Bad Man Executed

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post obituary:

By the end of his rule, human rights groups estimated, he had presided over the killing of at least 300,000 Iraqis and the torture and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.

"Record of Infamy Ends in Iraq," by William Branigan, 12/29/06, Washington Post, at this link


This end is no surprise: "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52b, ESB). What is surprising is that the bad man did not meet this end sooner and that the bad man even had a trial. It is also surprising that he did not meet his end by being torn to pieces by the populace he terrorized for decades. One N.Y. Times writer was amazed at the composure and calm of the bad man at his execution; the journalist viewed this composure as somehow dignified. Those of us who have met stone cold sociopaths in real life are not surprised by such composure, but, in fact, would expect it.

I support the U.S. Catholic Bishops on Iraq

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on.

Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.

Some Thoughts on Mark Shea, Joseph Leiberman and Ned Lamont

Siding with (and citing) Pat Buchanan, Mark Shea takes issue with the (neo)conservative embrace of Sen. Joseph Lieberman:

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.

Such is the state of conservatism, 2006. [Source: The meaning of Connecticut", Pat Buchanan World Net Daily August 10, 2006]:

Mark links directly to Buchanan's editorial, but fails to provide readers with the original essay by Kristol (Anti-war, Anti-Israel, anti-Joe: The New Democrats, Weekly Standard 08/14/2006, Volume 011, Issue 45). I'd like to forego the paraphrasing and examine what William Kristol actually thinks:

The key point in Kristol's essay is that "You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political parties you have." Not necessarily, he might have added, with the political parties you desire.

As Kristol observes, we have the Republican Party, led by President Bush, whose "heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter." Despite some legitimate criticisms on what he perceives as a dearth of leadership (Kristol has strong words for Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and has sharply criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in the past),

". . . at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight."

Kristol goes on to recognize a similar disposition in the person of Joseph Lieberman, who has distinguished himself from a Democratic party which -- to quote William Bennett -- "think[s] they can become a national party by taking their cues from Howard Dean, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, the Daily Kos, and George McGovern’s appeasement-first philosophy."

Kristol concludes:

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps. But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one.

William Kristol - "Money and Power-Firster"?

I can't say I share William Bennet's or William Kristol's personal enthusiasm for the good Senator and will refrain from indulging in speculation on a presidential ticket. At the same time, I think Mark Shea and Pat Buchanan, in their venting against the dreaded neocons, are being more than a little unfair in their portrayal of Mr. Kristol.

In July 2006, Mark Shea professed his indecisiveness or agnosticism on whether "William Kristol and other neocons are warmongers untethered from reality", on account that "I distrust the reliability of the information I'm getting and I just don't know enough yet to make a judgment that's worth any thing."

Yet, in August 2006, Mark quotes approvingly Pat Buchanan's depiction of William Kristol as one willing to sacrifice core moral principles and "give a pass on everything else" to anybody who "beat[s] the drum for permanent war".

Presumably Kristol is included as well in Shea's description of the current political debate as a struggle between the "God first conservatives and the Money and Power First Conservatives":

And it's quite clear that, for the neocons, the only thing that matters is war and the entire prolife movement and social conservative types can drop dead. The Neocons are All About Power and Realpolitik. Conservatives are morphing into the mirror of their postmodern nihilistic Leftist opponents.

Now, if you listen to the chatter from the anti-war left (antiwar.com, daily kos) and the "paleoconservative" right (The American Conservative), you might recognize William Kristol as a member of the Project for the New American Century, editor of the Weekly Standard, and one of the grand architects of the neoconservative-Zionist conspiracy for perpetual warfare.

Others, however, might recall another side to his political career:

In 1996 he signed his name to The America We Seek: A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern, a joint statement by Catholics, evangelicals and conservatives. In his opposition to human cloning, Kristol has allied himself with Charles Colson, William Bennett, Fr. Neuhaus, James Dobson, George Weigel and other major pro-life religious and conservative voices.

Kristol has demonstrated a personal interest and keen grasp of the issues involved in the recent debate over ESCR (embroyonic stem cell research) and human cloning. In February 12, 2001 he authored an editorial "The Future Is Now" in that infamous neocon propaganda machine otherwise known as The Weekly Standard. Drawing from C.S. Lewis' prophetic The Abolition of Man, Kristol concluded that

"Before this prospect [of genetic human conditioning], before this possibility, every other issue pales not into insignificance, for many other issues are significant, but at least into lesser significance. The challenge of the scientific revolution in genetics and biotechnology, of scientific "progress" loosed from natural, human, or religious moorings, is the challenge we face."

Together with Eric Cohen (editor of the Ethics & Public Policy Center's journal New Atlantis), Kristol co-published The Future is Now: America Confronts the New Genetics (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), providing a substantial introduction to the debate (see contents and excerpts here).

In May 2004, he co-authored another article with Eric Cohen, "The Politics of Bioethics: Playing Defense is Not Enough", The Weekly Standard, Volume 009, Issue 33.

It's because of Kristol's thought on these issues and the overall nature of his writing that I can't help but take umbrage with Pat Buchanan's -- and Mark Shea's -- depiction of him. Frankly, I think the choice of phrase tells us more about a personal animosity toward the elusive neocons and the war in Iraq than it does about Kristol himself.

Lieberman's Pro-Choice Credentials

Shea/Buchanan base their criticism of Lieberman largely on his pro-choice credentials. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ned Lamont's record on the life issues is no more admirable than Lieberman's -- and if you happen to read some of the more liberal blogs, they're characterizing NARAL's support of Lieberman as a scam, calling into question his loyalty to the pro-abortion cause:

• CT-Sen: Lieberman already dropping; NARAL Kos Feb. 21, 2006
  
• "Lieberman vs. the Day After Pill" Connecticut Bob May 24, 2006
  
• NARAL... R.I.P.: "Repro groups screwing themselves over Lieberman endorsement" Alternet. July 12, 2006.
  
• Incidentally, none other than Michael Schiavo turned out to stump for Ned Lamont (Schiavo speaks on Lamont's behalf Stamford Advocate), criticizing Lieberman's opposition to the removal of Terri's feeding tube (Schiavo: Lieberman Wrong About Terri CBSNews.com July 28, 2006).

There is much one could -- and should -- rightly criticize about Lieberman's record on the life issues, but at the same time we should recognize that his "pro-choice" credentials, as touted by Buchanan, aren't as stolid as he makes them out to be. In the end, given as how Republicans haven't exactly offered any contenders with a fighting chance against the Democrats, we are left with the choice of Lieberman or Lamont in Connecticut. Which leads us to the question:

What's wrong with Ned Lamont?

