Category: Uncategorized

Clayton Cramer, one of the gentlemen who did excellent work uncovering the Michael Bellesiles fraud – well done, Mr. Cramer, I did not know that – reluctantly offers a meager defense for Me So Michelle:

Over at Vox Popoli, there is a strong argument that there was no reason for the U.S. to be afraid of a Japanese invasion, hence no need to worry about Japanese-Americans.

All very good in hindsight. After a number of years of assuming that the Japanese were too nearsighted to fly airplanes, and holding their military in considerable contempt, the United States was scared witless by the success of Japanese operations against the British and the Dutch. The success of Japanese troops bicycling in from the north to take “impregnable” Singapore, for example, was a real shocker. From “how can they fight white people” to “They are rolling all over Asia” may have caused an overreaction.

I have never said that there weren’t real, if misguided, fears on the part of the populace or on the part of ignorant bureaucrats more concerned with looking as if they were doing something to calm those fears than they were with strategic realities. But perception is not reality, and this only demonstrates how important it is to prevent the people or the government from using fear as a basis for trading freedom for “security”. Not all unlikely events are created equal. Circling around Singapore and hitting it from the north is hardly the equivalent of figuring out how to resupply your beachhead when your entire navy has to travel 11,000 miles round-trip. Again, this is not hindsight, this is pointing out the facts known at the time. And in any event, Malkin is still insisting that the danger was real, not that those fears were misguided.

The U.S. built air bases on the east side of the Sierras to fight off Japanese forces. If this was strictly a matter of naval battles, why build them hundreds of miles from the coast? It would take more than an hour for fighter planes to get out over the water. It seems pretty clear to me that our government, perhaps overcautiously, believed that it was going to be fighting Japanese troops on the ground in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Why build them there? I imagine that Congressmen hoping for massive Federal expenditures in their district during difficult economic times might have had something to do with that. More to the point, where were the coastal defenses, the cleared beaches, the machine gun emplacements, our own Pacific Wall? As I have repeatedly stated, it’s NOT a question of naval battles. Even if the landings had been permitted to go relatively unscathed, as at Anzio, any Japanese landing force was absolutely doomed. Again, the six-nation Anzio landings were almost twice the size that the IJN could have mustered using every ship at its disposal, the Allies were able to keep 3,920 tons supplies flowing directly to the front lines from Napoli on a daily basis,the British Eighth Army and the other half of the US Fifth Army were only fifty miles away on the other side of the Gustav Line, they were fighting in what was essentially neutral ground, and it was all they could do to keep from being wiped out. As it turned out, all the 6th Corps were able to do was hold their little beachhead until the Gustav line fell and the German Fourtheenth Army was forced to retreat.

I don’t really buy Malkin’s argument completely, and I don’t agree that the circumstances justified this mass arrest. I do think it is important to recognize the fear that Americans were operating under at the time. The fifth column actions of Japanese residents in China were probably known to the American government. It is possible that these similar actions by Japanese residents in the Philipines at the start of the war were known to our government as well. Perhaps a bit more willingness to acknowledge these issues–instead of portraying the internment in simplistic, moralistic terms, as many people have done over the years, myself included–might have prevented Malkin’s book.

To me, this half-hearted attempt at a defense – which really strikes me more as Mr. Cramer attempting to be fair than anything else – seems to indicate that Mr. Cramer doesn’t buy Malkin’s argument at all. Nor should he. It’s a long, long way to go from saying that the Japanese just maybe, perhaps, could have come up with a way to pull off the impossible, to stating authoritatively that invasion was imminent, the survival of the nation was seriously at risk and the anti-constitutional internments were therefore justified.

I repeat: Malkin’s hypothesis is both absurd and ignorant. I’ve yet to hear a defense of it on military grounds that holds any water whatsoever. The fact that people with no serious interest in history should know nothing and think less about military logistics is not surprising, but a willingness to ignore such issues once they’ve been raised would be downright contemptible. Logistics may not be the most exciting aspect of military history, but they definitely are not post-WWII hindsight as they have been the primary factor considered by professional military strategists since Hannibal was fighting Rome.

It’s a toss-up which is better, the title or the punchline. I won’t spoil it with a description, just go read it.

As the debate regarding the desirability of locking up those dangerous Japs who also happened to be Americans during WWII continues, I sent the following email to Deacon of Powerline, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy, Clayton Cramer and Eric Muller:

Dear sirs,

I have followed the debate between Ms Malkin and her various critics with some interest. However, it amazes me that the entire debate, bogged down in disputed minutae as it is, still manages to miss the only point that truly matters. Any reasonable perusal of the historical facts will allow even a casual observer to ascertain that there was never any danger of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast, and to see that this had to have been readily known to American military strategists at the time.

