DIGG THIS

Professor Randy Barnett is trying to give his libertarian colleagues a fair shake in supporting the Iraq war in his latest Wall Street Journal article "Libertarians and the War." In what seems like an evenhanded piece, Barnett’s article is really just a veiled attack on non-interventionism, peace-oriented foreign policy, and the truth. Prof. Barnett treats the war in Iraq as if it is still an open-ended question. He goes through the different reasons and iterations of libertarian support for and against the Iraq war, where he concludes that the pro-war libertarians are holding out hope that the Surge will bring positive fruit. "These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S."

What!? Wake up from your hyper-empirical slumber people!

I hate to break it to Barnett’s friends, but the war in Iraq was a failure before we put one boot on the ground and the data has proven this assertion to be the correct one. Many non-interventionist libertarians, paleoconservatives, and highly regarded military men have been predicting such a debacle well before the U.S. invasion. We predicted the invasion would explode Federal spending, increase Federal power, and further undermine our personal safety. We predicted that an Iraq occupation would be a recruiting and breeding ground for Al Qeada. We predicted that the U.S. military would be bogged down in guerilla conflict amid the chaos of sectarian strife. Well the evidence is in, and we were right and the interventionists were wrong. How did we know? We analyzed history, applied economics, and held fast to libertarian political principles like the non-aggression axiom.

While liberventionists claim that failure really had to do with execution, they failed to see that there was no possible way to execute the war properly and achieve the outcomes they hoped for. For instance, it does not matter how many troops the U.S. had on the ground, the fact that we were going to be an occupying force was not going to sit well with the multiple factions in Iraq. The consequent results were IED’s, scrappy light infantry tactics, and mortar attacks on the green zone, all by what Prof. Barnett calls the enemy. Of course, the trillion-dollar budget-busting question is, who is the enemy? Al Qaeda, Al Sadr, the Iraqi police force, Baathists, Fedayeen, communist anti-Iranians, Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Turks, Kurds? Barnett tries to compare Bush’s foibles to Lincoln’s officer problem, implying that like Lincoln’s campaign against the South, the Iraq action may eventually succeed when we get a U.S. Grant. Well, Patraeus is no Grant, and the Iraqi insurgency is no Confederate army.

The Surge is more like a McClellan (2nd generation warfare) fighting a guerilla war in the Middle East amongst a myriad of factions (4th generation warfare). The fruit of the Surge will bring more animosity to the U.S. government by Iraqis. It will further decimate U.S. military morale. Military readiness will be further compromised. Al Qaeda will have greater opportunities for killing U.S. grunts in light infantry opportunities. In short, those seeking American security from the Surge action will have less of it. The point is that if you want greater American security against Middle Eastern terror, you have to disengage and stop giving terrorists reasons for coming over here to kill us, by not going over there to kill them. No amount of Surges or Operation Dumbo Drops will further this goal.

But wait, General Patraeus has an Ivy League pedigree and he thinks the Surge will work. Then again, General McClellan has an equivalent pedigree, and what a failure he turned out to be. Besides, neither Patraeus nor a drunk general like Grant is going to admit to himself that there is an actual military victory amidst this mess. The Surge after all is not about military victory, but about bringing political victory to save face for the Bush administration.

Naturally, as is the lot of peace seekers, we non-interventionists are consistently derided for a "know it all" attitude. Anne Applebaum calls us the "we told you so crowd" who needs "a dose of humility." Maybe to gain such humility, we could take the advice of Virginia Postrel, "Surviving the 21st century with our sanity and civilization intact will require less Nietzsche and more Hume."

Well, unfortunately Hume’s thought is failing miserably and its failure is quite evident in Barnett’s characterization of liberventionist hope for a positive outcome of U.S. intervention in Iraq. While one can effectively fight wars with Nietzsche, and what horrible wars they are, one can never effectively fight a war with Hume. War fighting involves prudence, judgment, and disciplined action amidst uncertainty. While the chaos and events surrounding a war are uncertain, the principles of proper action do remain the same. Yes, just as there is a moral basis for justifying the war, there is also a correct basis for how that war is fought. And while the adherents to Nietzschean war fighting (see Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt) could care less if their measures are unjust, they at least know what constitutes a win and how to accomplish it. However, Hume war fighting not only cannot know if the war is just, it likewise can never figure out what measures are effective in achieving the goal. As such, the most notable Hume wars include Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq. How this insanity will help us survive the 21st century is beyond me. Besides, wouldn’t Hume question whether the 21st century is even worth surviving at all?

We’ll leave the false modesty aside and stick to the ideals which gave us a correct understanding about the prospects of an Iraq invasion. It would behoove our critics, particularly those who call themselves libertarian, to check their understanding of war and find a view of it that comports with reality. The war was a loser from the get go on every level: morally, politically, militarily, and economically. At this point, failure to see this is the height of foolishness.

Since summer reading lists are all the rage these days, I think I’ll follow Ron Paul’s precedent and give an assignment to the libertarians flying blind in understanding war. We can start with the recommendation of Rothbard’s Just War, contrary to Barnett’s claim, "libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack." As Rothbard argues effectively from the natural law tradition, an imposed domination upon another country does not constitute an appropriate or just self-defense after an attack.

As to what constitutes an effective self-defense, consider the classic Art of War by Sun Tzu (Lao Tzu, a libertarian favorite, also has some commentary on warfare as well in the Tao Te Ching).

Must reading for understanding the different developmental phases of warfare (the generations of warfare), see the work of William Lind.

For a grunt’s eye view of the American way of war see War is a Racket by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler and Hazardous Duty by Col. David Hackworth. These two men were arguably the greatest American warriors of the 20th century; both inevitably advocated peace.

Finally, with a view toward the men and women who will return from the insane asylum called the Iraq occupation, read Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character by V.A. psychiatrist Jonathan Shay M.D. Ph.D. It was recommended to me by a Vietnam Vet of an LRRP platoon, and I am forever indebted to his recommendation. This book parallels Homer’s Achilles to the plight of the Vietnam combat veteran, showing the devastation war can inflict on a person’s character and psyche.

The know-nothing libertarians better get cracking. Congress is about to go into recess and Cheney is about to unleash hell on Iran. Which means more hell for us, with our government further quashing our liberty, the value of our money flushed down the toilet, and new terrorists wanting our blood.

Casey Khan [send him mail] lives with his wife and two boys in Phoenix, AZ. He was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps Reserve in October 2003.

DIGG THIS

There’s no doubt, Jack Bauer as portrayed by the talented actor Kiefer Sutherland, has become an American cultural icon of late. As the hero of the smash television production, 24, Bauer often uses torture, lies, and theft to save the free world from annihilation at the hands of terrorists.

The Bauer character, championed by many prominent conservatives, is hailed through consequentialist justifications for doing evil. Michael Brendan Dougherty’s excellent piece in the American Conservative lays out a list of conservative Bauer devotees, including: Kathryn Jean Lopez, Ben Shapiro, and Cal Thomas. Recently, in response to whether torture is justified in stopping a nuke attack, Tom Tancredo ironically exclaimed:

"[W]e’re wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I’m looking for Jack Bauer at that time!… We are the last best hope of Western Civilization. When we go under, Western Civilization goes under."

Justice Antonin Scalia reminds us that, after all, Jack Bauer’s methods saved the city of Los Angeles. Of course in TV land, My Little Ponies fly. But, back to the real world and while we’re speaking of a federal judge, when confronting arguments that some of the Gitmo prisoners might be innocent, Justice Scalia replies, "I don’t care about holding people. I really don’t." Finally, when asked about interrogation techniques, the new euphemism for torture, candidate Mitt Romney argues:

"I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers that they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo."

Such is the Jack Bauer—induced garbage coming out of conservative brains that flow "from the fullness of the heart [which] the mouth speaks." (Mat 12:34).

But before we jump into prudish moralizing about torture, Deroy Murdock informs us that all is not bad at Gitmo. After all, non-lethal waterboarding aside, the inmates get great health care, dental fillings, psychiatrists, the ability to care for a veggie garden, a weekly movie for good conduct, and the ability to watch episodes of the Discovery Channel’s Deadliest Catch. What I want to know is do the Gitmo detainees get to watch Jack Bauer on 24? I guess not, since that would give away our counter-terrorism plans [sic fantasies]. Anyway, Mr. Murdock says we should be proud of Gitmo and keep people locked up regardless of their proven guilt. These Moslem types are fanatics, of which those who’ve left Gitmo have recently engaged in acts of violence against the US military in Afghanistan. No word on whether the former inmates were upset about the waterboarding [Nota bene: conservatives, I'm not saying terrorists are justified because of waterboarding either, their acts are evil as well].

That’s right, almost forgot, the federal government engages in waterboarding at Gitmo. Nice try Mr. Murdock, but it doesn’t matter if the inmates were taken to Club Med or the presidential suite at the Waldorf Astoria. If these people are being tortured by means of waterboarding, no justification by reason of hotel amenities will suffice. Nor is this torture ethically justified by any perceived benefits that might arise from it, including saving the Brooklyn Bridge, the city of Los Angeles, or the planet Earth. This of course doesn’t mean that one cannot do good things to defend from imminent danger. But the evil heart is lazy, and can only comprehend evil methodologies. "A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil." (Mat 12:35).

The late great Pope John Paul II, speaking magisterially in Veritatis Splendor, mentions physical and mental torture, as well as arbitrary imprisonment, as intrinsically evil acts, condemned by the Church. According to Augustine and Aquinas, evil is essentially the lack of good. Not the opposite of good, but the lacking of it. In his work On Evil, Aquinas states that evil "harms a good composed of potentiality and actuality insofar as evil takes away from such a good its perfection" (p.57). Both torture and arbitrary imprisonment are acts which always take away from and individual the potentiality and actuality of their human dignity. Waterboarding takes place when one is tied to a board and loads of water are dumped down the throat to cause a gag reflex and simulate drowning. Short of the psychotic, all know that this act performed upon themselves, to be a violation against themselves. Further, all know, from their own hearts, arbitrary imprisonment to be wrong as well. Therefore, one need not be a Catholic or a Christian to understand what evil acts of waterboarding or random imprisonment are.

