?  That he is a man of integrity?  That he puts the welfare of others above himself?  So are those things not important to you, or is pandering to your ideology just more important?

Some of the arguments made to excuse his behavior are absurd:

• “Oh, but he has repented, and has been forgiven!”  Please.  The prisons are full of repentant criminals.  People who get caught tend to do that.  It’s the only way they can still get what they want.
• “Nobody is perfect.  You are not perfect.”  Nobody is not running for President.  Neither am I.  Newt is.
• “His personal life is nobody’s business.”  Only if you think that character does not count, and that we were all full of crap in 1998.
• “Marianne is just a bitter ex-wife.”  Completely irrelevant to Newt’s behavior in 1998.
• “The media is out to get him.”  Ditto.

I know some of you like Newt because he is a pugnacious fellow who is going to take it to Obama in the debates.  Well, combative candidates do not win the Presidency.  Optimistic leaders win the Presidency.  That is why candidates typically pick a running mate who can act as an attack dog.  The attacking has to be done, but not by the guy at the top of the ticket.  Give Newt a talk show on Fox if you like the way he skewers people.

One last thought.  You love Newt because he says the right things.  Twelve years ago he was saying the right things about family values and morality.  Turns out he did not mean it.  At all.

So how do you know for sure that he means what he says now?

War is hell, indeed.  But war is also the extension of politics by violence.  The way a war is fought reflects on the character of those fighting it, and can directly influence the attainment of political goals from the conflict.  Therefore, war must be conducted in a manner consistent with the strategic objectives and political identity of the country waging it.  In the case of the US, we are the good guys, and we expect our wars to be fought consistent with the values we embrace as Americans.  We go to war for just causes, and we expect our wars to be fought with a sense of justice.

It is easy for things to get out of hand during war, even for the good guys.  Wars are fought by young men, many in their teens and early twenties, with still developing values and character.  They are placed in an environment where life is cheap and death is common, and are forced to make life and death decisions.  It is too much for some of them, especially in a counterinsurgency environment, where guerrillas hide within the population and appear to benefit from their support.  Anger, frustration, opportunity, and capability can combine in dangerous and tragic ways.  War crimes happen in every war, by every country participating.

Military commanders are responsible to make sure that things do not get out of hand.  To keep things under control under extreme duress, they rely on discipline.  Discipline is doing what you should do when you do not want to do it, and not doing what you should not do when you want to do it.  It is resisting impulses and urges in favor of exercising self control.  Discipline is the core of military professionalism.  Discipline must be practiced until it becomes automatic, so that under extreme circumstances it will not fail.  Discipline gives young men under fire a framework to fall back on when things get confusing and ugly.  By following the rituals of military discipline, soldiers continually reinforce the habit of adherence to standards and policies.

Sometimes military discipline can seem trivial, but it is a method born of long experience.  Professional military leaders from the time of the legions know that the best way to avoid big offenses is to prevent small offenses.  Once you get used to flouting the rules, any rule or law can be flouted.  Small crimes can become large crimes.  Mistreatment of the dead can become mistreatment of the living.  It is a slippery slope from mistreatment to rape, murder, and pillage, and Americans are not immune.  Military discipline is what keeps us from going there.

The United States Marine Corps is one of the most disciplined military forces on earth.  But every organization has individuals that fail to meet standards, and the Marines are no exception.  This video was a serious breakdown of discipline.  Mistreatment of enemy or civilian remains, to include photographing or videoing enemy remains, is prohibited under US policy and expressly against general orders issued to all US military personnel in Afghanistan.  The offending Marines were certainly aware of these orders, but they chose to ignore them.  The Marine Corps will NEVER tolerate that.

This video was not an inconsequential act.  US troops will die because of this video, just as surely as if those Marines had deserted their posts.  In counterinsurgency, the core challenge is to build trust with the local population so that they will cooperate with local security efforts.  Much effort is expended to build this trust, and many US troops have died conducting operations to establish local security and build trust in the population.  Any act that undermines this trust undermines those operations and wastes the sacrifices of the troops who died to build trust.

Muslims have very strong beliefs on the proper treatment of their remains, even those of the enemy.  Mistreating corpses makes us seem like barbaric animals to the Afghan population we are trying to win the trust and cooperation of.  This video gives the Taliban easy propaganda to undermine our efforts, and will help them recruit more suicide bombers.