And as one of Mark's commentators ("Ed the Roman") observed,

Everything for Mark to dislike about Lieberman is there in Lamont, except that he's anti-war.

The problem is that based on comments like "we are strongest when we negotiate with our enemies", he's against the entire war, not just the part in Iraq. Lamont isn't necessarily going to stop with a withdrawal from Iraq. He shows no signs of willingness to do anything about Iran's onward march to nuke Haifa.

Forgive me for the lengthy quotation, but Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has put it best:

Spin it as he may, the central plank in Lamont’s platform is for the U.S. to accept complete and utter defeat at the hands of terrorists and insurgents in Iraq — and, by implication, before long, elsewhere too. It does not fool most of the people to say, as Lamont did, that he will bring the troops “home to a hero’s welcome.” In the real world, that is not what awaits those who suffer defeat — however painful their wounds, however great their courage under fire.

The war we are fighting — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — is nasty and bloody and we are not doing very well. But this is the face of war in the 21st century. We either learn to win such battles or we get used to getting whipped; maybe we even start to like getting whipped. Think of John Murtha almost bragging about the retreats he has favored in the past, from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993 — as though those retreats did not pave the way to 9/11/01.

What’s worse is that Lamont and his supporters believe America deserves defeat. They don’t say it the way Ward Churchill does but you can read it between the lines. They claim it will not be them or the U.S. that is defeated; only Bush and the hated neocons will be vanquished by the forces formerly led by Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That is akin to a passenger on a ship saying that when the vessels sinks, only the captain and crew will drown.

So this is a bad day for America, too. There was a time when Americans united against their enemies. But our enemies in this war have been allowed to divide us. Bush may deserve some of the blame for that. But disunity has been the goal of the Lamont/Sharpton/Jackson/Murtha/Soros/Sheehan/Moore/Kos wing of the Democratic party., the wing that triumphed last night in Connecticut.

In the end, we are faced with the question: Is it possible for Kristol to appeal for possible cooperation and common ground between "Lieberman Democrats" and Republicans on the issue of national security without sacrificing pro-life principles?

• See also I. Shawn McElhinney's "Miscellaneous Musings on Joe Lieberman, His Withdrawal From the Democratic Senate Primary, and Possible Wider 2006 Election Ramifications" [audioblog, .mp3 format].
• The Defeatist Party in Full Bloom Oswald Sobrino Catholic Analysis August 9, 2006.
• Symposium: Lieberman's Loss Bill Bennett, Charles Kesler, Larry Sabato more make sense of Connecticut. National Review Online (NRO) August 9, 2006.
• This discussion brought to my mind Jody Bottum's provocative article on The New Fusionism First Things 154 (June/July 2005): 32-26:

  If only as a courtesy to serious figures from the papal biographer George Weigel to the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, we need to consider the possibility that pure political calculation isn’t the only cause for the recent fusion of social conservatives and neoconservatives.

The Irrationality of Appeasement

The mentality of appeasing is alive and well in the Democratic Party and in other parts of American society. It is a scenario eerily familiar to that of England in the nineteen thirties which appeased the world right into World War II rather than snuffing out the Nazis in their initial forays to take over the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. We have the super-rich Ned Lamont in Connecticut who is now the new Democrat icon. Pardon me, but let me be honest. Lamont comes across as the effete, shrill, and haughty product of a decadent, excessively affluent society.

But let me move quickly away from the personal and get to ideas which are always the better things to discuss. Today, the seminal "good war" is World War II: the struggle against the demonic movement of Nazism and its allies. Yet, also today, we have many who explicitly or implicitly would have advised us to sit out World War II. In fact, they would have advised us to appease Hitler throughout the thirties, the approach that made World War II an inevitable reality. How can that mentality still exist just sixty or so years after the end of World War II? These are not just people who opposed war in Vietnam or Iraq. Many, whether they are willing to admit it today or not, would have opposed a strong stand even against Hitler.

The irrationality of the appeasers remind me of some people who strongly criticize Israel. At first, you listen politely assuming that they are rational; and then, not uncommonly, the other shoe drops: they descend into an anti-Semitic reading of history or similar anti-Jewish tirade. Then your eyes open, and you realize that there was nothing there worth listening to in the first place. A similar eye-opening experience occurs when you realize that today's appeasers would have appeased even Hitler.

Thank goodness that St. Michael and the angelic hosts are not appeasers, or else the book of Revelation would end quite differently. In the face of irrational evil, there comes a point when you fight. That is reality, a reality that is part of the tragedy of evil. The better way is non-violent resistance. But the better way is not always possible. Gandhi could do it in the face of a civilized, democratic British Empire in India. Martin Luther King, Jr., could do it in the face of a civilized, democratic United States. But the Germans could not do it in Hitler's Germany. The Iraqis could not do it in the face of Saddam Hussein. And Israel cannot do it in the face of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran whose stated goal is to destroy Israel--whose absolute hatred for the very existence of Israel is so great that some of them even refuse to pronounce the word "Israel": they use the circumlocution "Zionist entity." My friends, that refusal to even utter the word "Israel" is a sign of the demonic nature of Israel's enemies.

What can Christianity do? Is Christianity inevitably pacifism? Or is Christianity just an indifferent bystander to the tragedy of war? I can share only my personal opinion which is not official Church teaching. The Christian is a knight, a happy warrior, who seeks to advance the Kingdom of God on earth. As such, he or she is a knight for the conditions of peace and for nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance works between and among democratic nations that respect individual rights. That's why it worked against British imperialists and American racists. But nonviolent resistance does not work against Hitlers or Middle East dictators. So the Christian knight struggles to promote democracy and human rights as the arena where war can become unnecessary because nonviolent resistance is feasible in that context.

But when irrational evil raises its head, we cannot bury our heads. We must be willing to give our lives for the oppressed. We must be willing to come to the rescue of others. And that means that armed conflict is inevitable against the forces of irrational evil. Recognizing that inevitability early is the best way to avoid world wars.

Many today still have not learned that lesson. Yet, it is a reality all around us everyday. A reality we depend on, especially in daily life in the United States: the policeman is armed and is willing to stop the criminal with force if necessary. We could not live in the United States without that daily, unquestioned threat of force by police departments throughout the nation. Yet, the same people who are able to live in peace and security in the United States only because of the threat of force against the irrationally evil refuse that same peace and security to millions throughout the world threatened by irrational evil. The policeman has the right and duty to resist irrational evil with force for the sake of our lives. The policeman cannot be a pacifist or a full-time practitioner of non-violent resistance. Yet, in a world full of irrational evil, many spout the fantasy that no policeman is necessary in the affairs of nations.

