Our Bastard

"Of course, he's a bastard, but he's our bastard!"
President Franklin D Roosevelt

President Roosevelt was referring to a Latin-American dictator backed by the United States, but the same could be said of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan today. Despite widespread corruption and drug-dealing, and charges that Karzai stole the 2009 presidential election, President Barack Obama has decided to send an additional 30,000 US soldiers to help his administration defeat the Islamist fanatic Taliban movement.

Who is this guy? Hamid Karzai was born near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December of 1957. His father and uncles were prominent members of the Pashtun tribe, and served in the government of King Zahir Shah. After the Soviet invasion of the country in 1980, Karzai worked with the CIA to transfer funds to the Islamist mujahadeen militants, who were fighting the Soviets. After the Soviet-backed government fell, Hamid Karzai was appointed Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan by President Rabbani. When the Taliban took over a few years later, they offered Karzai the post of Ambassador to the United Nations, but he declined the job. Karzai became increasingly hostile to the Taliban, and later joined the Northern Alliance, a Pashtun-led confederation of tribes determined to oust the Taliban.

After the Northern Alliance, with the help of American and allied armed forces, deposed the Taliban in December, 2001, leaders of the Alliance selected Hamid Karzai as interim President of Afghanistan, and he has governed the country ever since. (1)

As noted in our September 25, 2009, posting (Obama's War), helping the Karzai government defeat the Taliban is our only hope of preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a safe-haven for Al Qaeda terrorists. If, God forbid, the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the allied Taliban fighters in Pakistan would have a base from which to continue their struggle indefinitely. Even the slightest risk that a crackpot group like the Taliban might someday get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is ample reason to keep fighting against them in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Although I have no first-hand knowledge of affairs in that remote mountain nation, I am willing to believe the worst about Karzai and his regime. While I loathe risking American lives to keep that regime in power, I consider the real alternative----Taliban rule-----far worse. Although we would like to have a working democracy on our side, sometimes we must support a non-democratic ally. Just as the US backed the Stalinist Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, we must continue to back the Karzai government against the Taliban.

But will the people of Afghanistan risk their lives to defend a regime that probably stole the last election from them? Unless they want to live under Sharia (Islamic) law as interpreted by Mullah Omar and his minions, that is exactly what they will have to do!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia biography.

Preaching to Police

"Unfortunately, we live in an era where some people will make even God the enemy."
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (1)

Our Sheriff made this remark after a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by US District Judge Lyun Adelman that Clarke's invitation to the Fellowship of the Christian Centurions to address mandatory roll-calls of deputy sheriffs was unconstitutional. The Centurions spoke at 18 roll-calls plus the department's leadership conference in May of 2006.

Among topics discussed by the Centurions was "how officers could impact others for Christ." One speaker contended that "God established government, and people in authority are ministers of God assigned to promote good and punish evil." (2) The case was brought by the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Association on behalf of two officers who objected to the programs. Judge Adelman ruled that the Centurion presentations "amounted to religious proselytizing," and the Seventh Circuit agreed.

The quotation cited above indicates that Clarke did not even understand the issue before the courts. If, for example, some future sheriff would invite Richard Dawkins (3) to lecture deputies on behalf of atheism at mandatory assemblies, Clarke might expect the "enemies of God" to support the lecture, since Dawkins is clearly on their side. But the truth is that those who brought the suit, and those who support the suit (such as your blogger), are not "enemies of God" and would consider making deputies listen to Dawkins every bit as wrong as subjecting them to the sermons of the Christian Centurions. Lectures on religion, whether pro or con, are equally violative of the First Amendment and the rights of public employees.

This controversy is especially important now, since Clarke is well-positioned to make a serious bid for Mayor of Milwaukee if Tom Barrett is elected Governor of Wisconsin. Clarke, a former p0lice captain who was appointed Sheriff of Milwaukee County in 2002 by Republican Acting Governor Scott McCallum, won the Democratic primary for the job that year and again in 2006. He was easily elected on the Democratic ticket both times. (4) He came in third in the primary for Mayor in 2004, behind Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt and Barrett. There is every reason to believe he still wants to be Mayor, and would jump at the chance to run again if Barrett were out of the picture. He would probably be the only candidate with a county-wide constituency and big name-recognition. (5)

In the less likely event that Scott Walker becomes Governor, Clarke might seek to become County Executive. However, he would probably face tough competition from County Clerk Joe Czarnezki, a former state senator who finished second to Tom Ament for that position in 1992.

