Larry Schweikart Was Right on Iraq

Larry Schweikart, history professor at the University of Dayton, is author of America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror. On June 14, 2006--over a year ago--Schweikart was interviewed about the probability of success in Iraq.

Remember this was long before good news started coming out. Schweikart said the war had already been won in 2004 and the terrorist movement would be in "the death throes" by 2007 or 2008.

If you ask any historian, “When did we win the war in the Pacific?” the answer would almost always be, “Midway.” After that, Japan couldn’t win — the only issue was the final, often gruesome, death toll. Think of that! That’s years before Iwo Jima or Okinawa, and yet historically the war was over after June 1942. Likewise, if you look at the Filipino Insurrection (1899-1902, followed by the “Moro Wars”) — which mirrors Iraq very closely, the war was over when William McKinley was reelected. It took two more years for Emilio Aguinaldo to admit defeat, but his stated goal of forcing a political solution by “un-electing” McKinley was finished. I think we hit the “tipping point” in Fallujah in November 2004. After that, the terrorists could no longer hold up in any town for long, nor could they organize effectively. Zarqawi’s recent death closely resembles our Pacific model as well when American P-38s ambushed Isoroku Yamamoto and killed him. Historically, of the 11 “insurgencies” and “guerilla wars” of the 20th century (including Vietnam), the government (in this case, that would be us) won eight. However, most of these took between five and eight years to win. That places us right on our timetable, which is to expect the death throes of the terrorists in Iraq in another year or two.
[emphasis mine]

Here's a man a president might want to look to for counsel.

Good for Gov. Kulongoski!

According to KGW-TV, Gov. Ted Kulongoski is looking into taking action in the Baby Gabriel case.

Today Governor Kulongoski said he is waiting for the Attorney General’s Office to tell him if he has authority to step into the case, and if he does have authority, what his options are.

When asked if the boy should be sent to live in Mexico Kulongoski seemed to lean towards keeping him in America.

. . .

“If you’re asking me just as a citizen, not based on the law or anything else--the kid’s an American citizen,” he said.

When pressed on whether he wanted to keep Gabriel in Oregon, Kulongoski laughed and said, “I can’t say that. It's just an emotional reaction. It isn’t made on anything--I just have this belief about this country."

KATU has a better review of the legal issue.

Baby Gabriel Update

From Lars Larson's site:

Monday, November 5, 2007
Help support Baby Gabriel's legal fund
Contribute to Baby Gabriel's legal fund at any Washington Mutual Bank under the Baby Gabriel fund

Oregonian Leaves Out Key Facts

Gabriel Allred

In today's editorial on 2 year old Gabriel Allred, Oregonian editors leave out key issues in the case. The Newport News-Times lays out a ton of facts the Oregonian ignores.

Valiente-Martinez [Gabriel's biological father] is currently serving a prison sentence for a drug conviction. He is also a convicted sex offender, having been found guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl. Valiente-Martinez is scheduled to be released later this month from the Oregon State Correctional Institution in Salem, after which time he will be deported to Mexico because he is in this country illegally.
. . .

"(Valiente-Martinez) gets out (of prison) on Oct. 22, and he's going to be deported immediately," Steve Brandt said. And when Valiente-Martinez gets to Mexico, he intends to move into the home where his mother lives - where DHS is proposing to send Gabriel.

. . .
The Brandts have appealed the Sept. 28 decision by DHS to send Gabriel to live with his grandmother. And, appeals were also filed by Gabriel's caseworker in Lincoln County, by the Newport attorney representing the child, and by a court appointed special advocate working on his behalf. "So there are four appeals," Brandt said. "Everybody filed an appeal who could."
[emphasis mine]

The Oregonian's take is that the case is fueled by bigotry.

Came then the outrage, surely -- shamefully -- inflamed because the border being crossed in this debate is with Mexico rather than, say, Canada.

And that the key issues are cultural and family ties:

Oregon's Department of Human Services did not make this decision on a whim. It made it on a policy that clearly states the primacy of family and cultural ties. Placing rescued children with relatives -- reuniting families -- is a priority for a very simple reason. In the long run, and in the majority of cases, it makes the most sense.

The cultural issue is specious in the case of Gabriel. He was born here and raised here. Surely his culture is American. Added to that, one of his parents is American. So, culturally, it's 2 to 1.

And as the Newport News-Times points out, the DHS professionals who actually know Gabriel, think he should not be sent to his grandmother in Mexico.

Both Steve and Angela Brandt are quick to point out they have been very pleased with the job done by DHS personnel in Lincoln County. "They really have been very good to us," Steve Brandt said. "There's not anybody that doesn't think we're the best place for this kid except this doggone DHS committee that took place on the 28th, and they're all strangers. These are people who don't know Gabriel, don't know anything other than what they're told or shown. So all the local people that have been working with us for 20 months, they don't get a vote. It's just these three strangers.

"They had all this information in front of them when they made their decision," continued Brandt. "They knew about the guy in prison, they knew he would go back to Mexico when released and deported, and yet they still made this decision only based on the fact that he has a blood relative in Mexico."