We have long heard that, for Christians, we are both body and soul. We cannot be indifferent to our bodies in sexual morality because our bodies are essential to our full humanity and personhood. We must also hear again that we are also rational creatures. We cannot be indifferent to common sense because rationality is also essential to our full humanity and personhood. And common sense recognizes that the use of force to fight evil is in many tragic situations a moral obligation. Yes, thank God, that St. Michael and the angelic hosts are not pacifists.

The Defeatist Party in Full Bloom

The defeat of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary further confirms that the contemporary Democratic Party is the party of defeatism that cannot be trusted to fight the war against Islamist fanatics. Of course, some Democrats will try to paint the Lieberman defeat as a bad sign for President Bush because "the voters" rejected Lieberman due to his support of the Iraq war. That predictable spin effort by the Democrats is a grand deception. The "voters" involved here are the liberal Democrats that dominate Democratic primaries in most, if not all, states. Liberal Democrats rejecting Lieberman because of his support of the Iraq war is a non-story. In fact, the real election comes in November when Lieberman runs as an independent. Some predict that Lieberman will win as an independent. Bottom-line: the Democratic Party is the defeatist party that rejects any attempt to win in Iraq and drives out anyone who favors victory in Iraq.

Interestingly, former President Clinton actually campaigned for Lieberman. Senator Hillary Clinton gave Lieberman tepid support. Whom will the Clintons support in the general election: the official Democratic candidate or independent candidate Lieberman? The Clintons live for power, not principle. So they will likely seek to make a calculation on how to minimize the number of Democrats they displease balanced with an urgent concern to appear strong on national security issues. The Clinton calculation will be a sham based on expediency and not on principle or conviction, a sham focused on getting the wife elected President in 2008. If she wins in 2008, the former President can then return to White House policy-making. He will likely seek the role of a special Middle East negotiator who will try to rehabilitate himself in political history by seeing if, this time around, he can finally win the Nobel Peace Prize denied to him when he failed to broker a Middle East peace accord during his administration. Let's see how many, if any, are fooled by the sham Clinton balancing act that will unfold this fall in Connecticut and beyond.

What is of urgent peril to the republic is that one of our major parties is the defeatist party, the best ally that our terrorist enemies have. The Democratic Party is the modern fifth column that our enemies can count on to undermine and sap with constant harping criticism the will to win the war on Islamist imperialism. This trajectory began with the 1972 campaign of George McGovern: that year the Democratic Party went anti-American. Thirty-four years later the trend continues in full force, except that now the enemy is not limited to the small country of Vietnam but is a worldwide Islamist assault that aims to attack both here at home and overseas.

Update: Go to RealClearPolitics.com where John McIntyre gives great political analysis about the Lieberman fiasco for the Democrats. McIntyre hits the nail on the head.

Iran Starts Middle East War

That's the bottom line as Iranian funded terrorists groups have provoked Israel by kidnapping Israeli soldiers in blatant acts of war. The Iranian regime is the Islamic version of Hitler's Nazi regime, irrationally but resolutely determined to obliterate Israel and control the entire Middle East. Even the virulence of the anti-Semitism is the same. Appeasement won't work. I predict that diplomacy alone won't work either. After September 11th, President Bush identified the Axis of Evil consisting of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Saddam is gone from power, and a democratic Iraq on the doorstep of Iran is emerging. President Bush called it as it is: an Axis of Evil now dramatically confirmed by the North Korean launching of several rockets in the past few weeks, also dramatically confirmed by the Iranian initiation of a war with Israel. The entire template of the congressional Democrats' way of dealing with foreign challenges is the pollyannish assumption that the other side is rational. Neither Iran nor North Korea is rational (just as Saddam Hussein proved his own irrationality with his bizarre, taunting shell game over weapons of mass destruction with the U.N.). Thank God that we have a Republican administration that doesn't live in the fantasy world of congressional Democrats. Pray and brace yourselves for what is ahead. Here is a link from RealClearPolitics.com that gives you the detailed analysis. I agree with the article from RealClearPolitics.com that the Iranian start of the war is based on the calculation that the U.S. does not have the will to respond forcefully. The big foundation for that premise is the rhetoric of the defeatist congressional Democrats and their media sympathizers, rhetoric that is music and inducement to the ears of America's enemies. The Iranians started the war: the rhetoric of the congressional Democrats and the mainstream media encouraged it. Now, the liberals have to wake up and see that the world is not as they imagined it for the sake of their narrow, partisan political ambitions.

President Bush at West Point

Here is the text of President Bush's speech on May 27, 2006, at the West Point commencement. I present the text on Memorial Day as another means of presenting the President's views unfiltered by the hostile liberal media. You can also find the text at www.whitehouse.gov. By the way, for those curious, I fully endorse the President's speech. Here it is, with bold highlighting by me:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. General Lennox, Secretary Harvey, members of the United States Congress, Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, proud family, and, most importantly, the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

On the way in, General Lennox showed me what you did to his car. (Laughter.) I told him, "That's a fine looking vehicle -- (laughter) -- but you need to stay away from Marine One." (Laughter.)

I see a lot of Gray Hogs out there -- a few Century Men, too. During your four years at this Academy, I'm told there are about 18,000 opportunities to be late for class, drill, march, or inspection -- and many of you availed yourselves of those opportunities. (Laughter.) Others got written up just for having bad haircuts. No matter what reason you got slugged, help is on the way. (Applause.) In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. I leave it to General Lennox to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter.)

It's a privilege to stand before the future leaders of the United States Army. (Applause.) You have worked hard to get to this moment. You survived the hardest Beast on record -- the "best summer of your lives" in Buckistan -- countless hours in the House of Pane. In four years, you've been transformed from "bean-heads" to "yuks," to "cows," and "Firsties." And today you will become proud officers of the greatest Army in the history of the world. (Applause.) Your teachers are proud of you; your parents are proud of you; and so is your Commander-in-Chief. Congratulations on a fantastic achievement. (Applause.)

This Academy has shaped your minds and bodies for the challenges that lie ahead. You worked hard in the classroom and on the playing field to prepare for the rigors of combat. One cadet described the West Point attitude this way: "First I'll beat Navy and Air Force, and then I'll beat the enemies of freedom on the battlefield."

The field of battle is where your degree and commission will take you. This is the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you came here in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our nation's uniform. And I want to thank you for your patriotism, your devotion to duty, your courageous decision to serve. America is grateful and proud of the men and women of West Point. (Applause.)