Some commentators have tried to excuse this incident by pointing to Patton pissing in the Rhine.  Equating the two acts is rather stupid, since Patton peed in a river, not on a corpse.  Beyond that, this argument displays a fundamental lack of understanding of who Patton was and how he behaved.  Patton was known for exceedingly strict military discipline; for example, he instituting fines for not shaving daily in combat, and he had military police patrol war zones to enforce uniform infractions such as not wearing leggings.  Beyond that, Patton was an avid practitioner of information warfare, with a keen appreciation for the effect of public gestures. Much of his flamboyant persona was a deliberate act to give his troops a larger than life image to rally around.  His pissing in the Rhine was exactly the kind of calculated grand gesture he was famous for.  Were he in command in Afghanistan, he would have been apoplectic at the pissing video, because of how it undermined his strategic goals there.  He also would not have tolerated disobedience of general orders.

Others have taken offense at public denunciations by Clinton and Panetta.  Those of us who consider ourselves strong supporters of the troops need to understand this: the Secretaries of State and Defense are doing their duty.  Our allies are watching closely, and potential partners in the Muslim world are watching closely.   The US must quickly and strongly denounce this act, or it will drag on forever.  It is Clinton and Panetta’s job to make a vigorous condemnation, then pivot smoothly to subjects more favorable to the US.  It’s Public Affairs 101, folks.

I understand and share the urge to “support the troops” unconditionally.  But your urge is misguided in this instance.  What those Marines did has endangered their fellow Marines who are still in combat, who will now have to deal with extra RPGs sent their way by newly recruited insurgents who think we routinely piss on Muslim corpses.  Support those Marines, not the idiots who have made their job harder.

The bottom line is that the Marine Corps cannot and will not tolerate this kind of indiscipline.  They will move swiftly and decisively to punish those responsible.  That punishment will take place within the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), administered bya military judge and jury, and it will be consistent with the Marine Corps standards of discipline.  Most importantly, the outcome will be the same whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.  The rest of us should keep that in mind and not fan the flames on this issue further.  Let the process work.

So I thought it would be useful to start an discussion on Conservatism.  What do you consider the philosophy underlying Conservatism?  What are the core principles that derive from that philosophy?  How do you apply those principles to arrive at specific policy approaches and political positions?  How does Conservatism differ from other political philosophies?

I’ll go first.  I consider the underlying philosophy of conservatism to be the belief that society should be organized according to hard earned lessons and proven principles of governance.  Conservatives appreciate the limits of human capacity and we recognize the fundamental flaws in human character.  Therefore, we avoid radical change and mistrust the impulses of others to use government to improve society.  Conservatism is ultimately a pragmatic approach to governance, sticking with proven principles until new approaches have been thoroughly vetted.  We “conserve” that which works and put the burden of proof on those who would change it.

That respect for the past separates us from Liberals and Progressives, who believe that the imperative to improve society justifies radical change.  They are willing to accept error as the price of progress.  Conservatism prioritizes outcomes while Liberalism prioritizes intentions.

From this philosophy, I see a group of core principles:

1. Limited Government.  The biggest lesson of history is that government cannot be trusted with excessive power.  People are simply too vulnerable to the impulse to control others.  Further, centralized government control is ineffective, and centralized funding means centralized control.   Therefore, government authority should be constrained to the minimum necessary for a functioning society, and government activity should be funded at the lowest possible level of community.  These principles form the basis of our Constitutional system of government, a system proven by 235 years of success.
2. Economic Freedom.  History contains 3 major economic lessons:  A – Capitalism is the only economic system proven to increase standards of living.  B – Absent profit motive and self interest, the only way to increase productivity is coercive power. and C – Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences and usually makes things worse.
3. Respect for social institutions.  The family is the strongest and most enduring social institution in human history.  Anything that weakens the family weakens all of us.  Churches have likewise been a force for social good for thousands of years, and their place in society should be respected.  Finally, our common moral code is the source of our strength as a society, and should be respected.
4. National defense and law enforcement.  History has shown that only those people strong enough to defend their freedom will keep it, and that allying with other free peoples makes us stronger.  Ignoring or appeasing evil only allows it to become a greater threat.  And civilization must have some base level of rules and order, otherwise chaos thrives.  These lessons apply abroad and at home.

