Iraq Study Group Report
From Cox and Forkum:
In 1945, Americans knew that there was truly "no substitute for victory," as General MacArthur said in his farewell speech to Congress. In 1945, Americans also knew the meaning of "victory." It was not a mere word, empty of content. It named a specific task, and a precise goal. To say that our aim today is "to attain victory" can be as empty and futile as urging a college student to "do well," or a businessman to "succeed." What constitutes "doing well"? What is "success"? How will we know when we have achieved "victory"? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy? History offers yet another example. The words proclaimed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which defined the terms of victory, and which he held intransigently for over two years, are "Unconditional Surrender." Bringing long-term peace to the world, said FDR,This is just a glimpse of the essay's analysis, so as I urged before: Read the whole thing. And when you do, contrast it to what Bush said today about our enemies. The CNN headline captures the essence: Bush tells Iran, Syria how they can join Iraq talks.involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the . . . Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.In other words, continued FDR:We have learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of the world, they will multiply and grow in strength . . . [they] must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy which has brought so much suffering to the world.The term "Unconditional Surrender" has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded "no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender" from his southern foe at Fort Donelson, Kentucky. For this victory, Grant was heroized as "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. To Americans of the time, "U. S." stood for Ulysses S. Grant, for the United States, and for Unconditional Surrender. Americans demanded nothing less than victory, and equated victory with their own identity as a nation. This is what we must regain today: the sense of ourselves as right to drive victoriously over a viciously evil enemy. We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran--and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth--to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights.
After talks with his top Iraq war ally President Bush on Thursday indicated that Iran and Syria might be included in regional talks about Iraq, if they meet certain conditions. ... The Iraq Study Group report also called on the United States to hold talks on the war with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, a nation which has not enjoyed diplomatic relations with Washington in the nearly three decades after the Iranian revolution. "Having an international group is an interesting idea," Bush said. "We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years," said Bush. "And that is that, if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their [nuclear] enrichment program."So there's been a "change in U.S. policy." Bush would like us to believe that we nonetheless have Iran on the defensive and that the West has set the terms. But in reality it is Iran that is setting the terms. The Islamic Republic is an openly hostile enemy who is not only pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of numerous agreements but is also actively involved in killing our troops in Iraq -- and yet they have suffered no negative consequences. It is an act of appeasement to even consider talks with Iran because it rewards their past behavior. Iran has set the terms by pursuing whatever policies are in their interest while the West merely reacts with words. Why would Iran suddenly begin to punish themselves for our sake, just because we asked, when their current strategy is working just fine? Until the Iranian regime is defeated militarily, there can be no meaningful talks. Bush may admit that the situation in Iraq is "bad," but until he admits that Iran is the real source of the problem, the situation will only get worse.
Lecture: Flemming Rose on “Why Publish the Danish Cartoons?”
Flemming Rose is the Cultural Editor for the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, the person who commissioned and then published the cartoons of Mohammed that became known as the Danish Cartoons. First published September 30, 2005, they created a furor around the world last spring. These dramatic events were caused by one man and one newspaper, with the able assistance of 12 political cartoonists. Flemming Rose tells his story: why he commissioned the cartoons, the reasons for their publication, and puts the cartoons in a larger context of the battle of ideas in today's Europe. This battle is about freedom of speech, respect for and by religion, the integration of Muslims into European culture and wider immigration issues. While this talk may leave you wondering about the future of America, Europe and the entire world, Mr. Rose will inspire you and show you how ideas influence the world. There will be a Q & A after the talk. There is no charge to attend this event, and it is open and intended for the public. Members of the media are welcome to attend. Don't miss this rare opportunity -- Flemming Rose is only in this country for a short time.Monday, December 4, 2006 at 7:30 pm; Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law School Building, University of Colorado at Boulder. For further information, please contact Ideas.Matter@yahoo.com, or jim.manley@objectivistclubs.org or Lin Zinser at 303.431.2525. Co-sponsored by Ideas Matter! and the Boulder Objectivist Club.