The reality of war has surrounded you since your first moments at this Academy. More than 50 of your fellow cadets here at West Point have already seen combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. And 34 times since your class arrived, you have observed a moment of silence in Washington Hall to honor a former cadet fallen in the war on terror. Each loss is heartbreaking -- and each loss has made you even more determined to pick up their mantle, to carry on their fight, and to achieve victory. We will honor the memory of these brave souls. We will finish the task for which they gave their lives. We will complete the mission. (Applause.)

West Point has adapted to prepare you for the war you're about to enter. Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this Academy has established a new Combating Terrorism Center, a new minor in Terrorism Studies, with new courses in counter-insurgency operations, intelligence, and homeland security, and winning the peace. West Point has expanded Arabic language training, has hired new faculty with expertise in Islamic law and culture, brought in members of the 101st and 82nd Airborne to train you and share their experiences on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And each of you endured grueling Saturday training events where you practiced identifying IEDs, conducting convoy operations and running checkpoints. By changing to meet the new threats, West Point has given you the skills you will need in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and for the long war with Islamic radicalism that will be the focus of much of your military careers.

This Academy went through a similar period of change six decades ago, at the end of World War II. Some of West Point's greatest graduates -- men like Eisenhower and Bradley, Patton and MacArthur -- had just brought our nation victory in Europe and Japan. Yet, almost immediately, a new threat appeared on the horizon -- the threat of Imperial Communism. And West Point, like America, had to prepare for a long struggle with a new adversary, one that would require the determination of generations of Americans.

In the early years of that struggle, freedom's victory was not obvious or assured. In 1947, communist forces were threatening Greece and Turkey, the reconstruction of Germany was faltering, mass starvation was setting in across Europe. In 1948, Czechoslovakia fell to communism; France and Italy appeared to be headed for the same fate, and Berlin was blockaded on the orders of Josef Stalin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon, giving our new enemy the ability to bring catastrophic destruction to our homeland. And weeks later, communist forces won their revolution in China, and claimed the world's most populous nation for communism. And in the summer of 1950, seven North Korean divisions poured across the border into South Korea, marking the start of the first direct military clash of the Cold War. All of this took place in just the first five years following World War II.

Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War.

President Truman set a clear doctrine. In a speech to Congress, he called for military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and announced a new doctrine that would guide American policy throughout the Cold War. He told the Congress: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." With this new doctrine, and with the aid to back it up, Greece and Turkey were saved from communism, and the Soviet expansion into Southern Europe and the Middle East was stopped.

President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When Stalin tested America's resolve with a blockade of Berlin, President Truman launched the Berlin Airlift, delivering supplies to the besieged city, forcing the Red Army to back down, and securing the freedom of West Berlin. Later, Truman again responded to communist aggression with resolve, fighting a difficult war in Korea. The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.

President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. In Asia, his administration led the effort to help Japan change from a nation that had launched a surprise attack on America into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he launched the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented effort to help Germany and other nations in Europe recover from war and establish strong democracies. The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.

President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. After World War II, he led the effort to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime alliance in American history. NATO served as a military bulwark against communist aggression, and helped give us a Europe that is now whole, free, and at peace.

President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, he kept American forces in Germany to deter Soviet aggression, and kept U.S. forces in Japan as a counterweight to communist China. Together with the deployment of U.S. forces to Korea, the military footprint Truman established on two continents has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and has served as the foundation for security in Europe and in the Pacific.

President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. Working with Congress, he created the Department of Defense, established the Air Force as a separate military service, formed the National Security Council at the White House, and founded the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure America had the best intelligence on Soviet threats.

President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. At a time when some still wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, he brought Winston Churchill to Missouri, to deliver his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. And he issued a presidential directive called NSC-68, which declared that America faced an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world. This directive called on the United States to accept the responsibility of world leadership, and defend the cause of freedom and democracy -- and that's exactly what the United States did.

By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the Cold War. As President Truman put it towards the end of his presidency, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." His leadership paved the way for subsequent Presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat. (Applause.)

Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before -- and like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations for victory. (Applause.) The enemies we face today are different in many ways from the enemy we faced in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we deterred Soviet aggression through a policy of mutually assured destruction. Unlike the Soviet Union, the terrorist enemies we face today hide in caves and shadows -- and emerge to attack free nations from within. The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend. They cannot be deterred -- but they will be defeated. (Applause.) America will fight the terrorists on every battlefront, and we will not rest until this threat to our country has been removed. (Applause.)

While there are real differences between today's war and the Cold War, there are also many important similarities. Like the Cold War, we are fighting the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all dissent, has territorial ambitions, and pursues totalitarian aims. Like the Cold War, our enemies are dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and lack the resolve to defend our way of life. Like the Cold War, our enemies believe that the innocent can be murdered to serve a political vision. And like the Cold War, they're seeking weapons of mass murder that would allow them to deliver catastrophic destruction to our country. If our enemies succeed in acquiring such weapons, they will not hesitate to use them, which means they would pose a threat to America as great as the Soviet Union.

Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

Like previous generations, history has once again called America to great responsibilities, and we're answering history's call with confidence. We're confronting new dangers with new determination, and laying the foundations for victory in the war on terror.

In this new war, we have set a clear doctrine. After the attacks of September the 11th, I told a joint session of Congress: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorists and you're an enemy of the United States of America. (Applause.) In the months that followed, I also made clear the principles that will guide us in this new war: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront threats before they fully materialize. We will stay on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When the Taliban regime in Afghanistan tested America's resolve, refusing our just demands to turn over the terrorists who attacked America, we responded with determination. Coalition forces drove the Taliban from power, liberated Afghanistan, and brought freedom to 25 million people. (Applause.) In Iraq, another tyrant chose to test America's resolve. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, he sponsored terrorists, invaded his neighbors, abused his people, deceived international inspectors, and refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions. (Applause.) When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime. And today, Iraq's former dictator is on trial for his crimes -- and America and the world are better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have helped transform old adversaries into democratic allies. Just as an earlier generation of Americans helped change Germany and Japan from conquered adversaries into democratic allies, today a new generation of Americans is helping Iraq and Afghanistan recover from the ruins of tyranny. In Afghanistan, the terror camps have been shut down, women are working, boys and girls are going to school, and Afghans have chosen a president and a new parliament in free elections. In Iraq, the people defied the terrorists and cast their ballots in three free elections last year. And last week, Iraqis made history when they inaugurated the leaders of a new government of their choosing, under a constitution that they drafted and they approved. When the formation of this unity -- with the formation of this unity government, the world has seen the beginning of something new: a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.) Difficult challenges remain in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But America is safer, and the world is more secure, because these two countries are now democracies -- and they are allies in the cause of freedom and peace. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have forged new alliances, and transformed old ones, for the challenges of a new century. After our nation was attacked, we formed the largest coalition in history to fight the war on terror. More than 90 nations are cooperating in a global campaign to dry up terrorist financing, to hunt down terrorist operatives, and bring terrorist leaders to justice. Nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that once turned a blind eye to terror are now helping lead the fight against it. And since September the 11th, 2001, our coalition has captured or killed al Qaeda managers and operatives in over two dozen countries, and disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots, including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Our nation is more secure because we have rallied the world to confront this threat to civilization. (Applause.)