Full disclosure: I worked for GEN McChrystal on several occasions.  While I was not part of his inner circle, I observed him closely as a combat commander in Iraq.  Simply put: Stan McChrystal is the single most effective human being I have ever observed in any walk of life, ever, anywhere.  As a military officer he has no peer.  To watch him work inspires awe.  His men nicknamed him “the cyborg” for his relentless focus, hard work, and self discipline, and yet he was a warm, unpretentious, funny commander who gave and received fierce loyalty from those who worked for him.  He also exuded unyielding integrity in every aspect of his conduct.  Having said all that, it has nothing to do with the question of whether he should be fired.

First, if you have not read the Rolling Stone article carefully and completely, do so now.  You cannot begin to form your own opinion on this matter without reading the article.  The article is essentially a tenuous 3rd hand account: what the author says that aides said that McChrystal said.  Don’t compound the error by relying on press coverage of the article.

Bottom line: McChyrstal was not insubordinate.  At no point in the article did he personally say anything derogatory about anyone in his chain of command.  Now keep in mind there were only 3 people in his legal Chain of Command:  General Petraeus, Secretary Gates, and President Obama.  Nobody else has authority over him.  Holbrooke and Eikenberry are McChrystal’s peers in the hierarchy of the US Government; while not particularly smart to feud in public, he owes them no deference.

The only offensive statement that can be attributed to McChyrstal was his joke about “Biden who”.  Yet read the account of this conversation carefully.  Notice the author paraphrases the rest of the conversation, rather than literally quoting McChrystal.  In doing so he denies us any information to interpret for ourselves what McChystal meant, and forces us to accept his interpretation of the tone.  We are given a single sentence, devoid of context, and asked to believe the word of a reporter with an overt agenda to undermine the war effort.

Did unnamed members of his staff say stupid things?  Yes … but put their statements in context.  These are men who have been living in a foreign country, in a combat zone, working 20 hour days for months on end without a break.  They spend most of those days locked in plywood huts staring at computer screens, associating only with each other, trying with every trick they know to turn around the situation that their boss has sole responsibility for.  They are immersed in their own all-consuming world, oblivious to matters outside the borders of their war, and uncomprehending of how their words would play in the US.  Ask any overseas vet what this feels like.

So why did McChrystal let this happen?  Most likely, he and his inner circle were simply novices at handling the press. That’s hard to believe, unless you know where he came from.  He commanded our most elite counter terrorism forces in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2008.  I was in and out of his headquarters in both locations hundreds of times during that time, and I never saw a reporter.  Not once.  He ran a highly classified operation and they were just not allowed.  So his personal staff never learned how to deal with reporters.  Most critically, they never learned that in Washington, press comments by unnamed aides are taken as back channel statements by “the boss”.

Beyond that, I think he is simply unable to say things that he does not believe, or to feign attitudes he didn’t feel.  It violates his sense of integrity to falsify, conceal, or misrepresent anything.  He still follows the West Point Honor Code: “a cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do”.

Was McChrystal naive?  Yes.  Most likely he was naive to believe that the truth would prevail; that if he opened up his headquarters to a reporter, even one with a hostile agenda, that the reporter would be won over by brutal honesty and openness.  The world, alas, is more complicated.  Honor is not common currency.

Some people speculate that this was a deliberate move by McChrystal, either to get out of a sinking ship or to set up political aspirations.  Rest assured, McChrystal would never willingly violate the Prime Directive: NEVER QUIT.  As for politics, the idea would be repellent to him.

On to Obama’s decision to fire him.  Yes, fire.  McChrystal’s resignation was a ritual move in the kabuki dance of public life in a democracy.  Obama fired him.

A true leader puts his cause above all else.  Especially himself.  There can be no leadership without sacrifice, and that starts at the top.  Leadership is not about strengthening the leader; it is about achieving the goals towards which he leads.

Consider the full weight of what just happened.  After investing a full year in building a strategy to win in Afghanistan, Obama has fired the chief architect of that strategy because of 3rd hand press accounts of private grumbling by unnamed aides.  McChrystal built enormous trust and rapport with our Afghan partners, and acquired unique expertise about that conflict, and now it’s all gone.  Petraeus, brilliant though he is, will not be able to replicate that expertise for at least 6 months to a year.  By then, the withdrawal will have begun, and we will have lost.