But Justice Scalia asks, "So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes." In a brief answer to the first question, we Americans as a whole no longer believe in such absolutes. For example, most Americans have no problem with the consequentialist justifications for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor do many Americans have any problem with aborting a child to defend the life of a mother. Americans, whether liberal or conservative, are mostly moral relativists, even when it comes to the sanctity of human life.

In answering the second question, whether we ought to believe in absolutes, like condemning torture to always be intrinsically evil, we should turn to Tom Tancredo’s invocation of Western Civilization, formerly known as Christendom. We as Americans must remember that what made Western Civilization the city shining on the hill was none other than Christianity. Western notions of criminal justice, due process, humane treatment of prisoners, and war justification all form their basis through the confidence westerners maintained through the study of Christian theology. (For more on this thesis, see Thomas Woods How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and Rodney Stark The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success). We see many of these absolutes in America’s founding documents. Whether it is the Declaration of Independence speaking of inalienable rights of all human persons or the U.S. Constitution denying the federal government arbitrary powers, these ideals owe their basis from Christianity and Christendom. Heck, even the modern federal code prohibits such evil under 18 U.S.C. 2340. So much for conservatives who worship law and order. If we really don’t want Western Civilization to go under, then we must defend these absolutes. Otherwise we become the barbarians; we only hope it is not too late.

Therefore, we must kill Jack Bauer in earnest. His propaganda further poisons the American mindset, offering hope through evil means. Which begs the question, can we kill Jack Bauer that good may come? Fortunately, Jack Bauer is a fictional character which can be written off in a screenplay and not an actual person to be murdered. Besides, he could be killed off by some natural accident or cause, like slipping and falling in the shower or dying of some unknown brain tumor. Instead of calling the next season 24, the producers could call it 7/7/07 Hour 7, Minute 7, Second 7, when Jack Bauer’s life flashes before his eyes from a massive heart attack. Standing before him is the Judge of his evil ways. As for Gitmo, charge the inmates with crimes before a US court of law, bring home the Marines, and burn it down. Gitmo has gone from a relatively noble view as a fort in the cold war struggle, to the pervasive view of a torture shack. Who cares if the inmates get caviar and perfume; what is done there is plainly and simply evil.

Oh and finally when people ask, why did Jack Bauer die? Lt. Jonathan Kendrick, USMC, of 1st Plt, Bravo Company, Windward Division, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can answer:

"I believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ, and because I do, I can say this: [Jack Bauer] is dead and that’s a tragedy. But he’s dead because he had no code. He’s dead because he had no honor. And God was watching."

Casey Khan [send him mail] lives with his wife and two boys in Pheonix, AZ. He was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps Reserve in October 2003.

In its fantasy there is a profound sense of reality to Star Wars. Conversely, in its reality, there is a profound sense of fantasy to GI Joe. Star Wars like any epic heroic, tries to examine good, evil, and ethical dilemmas that face the human existence. GI Joe is mere propaganda for the warfare state.

Yo Joe

According to the highly informative site Complete Guide to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, GI Joe began as a 12-inch action figure in the 1960′s by Hasbro. With the rising price of plastics in 1978 the toy was discontinued by the company. In 1982 Hasbro revisited the toy, however this time at 3.75" height to compete with the Star Wars line of the same height produced by Kenner (Hasbro now owns the Star Wars toy line as well).

In 1985 there was an associated television cartoon that we watched as kids. We enjoyed watching the show but we always had our criticisms. We always thought the GI mottos were quite corny, probably because they were bereft of any real meaning. "Yo Joe!" and "Cobra!" battle cries just didn’t cut it. (We always found the "WOLVERINES!" battle cry to be preferable. Red Dawn was always up there with Star Wars.) Kids age 7—10 are not easily fooled, especially when it comes to their toys.

We also didn’t like how the cartoon would make lasers out of all the weapons. We knew the mechanics of these weapons and how they fired. Also in the cartoon, nobody ever died. When a jet was hit by a missile, the pilot was immediately and safely ejected. If a bomb was dropped on a jeep, no one lost a limb or was ripped by shrapnel. We knew this to be quite unrealistic from our own experience. Explosives were one of our specialties. Back in those unruly summers of the mid eighties in West Texas, a nine- or ten-year-old could buy fireworks from a stoner at a fireworks stand as long as they had cash. With firecrackers, we would blow up army ant hills. We would take old ratty toys, including any Joes that were broken (Star Wars was sacred), and blow them up seeing first hand the concept of shrapnel. With the firecrackers we were able to further deduce what a grenade or an aerial bomb must be like. So in many ways the cartoon was an insult to our intelligence.

In any case, we still enjoyed collecting and playing with the toys, but they never held the same aura of Star Wars and its toys. This was because GI Joe, from the cartoon to the toys was always simply too black and white. "He’ll fight for freedom, wherever there’s trouble, GI Joe is there." Sounds like the propaganda of a Toby Keith song doesn’t it? As kids, we never saw it as propaganda for the state, as we never pondered such nonsense at that age. But there is no denying that propaganda is the essence of GI Joe. Propaganda always comes off flat, lacking any real substance. In the long run it fails to inspire because it fails to make us really think and reflect on anything. It is a smooth mechanism for bringing about the ends of those in power. The lessons of GI Joe are that combat destruction occurs without consequence and that the enemy (Cobra, Communists, etc.) is inhuman. Without the enemy’s humanity, death is of no concern, because non-human entities correctly have no rights. Where GI Joe failed, Star Wars took its place.

Star Wars is the great antithesis to GI Joe. Both are toys and stories that profoundly represent American political reality, but Star Wars never comes across as propaganda. In contrast, it seeks to speak truth to power. In Star Wars actions have very relevant consequences and the enemy is very much human. Since the enemy is human, he is never to be underestimated.

Never Underestimate

Estimation of the enemy is one of the more profound lessons of Star Wars. Many times Obi-Wan and Yoda admonish Luke Skywalker to never underestimate Darth Vader and the power of the dark side, as it is something that both Jedi masters learned the hard way in Episode III. In combat, one of the most defeating mistakes one can make is underestimation of an opponent. Strutting around and touting a cake walk is a sure way to defeat. When Luke shows signs of arrogance and overconfidence in his abilities he fails in the Empire Strikes Back. It is not until he gains effective control of his power and fear while internalizing a sense of humility, that he is successful in Return of the Jedi.

In his youth, Luke not only underestimates his enemies, but also his Jedi master Yoda as well. When Luke searches for Yoda in the swamps of Degobah, Luke comes across a small green elf-like creature which he does not recognize as the great Jedi master. Instead he thinks the master will be of a great size and might. "I’m looking for a great warrior," Luke exasperates. Yoda retorts, "Wars do not make one great."

Later in his training, Luke underestimates the power of the force when his space ship falls deeper into the swamp.

LUKE: Oh, no. We’ll never get it out now.

YODA: So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?

LUKE: Master, moving stones around is one thing. This is totally different.

YODA: No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned.

LUKE: All right, I’ll give it a try.

YODA: No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

Luke closes his eyes and concentrates on thinking the ship out. Slowly, the X-wing’s nose begins to rise above the water. It hovers for a moment and then slides back, disappearing once again.

LUKE: (panting heavily) I can’t. It’s too big.

YODA: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hm? Mmmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we …not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you…me…the tree…the rock…everywhere! Yes, even between this land and that ship!

LUKE: (discouraged) You want the impossible.

Quietly Yoda turns toward the X-wing fighter. With his eyes closed and his head bowed, he raises his arm and points at the ship. Soon, the fighter rises above the water and moves forward as Artoo beeps in terror and scoots away. The entire X-wing moves majestically, surely, toward the shore. Yoda stands on a tree root and guides the fighter carefully down toward the beach. Luke stares in astonishment as the fighter settles down onto the shore. He walks toward Yoda.

LUKE: I don’t…I don’t believe it.

YODA: That is why you fail.

We’ve all felt like Luke especially as adolescent boys and young adult men. So certain were we about the things we had no business being certain of, and uncertain of the things we should have. This dialogue has influenced an entire generation of young men in some way or another, and I am proud to say it has been more widely discussed and debated by American men of my age than the likes of the Gettysburg Address (yes there is great hope for my generation). And maybe that’s why we failed in Vietnam and are failing in Iraq; we don’t really believe in democracy and the state, for as Bastiat said it is none other than a great fiction. Yet these calamities still occur because we have no confidence in our belief of the force, or whatever speaks truth to power. When we lose our confidence to know the truth, then the temptations of the dark side seek to find a home. As Yoda warns, "Anger…fear…aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice." The dark side is, "Quicker, easier, more seductive." It is dangerous to underestimate the enemy, for we may fall into its traps and become the enemy ourselves.

The Sith

These are the men of great talent and leadership who are seduced by power and order over all things. They seek to rule all and impose their vision of order on the universe. It is these individuals and the power of the dark side, in particular, that master Yoda constantly warns not to underestimate. It is through seduction that the Sith recruit for their order. In Episode III, under the political mask of Chancellor Palpatine, Darth Sidious slowly seduces Anakin Skywalker to the dark side of the force. Sidious sees Anakin’s great power as a fighter pilot and most importantly as a truly devoted Jedi. Sidious begins the seduction by subtle suggestion in telling Anakin to decapitate the unarmed prisoner and Sith, Count Dooku, during the heat of combat. Anakin obeys but later is conflicted on the immorality of such an action.

Since the Jedi council has no knowledge of Anakin’s secret pregnant wife, they give him incorrect advice and assign him to further duties under Chancellor Palpatine (Sidious). Sidious takes advantage by playing into Anakin’s prophetic fear that his wife will die at child birth, by slowly explaining the ways Anakin can guarantee the life of his secret wife. Of course such methods are not available to Jedi; it is only through other powers of the force that they can be employed.

Under the slow progression, Palpatine eventually reveals himself to Anakin as Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith. The seduction is complete when Anakin saves Sidious from arrest and imminent death by Mace Windu. Anakin’s fall fulfills the prophecy that he will bring balance to the force with the destruction of all the Jedi except masters Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi.

During the Sith assault on the Jedi, Anakin, who is now Darth Vader, further defiles himself to a point of seemingly no return. He kills a number of small children training in the Jedi temple. At the command of Darth Sidious, he murders countless bureaucrats on the volcanic planet of Mustafar. He assaults his pregnant wife by strangling her. Finally, he is defeated by Obi-Wan in an arrogant fit of rage. In defeat, Darth Vader loses his legs, is badly burned, and mutilated. Vader is saved from death by Darth Sidious with the life protective mask and suit which we all have come to envision as Darth Vader.