The greatest threat we face is the danger of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. To confront this danger, we launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition of more than 70 nations that are working together to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air, and to stop them from falling into terrorist hands. And building on the legacy of Harry Truman, we launched the most dramatic transformation of the NATO Alliance since its founding in 1949. Working with allies, we created a new "NATO Response Force" that will allow NATO to deploy rapid reaction forces on short notice anywhere in the world. And together we transformed NATO from a defensive alliance focused on protecting Europe from Soviet tank invasion into a dynamic alliance that is now operating across the world in the support of democracy and peace.

For five decades, NATO forces never deployed outside of Europe. Today, NATO is leading security operations in Afghanistan, training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, delivering humanitarian relief to earthquake victims in Pakistan, and training peacekeepers in Sudan. An alliance some said had lost its purpose after the Cold War is now meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

In this new war, we're positioning our forces to meet new threats. For more than half a century, American forces essentially had remained in the same places that President Truman deployed them. So, two years ago, I announced the largest transformation of our global force posture since the start of the Cold War. Over the coming decade, we will move U.S. forces from Cold War garrisons in Europe and Asia, and reposition them so they can surge quickly to trouble spots anywhere. We will deploy advanced military capabilities that will increase U.S. combat power across the world, while bringing home between 60,000 and 70,000 troops now stationed overseas. By taking these steps, we will reduce stress on our military families, raise the pressure on our enemies, and ensure that when you put on the uniform of the United States Army you are ready to meet any threat. (Applause.)

In this new war, we've undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War. We created a new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations into a single department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks. We created the new Director of National Intelligence, which has led a broad restructuring of our nation's intelligence agencies for the threats of the 21st century. We have transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorism, and reorganized the Department of Justice to help us meet this new threat. We passed the Patriot Act, which broke down barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing vital information on terrorist threats.

At the Department of Defense, we created a new Northern Command responsible for homeland defense, a new Strategic Command responsible for defending America against long-range attacks. We transformed the Special Operations Command, more than doubling its budget, adding thousands of new troops, and making it the lead command in the global war on terror. And we're undertaking the largest transformation of the Army in more than a hundred years. Since the turn of the last century, the Army has been organized around the division structure designed by Napoleon. Today, we're replacing that division structure with a 21st century Army built around "modular" brigade combat teams that will be interchangeable and available to work for any division commander. These brigades will make our Army faster and lighter, and more agile and more lethal -- and it will make you more effective in the defense of freedom. (Applause.)

We have made clear that the war on terror is an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. When President Truman spoke here for the 150th anniversary of West Point, he told the Class of 1952: "We can't have lasting peace unless we work actively and vigorously to bring about conditions of freedom and justice in the world." That same principle continues to guide us in today's war on terror. Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe. (Applause.) So long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place where terrorists foment resentment and threaten American security.

So we are pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. I believe the desire for liberty is universal -- and by standing with democratic reformers across a troubled region, we will extend freedom to millions who have not known it -- and lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. (Applause.)

We're still in the early stages of this struggle for freedom and, like those first years of the Cold War, we've seen setbacks, and challenges, and days that have tested America's resolve. Yet we've also seen days of victory and hope. We've seen people in Afghanistan voting for the first democratic parliament in a generation. We have seen jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding up ink-stained fingers, celebrating their freedom. We've seen people in Lebanon waving cedar flags and securing the liberty and independence of their land. We've seen people in Kyrgyzstan drive a corrupt regime from power and vote for democratic change. In the past four years alone, more than 110 million human beings across the world have joined the ranks of the free -- and this is only the beginning. (Applause.) The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom -- and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation. (Applause.)

Now the Class of 2006 will enter the great struggle -- and the final outcome depends on your leadership. The war began on my watch -- but it's going to end on your watch. (Applause.) Your generation will bring us victory in the war on terror. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom, and be bold in freedom's defense. Show leadership and courage -- and not just on the battlefield. Take risk, try new things, and challenge the established way of doing things. Trust in your convictions, stay true to yourselves -- and one day the world will celebrate your achievements. (Applause.)

I have confidence in the final outcome of this struggle, because I know the character and determination of the men and women gathered before me. We see that character and determination in a cadet named Patrick Dowdell. It was Patrick's dream to attend West Point, and he applied straight out of high school, but did not get in on his first try. After being turned down, he wondered if he was cut out for the Academy. His father, New York Fireman Kevin Dowdell, encouraged Patrick to apply again. Kevin wrote letters to his congressman on behalf of his son. And he spent long hours working with Patrick on his application -- right up to September the 9, 2001. Two days later, Kevin Dowdell raced across the Brooklyn Bridge with his fire rescue unit to the burning World Trade Towers -- and he never returned.

After the attack, Patrick spent months digging at Ground Zero, looking for his dad -- and thinking about the dream that they had shared about his future. He was determined to fulfill that dream. And in the summer of 2002, Patrick arrived here at West Point as a new cadet -- and today he will receive his degree and his commission. (Applause.)

A few weeks ago, Patrick's mom, RoseEllen, attended another graduation ceremony -- at the New York City Fire Academy, where her other son, James, followed his father's footsteps as one of New York's Bravest. And today, RoseEllen -- (applause) -- is with us to see Patrick join the ranks of America's bravest, as an officer in the United States Army. (Applause.)

We live in freedom because young Americans like Patrick, and all the cadets here today, have stepped forward to serve. You have chosen a difficult and dangerous vocation -- and America is grateful for that choice. Today, you will accept a sacred trust: You will lead America's sons and daughters on the battlefield in a time of war. Our nation is counting on you as we count on no other group of young leaders in our country. The last four years have tested you in ways you never imagined -- and you leave here well prepared for the challenges you will face.

