JustinLogan.com

Don't Tell Hillary Clinton and John McCain

So I see that the New York Times saw fit to demonize the resurgence of mixed martial arts events in the United States by writing an advocacy piece portraying it as "human cockfighting."

Now, of course, they didn't see fit to point out that no sanctioned mixed martial arts event has ever ended in death, the same of which can't be said about boxing.  They didn't point out that the top mixed martial arts athletes in this country are remarkably educated and intelligent.  They didn't discuss the thorough training that the athletes and referees go through; they didn't discuss the fact that mixed martial arts has long been a top-competing sport in places like Brazil and Japan; they didn't point out that the top mixed martial arts event in America has strived to, and finally achieved sanctioning in Nevada and New Jersey by, in fact, drawing up a thorough, clear set of rules to demonstrate that "no holds barred" isn't an accurate description.  No, they decided to portray it as a bunch of rednecks climbing into a cage and trying to murder each other.

For a much fairer take on mixed martial arts and the last unsophisticated, ignorant jihad against it, see this piece by Slate's David Plotz.

All I can do is hope that once the congressional hearings take place (I mean, we've already done steroids and may still do some on sex in video games), they'll let some of the fighters speak for themselves.  Preferably somebody like Rich Franklin or Matt Hughes as opposed to, say, Tito Ortiz.

Post of the Month

Tim Carney has to earn it for this post.

If I'm correct, it appears that there are some words there, too.

Putting Meat on the Bones

The NY Sun is reporting that the crusading Mark Palmer of Freedom House has managed to slip a bill into the House that proposes to "commit United States foreign policy to the challenge of achieving universal democracy."

Tucked inside the House version of a bill that authorizes spending on foreign aid is the language of what is known as the ADVANCE Democracy Act. The act instructs American ambassadors and embassy staffs to draw up democracy transition plans for unfree regimes, with input from nonviolent opposition movements in the various countries.

[... Rep. Tom] Lantos last week told the Sun that the bill "puts the meat on the bones of the president's second inaugural address."

[...]

The bill would also make promotions in the Foreign Service for diplomats serving in dictatorships contingent partially on how successful they were in convincing their host country to embrace political freedom.

I for one wish those bones would stay bare.  And note that FSOs now will be getting promoted based not on whether they advance America's interests, but on how they affect the internal politics of foreign countries.  Palmer expounded on the implications of the ADVANCE Act:

"The overall vision of this law is that we should take the bipartisan goal of a dictator-free world and institutionalize that in our diplomacy and foreign policy," he said. Mr. Palmer added, "One of the most important things in the bill is that it provides for the beginning of a dialogue between democratic forces and our embassies in nondemocratic countries." When asked whether he believed there should be an exception for China, which has often been excluded from pro-democracy policies in the past, he said, "No, I don't think there should be any exceptions."

Can congress get any more irresponsible?

Yes, We Have No Metrics

The continuing series.  Today's episode comes to us courtesy of Larry Di Rita, Pentagon spokesman:

"Nobody's maintaining a count of the size of the insurgency or the numbers that we're capturing because ... it's not a metric that has a lot of meaning by itself."

Repeat after me: "Grown-ups."

The Unbearable Lightness of Ledeen

Michael Ledeen is at it again today at NRO, and near as I can tell, he comes about a hair away from accusing the Bush administration of treason:

Shortly after the liberation of Afghanistan, I wrote that it no longer made sense to talk about al Qaeda as the primary organizing force of the terror network, because al Qaeda had been shattered and had lost its operational base with the defeat of the Taliban. I suggested that there were many different terrorist groups — the most important of which was, and is, Hezbollah — and they would cooperate on a rough division of labor, depending on local capacity, expertise, connections, and so forth. But I also argued that there was now a new operational base: Iran, where bin Laden and several others had fled from Afghanistan. And I insisted that there would be considerable coherence in terrorist actions, because the mullahs would insist on overall guidance.

[...]

President Bush’s original instincts were right: We are at war with a series of terrorist groups, supported by a group of nations, and it makes no sense to distinguish between them.

Emphasis mine.  Okay, so lets try to figure out what Ledeen is saying here.  The global terrorist network, which still "coheres," is now orchestrated out of Tehran.  Thus, the Mullahcracy is aiding and abetting those who supported the 9/11 attacks and are seeking to perpetrate future 9/11s.  Obviously, to Ledeen's mind (and to mine, if I could accept the premise), this is tantamount to appeasement.