Shame on the Oregonian for raising a red herring (bigotry), failing to mention key facts, and leaving out that DHS professionals disagree in this case.

As for Oregon DHS, it's time for the Governor to haul in yet another Oregon state agency intoxicated with its rules rather than acting in the interest of those it is supposed to protect.

State's Incompetence Keeps Snowball-ing

From Oregonian reporter Jessica Bruder's State defies court order today:

They won't let the doe go.

Oregon Department of Justice officials announced Tuesday that they will defy a court order to return Snowball to her former keepers by the end of the day today.

. . . .

On Monday, Clackamas County Circuit Judge Eve L. Miller ordered the state to return Snowball within 48 hours to Jim Filipetti and Francesca Mantei.

Stephanie Soden, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the state doesn't have to comply with Miller's order because state attorneys are in the process of appealing her decision.

"By filing the notice of appeal, that entitles the Department of Fish and Wildlife to an automatic stay of the judge's order," Soden said.

I wonder if that would have worked if Filipetti had said that to ODFW officials when they came to seize Snowball and Bucky. Or any of the rest of us when presented with a court order by the State of Oregon? I doubt it. But, the State can pick and choose which laws it obeys.

The Department of Justice spokeswoman went on to decry the possibility of setting a dangerous precedent:

Miller's decision could set a dangerous precedent, she [Stephanie Soden] said.

"We believe the implications of the ruling are broader than this one specific case," she said. "We believe it has the potential to impact numerous future cases, including criminal cases in which property is in the hands of someone who is not legally entitled to have it."

In cases that a district attorney decides not to prosecute, she suggested, the ruling might compel law enforcement agencies to return stolen property to thieves.

"I think right now prosecutors face dwindling resources, and they're not able to prosecute every case that comes across their desk," she said.

I guess defying a court order isn't setting a dangerous precedent. Not to mention seizing property under the guise of using it for evidence in a criminal case and then refusing to return it. If ODFW or the Department of Justice seize your car or wallet or anything else they say they want as evidence in a criminal case and decide not to use it, I guess they can just keep it.

The State's incompetence in this matter keeps Snowball-ing. And now seems to be morphing into malfeasance. Is there anybody with any sense at the helm of government in Oregon?

Who's Silly?

Today from the Oregonian editors on an anti-Measure 50 ad:

The industry's last TV spot veers into silly desperation, attacking Measure 50 because it's a constitutional amendment. So what? This state's Constitution is full of scores of amendments, and the Legislature referred this one only because too many lawmakers, having taken campaign money from the tobacco folks, wouldn't pass it as a statute.
[emphasis mine]

How embarrassing from a newspaper that has decried too many initiative petitions that overcrowd the ballot. But, overcrowding the state Constitution isn't a problem? If you can't get something approved as a statute, it's okay to put it in the constitution?

The logic is so lame that one feels a bit sheepish going after the Oregonian on this. If we were in a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight.

The War

Last night I and a World War II Pacific bomber pilot watched the first installment of Ken Burns’ The War.

The War underlines some of the key facts about mobilizing a nation and winning a war. It does this in the engaging, deeply moving way that has become Burns’ hallmark.

President Roosevelt and his advisers realized that mobilizing and maintaining public support was key. Concerns about civil liberties, open government, and free speech and press were secondary.

1. The government didn’t give information on US weaknesses and failures. (Only after the war did the public find out about U.S. military weakness and lack of response to the plight of U.S. servicemen fighting in the Pacific theater.)

2. Reporters had limited access to the war front. (When, after seeing how the Japanese treated American captives, American soldiers killed Japanese prisoners, no one was there to report it--and there is no indication that they would have or could have reported it in any case.)

3. The civilian government ran the war with an eye on political necessity even going against military counsel at times (opening a front in Africa--not Europe).

4. The war effort was 100%

- Tens of thousands of American citizens were deprived of essential civil liberties merely through executive order. Executive Order 9066 forced relocation to camps for Japanese-Americans (and to a much lesser extent German-Americans and Italian-Americans) with the loss of personal and business property that comes with forced removal from one’s home area. And, of course, there was the censoring of every military person’s correspondence home.

- Volunteers poured into the military service.

- Draftees reported without anti-war demonstrations or significant attempts to evade service.

- Citizens invested heavily in war bonds.

(In upcoming installments one expects to see treatment of the extensive nation-wide rationing program and the dropping of the atomic bomb. Both of which had extensive public support at the time--and still today among most of those who served during the war.)

The World War II vet thought it was a good representation of what really happened based both on his personal experience and extensive reading on World War II.

I thought it said a lot about why the US has had trouble winning even small wars since then.

President Reagan’s military-economic “outspend them” tactic has been the only wildly successful plan. Korea is still a mess. Vietnam was a loss. Iraq 1 didn’t settle much. Bosnia is still a trouble spot. Afghanistan has had success but still has smoldering embers. And Iraq 2 is just starting to see progress.

Military might doesn’t do well in a limited engagement format. Our only rousing military success (besides the Revolutionary War) is World War II. What worked then was a massive response (at home and abroad) and “unconditional surrender” policy. That brought not only military victory, but those we defeated actually became our friends and allies.

The War gives a lot to ponder.