The War

It should be obvious to anyone by now—especially after hearing Bush's speech at West Point—that this White House is serious about this war, and that this is not a defensive war. We are taking the offense in this war. This means that we will do it to our liking. It seems silly to me to start arguing that Bush is going wobbly. The main criticism (especially from conservatives) is that he hasn't done much yet. For example, the drumbeat about Iraq: why doesn't he attack Iraq, etc. His critics are pretending that Bush's words mean nothing. That is foolish, unless you think Bush is a fool, which I don't. In short, something like Rich Lowry's argument is correct: there is a new geopolitical reality going on here. Pay attention to our relations to Russia and that has to do with both oil and being able to have home bases to the North of the Middle East tyrannies. How long do you think Iran and Saudi Arabia will last once Iraq is freed? How long do you think the local tyrants will continue supporting the Palestinian terrorists when our actions (which are forthcoming) will de-stabilize all of them? How long do you think the al-Qaeda will continue making mischief on the Indian border when it becomes clear to them that we will take out the Pakistani's nuclear capabilities? The fact that not much action (at least publicly) has taken place yet doesn't mean that nothing is being done, or that nothing will be done. See the few pages on preemption and disruption (both terms occur in Bush's West Point speech) from David Tucker's book, Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire: The United States and International Terrorism (1997) and note the emphasis he (and Bush) puts on the importance of gathering intelligence: you can't go on the offensive (preemption) without good intelligence. Here is Tucker: "More than any other method of combating terrorism, preemption requires specific, accurate, and timely intelligence."

Soccer

Now that we have surprised everyone (even ourselves?) by beating favored Portugal in our first game of this World Cup, perhaps we will get a little respect from our enemies who habitually underestimate us, and maybe a few more fans at home. On the one hand soccer is not our game. I know that. Yet, we have become pretty good at it. Not only have we started establishing ourselves as a powerful national team—we have been in every world cup since 1990--but we are on our way toward showing our national character through our play. What that character is—for now—I leave to your imagination (but it does have something to do with determination and creativity). But see an absolutely wonderful article by Henry Kissinger (from 1986) on the relationship between the game and national character. Also see the piece by Robert Samuelson of a few days ago. And, if you can, watch the U.S. play. You may be surprised. I'll have more to say on this later. Besides, you know prejudicially that soccer is a great game when, in the first game of this World Cup, Senegal beats France 1-0. And here is Andrew Sullivan's take on the game, why its popularity has not taken off here and what this may mean politically.

Colonizing Mars

There appears to be water on Mars. This brings up some fundamental political problems well, discussed by David Kopel and Glenn Reynolds: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 needs to be revised so that future colonists will come under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Think about it. This is less hypothetical than you think. The problem is coming.

CIA/FBI Flap

This article states something obvious (which almost everyone in the media has ignored) regarding the FBI-CIA "who knew what when and why wasn't the information shared" flap that the establishment is beating to death. Go back to the Church committee and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 if you want to start figuring out what went wrong. That act (compliments of the liberal Democrats, including Ted Kennedy) badly hampered the ability of the Federal government to spy on bad guys. And we paid the price.