Obama faced a test with this situation.  What was more important to him: doing everything possible to win the war, or bolstering his own public image?  Looking “strong” by facing down a rogue general, or looking “weak” by letting the infraction slide?  Yet the outcome reveals a paradox.  By fearing to do the right thing, by prioritizing his own image over the goals he supposedly wants to achieve in Afghanistan, Obama shows true weakness.

Had he rebuked McChrystal, then restated his full support for the General and his strategy, Obama would have shown true courage and resolve.  He would have shown himself to be a confident leader, comfortable enough to ignore press noise and focus on victory.  He would also have deeply impressed a military leadership by standing up against the press.  Instead, we see a man awash in narcissism, unable to tolerate even accidental disrespect because he fears “looking weak.”

Much talk is made of MacArthur and Truman.  But a more apt historical example would be Lincoln and GEN Ulysses Grant.  Asked at a press conference what he would do about scandalous reports of Grant’s heavy drinking, Lincoln responded that he would find out what brand of whiskey Grant drank and send a case to  his other Generals.  There was a Commander in Chief who knew what was important.  Generals are hired to fight and to win, not to make the press happy.

I feel terrible for McChrystal, knowing the depth of his devotion to his country.  But that pales against the sadness I feel for our country.  We have lost a great and talented patriot, sacrificed in the hour of our greatest need to protect the fragile ego of a President and an administration that lives for public opinion.  It’s almost as if they WANT to lose the war.

I’d like to know who their national security advisor is, because he has excellent insight.  He hit the crucial lesson of Iraq right on the head with this passage:

A narrow, short-term focus on counterterrorism, by contrast, would repeat the mistakes made for years in Iraq before the troop surge, with the same catastrophic consequences. Before 2007 in Iraq, U.S. Special Forces had complete freedom of action to strike at terrorist leaders, backed by more than 120,000 conventional American forces and overwhelming air power. Although we succeeded in killing countless terrorists — including the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the insurgency continued to grow in strength and violence. It was not until we changed course and applied a new approach — a counterinsurgency strategy focused on providing basic security for the people and improving their lives — that the cycle of violence was at last broken.

I was a part of that Special Forces effort in Iraq.  Most of us realized the basic futility of what we were trying to do.  After spending several years killing cockroaches with golden hammers, it was readily apparent we were never going to kill more of “Johnny Jihad” than the enemy could produce.  Further, we could see that our conventional combat forces did not have a viable operational concept to achieve our strategic objectives.  Purposefully isolated on large bases, our forces were unable to dominate the environment or protect the population.  We ceeded the high ground to the enemy, and he used it to hammer us with IEDs on our exposed supply routes.  It was the classic counterinsurgency dillema, and we played our role to the hilt.

By 2006, I had lost faith in the ability of my military leadership to recognize our situation and devise a way out.  Along with many fellow military professionals, my private feelings swung against continuing the war.  I saw no way to win, and daily observed the human cost as hapless soldiers rolled up and down highways in heavily armored convoys, hoping to survive the IED attacks they could not predict or prevent.  Any soldier worth his salt understands the concept and importance of initiative.  If the enemy chooses where and when to initiate contact, then you don’t have it, and you can’t win without it. 

But of course all that is history now, a history changed by the emergence of leaders like Generals Petraeus and Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  Petraeus has received just acclaim for turning around our strategy, but Odierno deserves equal or greater credit for the moral courage it took to buck his susperiors and bypass the chain of command.  Nobody will say it, but his son’s loss of an arm had to be a decisive factor in his actions.  Thank God for character.  And Crocker deserves his share of the victory parade too; he was instrumental in reversing State Department policies that prevented reconciliation.

It’s easy to forget now, but in late 2006 virtually our entire political and military establishment was unitied in a similar consensus that it was time to get out of Iraq.  Only a few brave leaders stood and yelled “Stop!”, or worked behind the scenes to reverse our collective movement to give up.  McCain and Lieberman, Odierno, GEN(ret) Keane, Cheney, and Bush formed the core of that group, and somehow they saved us from unrecoverable error in Iraq.  Say what you will, but McCain and Lieberman both put themselves at great political risk with their stance.  Lieberman was basically drummed out of his party for his efforts.

So now we find ourselves approaching the same place again in Afghanistan.  We knew it would come to this.  The left’s emphasis on Afghanistan as the “must-win” war would only last as long as it was tactically useful for them to do so.  As soon as possible, they would turn against our efforts there too.  It is happening now, and that is why McCain and Lieberman have fired this shot across our collective bow.