Ms Malkin is not a historian. She has, however, a perfect right to make an ass of herself by expressing whatever revisionist view of history that pleases her. But it seems that none of those criticizing her are military historians, because her case is absurd from the start.

In Ms Malkin’s mind, the fact that some military bureaucrats and many ignorant civilians were afraid of “an imminent invasion” justifies the abrogation of the Constitution by President Roosevelt’s executive order. Therefore, let’s examine the facts, as they were known to the strategists of the day:

1. The Japanese Navy consisted of 176 ships.

2. The distance from Japan to the US West Coast is approximately 5,500 miles.

3. The length of the American coastline is 1,359 miles.

Does anyone dispute any of this? Very well. Some more facts.

1. The Overlord invasion required 4,600 ships and air supremacy

2. The distance from England to Normandy is approximately 22 miles.

3. The length of France’s Atlantic Coastline is 1,875 miles.

4. Immediate access to the French ports of Caen, Le Havre and Cherbourg for reinforcement and resupply was the critical factor in deciding where the Normandy landings took place. Why? Because without reinforcement and resupply, even a very large landing force was doomed.

Furthermore:

1. The Kriegsmarine was slightly smaller than the Imperial Japanese Navy, but its 1,170 U-boats could have carried more troops than Japan’s entire fleet, and more secretly.

2. The distance from the occupied French Coast to the American East Coast is only about 3,500 miles.

3. The Germans were significantly more active off the East Coast – sinking 14.7 times more merchant ships than the 27 sunk off the West Coast.

If one considers this easily researched data, one can only conclude that Ms Malkin is an utter ignoramus when it comes to matters military. Basic logic demonstrates that [the] likelihood and danger of a German invasion – however implausible – was far, far greater than a Japanese one. As the failure of the Anzio landing proves – an invasion that utilized almost twice the force that Japan had at its disposal even prior to Midway – it is not realistic to hypothesize that there was ever any credible danger of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast even if one is willing to fantasize that an island nation totally dependent upon seaborne imports for its raw materials would gamble its entire fleet on what would have amounted to a one-time suicide attack.

It is said that the amateur focuses on troops and generals, while the professional analyzes supply lines. Ms Malkin, it seems, does neither.

Furthermore, the fact that some military bureaucrats may have had genuine fears of a Japanese invasion demonstrates nothing but their incompetence and why the Constitutional limitations on government should never be lifted on the basis of hypothetical concerns perpetrated by government officials. This isn’t hindsight, this is simply pointing out what was obvious even then.

As for fears of sabotage, the fact is that American industrial capacity so overwhelmed that of the enemy that Japanese saboteurs could have wiped out half the shipyards in California without it seriously affecting the course of the war. The fact that the USA managed to produce 150 carriers during the war, most of which were not needed and never saw action, to Japan’s 15, tends to support this.

With best regards,

Vox Day

Universal Press Syndicate

Clayton Cramer writes on the Russian-Chechen situation:

I do not intend to make excuses for what Amnesty International calls: widespread and credible reports that Russian forces have been responsible for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including “disappearances”, extrajudicial executions and torture, including rape.

But these actions by the Russian government in no way excuse attacks on non-combatants or taking hostages. Chechnyan terrorism has completely destroyed any sympathy that I had for their cause. If you want to portray yourself as heroic freedom fighters, you attack legitimate targets: combatants or political leaders, not children; you take prisoners, instead of executing them.

It looks to me as though what we are seeing in the Chechnyan terrorism is not victims of Russian abuses responding badly, but an al-Qaeda farm team–a group that does not believe that there are any legitimate restraints on their use of terror.

Mr. Cramer admits that he knows little about the Chechen situation. Perhaps he, and everyone else who is rightfully horrified by the tragic events unfolding in Russia, would be more understanding – though surely not sympathetic – of the Chechen targeting of non-combatants if he realized that the Russians are estimated to have killed approximately 10 percent of the Chechen population over the course of the war. This targeting of non-combatants on the part of the Chechens is not a new terror tactic, it is a response in kind. The fact that so many Chechen women are involved should tell you all you need to know about the source of their motivation.