With Darth Vader’s great talents, the new Emperor (Darth Sidious) is able to consolidate his imperial power. On behalf of the Empire, Vader continues to partake in the killing of multitudes, destruction of planets, and the crushing of all resistance and dissent. He becomes a tyrannical evil personified, to the point where there is little hope of return.

True Power

In the first Star Wars movie produced, Episode IV: A New Hope, Obi-Wan introduces the true power of the force in his final face off with Darth Vader:

VADER: Your powers are weak, old man.

OBI-WAN: You can’t win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Obi-Wan hints at his eventual martyrdom to an angelic being at the destructive hands of Darth Vader. Vader continues to erroneously believe that true power comprises of might and destruction. Blinded by the dark side of the force, Vader is unable to conceive of a greater everlasting life in the force. Obi-Wan’s faith in action proves otherwise. As such he becomes a powerful intercessor and guide to Luke Skywalker, son of Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker). Master Yoda also passes into this angelic state in Return of the Jedi as well, also remaining as a guide to Luke in his future challenges. The deaths and afterlives of Obi-Wan and Yoda are quite similar to the Catholic notion of Sainthood, as Saints often are martyred in speaking truth to power becoming living intercessors and guides long after their physical life. Guardian angels and saintly intercessors possess true power and are important agents in the battle for the redemption of the soul.

Redemption

Star Wars is ultimately a story of redemption. George Lucas teaches us how an innocent child can grow into a destructive monster. The innocent, talented, and faithful Annie grows to extreme hatred and becomes the practitioner of mass murder known as Darth Vader. However, despite all his evil deeds, all his destruction, and all his acts of murder, there is still the possibility of redemption.

The most brilliant artistry of the Star Wars saga is the Darth Vader mask. In Episodes III to V the viewer sees the explicit hatred behind the mask. However, in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, the viewer begins to see regret, sorrow, and the hope of redemption in the exact same mask during a cordial meeting between Vader and his son Luke:

VADER: The Emperor has been expecting you.

LUKE: I know, father.

VADER: So, you have accepted the truth.

LUKE: I’ve accepted the truth that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father.

VADER (turning to face him): That name no longer has any meaning for me.

LUKE: It is the name of your true self. You’ve only forgotten. I know there is good in you. The Emperor hasn’t driven it from you fully. That is why you couldn’t destroy me. That’s why you won’t bring me to your Emperor now.

Vader looks down from Luke to the lightsaber in his own black- gloved hand. He seems to ponder Luke’s words.

VADER: I see you have constructed a new lightsaber.

Vader ignites the lightsaber and holds it to examine its humming, brilliant blade.

VADER: Your skills are complete. Indeed, you are powerful, as the Emperor has foreseen.

LUKE: Come with me.

VADER: Obi-Wan once thought as you do.

Luke steps close to Vader, then stops. Vader is still.

VADER: You don’t know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master.

LUKE: I will not turn…and you’ll be forced to kill me.

VADER: If that is your destiny.

LUKE: Search your feelings, father. You can’t do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.

VADER: It is too late for me, son. The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your master now.

Often, when men go down the dark path of destruction, they despairingly feel it is too late for redemption. But Luke slowly convinces his father that it is never too late. In the dialogue above we see the mirror opposite of the seduction invoked by Darth Sidious. This time, however, it is the faith and love of his son which leads Darth Vader back out of the dark side to the true power of the force. Anakin Skywalker saves his son, Luke, from murder by the hands of the Emperor, casting the Emperor and the identity of Darth Vader down an endless chasm. Mortally wounded in the process, Anakin finally takes off the infamous mask to look on his son for the first time with his own eyes.

In spite of all the evil done by him before, Anakin Skywalker is redeemed joining his masters Yoda and Obi-Wan in the angelic state of everlasting life in the force. George Lucas offers an important lesson for all of us to ponder. No matter how far along we go to the dark side, there is always hope in humanity for redemption.

Conclusion

GI Joe propaganda is thankfully failing in its purpose. There is no rush to sign up for imperial projects as indicated by poor recruiting results in the Army and the Marine Corps. Conscription will commence, especially if the empire wishes to grow in strength. However, despite the American rise to empire, there is great reason for hope. The truth behind the Star Wars saga is very much alive in the hearts of many young Americans. It is a spirit strong enough to maintain a living remnant of liberty while the last vestiges of the old republic are finally swept away.

So for those mothers out there who worry about the types of toys that their kids play with, steer clear of GI Joe. GI Joe’s propaganda offers us the promise of perpetual war. Its enticements of adventure and excitement lead to nothing but despair, death, and destruction. In contrast, Star Wars’ truth offers the promise of true power and true freedom, but most of all the very real hope of redemption. Besides, mothers will find comfort in the dictums of master Yoda, especially when he exclaims, "…adventure, hmm…excitement, heh…a Jedi craves not these things."

In the days to come, may the force be with us all.

Casey Khan [send him mail] lives in Mesa, AZ, with his wife and son. He was Honorably Discharged from the United States Marine Corps Reserve in October 2003. Check out his blog. He would also like to thank his brother, Danny, for his Jedi companionship in the many years of playing, watching, and pondering on the Star Wars saga, as it led to this article.

Subject: On the Proper Defense of Marriage:
An Open Letter to the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

Most Reverend Olmstead,

I write to you as a humble lay parishioner and sinner, worshiping in the Diocese of Phoenix. Like all American Catholics today, I am concerned with the present state of marriage in this country. Recently, the USCCB issued a letter urging the US Senate to support the now failed federal marriage amendment. The failure of this constitutional amendment should be seen as a blessing and it is my humble opinion that supporting such an amendment in the future would be a grave strategic error in defense of the true institution of marriage. I hope to demonstrate that such an amendment would become a significant threat to the sacramental nature of Catholic marriage as well as to the magisterial authority of the Church in the United States.

First let us examine the impetus for such a constitutional amendment on marriage. It is certainly understandable why many Catholics and our separated Christian brethren would push for such an amendment, particularly with the recent aberrations that have taken place in San Francisco and Massachusetts. In the United States marriage is suffering from the multitude of non-marital living arrangements, from a lack of understanding and therefore commitment to sexual ethics, from an epidemic of divorce, and from the current homosexual aberration. These developments should shock all Christians and cause them to take action against such monstrosities.

Surrounded by all these negative developments, some Catholics and Christians hope that the force of secular law can help protect and save the marital institution by shielding marriage from societal vices. Past and current vice laws were enacted to combat some of these problems. There have been state laws against unmarried couples living together; despite these laws many do. Prostitution and proposed pornography laws seek to assist the marriage commitment, but yet they would still plague an immoral society. Sodomy laws seek to curb immoral sexual actions, yet many practice it. All these laws seek to forcibly remove these immoral actions from our presence, yet they remain. These secular laws are really intended for the hardness of man’s heart. A hardness that grows ever harder in absence of the Real Presence.

Are these laws and federal amendments going to save or support the sacrament of marriage? We know as Catholics that it is only through the true exercise of Christian discipleship that the marital vocation is saved. The ultimate marital regulators for Catholics should be the sacraments of Eucharist combined with Reconciliation in light of the Gospel. Of course a proper understanding of the Eucharist’s Real Presence among Catholics is imperative in this regulation. Without proper knowledge of the Real Presence, a man’s heart will grow harder and seek other less desirable coercive ways to regulate his behavior. It is only through Christ that homosexuality, sodomy, pornography, and prostitution can be effectively eliminated from the heart. It is only through Christ that we can have meaningful and self-actualizing marriages. A federal marriage amendment will do no such thing.

There will be something that a federal marriage amendment will do in this country. It will set up a federal agency to regulate marriage. It is important to note that every positive assertion or regulation in the Constitution has an agency or office associated with it. The only clauses that don’t have offices associated with it are the Bill of Rights, which seeks to protect the people from the government. The marriage amendment positively asserts that the only legal union to be conferred is that of a man and a woman. With such a positive assertion there will come a marriage Czar and another office of federal bureaucracy. Be warned that such a Czar will be a threat to the Catholic Church and its proper authority over Catholic marriage in the United States. The Federal government has already found sneaky ways of regulating Church associated organizations through the granting of government funds and other laws. As I’m sure you know well that the California Supreme Court has recently mandated that the Diocese of Sacramento’s Catholic Charities provide insurance coverage for contraception. This example is just the infancy of threats the current nature of the American secular state is capable of producing and it should be a warning sign to American Bishops. Give a marriage czar some time and you will see mandates for a government type pre-cana for all marriages complete with un-natural family planning and lessons on abortion.

Catholics should not forget their history and look back to at the initial reasons for many modern secular institutions in this country. Woman’s suffrage, the temperance movement (Prohibition Amendment), public education, immigration restriction, abortion and contraception were all secular instruments initially used with the intent to undermine the Catholic Church in the US.1 So why should Catholics put faith in mechanisms that that have been used to undermine the sacred Church? Why put faith in a few miniscule political victories when they can detrimentally hurt the Church?

Let us not put faith in secular laws. It is God’s dominion that we seek and it is through the temporal structures of His Church that the marital sacrament can be best defended. Currently the Church is doing some good things in the defense of marriage with its pre-cana programs and writings like John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

Despite the positive aspects of the Church’s protection of marriage, there is something subtle that the American Church is allowing to happen before it recognizes a sacramental marriage. It is that of a civil marriage granted through licensure by the state. Now one may not think that going to the state for a marriage license has much affect on the institution of marriage, but an examination into such licensure would show just how profound the affect is. The current regime in the American States goes as follows:

State: Come to me first when marrying. You need our license first.

Church: After a solid pre-cana, come to us with your license and we will confer a sacrament.

State: Come to me when trouble comes. Divorce is just a few documents away. Go to your attorney. Go to the divorce store.

Church: Come to us after your civil divorce and we may find cause for a proper annulment. Some will not look for an annulment and just drop out of Church life.