There's a saying at West Point that much of the history you teach here was made by the people you taught here. Now the Class of 2006 will leave for the battlefield -- and you will make history. Never falter, never quit. Bring honor to the uniform, and pride to your country. May God bless you, and the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

When Experts Shed No Light

My favorite commentator, Michael Barone, writes today about the obsession of Democrats and others with covering up the very possibility that Saddam Hussein was dealing with Al Qaeda before the Iraq invasion. Here is the link. For Democratic politicians, it's clear why they are obsessed: they need to destroy Bush by destroying any support for the Iraq war. But there is another group (also likely Democrat and liberal in politics) for whom there is another motive closer to their resume: so-called Middle East experts. As Barone puts it, the "subtleties" of their supposed expertise in the Middle East, honed with years of training and living as experts, just can't accept the possibility that the radical anti-American religious terrorists of Al Qaeda would have ever cooperated with the anti-American secularist terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein. It just seems to be an unquestioned axiom of Middle East experts.

Most of us have seen the dangers of pompous and overly self-assured experts before in many other areas of life. As Catholics, we know that many psychological experts advised bishops that sexual molesters could be returned to parishes. You can find experts who will tell you that sexual promiscuity is good, that sexual cohabitation before marriage is not harmful, that abortion can be good for the "health" of the mother even when there is no danger of death, and that homosexuality is not an objective disorder. You can also find experts in academia who will make absurd assertions with no backing whatsoever. In the field of biblical studies, you can find experts concocting out of thin air the genealogy of texts with aplomb and certainty. Even worse, you can find them concocting new biographies of Jesus based on their own imaginations and agendas. The Da Vinci Code is just the popular expression of what has gone on in certain sectors of biblical studies for years. In medicine and psychology, the history of misguided theories and diagnoses, often announced with an air of absolute certainty, is another dismal history of expert failure combined with arrogance and great human cost.

Expertise is good; but, given our fallen nature, our tendencies to see what we want to see, a lot of expert advice has to be taken with healthy skepticism and a grain of salt. Much of what passes as expertise is an expression more of arrogance than of reliable knowledge. So it is not shocking that in the field of Middle East studies--a quintessentially "soft" field where highly subjective impressions and hypotheses can be easily maintained unchecked by reality--that we have political agendas driving experts to assert things with an air of certainty and finality that does not fit the evidence. The old saying from Vergil's Aeneid was "Beware of [literally, "I fear"] Greeks even bearing gifts" (Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis). Beware of experts bearing gifts for the anti-Bush agenda and for the purpose of covering up the failure of their expertise to keep up with realities in the Middle East.

Catholic Conservatives Cheerleading Vengeful Warmongering Texans?!?

Stephen Hand (who blogs at TCRMusings) provides a lengthy quote from a soon-to-be-published article by Thomas Herron (Culture Wars) on Catholic Senator Eugene McCarthy (not to be confused with the infamous anti-communist Sen. Joe McCarthy). Stephen's citation contains a passing reference -- I would say mischaracterization -- of this particular blogging collective:

". . . His opposition to the Vietnam War, as he recounts in his The Year of the People (1969) was based on an application of the Catholic Just War Theory to our involvement in Big Muddy. Also the witness of Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam which had been founded in 1966 by a young Lutheran clergyman from Brooklyn, Richard John Neuhaus, was influential in his thinking.

"He knew he was committing political suicide by challenging the vengeful Texan who occupied the White House and going against the leadership of his party which controlled both houses of Congress. But for Eugene McCarthy, a published Commonweal Catholic, the principles he was educated in were of paramount importance. It also didn't hurt that the blue collar French and Irish Catholic voters of Manchester, New Hampshire, confused him with that other Senator McCarthy and asked him why he wasn't talking so much about the Commie Menace anymore . . .

"These days there is a clique of young Catholic conservatives who like to talk about Catholics in the Public Square. In fact that is the name of one of their web sites although it really is little-more than cheer-leading for another vengeful warmongering Texan in the White House and his Catholic servants in Congress like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum. It would behoove young Catholics who wish to really understand the application of Catholic social principles to American politics to fully examine the life of Eugene J. McCarthy. His roots in Catholic social teachings and the Catholic Revival are deep and we should honor him for his courageous attempt to end the Vietnam War in 1968. We should also ask ourselves why the Catholics in Congress can't bring forth his like to oppose this immoral war. As Patrick Buchanan and Scott McConnell have recently commented in The American Conservative where have you gone Gene McCarthy?"

My colleagues can respond to the charges (as well as the larger issue of Sen. McCarthy as role model) if they wish. But I personally found this characterization amusing, since the focus of this particular blog is by and large the relationship of Catholic legislators to the Church and their fidelity to Catholic teaching -- and to my knowledge, whatever our personal opinions on U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, we've engaged in precious little if any "cheerleading for vengeful warmongering Texans."

Perhaps I may be partly at fault in bringing down the wrath of these critics, having maintained another website and blog devoted to the issue of the war in Iraq and the just war tradition. And while I've never met Thomas Herron personally, I had been chastised previously in the pages of Culture Wars for my "rabid support of the current American occupation of Iraq" and sympathy for "the Jewish tribe," whoever they are (see Response to Thomas J. Herron Against The Grain Sept. 13, 2005 for the sordid details).

Culture Wars, if you can guess, is not very high on my reading list, so I appreciate the kindness of Stephen Hand for bringing this criticism to light.

* * *

Meanwhile, I'd like to take the opportunity to remind our readers that David Schrader has devoted much time and effort in compiling a detailed and very useful report on the Catholics in Congress, based on their voting record on abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), torture, and same-sex marriage (SSM). In defense of Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Brownback, they have commendable records (compare them with some of the other infamous Catholic legislators -- Senators Kennedy and Kerry, for instance), and so I gladly join David in his support.

Sen. Lieberman Gets It Right on Iraq War

RealClearPolitics.com has the text of Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman's remarks today on the Iraq War at this link. Let's see if the rest of the Democratic Party takes the high road outlined by Sen. Lieberman or continues to undermine the troops in the field. America is watching to see if the Democrats can be trusted to fight the war on terror. So far, except for a few like Sen. Lieberman, the Democratic Party as a whole has miserably failed the test.

Fr. Schall on "The One War, The Real War"

Returning for a minute to David's question What should we do, then?, it seems that Fr. Schall has penned an appropriate response to the questions inherent in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis' position on the London bombings:

Just at a moment when many liberal western media and political sources insisted that this war was "caused" by overreaction on the part of President Bush to 9/11, the Islamic militants oblige us with another graphic incident. They will not go away until actually defeated. They do not negotiate or give advanced warnings. They kill the innocent, in cold blood, precisely because they are innocent and unprepared to defend themselves. They see and justify this arbitrary killing as a legitimate means to their religious and political end, the conquest of the world for Islam. . . .

. . . There are not "two" wars -- one in Iraq and one against the terrorists. There is but one war, wherever it is fought, including in London or Baghdad. The terrorists are fully capable of being everywhere. They are invariably Muslim radicals intent on a world mission at least claiming a religious duty. They are not primarily "caused" by poverty or any of the usual ideological reasons given to justify terror. . . .