Robert Novak writes of the President’s little slip:

Actually, most of the 4,853 delegates and alternates to this convention were blissfully unaware of the little drama that played out briefly this week in an otherwise purposely uneventful convention. Even Bush’s surrogates hardly mentioned the problem during their regular conference calls. But prominent Republicans, asking that their names not be used, expressed concern about the broader implications of the incident.

One senior senator with a flawless conservative voting record told me: “The troops in the field and their relatives at home must believe that an end is in sight. It would be really disastrous for them to think that there is no chance of winning this war.” A prominent conservative governor, a particularly staunch Bush backer, said that the president had “stopped his own momentum” just as it seemed Sen. Kerry was in increasing trouble. The Democratic nominee was reeling, as another independent television ad used 33-year-old footage of Kerry saying he threw away his Vietnam War decorations.

The interruption of Bush’s momentum conflicted with the meticulously planned national convention. Sen. John McCain delivered an effective argument for the war in Iraq, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani explained the war on terror more effectively than the president has ever managed to do. Ironically, in a tightly managed convention, any slipup — however small — is magnified out of proportion.

That the mistake was viewed with alarm by the Bush political high command was signified Tuesday when the president was not content to correct himself to the American Legion. He rapidly moved to explain himself to Rush Limbaugh’s huge listening audience. When the conservative talk show host promptly asked about the Lauer interview, the president replied: “Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I meant.”

But why on earth didn’t he make his point more clearly? In privately confessing that the president made a mistake, his own aides do not go deeper into why he erred. In the Lauer interview, Bush gives the impression that he was not concentrating on one of his final pre-convention interviews, acting as if he really were bored by the process. He obviously meant to say, as he did the next day, that “we may never sit down at a peace table.” Instead, he hurried over and blurred the well-rehearsed explanation.

So much for the notion that “he didn’t really say that” or “he was referring only to the time frame” etc. It’s quite clear that Bush’s advisors interpreted his remarks in the same way I did, otherwise he wouldn’t have made such an effort to subsequently “correct” them. He certainly may have intended to say something about never sitting down at a peace table, but when one is not guarding one’s tongue, it is what one truly believes that tends to slip out. I don’t blame the President for this, as I happen to largely agree with what he apparently thinks privately, as opposed to his public rhetoric.

The horrors that Russia finds itself facing are the direct result of its intervention with Chechnya. The Islamic Chechens don’t hate Russian freedom and they don’t want to conquer Moscow. No one disputes that. Why is it, then, so hard to understand that following the Russian lead has led and is likely to lead to the same sort of tragedy here?

I’m neither a leftist nor a liberal. The root cause of terrorism is not poverty or oppression. But terror is a method with a goal. Islam will not use terror to take over the USA, it will use what it is using in Europe, immigration. Islamic terror is used for a different purpose, the same purpose it is used around the world, to achieve a specific goal. In Russia, it is to drive the Russian occupiers of Chechnya out. In Israel, it is to drive the Jews out. In Kashmir, it is to drive the Indians out. In Egypt, it is to drive the secular government out. In the Philippines and East Timor, it is to drive the Christians out of certain Islamic-dominated islands.

So, what is the most logical conclusion with regards Islamic terror directed against the United States. Do they hate the freedom of the Mubarak government too?

I’ve been involved in some fairly nerdish endeavors. I mean, I was never an A/V club kid, chess club member or band geek, but when you enjoy intellectual stimulation, you tend to find yourself around the less-beautiful, less hygenically-occupied people from time to time. Which is fine; I’m as at home amid a group of overweight and overripe wargamers as I am in velvet-roped VIP area in a haughty nightclub.

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that I am one of the coolest columnists around, and some of you seemed to think that this was bragging. But you see, I was actually making a rather cutting reference to the occupation, as the following quote from Jay Nordlinger, who apparently is not actually 80 years old, deaf, dumb and blind*, would seem to prove:

That little symbol [Michael] Moore made with his hand, at the convention on Monday night? I read that it was “L” for “loser.” I really couldn’t figure it out — it reminded me of that symbol that Filipinos made, all those years ago, in support of Cory Aquino.

Okay, the L-sign went mainstream in the chick flick Jerry Maguire, which was filmed around the time John Kerry was throwing away medals that may or may not have belonged to him, if I recall correctly. I’ve worked with programmers and artists, I’ve spent years in the game development industry, and I can now state, with some assurance, that in the columnists of America we have found the Kings of Nerd.

*Jay’s actually one of my favorites at NRO; his total disinterest in pop culture is quite healthy, in my opinion.