It is bad enough that Clarke is notorious for abusing the rights of deputies. But those who treasure the separation of church and state have another, even more important reason, for opposing this man's ambitions for higher elective office.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 3, 2009, page 3B.

(2) But what if the government itself is evil? In that case, of which there are numerous examples (both past and present), police officers are the instruments of evil, not good. The complete text of the sermon was not available, so I do not know if the question of how a God-fearing person should respond to the orders of an evil government was addressed.

(3) British biologist, author of "The God Delusion" (2006).

(4) Democratic nominees for Milwaukee County partisan offices have won every time for over 50 years. Republican Scott Walker was elected County Executive only because the office is non-partisan.

(5) Ald. Willie Hines would become Acting Mayor if Barrett left office. Ald. Michael Murphy would also be a serious contender.

The Next Campaign Is On You!

Are you tired of having all your state tax money go for mundane costs like the University of Wisconsin, schools, highways and prisons? Well, cheer up! Thanks to Governor Jim Doyle and the majority-Democratic legislature, you will have the privilege of paying for the next campaign for Wisconsin State Supreme Court! In fact, you might be paying for several primary campaigns and both candidates' ads in the general election. If you like political commercials, you will love 2011, the first time that the new law will affect a Supreme Court race.

Here is how the public financing will work: Any lawyer who has practiced at least ten years in Wisconsin is eligible to run for the State Supreme Court. If she (1) can raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or less, she will receive a check from the State for $100,000 to spend on the primary. (Any Wisconsin lawyer who would have trouble meeting this meager threshold should not bother running. All she would have to do is hold a free dinner for all contributors to pick up 100 checks averaging $50; the cost of the dinner could be paid out of the hundred grand from the State!)

But it gets even sweeter! If at least one of the other contenders declined public financing and outspent our candidate, she could get up to $300,000 more in matching funds for the primary. For example, if five candidates filed for the job and only one declined the subsidy and outspent the rest (2), the State treasury could be on the hook for as much as $1.6 million in campaign funds ----and that is just for the primary!

If both candidates who survive the primary accept public financing, the State will provide each with a check for $300,000 for the general election. But if one of them declines the subsidy and spends more than the other, the publicly-financed candidate could garner up to $900,000 in additional State funds for the final battle.


The law also reduces the maximum amount that an individual can contribute to a Supreme Court campaign from $10,000 to only $1,000, so if you were hoping to send a couple grand to your favorite candidate in 2011, you will be disappointed. State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who will be up for re-election that year, worries that "with so little candidate spending, voters outside the major markets will get no advertising. (3)" But I (and I surmise most readers of this blog) live in the largest media market in the State, so I am not worried about missing out on a plethora of political ads in 2011. But I can only weep for the residents of towns like Rice Lake who will have to survive 2011 without any political ads at all!

If Wisconsin state coffers were overflowing with cash, I could understand the desire to spend a million or two for political advertising, since it would help the state media, especially TV, and would also boost the egos of attorneys who would enjoy seeing themselves praised in commercials at taxpayer expense. But the truth is that the State is actually short of money this year, and crucial programs such as aid to school districts have been cut back. I have contributed to political campaigns, including some for the State Supreme Court, but my money went to candidates that I liked, not divided evenly among several candidates, some of whom I probably can't stand.

I understand that public financing is intended to reduce the power of big-money special interest groups, who have virtually dominated several Supreme Court contests in recent years. I contend that the best counter-weight to spending by one group is voluntary spending by those with opposing views. I do not believe that taxpayer funds should be used to level the playing field. I suspect that many other Wisconsin taxpayers, who cannot afford to make political contributions themselves, do not want the State to make contributions with their taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I use the feminine pronoun since four out of the seven incumbent Justices are women.

(2) Ads by independent political groups that urge voting for or against a particular candidate will be included in total spending by the candidate benefiting from such ads. Ads that merely advocate a position on an issue, but do not mention candidates, are not included.

(3) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2009, page 7A.

Bargaining for Barghouti

"I am not a terrorist, but neither am I a pacificist...."
"I strongly oppose attacks and targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, but ...I reserve the right to resist the Israeli occupation of my country."
Marwan Barghouti (1)

Despite these denials, Barghouti is serving five life sentences for participation in a terror operation in Tel Aviv that killed five Israelis. The Government of Israel is now negotiating a possible trade of Barghouti and perhaps hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (most, if not all, convicted terrorists) for Sgt. Gilat Schalit, who was captured by Gazan terrorists in 2006.