When a couple goes through hard times together, as almost all invariably do, it is much easier to seek the advice of legal counsel and hammer out a divorce. The adversarial nature of secular courts nicely suits spouses who have reached the unfortunate relationship of adversaries. Many say why go to the Church, when their recommendations are "unrealistic." "They don’t understand my needs," will exclaim many. Even as Catholics, many of us are easily tempted to take on the role as adversary because it is so easy to go through some lawyers and the state. Often these paid representatives have in mind the selfish and uncharitable needs of adversarial spouses, unlike that of the Church. Unfortunately in the hearts of most, the Church plays second fiddle to legal and cultural institutions that suit their "needs." This situation is subtle and not easily seen, but of utmost importance.

In this subtle situation, the state is always trying to seek recognition prior to the Church and God’s dominion. In fact, it’s a safe but troubling bet that most Christian children in the US receive their social security number before they are even Baptized. Granted, we are called by the Church to submit to legitimate authorities and serve for the common good of society. However, the Church also states:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to the civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." We must obey God rather than men… [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2239]

So then is it right that we as Catholics should refuse obedience to the civil authority in the case of a marriage license, and is such a license a homage that we must render to Caesar? The answer must be an emphatic yes to the former and no to the latter, because the implication of all state marriage licenses is the right to terminate the contract in the secular court for reasons even as frivolous as "irreconcilable differences." With such an implication of divorce are couples truly entering the vocation freely and without mental reservation? Marriage under the Church offers no such implication, but American Catholics become easily confused with a state license in their hands. These state licenses should be looked at by the Church as an unlawful license to divorce, not marry. It is a tool which works contrary to the upright conscience and confuses many into following the civil authority rather than God’s law and the Gospel in light of Mat 5:31—32.

Further the empirical evidence on divorce in the United States supports an argument for Catholic civil disobedience on marriage. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they explain divorce among the general American population from 1870 to 1905:

The rate per 100,000 married population was 81 in the year 1870 and 200 in the year 1900… Divorce rates appear to be much higher in the United States than in any of the foreign countries for which statistics relating to this subject have been obtained [emphasis mine].

Among the US population, divorce has been recently cited as the termination of greater than 50% of all marriages. For American Catholics, it has been cited as greater than 30%. Consistently through the years, the US seems to have a greater instance of civil divorce than most other countries.

Therefore, in light of the fact that divorce is implied by a secular marriage license and the subsequently numerous cases of divorce, American secular institutions cannot be trusted as a desirable means in a Catholic defense of marriage.

Besides, why let US secular institutions have authority over the Catholic sacrament of marriage, when no other sacrament is regulated by secular institutions? Right now, one does not need a license to Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, or Anointing of the Sick, as there never should be. Nor should there be a license for the Sacrament of Marriage.

There are effective positive alternatives that the Church can pursue to defend marriage from the confusion caused by the state’s imposition of a marriage license.

The Catholic Church in America would be wise to not allow for the licensure of any civil marriage of Catholics in the future. All matters of marriage for Catholics would be best dealt with solely by the recipients of the Sacrament and the Church. Prior to marriage, the Church would ask those seeking the Sacrament to not seek the adversarial position of the secular court unless the Church has deemed the marriage to be properly annulled or when the civil rights of an individual spouse or family member have been violated (rape, assault, murder, etc.). In the case of annulment, an adversarial position could be then taken by annulled spouses for dealings with property issues, but not for the granting of a divorce of an unlicensed Catholic sacrament. In the case of violated civil rights the spouse should still not seek civil divorce and deal solely with the Church on annulment.

As for current Catholic holders of such a license, they should leave it as is, and be asked to treat their marriages in the discipline mentioned above. The only difference is that that American Catholics should seek to have their civil license divorced only after the Church deems the marriage as properly annulled.

The advantage of this proposal would be greater discipline over the sacrament of Marriage by the Church than there currently is. There would be no cause for confusion among married parishioners about divorce and the Church will be seen as the primary and sole arbitrator of Catholic marriages. Marriage will lie within the realm of the Church and there would be no concerns over loss of ecclesiastical authority, thus decreasing the likelihood of heresy entering It.

Subsequent to such enactments, the Church will see great spiritual benefits. The Church will see greater reflection on marriage as a call by the Triune God to a true Christian vocation, rather than something one feels like doing for their own sake. This will lead to fewer annulments as parishioners find a proper response to their true callings. Greater reflection will lead others to see their true call to a religious life either through Holy Orders or other religious vocations.

In the short run, there may be resistance to such a discipline by many Catholics who fall to the temptation and the trappings of secular society and will find it hard not to look back. There may be some who go to the civil authority to break their Catholic marriage with a divorce prior to counsel from the Church. Like Lot’s wife many will turn into pillars of salt.

Other concerns will include the Federal income tax situation for marriages not licensed by the several states. Will the IRS recognize unlicensed yet sacramental marriages? If it does not, this should be another indicator how American secular institutions are unfit for the recognition and defense of marriage. Federal tax issues could cause major interference in enacting such a discipline. If the IRS does not recognize unlicensed marriages, then would it be fair to ask new unlicensed sacramental marriages to be penalized on their taxes while older licensed sacramental marriages are not? If unlicensed Sacramental marriages are penalized, then I think that licensed Sacramental marriages may be called to file with such a penalty in solidarity to the unlicensed. These sacrifices would hurt, but they are small compared to the sacrifices made by the Church fathers and early Christians in their civil disobedience to the pagan gods of Rome.

I know the proposed discipline would be hard for American bishops to enact over their flocks, but it is time to understand the devastating affects American secular institutions have on marriage. They are burdens that weigh down on the sacrament and since this is so, how can we as Catholics seek salvation from the institutions causing such a burden? Only the Church can bring the sacrament of marriage back to the gentle Majesty of Christ, giving it rest from the secular strains in American society. We must take to heart Christ’s teaching through His Gospel:

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light." [Mat 11:28-30]

These are dangerous times for the Church and it may take the courage of a St. Thomas More or St. Thomas Becket for us to properly protect and defend the Sacrament of Marriage. I will pray for their intercession and do my part in the laity to bring misguided and fallen Catholics back to the Real Presence, as well as evangelize to all other non-Catholics.

It is time for the Catholic Church in America to recognize its proper place where it has a much greater authority than the American system of government. It is time for the Church to take action. Waiting for the state to take action, could take time and such actions will do serious harm to the Church. I hope the Church can see that using secular institutions like the modern American state will not help the defense of sacramental marriage. Rather, the Church must positively assert its authority over American Catholics in the aspect of marriage if it truly seeks to defend it in America.

Humbly in Christ,
Casey Khan

Note

1. For the best discussion of this look to Rothbard, "Progressive Era and the Family"; it is an historical essay that every American Catholic should read.

Casey Khan [send him mail] works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his wife. He was Honorably Discharged from the United States Marine Corps Reserve in October 2003.

”I,
Casey Khan, do solemnly swear that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President
of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed
over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. So help me God.”

As
a part of the delayed entry program I spent my first months in inactive
service until I went to boot camp at MCRD San Diego in May of 1996.
Three months later on August the 16th, I was proud to
earn the title of United States Marine and excited to perform my
duties as a protector of the Constitution and People of the United
States.

In
my six years of active reserve service there were many things I
enjoyed and respected: Time in the field. Weapons Company 2nd
BN 24th Marines. 81mm Mortars. Good tough NCO's. Mustangs.
Good Battalion Commanders. Call for fire missions. ALICE packs.
CAX (combined arms exercise in 29 Palms). Playing spades. Platoon
3113. Quantico. Amphibious assaults. Forward Observation. Hovercraft.
Sea stories. Former Drill Instructors. Helicopter assaults. Being
an NCO. Dress Blues. Marine Corps History. PFT. Gun Drills. A good
15–20 mile hump. Throwing grenades. Combat hits. Pugil Sticks.
Bayonets. MRE Bombs. Marine Corps push-ups. Marine Corps Birthday
Balls.

Of
course no grunt spends time in the Marine Corps without complaints.
I certainly had my share of gripes: Time in garrison. Bulk fuel
operations. Inefficiency. Supply (something
that never meets demand). Admin. Meaningless paperwork. Meaningless
work. Many Staff NCO's. Officers who don't know land navigation.
Officers who don't listen to their NCO's. WM's. Fort McCoy, WI.
Wearing Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie uniforms. Digital cammies. M16A2
service rifles.

Despite
these nuisances, I loved the Marine Corps and the spirit of its
founding in 1775 as a defense against tyranny. As I began to understand
the true nature of liberty, I began to question just what kind of
"Teufelhunden"
that this organization has really morphed into. No longer a shield
against tyranny, it has become the abused tip of a spear to a racket
for politicians and their special interests du
jour. In approaching reenlistment there were two realizations
that kept me from signing for a second term. First, was the realization
that the U.S. Constitution is a dead and meaningless document. Second,
was the realization of a heresy that has permeated modern American
society for some time.

The
Constitution Is Dead

I
first enlisted as a patriot believing in liberty and the principles
of limited republican government espoused by the Constitution. Unfortunately,
US Constitution has gone the way of the USS Constitution, decommissioned
and put away like a museum piece on display as a reminder of America's
gloried past. Considered no longer useful to our modern times, the
document is given some lip service but only in reverence and never
in use. Like the cannon and sail in modern combat, the Bill of Rights
and enumeration of Federal power are ineffective against the intentions
of corrupt and ambitious men who seek power at the expense of liberty.

Presidents
no longer even have to goad an enemy into striking first, like FDR
or Lincoln, to get a Congressional war declaration. These days Presidents
ask Congress for the power to decide whether war is appropriate.
Rather than taking orders from Congress as the document enumerates,
he seeks to have discretion to wage war when he feels like it. Actually,
more often than not, modern Presidents assume they are automatically
the Commander in Chief as soon as they take their oath. Forgotten
is the fact that the enumerated and delegated power of declaring
war lies with Congress and only Congress. Until such a declaration,
officers should not be bound to orders of the President. Why? Orders
given without the proper consent of Congress are unconstitutional
and unlawful. Officers are not lawfully bound to unlawful orders.
Looking to the spirit of liberty and the founding of this country,
we know the founders did not want such force of power to lie in
the hands of just one man. They knew if the threat was real and
eminent, a proper declaration would come from the legislature. Today,
however, the Congress has relinquished its delegated powers, giving
the President license to do whatever he and his office determine
that they can get away with. Consequentially, the presidential and
legislative oaths to the Constitution have just turned into a great
photo op on inauguration day.