It is crucial that we learn and apply the correct lessons from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Crucial, but not guaranteed.  When we went into Iraq, we thought we had the central lesson of Afghanistan figured out: minimize our presence to avoid inflaming the locals.  But that lesson ultimately proved wrong in Afghanistan, and was almost our immediate undoing in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

It is very important that we not let the Obama administration wriggle off the hook on the central truth of counterinsurgency:  there are no magic shortcuts.  There is only hard, long, slow, bloody, dirty effort, which in the end is the only way to achieve our goals, and to win.  That is why this article by McCain and Lieberman is important.  It clearly states the central truth.  There is no easy way.

In particular, we must avoid the temptation of the Special Forces “Silver Bullet” fantasy.  Democrats are particularly enamored of this delusion, that a small, skilled, precise force of Special Operators can achieve our aims with minimal blood and expense.  This wishful thinking almost never works out.  Special Operations are at best a supporting effort, and cannot change the security situation on the ground in any large battlefield.  Only masses of ground troops, fighting and dying in the mud, can do that.

As the year progresses, watch carefully for promises from Obama to fight the war in Afghanistan smarter, not harder.  Watch particularly closely for promises based on getting Bin Ladin with “commandos” or Special Operations.  News flash:  we’ve been doing that for 8 years and it hasn’t worked.  There are no short cuts.

So now the national conversation must shift from whether to close Guantanamo to how to close it.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, even if you are a national security conservative.  Closing Guantanamo does not require conceding that it was a bad idea or an evil act.  Back in the early days of the war, we had dangerous terrorist prisoners and we needed a quick solution to deal with them.  Guantanamo was probably the best hasty solution that could be devised at the time.  However, when you implement a hasty solution you must go back and put in place a more deliberate solution when time permits.  For Guantanamo, that time has come.

Beyond that, Guantanamo Bay has engendered such controversy that it has become a nuisance and  distraction far disproportionate to any benefits we might continue to derive from it.  It is wildly unlikely that interrogations still yield useful intelligence or insight 8 years after capture, and there are other options for how to warehouse or dispose of the detainees.  Thus the main function of Guantanamo is to serve as an excuse for our allies to complain and a recruiting tool for our enemies.  It is simply no longer worth the aggravation.

The Guantanamo situation recalls the US Army School of the Americas, another left wing imperialist bogeyman.  In the late 1980s, that activity became the focus of various activist groups opposed to US policy in Latin America.  Eventually the Army tired of chasing protestors who slipped onto the base during the huge annual demonstration; in 2001 the Army renamed the school, moved the building, and revamped the curriculum.  This did not stop the protests, but it largely succeeded in taking them out of the public eye. 

Everyone knows the core issue with Guantanamo: what do we do with the detainees now housed there?  This decision must be made after careful analysis of the national security implications of various courses of action, free of the emotion-laden and logic-free rhetoric tossed about freely by all sides in the debate.  We conservatives are not immune to this tendency, as evidenced by various GOP politicians recently asking “do you want terrorists jailed in YOUR town?”  If our federal maximum security prisons can safely contain serial killers and drug lords, they can handle an obese Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Such silly demagoguery only undermines our credibility precisely when we need to be seen as the serious adults on this issue.

The detainees at Guantanamo can be broken down into three categories:  terrorists, lawful combatants, and hapless dupes.  To arrive at a solution acceptable to all, we must sort the detainees into those categories and then treat each group according to accepted norms for their legal status.  Inevitably the sorting process will be imperfect, but some impartial process must be devised to accomplish this result.  It is simply not politically viable to treat all detainees as having the same status.

The terrorists are actually the easiest to deal with.  They need to be tried and sentenced in a reasonably fair manner.  This must include the prospect of the death penalty for those deserving of it.  If they are found innocent, well that sucks; but it sucks whenever a guilty murderer walks free too, and we accept that as the price of an impartial system.  We need to have faith that our system of justice is strong enough to mete out justice for the most vile offenders, however imperfect the results may be.

Of course the “reasonably fair manner” stipulation is the tricky part.  In the view of the Supreme Court, the Bush tribunals are fair enough.  That judgment is unlikely to survive the Obama administration, but that is their prerogative now that they run the executive branch.  If they now decide to try the terrorists in the federal court system, then they are responsible for effective prosecution and they will be held accountable for the results at the next election.  Rest assured that Presidential Obama does not want to explain a KSM acquittal during the 2012 campaign.