Marwan Barghouti was born near Ramallah in was then Jordan in 1959. As a teenager he joined a youth wing of Fatah and fought against Israeli forces in the First Intifada in 1987. He was caught and deported to Jordan, but was permitted to return to the West Bank in 1994 as a result of the Oslo Accords. Two years later, Barghouti was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He then became Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank and commander of Tanzim, the movement's armed branch. In this role, he publicly criticized Yasser Arafat's security forces for human rights violations.


Barghouti was arrested again in 2002, this time for terrorist actions.He was convicted of murder for the Tel Aviv attack in May, 2004. Although incarcerated, he announced his candidacy for President of the Palestine Authority in late 2004, but withdrew from the contest at the request of Fatah leaders committed to Mahmoud Abbas. He remains a leader of Fatah, and is widely considered its most popular figure. Shimon Peres promised to pardon Barghouti if elected President of Israel; Peres won the election, but has not yet kept that promise.

Abbas has declined to seek another term as Palestinian President, and if freed, Marwan Barghouti is a favorite to succeed him. He would be a hard-line leader, but one strong enough to make a deal stick.

I am aware of the Jewish precept of "pidyon shvuim" (redeeming captives), and sympathize with the family and friends of Sgt Schalit, who want desperately to have him home. Moreover, securing his safe return would send a strong signal all Israeli soldiers that even if captured by terrorists, their government will never forget them.

But government leaders must put the interests of the nation above sentiment. Freeing Barghouti sends two messages to potential terrorists: Israeli hostages are extremely valuable, so capture as many as possible! And don't worry about being caught-----you will be traded for another Israeli hostage before long!

Unfortunately, the dire consequences of freeing convicted murderers like Barghouti and some of his fellow prisoners overwhelm the benefit of returning Sgt Schalit to his family and his country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia Biography.

Palestine Ploy

"The Palestinians asked the European Union (EU) ...to back their plan to have the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.."
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009

If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?

The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.

Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.

Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.

The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.

The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.

When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.

And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).

(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.

(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.

Silenced Cal

"If you have a particular faith (Christian), you are to be discriminated against and silenced. Your sacred symbols---from crosses on a desert mountain to Nativity displays in public places ---are banned. You are increasingly forbidden to pray publicly 'in Jesus' name,' but Muslims can speak of Allah and Mohammed everywhere they like..."
Cal Thomas in op-ed "Diversity is a one-way street"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 12, 2009, page 13A

Ignore the whining tone of these statements for a moment, and consider their meaning. Unless you have been comatose for the past seventy years or so, you know that the first and third sentences are false, while the second one is no more than the legitimate consequence of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Let's start with the position of Christianity in American public life. Although about 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (1), one hundred percent of the presidents and vice-presidents of this country have been professed Christians. Eighty-seven percent of the US Senate is Christian, and so is about 94% of the House of Representatives. Christians hold seven out of nine seats on the US Supreme Court, the vast majority of cabinet positions, and nearly all high-ranking military offices.

As a result, Christmas is a federal holiday, and most federal (as well as state) offices are closed on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. In contrast, Jewish government employees must seek permission to miss work on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays, and may be required to use vacation time. (Islam does not prohibit work on any day.) The Supreme Court has ruled that Jewish soldiers may not wear a yarmulke (or other hat) while working in an Air Force office.(2) Troops have been subjected to Christian proselytizing at some bases.

But what of our popular culture? Between now and December 25 we will be inundateded with Christmas music and messages on television and radio. (Some commercial radio stations play nothing else for weeks before the holiday. ) Christmas trees will be erected and lit at government expense at the White House and on public grounds in nearly every city and village in the country. (OK, there will also be some Chanuka menorahs on public property, thanks to the Lubavitcher chasidim.) Christmas carols will be taught in the public schools, and those who decline to sing them will be conspicuous by their silence. Although in recent years some public officials have paid attention to Jewish and Muslim holidays, the pervasive impact of Christmas vastly overwhelms any recognition of minority holidays. Likewise, Easter and Good Friday receive copious attention from the mainstream media.