If
the President and Congress cannot honestly vow to uphold and protect
the Constitution, how can one in good conscience, who understands
the spirit and letter of the Constitution, enlist or take a commission
in any branch of the United States military? This is a problem I
had to wrestle with in my mind between 9/11/01 and the run up to
the Iraq war. Would I go and support my buddies in the field, or
would I stay and fight the good fight in the spirit of liberty against
the usurpers of the Constitution? Fortunately, I finished my obligation
to the active reserve before my unit was sent to the Persian Gulf,
and I could be put to a great test. Even still, I was put to the
test of continuing to take an oath that no longer had any meaning.
I was put to the test of whether I wanted to support machinery used
in the antithesis of freedom. I said, no more.

It
is a sad and hard realization for a grunt who loves the Marine Corps
to admit that the organization is not used in the preservation of
liberty, and has not been used toward that end for a very long time.
In fact, although the U.S. is a wealthy country, it is not the free
country it once was. Marines need to understand that with every
act of war since 1860, the country has seen overt actions by the
Federal government against freedom. The Civil War brought the Morrill
Act, Legal Tender, and the Secret Service. In World War I, along
with the introduction of the "Teufelhunden,"
came the income tax and the Federal Reserve. In World War II, with
the great island hopping campaign, came a seven-headed monster known
as the WPA, SEC, FBI, FCC, CIA, FDA, and social security. In Vietnam,
with the patrols of Hue City, came Medicare, Medicaid, and military
micro-management from the Pentagon. In Beirut, while Marines were
killed, an unconstitutional war on drug commodities was ratcheted
up. Finally, while Marines called a fire for effect on Iraqi forces,
came the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. Known as
the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation approved so diametrically
opposed to the Constitution, tyrants like Napoleon and George III
would be covetous. Each time Marines have come home from each of
these fronts, politicians at home sought powers irreconcilable to
any of the principles defined in the Constitution, the Declaration
of Independence, or the basic ideals of classical liberalism. The
founding Marine, Samuel Nicholas, would have nothing to do with
the Marine Corps as it is used today to the detriment of the liberty
he held dear. Unlike Samuel Nicholas, modern Marines come home to
tyranny rather than the liberty they hoped to protect.

The
Heresy

Which
leads us to the heresy, which permeates the modern American mind.
The heresy is the contention that liberty is provided for by the
soldier. No longer protectors in service with deference to the sovereign
civilians, soldiers are now the masters who give license to the
"freedoms" Americans have. The heresy is best summed up
by Marine, Father
Davis O'Brien when he iterated:

It
is the Soldier not the reporter, who has given us Freedom of
the press. It is the Soldier not the poet, who has given us
Freedom of speech. It is the Soldier not the campus organizer,
who has given us the Freedom to demonstrate. It is the Soldier
not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the Flag, who serves beneath
the Flag and whose coffin is draped by the Flag, who allows
the protester to burn the Flag.

Without
thinking about the ramifications of such a statement, many Americans
would nod agreement to such an assertion. Do I hear a damn right
out there? From Lee Greenwood's "God
Bless the USA" to Toby Keith's "American
Soldier," the thesis remains that the rights and freedoms
in America are given by soldiers. This thesis is reinforced when
civilians approach soldiers with a "thank you." Soldiers
of society, now ration out rights like MRE's
at chow time in a garrison state. The free exercise of individuals
and in particular the endowment by God is not considered. Without
soldiers and their actions, there is no freedom to speak, organize,
transact, or exercise property rights. All deference should be given
to soldiers; their will be done.

Tyranny
is the necessary result when individuals in society subvert their
freedom to the will of other men, in particular the will of the
soldier. It is interesting to hear a Catholic priest who speaks
so eloquently about inalienable rights and absolutely fails to attribute
their endowment to God. As such this is a heresy in failing to recognize
God's dominion over man ruled absolutely by a mechanism of natural
rights. To assume that rights are given by soldiers is to assume
that soldiers predicate God. To assume such is to assume Godhead,
a violation of the Commandments.

Let
me correct Father O'Brien by saying: It is God, not the soldier
Who has given us the freedom of speech. It is God, not the soldier
Who has given us the right to demonstrate. It is God, not the soldier
Who has given us the right to due process. It is God the Father,
Who has given us the Commandments, Who forgives us for breaking
the Commandments

Whether
one believes in God or not, all men instinctively know of their
rights and their thirst for freedom. They exercise it every day,
in all countries, regardless of what soldiers and states do. Freedom
knows no bounds or political party. Freedom is endowed in the spirit
of man. Right now someone in China is starting a business. Someone
in Iran is praying to the Christian God. Someone in Iceland is speaking
truth. Are these people able to do these things because of soldier's
actions? They do these things because they are exercising the freedom
that God has given them, the freedom to choose what to do with their
lives.

I
choose to no longer take part in this heresy. I'm trading in my
11
General Orders for Seven Sacraments and my pocket Constitution
for a Catechism.
Semper Fidelis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

February
14, 2004

Casey
Khan [send him mail] works
as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his wife.
He was Honorably Discharged from the United States Marine Corps
Reserve in October 2003.

My
advice, in defense of Ms. Maines, is don't back down. In the age
of Trent Lotts, Jim Morans, and other such cowards who recant their
heresies, we need someone who can stand up and say what she damn
well pleases. And why not from a prominent woman, since so many
prominent males in this society are scared to opine such blasphemy?
In response to such critics thus far Ms. Maines has not backed down.
She stated on the Dixie Chicks' website,
"I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the
U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made
in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is
you are free to voice your own point of view." In her defense
I would inform her that it is not her privilege, but her right.
A right that cannot be taken away by any soldier, president, or
official in power. There is no such privilege for Americans, let's
leave that to the rest of the world.

It
seems that the "Nashville" community has certain standards
of what is politically correct to say. It seems fine that Toby Keith
can have a song fill the airwaves celebrating the destruction of
our enemies in The Angry American. There is no outrage over
this naïve glorification of the destruction of war "brought
to you courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue." (If there ever
was a theme song for Victor Davis Hanson and the chickenhawk brigade,
this is it.) Sun Tzu reminds us that men should not celebrate war,
whether just or unjust, for it is a celebration of the slaughter
of men. But, this community seems to not mind such a celebration
of slaughter. Now I'm not arguing that the Nashville community should
boycott Toby Keith's song, he has the right to sing and play what
ever he wishes, and besides I like some of his music. But it is
disturbing to see that the comments made by Ms. Maines in a connotation
of peace have drawn much more criticism than comments for slaughter.
I guess it should be no surprise; the masses crucified the Prince
of Peace precisely for His extremely peaceful views.

It
should be no surprise to listeners of the Dixie Chicks that Natalie
Maines spoke the way she did. First of all she's a no nonsense gal
from Lubbock who joined a group of traditionalist country musicians,
who brought a fresh sound to the canned musical production coming
out of Nashville. Innovators tend to be individuals who can think
for themselves. Second, on their current Granny winning album, Home,
the Chicks sing one of the greatest antiwar songs ever written,
Travelin' Soldier. In a beautiful bluegrass style, Ms. Maines
sings about the tragic devastation a small town girl faces, when
her love, an unknown soldier dies in Vietnam. With a superficial
listening of the song, some country music DJ's must have thought
this song was somehow pro-war patriotism. Travelin' Soldier seems
to be suffering the same fate as Bruce Springsteen's Born in
the USA. With a superficial hearing, both sound like unabashed
patriotism, when they are actually indictments of the evils of war.

Unlike
Toby Keith's song of revenge, in Travelin' Soldier the Dixie
Chicks portray a mature, realistic view of the world, which is perhaps
best explained by Alexis de Tocqueville:

"Long
before an American girl arrives at the marriageable age, her emancipation
from maternal control begins: she has scarcely ceased to be a
child, when she already thinks for herself, speaks with freedom,
and acts on her own impulse. The great scene of the world is constantly
open to her view: far from seeking to conceal it from her, it
is every day disclosed more completely, and she is taught to survey
it with a firm and calm gaze. Thus the vices and dangers of society
are early revealed to her; as she sees them clearly, she views
them without illusion, and braves them without fear; for she is
full of reliance on her own strength, and her confidence seems
to be shared by all around her." (Democracy
in America, Part II: Book Three).

De
Tocqueville was of course talking about women and the free American
spirit in the mid-1800's. It is a spirit that applies to Ms. Maines
and the Dixie Chicks. Just as they brought a fresh and innovative,
yet traditional sound back to Nashville, Ms. Maines is bringing
back a fresh, yet traditional form of discourse to American political
speech.

They
may just become the first significant female outlaws in country
music history. The old outlaws consisting of Waylon Jennings, Willie
Nelson, and Hank Williams Jr. were notorious for getting in trouble
while rebelling against the powers that be. So go see the Dixie
Chicks, no need to boycott a good country legend. They are as irreverent
as Waylon, as musically talented as Willie, and as much fun as Hank
Jr. Most of all, they are women who remind us what it really means
to be Americans. A state of being which requires demeanor so legendary
and courageous, that I must close with de Tocqueville:

"…now
that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have
spoke of so many important things done by the Americans, to
what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people
ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority
of their women." (Democracy in America, Part II: Book
Three)

Thanks
ladies, and don't back down.

March
17, 2003

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his
wife.

According
to a 60 minutes report, produced by Robert
Anderson:

Troops
in the field are so frustrated by the lack of preparedness that
they have twisted the acronym NBC, for nuclear, biological chemical
warfare. "Truth to tell, the troopers call it, u2018Nobody
Cares:' says retired Col. David Hackworth, an advocate of
soldier's rights. "What they've been saying to me is that
they don't trust their gear. They don't think it will work in
a desert environment where it's burning hot. A soldier without
confidence is in trouble," Hackworth says.

Some
of the protection available could get a soldier killed. If initial
waves of troops run out of new gear, they would have to resort
to older protective suits, up to 250,000 of which have potentially
fatal defects and are still unaccounted for. There have also
been errors made, such as gas masks issued with training filters
instead of the real thing and shortages of protective suits.

Col.
Hackworth and Soldiers for the
Truth have made a valiant attempt to inform the public,
the families of servicemen, and the grunts in the field, about the
dangers they face with an NBC environment in the Persian Gulf. They
cite studies from the Government Accounting Office and as well as
insight from former and anonymous, concerned service members to
support their arguments. Despite all these concerns made public,
still very few seem to care. There have been efforts by Pentagon
officials in response to Hackworth's concerns, yet they still seem
inadequate. Why?