The hapless dupes are also fairly easy to deal with.  Included in the detainee population are various unlucky persons who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in all likelihood were sold to us for a profit by bounty hunters.  Most of these people have been repatriated already under various programs.  A relatively small number are still in custody, mostly because they have nowhere to go.  Most countries won’t take them, and the countries that will take them will likely abuse, torture, and execute them.  Again, the system is capable of handling these people.  If we can’t fob them off on an ally, or get reasonable assurances of fair treatment in their home countries, then we can release them under closely supervised custody in the US.  That sounds crazy, but we do it every day with millions of parolees.  Put a GPS bracelet on them, relocate them, give them a job in a controlled environment, and have the FBI sit on them like hawks.  Yes, we’ll have to watch them for decades, but most of them will at some point assimilate or age to the point where we can be assured they are not a threat.

That leaves any “legitimate” combatants to deal with.  In the view of many people, any detainee captured on the field of battle while fighting for the Taliban is a terrorist.  While emotionally satisfying, this is simply not a just or legal position.  Unless evidence exists that a detainee was personally involved in terrorist plots against US civilians, or otherwise personally violated the laws of land warfare, that person is a legal combatant and is entitled to be treated as a POW.  Mere membership or affiliation in the Taliban is not enough.  Neither is evidence of attacks on US troops.  That is what enemy soldiers do.  If they openly bore arms, had some distinguishing uniform or insignia item, and otherwise followed the rules, then we must treat them as POWs.  It may be tough to swallow giving POW privileges to someone who killed US soldiers.  I served in Iraq and Afganistan, I was on the receiving end of (unsuccessful) attacks, and I had friends who were on the receiving end of successful attacks.  I can accept it because I understand that those are the rules we agreed to fight by.  Insurgencies are always the dirtiest and most difficult wars to fight lawfully, but we have to try.

So we need a long term POW camp somewhere.  It needs to have all of the trappings of the Geneva convention, right down to monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross / Red Crescent.  Of course we are entitled to hold those POWs for the duration of hostilities, and so we should.  Since Al Qaeda is unlikely to give up their war against us for at least a generation, the average stay at our POW camp is likely to be indefinite.  Perhaps some repatriation process can be arranged for those who can reasonably assure us that they have no intention of continuing to fight, or are too old or ill to pose a threat.

This solution is unlikely to please everyone.  Perhaps it will please no one.  However, as the old saying goes, a successful negotiation is where all the parties leave a little unhappy.  It is not going to be satisfying to put ourselves into compliance with various national and international standards for treatment of the detainees according to their legal status.  It is also not going to silence our critics or placate our enemies.  But it’s the best approach to putting the aggravation behind us so our national security agencies can get on with the more pressing business of decisively defeating the enemy.

Let’s face it: him turing down early release is by far the most compelling part of the man’s biography. No matter how much you disagree with or even despise him, the thought of that selfless act of character and courage brings goosebumps to any patriotic American, which in my experience is nearly all of us.

I understand why he couldn’t make it the centerpiece of his campaign, why he had to focus on his Senate career and his policy proposals. He couldn’t run solely on that act. Even in the GOP primary he got called out for trying to do that.

But it is no accident that McCain/Palin poll ratings peaked in the 2 weeks after the GOP Convention, when 50 million people saw his bio on film. And now, with only a few hours left, what does he have to lose?

IMHO any remaining “undecided” voters aren’t going to be sitting there with a clipboard, tallying policy prescriptions to determine who to vote for. For most of them, I believe it will be a gut call based on emotion when they get in the booth.

If there is one thought the campaign should want to stick in their minds, in that booth, it should be of McCain the hero. And so that is the last thing they should be reminded of as they watch TV tonight or drive to work in the morning.

Of course I live in a strongly conservative suburb, so none of this is surprising. However, it did make me wonder: if the polls show McCain so far behind, shouldn’t there be some leakage of Obama support into McCain strongholds in a battleground state like Florida?

So today I had a business trip into deep Obama territory: downtown Tampa and St Pete. I figured I would see an equally lopsided display of support for Obama.

Imagine my surprise to see that this was not so. There were more Obama signs there than here, but I still had to look pretty hard for them. And I still spotted more McCain stickers and signs.