Putting both my abhorrence for what the Republican leadership is doing to the nation as well as my general distaste for the horse race aspect aside, /begin mainstream punditry/ I’d have to say that at this point, the Republicans are doing much, much better with their convention than the Democrats did with theirs. I’ve expected George Bush to win re-election from the start, and I see no reason to alter my view now.

I was at the convention in New Orleans, and as with this convention, there was what Derb describes as a “winning feeling” that was quite palpable. The Republican presentation is slick, powerful, and even occasionally makes me feel somewhat wistful for those bygone days of enthusiastic innocence. If George Bush can keep the program rolling, he should see a significant post-convention bounce. /end mainstream punditry/

I’ve been an old school loyalist to the half-pyramid ever since I started lifting weights. Warmup, 10-8-6-4, that’s about all I’ve done for years except when a shoulder or chest injury has necessitated doing something else.

However, when the Perfect Aryan Male showed up with an additional 20 pounds stacked on from a year ago – he’s up to 240 now – I had to give his program a whirl. And I have to admit, the results are impressive. Here’s how it goes:

2 sets of 10 at 135 to warmup

2 sets of 6 at 225

2 sets of 3 at 285

2 sets repping out at 225. Shoot for 10, but get at least 8.

The great thing is that you get a little bit of the bodybuilder’s pump that you normally get from high rep, low weight workouts, but you get the increased strength of the powerlifter’s workout too. When I first started it two weeks ago, I was doing the third pair at 270, but after four workouts I was able to jack that up to 285, something I could barely hit once a month ago. And best of all, it seems to wear less on the joints than a heavy half-pyramid. I haven’t been sore since I started it.

Space Bunny has been trying to get me to change up my workouts for ages; I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that she’s right. Of course, I’ll probably stick with this one for the next 15 years anyhow.

Fitness is easy. All you have to do is throw yourself into a rut and refuse to get out of it. I’m not crazy, though. Chilliette is training for the marathon; that’s just nuts.

I’m not a huge fan of the Irish Water Poodle, Sean Hannity, but he can be amusingly quick-witted at times. I quite enjoyed this little encounter posted by Powerline:

A few minutes ago, Terry McAuliffe appeared on Sean’s show. They went at it pretty hard, arguing about Vietnam and the war on terror. McAuliffe was stumped when Hannity asked him whether Kerry was lying when he said he spent Christmas in Cambodia.

I posted a little footage of McAuliffe’s appearance, and of the impromptu press conference he gave immediately after, right in front of us, where he talked about the protests against the RNC. McAuliffe strikes me as an amiable rogue, much like his pal Bill Clinton. As Hannity was going into a commercial break, McAuliffe got in one last cheap shot: “How’s your Halliburton stock doing?” To which Sean replied, “Not bad. How’s Global Crossing doing?”

Good stuff. As for Mr. Limbaugh, I note that despite his supposedly vociferious opposition to campaign finance reform and the incipient Republican crackdown on free speech, he did not find the time to ask the President about that, although he was able to talk about what an “honor and a thrill” it was to speak with him, and how wonderful it was to hear the President’s “ebullience”.

Supine enough for you? Sound like Santa to me. I’m not saying that Rush should have nailed him to the wall, but he could certainly worked in a casual: “Mr. President, I’ve always regarded you as a staunch defender of American freedom. Who in the name of the nethermost nether region advised you to advocate banning what is not only free speech, but free speech by your supporters, and when will you publicly hang, draw and quarter them?”

William Safire writes:

On a recent visit to Washington, President Harmid Karzai told me he expected that seven million out of the nine million eligible Afghan voters would register to vote. That seemed a vain hope, since nobody had the habit, and with opium growers and warlords roaming the precincts, voting would be risky.

What happened? So far, 9.9 million Afghans have registered, which is a little embarrassing, but the lust to get more than one registration card is only human to a populace that hid its oppressed womenfolk until the United States and its allies overthrew the Taliban. The Afghans don’t take the right to vote for granted, as half of Americans do.

That cracked me up. Of course, the huge registrations don’t necessarily mean that Afghans are enthusiastic about what will no doubt soon be their own bi-factional ruling party, as the minor – cough – discrepancy means that one has no idea who has been registering the masses.

US forces have freed two subjugated peoples from two evil regimes. I salute that. But a slave freed from one master is not necessarily a free man. For those who think we have brought freedom to the various Afghani and Iraqi peoples, I ask this simple question: the Kurdish people overwhelmingly favor independence. They are even using their own currency. Will you still believe that our mission is freedom if the Kurdish people are not allowed self-determination?