No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
Writes Professor of History, John Lewis, in "No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" at the Objective Standard:On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by Japan, a country then governed by a militaristic, religious ideology, in pursuit of a divine empire, with indoctrinated soldiers who soon used suicide tactics. We chose the ruthless, offensive response. Three years and eight months later, the Japanese surrendered, their country in ruins, their people starving. Five years after the attacks, Japan had a constitution that included the following (from its famous Article 9): "[T]he Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation. . . . The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized." Sixty years after the U.S. ended two generations of aggressive Japanese warfare, Japan remains free, productive, and friendly to America. The Japanese have not abandoned their traditions—nor has anyone asked them to do so—but they no longer use them to kill and enslave others. Rather than seek our destruction, Japan has become a staunch political ally, a robust free-market competitor, and an invaluable economic producer. Rather than build bombs and fighter planes with which to attack us, the Japanese build cars and computers that contribute immensely to our own high standard of living. In perfect contrast, the second option—the pragmatic, altruistic, limited-military response—has been the basic approach of the Bush Administration to the attacks of September 11, 2001. What are the results?For the results and the cure read Dr. Lewis' brilliant article. From Cox and Forkum:
Lecture: The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel
The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel By Tore Boeckmann In the first chapter of The Fountainhead, we learn that Howard Roark's drawings "were sketches of buildings such as had never stood on the face of the earth." Yet the Dean, a champion of classicism, tells Roark that "all the proper forms of expression have been discovered long ago." The conflict between the classicist, who copies, and an artist like Howard Roark, who originates, runs through The Fountainhead and illustrates the novel's wider theme: the conflict between the parasite and the creator. Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead is itself the work of a creator. In fact, as Tore Boeckmann shows in this lecture, the novel was written by the same basic method as its hero, Howard Roark, follows in creating his architectural designs. But the work of a creator is original. Can there be a method for creating the new? Mr. Boeckmann demonstrates that there is such a method. Identifying its nature, he shows how this method gives rise to every concrete aspect of The Fountainhead. And he shows how the method of The Fountainhead, and of Howard Roark, is essential to the romantic school of art. (This lecture is based on an essay in Robert Mayhew's new book, Essays on Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead.") Tore Boeckmann's mystery short stories have been published and anthologized in several languages. He edited Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction, and has lectured at Objectivist conferences in America and Europe . Recent publications include " The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel" and "What Might Be and Ought to Be: Aristotle's Poetics and The Fountainhead" in Essays on Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," edited by Robert Mayhew. Tuesday December 5, 2006; Kimmel Center Room 914-Silver, New York University; 7:00pm; e-mail: nyu@objectivistclubs.org; Map.Putin and the Rule of Law
From Cox and Forkum:
This cartoon was originally posted on February 22, 2005, and is one of over 400 illustrations in our new book, Black & White World III, which can be purchased online through us, or Amazon.com From FoxNews: British Airways to Contact Passengers After Traces of Radiation Found on Planes.Two British Airways jets tested positive Wednesday for low-level radioactive contamination as the probe into the apparent murder of a former KGB agent uncovered a trail leading directly from London to Moscow. FOX News has learned that British authorities are checking into whether anyone onboard the planes are associated with the radiation poisoning death of ex-Russian spy and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko. ... Litvinenko, who died Nov. 23 in a London hospital, claims Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind his death. The former spy said he believed he had been poisoned on Nov. 1, while investigating the death of another Kremlin detractor investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya. His hair fell out, his throat became swollen and his immune and nervous systems were severely damaged, he said.From the San Francisco Chronicle: Russia -- the usual suspected assassin; Kremlin denies all, everybody shrugs.Whether the Russian government is really behind the death of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 21st century Russia still looks like the kind of country that would assassinate its adversaries James Bond-style by slipping radioactive polonium-210 into their sushi. After all, a former KGB spy holds the nation's highest office [President Vladimir Putin]. Former intelligence operatives are senior Cabinet members. The state controls virtually every media outlet. Many who, like Litvinenko, dare to criticize the government are intimidated, imprisoned or exiled. Some are murdered, their cases unsolved. The Kremlin obstructs the work of international civil liberties watchdogs and silences domestic adversaries who criticize human rights abuses, particularly in the war-torn republic of Chechnya. Given this record, it is not surprising that many people have been quick to pin the blame on the Kremlin, even though the Kremlin's many accusers have offered no evidence of its guilt, said Sarah Mendelson, an expert on Russia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.From CNN: Full statement by Alexander Litvinenko.You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women. You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.