Does this mean anything? Probably not. It’s certainly grossly unscientific. But it just makes me wonder if the polls really are overstating the state of this race.

So I’m curious: does anyone else in a battleground state take note of this kind of thing? What is the sign-to-sign ratio in Ohio? PA?

Now we are seeing the results of that rebranding, with a sudden swing back towards Obama in the national polls. The abrupt nature of the polling shift from Sept 16-18 indicates that it is not an inevitable deflation of the RNC convention bounce, but a direct reflection of negative McCain coverage over the last 10 days, culminating in the collective pronouncement of the punditry last weekend that McCain was campaigning dishonestly.

To win, the McCain campaign will have to adapt swiftly to this suddenly even-more-hostile media environment. So what are the after-action lessons from this latest swing?

A. The national press collectively favors Obama. Worse, they appear to be unable to recognize it in themselves, and immune to challenge or protest. Persistent denunciations of media bias appear to have made it worse, not better.

B. The campaigns are judged by a double standard. The media aggressively pursue and report every inconsistency by McCain/Palin, while ignoring or downplaying similar missteps by Obama/Biden.

C. McCain made it easy for them. The campaign played right into the waiting arms of press bias by overreaching on several campaign ads, most notably the lipstick and sex-ed ads. The fact that Obama has also overreached is irrelevant; see point above.

So how can the MCain deal with such a tilted playing field?

1. Recognize the double standard and adapt. Fair or not, it is very unlikely that the media will suddenly regain their professional objectivity. The McCain campaign needs to recognize that the imbalance in scrutiny will likey persist until Nov 2, and that continued protestations are unlikely to change this dynamic.

2. Stop digging. The McCain campaign must realize they are being held to a higher standard of truth, and meet that standard. No, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. No more overnight web ads of questionable veracity. Grabbing the daily press cycle is not worth continued erosion of the McCain brand.

3. Change the game – again. McCain is at his best as an insurgent. The bold Palin pick was a brilliant example. Now is the time to go back to the type of campaigning that won him the primary nomination. He needs to change the format of his rallies to all town halls, every day. He and Palin need to stand side by side, answering unfiltered questions from real voters. He also needs to restart the daily “straight talk express” sessions with reporters, and he needs to bring Palin along for these sessions.

Obviously there is risk to this approach. The media could continue to pounce on every misstatement, of which there will aways be many when talking in an unscripted environment. They could tear into Palin like piranha, turning every interview into a 100 question pop quiz on world leaders and political geography.

But there is also significant possible upside. First, the new approach would be a major news story that would dominate the news cycle for 2 or 3 days. After all, it deals with the media’s favorite topic: themselves. Second, it would remind people of the things about McCain they like, and would reinforce the campaign message of outsiders intent on reform. Third, and most important, it would be a visible break with the tit-for-tat web ads that have eaten into McCain’s brand over the last week.

Lately the OODA loop seems to have gained currency as a model for viewing the dueling campaigns. From an OODA perspective, McCain got into Obama’s OODA loop for a few weeks, but Obama has caught up now. It’s time to shake things up and get inside Obama’s head once again. Let McCain be McCain!

http://www.helpobamasbrother.org/

Gotta admit, as humor goes, this one cuts deep.

If I’m stepping across the line by posting this, someone let me know.

My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.

Note he totally ignores Gov. Palin’s experience as Governor of the State of Alaska, describing her experience only as Mayor of a small town. Clearly dishonest. Not lying, because he’s careful not to get caught doing that, but obviously said with an intent to mislead and deceive.

So let’s take a look at the real tale of the tape:

Employees of the State of Alaska: 25,000
Employess of the Obama Campaign: 2500

Budget of the State of Alaska: $5.5 Billion
Budget of the Obama Campaign: $500 Million

So by Obama’s own measures of executive experience, Palin has 10 times the experience that he has.

My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.

Note he totally ignores Gov. Palin’s experience as Governor of the State of Alaska, describing her experience only as Mayor of a small town. Clearly dishonest. Not lying, because he’s careful not to get caught doing that, but obviously said with an intent to mislead and deceive.

So let’s take a look at the real tale of the tape:

Employees of the State of Alaska: 25,000
Employess of the Obama Campaign: 2500

Budget of the State of Alaska: $5.5 Billion
Budget of the Obama Campaign: $500 Million

So by Obama’s own measures of executive experience, Palin has 10 times the experience that he has.