The
grunts of this war are facing the same dilemma they have faced in
previous wars. There always is a shortage of the proper goods and
materials needed to prosecute their campaigns, particularly from
those whose role it is to supply and support the frontline troops.
The answer may come, not from another soldier, but from an economist,
Ludwig Von Mises. In his classic treatise on economics, Human
Action, Mises describes what he calls "the impossibility
of economic calculation under socialism."

We
have assumed that the director has already made up his mind
with regard to the construction of a definite plant or building.
However, in order to make such a decision he already needs economic
calculation. If a hydroelectric power station is to be built,
one must know whether or not this is the most economical way
to produce the energy needed. How can he know this if he cannot
calculate costs and output?

The
paradox of "planning" is that it cannot plan, because
of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned
economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about
in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means
for the best possible attainment of the ultimate ends sought.
What is called conscious planning is precisely the elimination
of conscious purposive action (Human
Action XXVI).

The
Mises quote applies directly to military logistical planning, also
known as the three "B's," beans, bullets, and bandages.
And in the current case of NBC protection, we see a lot of "groping
about in the dark." Sure there are costs estimated by bureaucrats
for NBC protection, but there is no calculation as understood from
the economic perspective of supply, demand, and profit. The reality
is that military units are run as collective entities with socialist
type principles, which unfortunately leads to a deprivation that
can lead to death. Let us demonstrate the supply, demand relationship
that a grunt may face in this situation.

In
all economies, whether socialist or free market, there are consumers
who demand goods and services and the businesses that supply them.
In our example, the grunts (infantryman) are the consumers. Like
in all command socialist economies, a grunt's gear is "freely"
provided by a central supplier, or quartermaster. There is no exchange;
rather, gear is not purchased, but provided for. There are no bids
by the consumers to signal to the suppliers exactly what goods are
needed. A grunt is issued gear with the hope of receiving gear that
is serviceable and of a correct size. If it is incorrect, he may
requisition, via a bureaucratic process, to get correct gear. He
may have a small head and require a small helmet, but there may
only be large helmets remaining in the supply shed. What is he to
do? Like a good grunt, he'll overcome, adapt, and make do. Or he
may try a barter exchange with a soldier with a big head and a small
helmet. Another alternative is that he can go outside the military
network and purchase one at a surplus store. Unfortunately, these
options may not be available for all types of gear. He may want
to go to the outside market to replace his currently unreliable,
plastic framed MOLLY backpack, for the older, more reliable, metal
framed ALICE pack. But such a purchase may be considered inappropriate
by a command seeking uniformity of gear. Of course it should be
noted that such purchases become impossible in the combat theater
of operations. The grunt's economic situation is reduced by the
friction of barter trade and extreme shortage.

The
calculation problem becomes even more accentuated with NBC gear.
As anyone who has trained with a gas mask knows, size is of the
utmost importance. It's never fun spending time in a chamber filled
with CS gas wearing the wrong size gas mask. What is a grunt to
do when he has the wrong size, or defective, or broken after a long
day of urban assault? His only hope is that his chain of command
has requisitioned enough of his size from supply so that he can
have one as well. If not, he is SOL. There is some hope of barter
exchange. Maybe he can trade with another mismatch in his platoon.
Maybe there are no other matches in his platoon. Maybe he can see
if there are any other matches in other platoons or companies. The
problem he faces with looking in other units is the time it may
take going up and down chains of command finding a match. He runs
the risk of not finding one in time before the next gas attack.
This process will most certainly cause anxiety for the soldier dealing
with the shortage of his type of gas mask. Without the right size,
a proper seal cannot be maintained around his face to protect him
from chemical agents. He should be able to don and clear his mask
in nine seconds during an attack. As a last resort all he may be
able to do is steal a mask from one who is wearing the proper size,
and with that action he puts another one of his comrades into the
same conundrum. Of course in the current situation as laid out by
Col. Hackworth, after two or three chemical attacks, whole battalions
or regiments may face this shortage.

Anyone
who has served in military service has been presented with the calculation
problem in one way or another. It is interesting to note that individuals
participating in the market economy hardly face such issues. With
free exchange of goods, services, and money, consumers are able
to find satisfaction of their needs and wants. People don't go to
the Gap to receive a supply of clothes, that potentially may not
fit the way they want. If there are no extra large jeans the consumer
can go elsewhere to a competitor and find it. Through the signals
of prices, suppliers are able to gauge what consumers need and want.
Through profit and loss mechanism, if a supplier does not meet the
demands of consumers, it may go out of business, giving way to other,
more competitive suppliers. For the grunt as a consumer there is
little else beyond the central supply and Army Navy surplus stores
at home. When on the battlefield his only resource is a central
supply that is unable to properly meet demand, because there is
no way to economically gauge how much is needed. There is no profit
or loss. No prices to signal to supply that the grunt needs it now.
The sad reality is that the grunt ends up like the poor proletariat
of the USSR waiting for the masters of the central supply to give
to them. The proletariat can either wait for his government and
potentially starve to death, or he can go to the black market, or
maybe just steal from others.

An
understanding of economics, particularly from the Austrian economists
like Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek, can help the grunt understand the
dilemma he is facing and why he is facing it. It would help him
understand why there is not enough effective NBC gear. Why no one
from the top listened to complaints about the M16A1, during Vietnam?
Why was there a Lance Corporal guarding the Marine Barracks in Beirut
with no rounds for his weapon? Why was there no tank support for
the Rangers in Somalia? Why mortarmen fire 81mm projectiles from
1972 in the year 2001? Why MRE's (meals ready to eat) tastes like
crap? Why nobody cares?

One
may respond by saying that these problems were later resolved, by
supplying future operations with what they need. The problem is
that in Vietnam the grunts needed a better rifle at that time. That
poor Lance Corporal needed rounds and maybe some claymore mines
when the bomb-laden truck was blazing through his post. The Rangers
needed tank support then. Our buddies going to Iraq need effective
NBC gear and lots of it now. Maybe that's why commanders get caught
in the trap of fighting the last war. They end up with the gear
they needed to fight the last war in the current fight. Maybe the
calculation problem for collectivist entities is one of the major
reasons why unleashing the dogs of war should only be used as a
last resort, if at all.

March
6, 2003

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his
wife.

Proponents
for an invasion of Iraq fail to offer much in the form of wisdom.
Wisdom, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, entails
the ability to discern or judge what is true or right, usually by
aid of learning through the ages or the wise teachings of ancient
sages. Granted some proponents of invasion have looked to the past
for legitimacy, however, Gene
Callahan pointed out that the historical proponents twisted
the past for an invasion justification. Such mendacity, by invasion
proponents, lacks wisdom as well.

Using
as our moral guide, Sun Tzu's The
Art of War, let us examine the wisdom of past invasions
as well as of the proposed invasion (attack) of Iraq. I believe
the wisdom offered by Sun Tzu should be internalized in all people
who use arms, from the "Army of One" to those exercising
their Second Amendment rights. There are many interpretations of
the Chinese text, and I particularly like the translation written
by Thomas Cleary. I carry a pocket
edition of the book in my backpack. The book has practical applications
for fistfights, arguments, and military operations.

Sun
Tzu says:

In
ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible,
and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents. Invincibility
is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful
warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents
to be vulnerable.

Invincibility
is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack.

Looking
first at invincibility, we see that it is in control of the individual
or the decision-maker. A warrior can build his faculties such that
no opponent can successfully attack him. A great example of invincibility,
the Swiss
army, emulates Sun Tzu's code perfectly. The Swiss militia was
so strong and invincible, that the Nazis did not dare attempt a
maneuver on the Swiss. With every man armed and with the ability
to hit point targets at 300 meters, the Swiss example points to
another of Sun Tzu's great maxims, "…those who win every battle
are not really skillful — those who render others' armies helpless
without fighting are the best of all."

Looking
to the flip side, vulnerability, we are instructed that it is a
matter of attack. If an individual chooses to attack, then the individual
will become vulnerable. In the simple example of a fistfight on
the playground, the aggressing kid will become vulnerable if he
lunges to punch another in the face. He will be vulnerable to a
defensive counterattack by the defender, particularly if that defender
has made himself invincible. The aggressor will become vulnerable
to the school authorities and parents enforcing a code of conduct.
In an argument one can use ad hominem attacks or other mendacious
tactics to intimidate an opponent into accepting a thesis. However,
such attacks make an argument vulnerable, weakening it to a fallacy.

In
the sphere of military conflict, aggressors are always made vulnerable
by their attacks. Hannibal's invasion of Rome devastated his great
army. The aggressive Spanish Armada was annihilated by the defense
of the English navy. Pickett's charge was vulnerable to the defensive,
high ground position of the Union army, leading to the Confederate
defeat at Gettysburg. In fact, General Lee's invasion into the North
ultimately led to the fall of the Confederacy. In World War II,
both Germany and Japan aggressively attacked vast amounts of territory.
Eventually, Ally forces took advantage of Axis vulnerability and
destroyed it. Of course, in both the Civil War and WWII, the US
Federal involvement in counterattacks made it more vulnerable with
the erosion of civil liberties and the destruction of productive
economic capital. In our most recent example, Saddam Hussien invaded
Kuwait to give his regime greater access to Persian Gulf ports.
Despite the permissive stance by the US ambassador, Hussien's regime
made itself vulnerable to US/UN counterattack. Hussien's army was
driven from Kuwait and his country was laid to ruin by years of
embargo and air strikes.

From
both a rational and empirical perspective, vulnerability is a matter
of attack.

Now
how about the current invasion of Iraq? Is it wise? Well, the United
States will most likely defeat the Iraqi army and end the Hussien
regime. But the attack will make the US vulnerable. It will make
the US quite vulnerable to attacks from the Arab world. Whether
Sunni or Shi, the US will become terrorist target number one, replacing
Israel. US military units deployed all over the planet will become
a greater target than they already are. And most of all, the union
of States will become more vulnerable to terrorism with its collectivist
defense system spread thin all over the planet and its civil liberties
(the Bill of Rights are a hallmark of self-defense) in shambles.