Funny thing, though: Ledeen refuses to answer the question.  What is to be done, Mr. Ledeen?  Yglesias has been floating this one out there for a while, but it'd be really good if Ledeen would be so good as to deign to answer.  What the hell are we supposed to be doing about this?  If Ledeen is right, and Iran has a hand in currently planning another 9/11-style attack, it's time to put them on explicit notice and start preparing for forcibly removing the regime in Tehran.  If this is, in fact, what is happening, Mr. Ledeen's proposal that we air drop in pro-democracy pamphlets, or having Bush call a press conference to huff and stomp about the Mullahs, or whatever crackpot idea he's cooked up, is not sufficient for me.  Those planning or coordinating attacks against the U.S. must be given no quarter, period.  Big, bold, dark line there.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ledeen is as full of something else as he is of himself.  But really, it would be neat if he could pin some specifics to this schtick.

Quote of the Day

"The world has never seen an imperium of this kind, and it is hard to know what to make of it. In its favor, it lacks the brute coercion that characterized European imperialism. But it also lacks the authentic missionary spirit of that older imperialism, which aimed to establish the rule of law while spreading Christianity. (Our missionaries live in Hollywood.) What it does offer the world is a growth economy, a "consumerist" society, popular elections and a dominant secular-hedonistic ethos. It is a combination that is hard to resist -- and equally hard to respect in its populist vulgarity. It is an imperium with a minimum of moral substance. While the people of the world may want and need it now, one wonders how soon they will weary of it."

-Irving Kristol, Wall Street Journal, August 18, 1997

I wonder if he still wonders.

Now That Thar's Some Strategery!

Once in a while I pop over to one of the nutball pro-war blogs that's gone off the cliff in terms of foreign policy thought.  So I figured Andrew Sullivan was due for a visit.  To my surprise, I saw that he had a guest blogger, Judith Apter Klinghoffer, a poli sci prof at Rutgers in for him.  The first line I read was this:

There is no way and there should be no way to distinguish between the war on terror, democracy and women's right. [sic]

Good God help us.  And you thought I was bad guest-blogging for Henley!

More Magazines, More Nukes

While I'm on the topic of plugging magazines, let me commend to you the current issue (again, not online) of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which includes a sometimes extremely interesting symposium on "Would You Have Dropped the Bomb?"  August 2005 will bring the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so BAS culled a bunch of nuclear experts, strategists, and historians and, er, popped the question.  The issue also has a promising-looking essay by Jason Vest on how the Pentagon "forgot to equip U.S. troops with a counterinsurgency doctrine," and a review of an essay that alleges Ike was ready and half-eager to use nukes in both Korea and mainland China in the 1950s.  (There have been more than a few extremely vigorous debates in my office about the Ike-and-nukes question...)

Below the jump, I've got a few of the highlights from the "would you have dropped the bomb?" symposium:

What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?

According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.  The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.  Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.  Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.  As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.  Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up?  Especially considering that several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites are in the middle of Tehran?  So does this mean we are going to nuke the capital of Iran?  And in this case would we parachute in exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial administration?  What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our decision?

I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11."  Can we get at least a bloody story out of this?  Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran is over my breathlessness threshold.  As if we needed another reason to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...

The current issue of TAC also includes a sharp article by Christopher Layne, arguing that, while failure is pretty much a fait accompli in Iraq, there's failure and then there's failure.  Getting out sooner, as Layne argues, would make failure less detrimental to America.

Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, TAC's a pretty interesting mag, particularly when compared to its intra-right-wing competition.  I mean, honestly, how much do we really need another Sufi partisan article by Stephen Schwartz or another "Aha!  NOW I've found The Connection!" article by Stephen Hayes?

The Derb vs. The Corner, Part Deux

Poor ol' Derb's been trying to inject a little reality into the Iraq happytalk sorority party that is The Corner.  Here and here, Rich Lowry tries to convince himself that Iraqification is going swimmingly.  Derb chimes in:

IRAQI ARMY [John Derbyshire]
Rich: Talk up the Iraqi army all you like, and I honestly hope you're right; but all these upbeat reports read exactly like the ones we used to get about ARVN 40 years ago. The phrase "five o'clock follies" jog any memories? Ah well.

Then the breathtakingly incisive John "Lead Wit" Poddy chimes in three minutes later:

DERB AND EEYORE [JPod]
Separated at birth?

I thought the line was supposed to be that anyone who suspects things are going poorly is objectively pro-terrorist and refusing to support the troops.  "Ah well" indeed.