The main battlefield of the war is not Iraq or even London tubes. It is in the media and public opinion in the United States and Europe about whether the will to do what is necessary to prevent these attacks is firm enough over a long period of time. Civilian and suicide bombings have a political purpose and a religious purpose.

The political purpose is a calculated risk that continued bombings would show that Western powers cannot defend their own populations. Consequently, they should cease trying. They should rather, in return for "peace," submit to Islamic neutralization of their territories, a kind of compromised second-class citizenship. Likewise, they should withdraw from any effort to prevent such attacks in Muslim lands themselves.

The religious purpose of this war, in the minds of its advocates, is to succeed in subjecting the world to Allah. This purpose, no doubt, sounds preposterous. But I think that we misunderstand the problem if we do not disassociate what these terrorists themselves say from our theories of "terrorism." The problem is not caused by fanaticism or some political, sociological, or psychological derangement. . . .

. . . Al-Qaeda forces may have seen their reputation so questioned by the effects of the Afghanistan and Iraq phases of the war that they felt it absolutely necessary to show some flashy sign of strength. If so, this too is in effect a sign of their weakness. They revealed themselves for what they are once more. It has been taken as a truism that it is better to fight these forces on their own grounds and not in London or New York or Madrid. The war overseas does not prove that it is not effective, but that it is. But the latter three cities, however orchestrated, are part of the same war.

In this sense, we can be grateful that the Islamic terrorists in London again called our flagging attention to the real war, the one against those who first declared war against us in the name of their religious and political mission. The first effort has been and still is to undermine any effective opposition. Whether this purpose can be achieved by terrorism and its effect on public opinion remains to be seen.

Excerpts from "The One War, The Real War", by Fr. James Schall. Ignatius Insight July 8, 2005. (See also the James V. Schall, SJ Online Archive).

So, what should we do then?

That is the question I pose to the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. They have posted on the terrorist attacks in London and taken the opportunity to once again call for an end to the war on terror or at least a change in strategy. The post is closed to comments so I hope no one will be bothered that I comment here.

The contributors pose some "hard questions, unpopular questions".

In the wake of yet another deadly attack, we wonder if it might be time to reevaluate our methods in the war on terrorism. After New York, Madrid, and now London -- not to mention the countless attacks throughout the Middle East -- is it perhaps time for a new approach? After September 11, international coalitions invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, in the hopes of eradicating global terrorism. On the contrary, however, global terrorism has been strengthened and it seems that al-Qaeda is thriving. One of America's primary goals was to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores -- so far we have done that, but at what cost? By fighting so hard to keep the war on terrorism off of our shores, have we inadvertently brought it to the shores of our friends in Europe? Today it came to the shores of the United Kingdom; months before, to the borders of Spain; after this, we cannot know where or when it will strike again.

Is it not time for us to raise the legitimate question: Can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Is it not time to ask ourselves if the war on terrorism will be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we should put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Is it not time to ask ourselves, in the light of the starkly serious circumstances presented to us today, if we are truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Is it not time to ask ourselves if our war on terrorism has perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Is it not time to ask ourselves if we have perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists?

But they suggest no answers. Well, at least not directly. Some of the questions are answers in themselves. And, Nathan Nelson has previously answered. His answer is to defeat Republicans in 2006 and 2008 and replace them. What does he wish the replacements to do once elected? I am not sure, but that seems to be his answer.

So if the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are truly soliciting answers, here are mine.

...is it perhaps time for a new approach? No.

...have we inadvertently brought [the war on terror] to the shores of our friends in Europe? No.

...can the violence of terrorism truly be fought with violence in return? Maybe, but given the nature and ideological hatred they have for us, I doubt it.

...[will] the war on terrorism...be won by winning land and body counts, or by winning hearts and minds? Unfortunately, by body counts.

...should [we] put aside our guns and bombs, in favor of words of peace and nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately, no.

...are [we] truly any better off, truly any safer, almost five years into the war on terrorism? Yes!

...[has] our war on terrorism...perhaps really been what the terrorists have wanted all along? Maybe, but nothing suggests they would have stopped if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. (See below)

...have [we] perhaps given them the jihad they were looking for, bolstering their numbers by the violence we ourselves have committed against people who otherwise would not be terrorists? Same answer as above.

I understand why they ask these questions. I have asked some of them my self. But, I am not convinced we brought this war onto ourselves. It started before we went into Iraq and even before 9/11. The evidence: American hostages in Iran in 1979, attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, airliner hijackings and hostage takings throughout the 1980s, the first attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996, the attacks on two of our embassies in East Africa in 1998, the planned and foiled attack during the millennium celebrations in Seattle in 1999, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attack on our very own Nation on 9/11. So to suggest that our response, the world's response, to 9/11 caused further attacks in Bali, Madrid, and now London is without merit. They have been doing this for a long time and for other reasons which I believe the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis fail to, or outright refuse, to acknowledge. And though I wish this violence did not need to be met with our own, I have seen no proof that the men who carry out these terrible and horrific acts against civilians will stop if we only attempted to win their "hearts and minds" or by using "words of peace and nonviolent resistance".

I do wish there was a better way to end this war, but given the hatred the terrorists have for us, right now we need to fight. The Church, through Her teachings on waging a just war, is a guide for us in fighting the terrorists and their state sponsors. We have failed in some respects to follow this teaching, and we, as Catholics, should point out when our leaders and the men and women in uniform fail, but we should not abandon the effort. Rather we should correct the wrongs and ensure they do not happen again.

For now, the real answer continues to be waging a just war and promoting democracy in the Middle East. The the contributors at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis are free to comment and seriously answer my original question.

Democracy on the March

Bill Safire at the N.Y. Times is on fire today with a column entitled "The Fourth Election." The "Fourth Election" is the Iraqi election scheduled for January 30th, an election that some Sunni political parties are trying to delay. (The Sunnis are the Moslem minority in Iraq who held virtually complete political power in Saddam's Iraq.)

Safire calls the Iraqi election the "fourth" because those in favor of freedom in the Middle East have so far won three elections in a row: the recent election of the incumbent president of Afghanistan with virtually no violence (contrary to the usual media pessimism); the re-election of Australian Prime Minister Howard, a strong Bush supporter; and, of course, the re-election of President Bush himself.

Democracy has many flaws, but one great advantage: it tends to focus policy on the common good. To the surprise of many, the roots of democracy lie not in the skepticism of the Enlightenment but rather in the great Catholic medieval and scholastic thinkers.