And yet Cal Thomas contends that the religion of 80% of the American people is "discriminated against!" If so, Charlie Sykes was right when he named his book "A Nation of Victims." Not only are Christians not silenced, but their collective voice on the public airwaves nearly drowns out opposing views! Like all other Americans, Christians are free to pray and preach as much as they want, provided that they do not use public funds or facilities to do so , and that government does not provide a captive audience. (3)

But for some, even this is not enough: they want governmental endorsement of Christianity, such as displays of crosses and creches on public property. The City of Wauwatosa has even included a cross on the official city emblem. Does Mr Thomas consider that proper? I sure don't!

In the recent past Christianity was even more dominant in the public square than it is today. Until the Supreme Court stopped it in 1962, some states authorized official prayers in the public schools; Dallas even taught the New Testament at one time. Obviously, Cal Thomas resents the decline in the status of Christianity in America to that of just another religion, like Judaism, Islam and others. But that is all it is, and all it should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) About 15% are non-believers, and the balance are Jews, Muslims and others.

(2) Goldman vs Weinberger, 1986 (US 84-1097) . Congress subsequently reversed the ban on yarmulkes via an amendment to a Defense appropriation bill.

(3) For example, those attending public high school events (such as football games and graduations) have been subjected to listening to Christian prayers and sermons.

The Major Who Ran Amok

Why would Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hassan shoot more than forty fellow soldiers at Fort Hood? Two explanations have surfaced in the media since the crime:
(a) He went "amok" (1) (aka "went postal") in response to orders to serve in Afghanistan.
(b) He committed an act of jihad (holy war).

Americans have become accustomed to incidents in which a man (usually described as a deranged loner) would suddenly shoot as many people as possible before being shot himself. The scene may be a college campus, a suburban high school, a church, a school, or even a commuter train. Except for calls for tougher gun control, these incidents have little political impact. In a few days, they tend to fade from public consciousness. If Major Hassan ever recovers from his wounds sufficiently to stand trial, he may say why he acted as he did. Meanwhile, theory (a) is most appealing to those who want to ignore the Islamic aspect of the case and those who seek to exonerate the Army from blame for failure to act on several signs that Hassan might become dangerous.

The case for theory (b) includes the following:
1. Before shooting, he shouted "Allahu Akhbar!" (Arabic for "Allah is the greatest!")
2. Although born in Virginia, both of Nidal Hassan's parents were Palestinians.
3. Hassan attended a mosque in 2001 led by Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, who supported Al Qaeda. (2)
4. Hassan said that suicide bombers were like soldiers who threw themselves on grenades to save the lives of others.
5. He was reported to have made many statements to colleagues that they considered "anti-American propaganda" (3)

By many accounts, Nidal Hassan was increasingly unhappy about serving in the US Army for several years, and had sought a discharge, but was refused. Although both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States was never at war with Islam, the only enemies our forces have faced on the battlefield in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and numerous terrorist attacks since 2000 have been Muslims. In a remarkably similar incident, a Muslim American Army sergeant threw grenades into a military tent in Kuwait in 2003, killing one officer and wounding 15 others. In 1996 Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa (Islamic "psak" or religious ruling) that declared all Americans enemies of Islam, whom all Muslims should attack. A significant portion of the world's Muslims accept his viewpoint, including many in Europe and even some in the United States. In this clash between America and radical Islam, some Muslim soldiers in the US military find themselves conflicted between their uniform and their religious affiliation.

Apparently, Nidal Hassan was among those emotionally and religiously drawn to jihadist cause. As long as he was stationed in the United States, he could paper-over the conflict between his military service and his beliefs, but the order to serve in Afghanistan made the tension between the two intolerable. If so, his choice to strike out against his fellow soldiers (with the reasonable expectation that he would be killed quickly) is not attributable to mental illness, any more than Japanese kamikaze pilots or Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers were all "deranged."

With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Nidal Hassan should have been discharged from the Army years ago. No military organization can function if every unhappy soldier can quit at any time, all of our armed forces have ways of discharging people who are useless, or worse. (4) One of these ways should have been found to get rid of Hassan. But how can the services guard against future "Hassans" without violating our laws against religious discrimination? Israel openly practices "ethnic profiling" in choosing who shall serve in the I D F (5), but the US is prohibited by the Constitution from following its example.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A Maylaysian term for sudden, deadly violence.

(2) Washington Post, November 8, 2009.

(3) Associated Press, November 8, 2009.

(4) Had Hassan been (or falsely claimed to be) homosexual, he would have been discharged long ago.

(5) Israeli Arabs are exempt from the draft, but Druze Arabs are accepted as volunteers. Some other Arabs have also been accepted to serve in non-combatant roles.