Sun
Tzu says that attacks are for times of surplus or fullness. It’s
hard to justify that this country is at a time of surplus. Right
now the future of the US is mortgaged to a cross of paper. Mired
in debt, the economic health of Americans from the consumer to the
government is on life support. Would it be wise to attack from such
a point of emptiness? According to Sun Tzu, no:

When
a country is impoverished by military operations, it is because
of transporting supplies to a distant place. Transport supplies
to a distant place, and the populace will be impoverished.

Unlike
the first Gulf War, this one will not involve financial assistance
from Kuwaiti Emirs, Saudi Princes, or other countries involved in
a coalition against Iraq. This time a majority of the war will be
financed through monetary inflation and the issuance of Treasury
debt. Also unlike the first Gulf War, this war may need to involve
a siege of Baghdad to put Saddam in checkmate. It would be hard
for the politicians to call for one of their pretend air war victories
like in the Balkans or Afghanistan. Such as siege would be at a
devastating cost, due to the drain sieges have on supplies, and
most of all lives. As supplies are drained in the siege, costs will
be compounded with the mobilization of supplies to the distant place.
All this, of course, will be done at the expense of the US taxpayer
and holders of US dollars, impoverished by one of the biggest logistics
efforts in the history of warfare. Let's also not forget that we
are sending supplies, equipment, and personnel to other distant
places like, the Balkans, Western Europe, various points in Africa,
Indonesia, Okinawa, and Korea. Such a drain on the US economy can
not be sustained forever. Eventually, the market will master a vulnerable
US government.

This
will be the first big-time US war, primarily financed by the US,
since Vietnam. It was then, in 1973, when the last remnants of any
monetary discipline, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, were abolished
by the Nixon administration. This time with absolutely no monetary
discipline (or
military discipline for that matter), the US will make its economy
more vulnerable than it ever has in its history. As anyone who studies
the sound principles of money understands, the value of paper money
is based on trust. It will be hard for the world to trust the currency
of a nation that is no longer free, no longer able to abide by its
laws, and seen by the world as an aggressor to the sovereignty of
others.

So
attack! But don't forget it will make you quite vulnerable and ultimately
impoverished.

January
30, 2003

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his
wife.

However,
at the time there was one thing I did find enjoyable and I was sincerely
grateful. It was "Great American Heroes Day." Once a year
the school would have a competition with all the students. It would
entail picking a hero in American history and dressing up as that
hero. Students also had to write a book report and give a speech
in character as the American hero. The first year I was Babe Ruth,
where I wore cleats and brought a baseball bat. My mother suggested
I be the Babe, even though I always liked the Mets over the Yankees.
The next year I was Robert E. Lee. I wore a gray trench coat, colored
my hair white, and carried a plastic sword. I admired Lee for his
principled stand deciding not to betray his homeland of Virginia.
Besides, I was a Yankee the previous year. The last year of the
contest, I was the American farmer. I wore suspenders and carried
a pitchfork. That was the first year of Farm Aid and the plight
of the farmer was all the rage. At the time I couldn't figure out
how the farmer's plight was brought about, but now I know it has
a lot to do with the tax code and subsidies. I enjoyed Great American
Heroes Day and I still enjoy thinking about it.

Today,
if I were asked to portray a great American hero, I would portray
the American child. These children face a plight more ruinous than
the plight of the American farmer, and a force more dangerous than
Yankee bluecoats. Theirs is the heroic struggle against public education,
political correctness, and just plain intolerance. In particular
I would like to portray this little five-year old:

"…in
Deer Lakes, Pa., a 5-year-old boy suspended for dressing as a
firefighter for his school's Halloween party. Part of his costume
was a plastic ax."

This
kid is my hero. This child had the audacity to portray his hero
for Halloween and defy a system of insanity. The plastic ax represented
a tool of his hero, used to cut through debris in a fire. This child
was persecuted for carrying the representation of a tool, which
defied the policy of Zero Tolerance. But surely, the administrator
had good cause thinking the tool represented a weapon that could
potentially kill. I guess he also suspended the kid, who dressed
up as Dracula, thinking that the fangs represented weapon used for
serial murders and rapes (maybe I shouldn't be giving administrators
any ideas).

My
next hero is T.J. West:

"Thirteen-year-old
T.J. West was suspended for violating Kansas' Derby Unified School
District's zero tolerance policy against racial harassment and
intimidation when he drew a replica of the confederate flag on
a scrap of paper. The flag was listed as a prohibited symbol of
racial hatred."

This
kid had enough guts to draw the Confederate flag despite the fact
that he may face harassment and intimidation from the powers that
be. He was "just a good ol' boy, never meaning no harm"
until school administrators got a hold of him. To intimidate is
to frighten into compliance or submission. It is hard to show that
a kid drawing a flag on paper is a form of intimidation.

My
final hero to portray is:

"An
11-year-old fifth-grader permanently banned from an elementary
school in Oldsmar, Fla., for drawing pictures of a gun;"

This
guy is probably my favorite hero because he was permanently banned
for his artistic interest in guns. The boy must be a grave threat
to the system if he draws pictures about inanimate objects. The
administrator must think he may potentially one day bring in a gun
and shoot people. It's kind of funny to think that we live in a
society that will not tolerate a kid drawing a picture of a gun,
and completely tolerates a police force that draws guns on innocent
people with regularity.

I
admire these kids for living in a world that I could probably not
survive in as a kid. If I took my behavior as a child and applied
it to today's nanny-state, I may not have made it. I probably would
have ended up weak, submissive, and dumb. In my previous portrayals
of American heroes alone, I would have been suspended, reeducated,
and eventually expelled. The cleats, baseball bat, plastic sword,
and pitchfork may have been used to injure or kill students and
teachers. The gray trench coat would invoke a "hostile"
classroom environment with the potential to conceal firearms. Besides,
the trench coat would be insensitive to the victims of Colombine.
Speaking of insensitivity, my portrayal of Robert E Lee would be
insensitive to minorities. With that and my Dukes of Hazard lunch
box, I would need some intense sensitivity training. Since I'm very
rebellious by nature, they would have to drug me with a lot of Ritalin
to take care of my "attention deficit."

My
violations of political correction and "nannyism" are
not confined to my portrayals in Great American Heroes Day. My entire
life as a child is in violation, from the games I played to the
pictures I drew. Let's take a look back at some of these atrocities
I committed in my youth.

In
the game department, "wall ball" was one of my favorites.
With a tennis ball we would throw the ball from a certain spot in
the playground against a wall. If you missed the wall, you would
have to run to the wall and touch it. If someone else picked up
the ball and beamed you with it, you would face the dreaded firing
squad. The firing squad was the best part of the game. In it, the
kid would have to stand against the wall with his back to the others,
while the others took a turn at hitting the kid with the tennis
ball. If you missed during the firing squad, you became an object
of the firing squad as well. Today, such a game would be condemned
on the basis of safety and sensitivity.

Another
condemnable game was "smear the queer." In this game,
whoever carried the football, would get tackled by the others. It
was fun trying to avoid a bunch of tacklers with no blockers. Of
course this game would be seen as too violent and insensitive to
homosexuals.

Other
games included cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, guns, and
BB gun wars.

In
the insensitive sing-song department, a favorite of mine was our
version of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Today, this
song would definitely expel me from school, as it is a gross violation.
It went as follows:

"My
eyes have seen the glory
Of
the burning of our school.

We
have tortured all the teachers,
And
have broken all the rules.

We
have fired all the cooks,
And
have burned up all our books.

Our
truth is marching on!

Glory,
Glory, Hallelujah!
Teacher
hit me with the ruler.
I
put a hand grenade
In
her glass of lemonade.
She
aint my teacher no more."

Today's
educators would see this as threatening, causing a "hostile"
work environment to teachers and cooks. "This kid may end up
burning the school down or grenade his teacher. Much worse, this
kid is assuming all teachers are female and such remarks are sexist."
While today's teacher is worried about sensitivity, yesterday's
teacher would be more worried about the grammar of the song, and
as we all know from good English teachers, "aint" is not
a word. It may be a safe bet to say that as our humor erodes, so
does our intelligence.

In
the safety department, my noncompliance would stretch from never
wearing a bike helmet to playing tackle football without pads or
a helmet. Today, if you don't wear a bike helmet the cops will tackle
you to the ground, cuff you, and give you a citation, all in front
of your mother. I admire the kid who went through that experience
in Florida; he is another one of my heroes.

Finally,
in the picture-drawing department, I've drawn weapons ranging from
AK-47's to light sabers. I would have been thrown out for my third
grade book report about Paul Revere and the Battle of Lexington
and Concord. For the cover I drew a minuteman carrying a musket.
Today's teachers probably would think I would intend to liberate
the school from the tyranny of absolutism, with such a picture.
The teacher might be right and such subversive thought would be
definite grounds for expulsion.

Of
course expulsion from government tyranny is what all men of freedom
seek. So I say to my heroes, do not be discouraged by suspension
and expulsion. Look on them instead as medals in the pursuit of
liberty. Any child, who can persevere and maintain a childhood spirit,
through such a system of tyranny, is my hero.

Which
leads us to end with a warning for the anti-heroes creating this
struggle:

And
Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of
them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little
child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso
shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But
whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (King James
Bible: MAT: 2-6)

November
29, 2002

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ, where he lives with his
wife.

This
brings us to a disturbing trend that has been occurring in police
agencies and departments across the country. Police are more apt
to brandish weapons and aim in on the citizens they have sworn to
protect. Much of this can be explained by the recent militarization
of U.S. law enforcement. The spirit of posse comitatus has
been weakened by incidents like: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales,
Amidu Diallo, and now the DC sniper. All these incidents have shown
just how much the government is willing to threaten us in order
to "protect" us.

Let's
say Congress decides to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and allows
for an overtly military stance amongst law enforcement organizations.
That would still not excuse the pointing of weapons against innocent
civilians. Why? Even in the military, unlike the recent illustrations
by U.S. law enforcers, there are strict rules regarding the use
of weapons and deadly force. Let's examine some military rules for
weapons safety and apply them to a militarized law enforcement.

The
U.S. Marine Corps represents the best marksmanship techniques and
philosophy of any branch of the U.S. armed services. Here are the
safety rules, which govern Marines in the handling of all firearms
whether on the rifle range, in garrison, in field training, or in
combat. These rules are universal and should be applied by any handler
of firearms. First, it is important to note that these rules assume
control of a firearm by an individual.