While we cannot say unequivocally that Aquinas was a "democrat" per se, there are passages in Thomas "to the effect that the ruler represents the people (S.T., Ia, IIae, 90, 3) or that the prince has legislative power only in so far as he stands in the place of the community (S.T., Ia, IIae, 97, 3, ad 3)" (Copleston, Aquinas [Penguin, 1991], p. 241).

These hints of democratic theory became more pronounced in scholastics such as the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), called by Pope Benedict XIV the "Exceptional or Uncommon Teacher," Doctor Eximius (see Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary under "Suarezianism").

Suarez "is the acknowledged source of the philosophy of natural rights, the law of nations and constitutional law as these have developed in modern times among Christian philosophers as opposed to the divine right of kings" (see Hardon source above). The thought of Thomas and Suárez is the intellectual ancestor of the rhetoric of our Declaration of Independence.

In the encyclical letter The Gospel of Life, John Paul II affirms the value of democracy: "If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted" (Para. 70.4). But as those of us who are pro-life and pro-marriage know only too well, "the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes" (Gospel of Life, para. 70.4).

Yet, it is noteworthy that, at least here in the United States, it is unelected judges who have taken the lead in promoting abortion and gay marriage and in removing these issues from the ballot box.

Democracy is on the march in the Middle East--even the Palestinians are now planning elections because of the recent death of Arafat. May Iraqis successfully hold their own elections on schedule--a process with distinctly Catholic roots.

Why I decline to discuss "the war" or "social justice"

Over the past week some readers have questioned the 'confined' or 'exclusive' focus of Catholics in the Public Square -- as they had done previusly with CatholicKerryWatch -- in judging the positions of Catholic candidates in relation to some moral issues (abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage) rather than others (capital punishment, economic policy, the war in Iraq). This criticism was raised in commments on a recent post, and I would like to address it if I may.

"Liberal Catholic" blogger Jcecil believes that "Roman Catholics in America do not take the Vatican seriously on issues that have nothing to do with sex." If I understand him correctly, he is concerned that issues like "the death penalty and social justice issues" did not play a significant factor in determining how Catholics voted in this past election. Above all, he is concerned:

. . . why isn't much said in Catholic blogosphere about the heinous atrocity of Bush's unlitaral act of aggression and how it very clearly violates Church teaching on war?

Why wasn't serious consideration given to Catholics who chose to oppose Bush's war so strongly that they considered a vote for Kerry a viable moral option, depite being solidly pro-life?

Was it a lack of understanding of the Catholic tradition on the part of Kerry Catholics, or was it a lack of humility, avoiding rash judgment, and lack of listening on the part of Bush Catholics?

I can't speak on behalf of my co-editors on what degree the war had in influencing their vote, but whether the Church had in fact formally condemned it as immoral, and whether disagreement with the war in Iraq constituted sufficient grounds for voting for a "Catholic" candidate whose positions explicitly violated the Church's teachings on abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, etc., I myself agree with Archbishop John Meyers of Newark, NJ ( "Pro-choice candidates and church teaching" Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2004):

". . . Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."

This would explain why my co-editors and I, while perhaps differing on the matter of the war in Iraq, give priority of attention to where Catholic legislators stand on the "non-negotiable" moral issues (as presented in Catholic Answers' 2004 Voters Guide for Serious Catholics).

* * *

My reluctance to judge Catholic candidates and politicians with respect to economic issues in the context of this blog should not be construed as a lack of concern. I try to give serious consideration to the social and economic policies put forth by the parties and political candidates, and trust my co-editors do as well. We all have bills to pay and families to worry about. Naturally we're concerned about bringing home a paycheck, putting bread on the table, keeping a roof over our heads -- all of these issues matter, but we believe they should be placed in the proper context.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, one of the most vocal Catholic critics of "pro-choice" Catholic candidates in the 2004 presidential race, addresses this question of priorities in November's edition of Crisis: "The King's Good Servant: Some Thoughts at a Crossroad ":

The big picture depends on the small picture. No amount of good policy on immigration, or unemployment, or education, or housing, compensates for bad policy when it comes to deliberately killing the innocent -- beginning with the unborn. The right to life comes first. That's the priority. It's the foundation of every other right. Without it, every other right is built on sand.

Of course, if the right to life is the only issue Catholics focus on, that doesn't work either. In Genesis 9:5, God says, "From man, in regard to his fellow man, I will demand an accounting." James 2:15-17 says:

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Faith without works is dead. We need to act on what we claim to believe. Vatican II teaches that "the political community exists . . . for the common good [that] embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfillment" (Gaudem et Spes 74).

Catholics have the right and the obligation to demand that their public officials -- and their public policies -- should protect marriage and encourage family life; help the poor and homeless; promote economic justice both at home and abroad; and support the sick, the elderly, and children seeking a decent education. It's not enough to say, "Well, these are matters for private charity." Private charities in this country are already overwhelmed by the demand. For Catholics, it's completely proper for government to be involved in a serious way in solving these problems -- as long as the so-called solutions don't promote or allow killing the unborn and the weak.

It's an excellent essay and call for holiness among Catholics in private and public life, and this brief quotation doesn't do it a bit of justice -- so I would encourage you to read the whole thing.

* * *

Finally, the problem with "social justice" is that the term itself is inherently ambiguous. When critics talk about the lack of attention to "social justice" by Catholics (or Catholic bloggers), one suspects that what they really mean a lack of identification with the social and economic prescriptions of the Democratic Party.

According to Michael Novak, this inherent and problematic ambiguity in the term "social justice" was addressed by the economic theorist Friedrich Hayek ("Defining Social Justice" First Things 108 December 2000):

. . . The minute one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties. It becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, "We need a law against that." In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion.

Hayek points out another defect of twentieth-century theories of social justice. Most authors assert that they use it to designate a virtue (a moral virtue, by their account). But most of the descriptions they attach to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs -- "high unemployment" or "inequality of incomes" or "lack of a living wage" are cited as instances of "social injustice." Hayek goes to the heart of the matter: social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Most who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use "social justice" to denote a regulative principle of order; again, their focus is not virtue but power.

As Novak concludes (rightly, I think), that "social justice is a virtue, an attribute of individuals, or it is a fraud." As to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, where it stands on economic issues and policies remains a topic heavily debated among Catholics on the right and left. We can agree on the evils of poverty and homelessness, but Republican, Democrat and "non-affiliated" Catholics will continue to debate the prescriptions, with all sides appealing to (and claiming to be guided by) Catholic principles.

It is precisely because there is ample room for perfectly legitimate debate on these topics that I tend not to address them, or include them among the "non-negotiables" as criteria in examining Catholic candidates on this blog.