1. Treat
   every weapon as if it was loaded.
2. Never
   point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep
   your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Keep
   your weapon on safe, until you intend to fire.

Violation
of any of these rules could lead to punishment as a safety violator
with a punch in the face by an NCO, a written reprimand, or prosecution
under the UCMJ, depending on what may have occurred during the violation.
You will notice that these rules do not mention if the weapon is
loaded or not. It does not matter. All weapons are assumed to be
loaded. What matters is intent and responsibility for individual
actions. The Marine Corps knows well that weapons are inanimate
objects, and are powerless without human actions to employ them.
In a logical manner, we can correctly make the following implications
to the following rules.

1. If
   your weapon is off safe, then you intend to fire.
2. If
   your finger is on the trigger, then you intend to fire.
3. If
   you point a weapon at anything, then you intend to shoot it.

Whether
an individual "means" to or not, that individual is responsible
for the weapon he is controlling, and his intent is quite clear,
especially when in violation of the rules. The last rule's implication
is the most important. It will be granted that a weapon has to be
pointed in some direction when not employed, and that direction
is either directly up or down to maintain a safe situation. Most
importantly, a weapon should not be pointed at other people, unless
the individual intends to shoot at other people. Which leads us
to the next logical implication.

If
you point your weapon at a person, then you intend to shoot that
person.

These
rules are quite simple and easy to follow. Now let's apply them
to some actions recently taken by law enforcement officers.

In
this first picture we see an officer standing in the middle of traffic
after one of the recent DC sniper shootings. The weapon he is carrying
looks to be a carbine version of an AR-15 or M-16. Let's look for
any rule violations. It looks as if he is treating the weapon as
a loaded one, with a magazine inserted, with his finger extended
off the trigger in good technique. From this picture, it is hard
to decipher if his weapon is on safe. So like good Americans, we'll
assume he is innocent until proven guilty, even though this is something
he is not doing for the owner of the red truck. Where is the officer
pointing the weapon? In this case he clearly points the weapon at
the red truck. This officer, whether he means to or not, intends
to shoot this red truck. Should he shoot this red truck? Probably
not, no warrant has been issued nor has any probable cause occurred.

In
this case, using the weapons safety rules combined with the highest
law of this land, he is in clear violation. Looking to the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution we see, "No person shall be…deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
It is clear in the case of this officer, he is intending to shoot
the red truck. This red truck is the property of the owner, who
is most likely the driver or someone associated with the driver.
Shooting the property in this case is tantamount to destroying the
property. Destroying property is another way of depriving someone
of his property. It is clear that this officer intends to deprive
the red truck from its owner without due process of law. With this
intent, he is threatening to civil society.

Let's
look at another picture and apply the same weapons handling rules.
This officer working for the U.S. Border Patrol is carrying what
looks like a "MP-5." He seems to be treating this weapon
as if it was loaded, with his finger off the trigger, and we'll
assume the weapon is on safe. However, he has pointed the weapon
at this innocent child and the man holding him. The man holding
the child is not threatening the child, nor is he threatening the
officer. It is unfortunate, because the officer intends to shoot
both the boy and the man in this situation. Shooting these people
may harm or kill them.

In
this case, the Border Patrol claims it was concerned about the safety
and protection of this child. They chose to protect him by doing
what many law enforcement organizations now do. They protect him
by threatening his life. The man holding the child in the picture
did no such thing, nor did his family. However, the state has other
ideas about "protection." Once again we have an example
of an officer with an intent that is threatening to civil society.

These
examples lead us to question the true aims of current law enforcement.
Are they serving to protect, or to control? The recent lock downs
on I-95 give little indication of protection. If they wanted to
reduce people's outside exposure to the beltway sniper, wouldn't
they free up traffic to allow the innocent to seek cover? 99.99%
of the people on that road were innocent, however all were held
up and assumed to be guilty.

Are
they interested in the safety of those they swore to protect, or
their own safety? An understanding of economics may help with this
answer. In the beginning of Von Mises masterpiece, Human
Action, he explains, "…the expectation that purposeful
behavior has the power to remove or at least alleviate the felt
uneasiness." It is quite clear in both these instances the
officers have acted to remove the uneasiness they may feel in these
situations. In both cases uneasiness is alleviated by the gear they
chose for the situations: helmets, flak jackets, bulletproof vests,
extra magazines, pistols, and rifles. Marines have served in extreme
combat zones with far less gear than these policemen have. They
also relieve some of the easiness by pointing their weapons, not
just at criminals, but at everyone. It is here where we see the
doctrine of the preemptive strike. Although these men do not shoot
these people, they certainly intend to in order to preempt any actions
they fear may happen. Which leads us to question the courage of
many that serve in law enforcement today. If they fear uncertainty
of future events, then maybe this isn't the job for them.

May
they remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty under
the laws of this land and that pointing a weapon at someone is inciting
that someone as guilty. May they also remember that, the people
are the masters of this government, not to be controlled by those
with unwarranted claims to power.

October
26, 2002

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ where he lives with his wife.

On
a hot Arizona morning in September, I was awakened by my fiancé,
Sarah. She said that an airplane flew into the World Trade Center.
I immediately pictured some errant Cessna bouncing off one of the
towers. Then I turned on the television to find out what reality
had in store for me. My first reaction was to call my uncle, Jack
Connolly, who worked as a broker on the 84th floor of
2 World Trade. EuroBrokers was the company, a company filled with
veterans of the first bombing. A busy signal was all I could get.
The busy tone from the telephone was peering into my heart like
a flat line of an EKG. When the second plane hit 2 World Trade,
I knew the intention was to knock the buildings down. My hope was
that Jack would get out in time.

The
magnitude of the events would bring another family member into the
tragedy. My uncle, Kevin Connolly, Jack's brother, is a fireman
for the FDNY. A veteran of the first World Trade bombing, Uncle
Kevin used to work in the "Ten House" on Liberty Street,
just across the street from 2 World Trade. Fortunately, he had been
transferred to a station on Staten Island a month before the 911
attack. As Tower 2 collapsed, Kevin watched from the Manhattan bound
Staten Island Ferry, sealing the fate of his brother and many of
his friends in "Ten House." Thank goodness, Kevin was
ok. That night, he searched valiantly through the rubble and the
hospitals of the surrounding area for Jack, but to no avail.

That
day our family lost a crucial member who still remains to be found.
Jack Connolly was a father, a brother, an uncle, a friend, and a
mentor. I will not forget him or that day. To me, he was my Godfather,
uncle, and mentor. I had the pleasure of working with him in New
York at EuroBrokers a few years back. It was a great experience
in my life. I got to work with Jack in the World Trade Center, where
he taught me a lot about eurodollar deposits and a lot about being
a man. From time to time, I got to visit Uncle Kevin in the "Ten
House" across the street for a good fireman's dinner or for
a drink with boys at the Irish bar behind the firehouse. It's kind
of a shock to know that it has all gone to rubble. People and places
I once knew all gone.

But
of course, I will not forget. I will not forget those responsible
for the attacks, both directly (those suicide terrorists) and indirectly
(U.S. foreign policy). I will not forget what I know to be true.
I will not forget, even though my government and the media want
me to erase such subversive thoughts from my memory.

I
will not forget the Al-Qaeda network, and the suicide bombers. Their
ultimate judgment will lie with Allah. May they remember that suicide
is not a pillar of Islam nor does it exemplify martyrdom. Martyrs
die at the hands of others in persecution.

I
will not forget the cowards in Congress, who despite the attack
on our nation, did not have the courage to declare war on Al-Qeada.

I
will not forget the offensive and unconstitutional policies, which
have put our nation in danger: foreign aid to Israel, Iraqi Embargoes,
and military occupation of just about the entire planet.

I
will not forget our unlawful allegiance to the state of Israel.
There is no treaty ratified by the Senate, which maintains our allegiance.
Besides, how can we, the United States, a "beacon of freedom,"
finance a socialist tyranny like the state of Israel?

I
will not forget the pundits, who feed us propaganda about how the
Muslim world is just jealous of our way of life. They are jealous
of our "freedom." If that were the case, then why isn't
a free society like Hong Kong such a big target for terror?

I
will not forget those who are trying to con us into a war with Iraq.
Iraq is insignificant to our national security nor is it responsible
for 911. An unwise assault on this country will unite a divided
Muslim world, instantaneously surrounding our military, and create
new terrorists to threaten our homeland.

I
will not forget that the INS is threatening to deport Mrs. Ian Thompson,
the widow of an Englishman who was killed in Tower 2. Ian sat right
next to Jack Connolly, connecting the world to the New York market.
His legacy is followed by the deportation of his wife, ceremoniously
by 9/11/02.

I
will not forget the liberties forfeited, like due process of law
and habeas corpus, in the name of the War on Terror. Many argue
that Lincoln was able to eliminate such freedoms under a time of
war, but then again Congress hasn't declared any war. Congress has
to declare war in order for the Executive to exercise such tyranny.

I
will not forget the relentless aggravation that my countrymen have
suffered at airports. People with no common sense, intelligence,
or humanity are charged with protecting our lives. Unfortunately,
our paternalistic politicians don't realize that the ultimate homeland
security was provided for in the Second Amendment. If every individual
and private institution in this nation were allowed to arm themselves,
911 would be just another failed hijacking.

I
will not forget those who seek security over freedom. I know that
the only way to security is through freedom. I know this because
I have faith. If we obey the Judeo-Christian ethics of the Commandments
and the Golden Rule (foundations of peace and property rights),
there will be no reason for terrorists to attack us. However, I
have no faith in the collectivist bureaucrats who seek to micromanage
civil society in the name of security. I know they are powerless
in their control, and it is their heavy hand that causes chaos.

It
seems to me that the terrorists are winning. Freedom is dying in
America. The liberties that made our nation the envy of the world
are being destroyed. Freedom is subverted by invoking the names
of those who perished in lower Manhattan. So, now I invoke my family's
name. Taking it back from the politicians and pundits, who stole
it to justify their evil ways. I will use it to justify America's
primary cause, freedom. So to the men and women at EuroBrokers,
to the men of "Ten House," and to my Uncle Jack, I will
not forget you in defiance of tyranny.

September
11, 2002

Casey
Khan [send him mail]
works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ.