65 Years ago today......

My grandfather - 20 years old- weighed down with too much gear and wading through water that was both ice cold and deeper than they told him it was going be, was there as a private with the Big Red One. He once explained to me that they'd practiced just about every aspect of the landing, but, as he put it, "We didn't expect them to shoot back!" Still, I don't think I came close to understanding what it meant to charge off the Higgins Boat and up the beach until many years later, when I saw Saving Private Ryan.

I've heard Stephen Ambrose describe D-Day as the ultimate victory of Democracy over Tyranny, because up and down the beach, as units were split apart and as the chain of command fell by the wayside you had men, in ones and twos and small groups - here a private, there an NCO and lieutenant, rise and up and say, "To hell with this, if I'm going to die I'm going to take some of those krauts with me," and organize into pick-up units to assault the pill boxes. Again, there is probably no better understanding of this than Saving Private Ryan.

The war would have been "won" without D-Day. Sooner or later, the Soviets would have worn down the German army. And after the Battle of Kursk, there was very little standing between the Red Army and Berlin, it was only a matter of time, resources and manpower, and Stalin possessed all three in spades.

But had the war gone that way the Soviets would have dominated Europe, and an entire continent would have been plunged into darkness for God knows how many decades to follow.

But as we celebrate the ultimate victory let us try to remember how distant victory must have seemed to those boys on those LCIs on that morning. The distance to Berlin - and to victory - was to be measured a few yards at time; a single beach head; a single hedge row; a street; a bridge. And between Normandy and V.E.Day many of those men would spend a few weeks dug into the frozen ground at the Ardennes forest, freezing and fighting for every inch of ground as a surprise counter offensive threatened to reverse the long months of progess the allies had made. Micheal Benard Eshelmen, my grandfather, would be wounded twice before the war ended, once at the hedge rows in France and once at the Battle of the Bulge - earning two Purple Hearts and perment hearing damage in the process.

So by winning on D-Day those small groups of men won more than a war, they won a peace that followed. They won a transatlantic alliance that survives to this day and they eventually helped win a untied Europe, with former enemies France and Germany anchoring a continent brought together under a common currency and customs union. It was perhaps the single greatest victory in the history of warfare.

And it all began on a cold beach, June 6th, 1944.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama's Middle East Endgame: Part II - The June 12th Wildcard

In a previous post I hypothesized that Obama's Middle East End Game was to get the Sunni Arab states and Israel sitting together in a security framework to push back against Iran.

But what if something changes in Iran?

From Andrew Sullivan, earlier this week:

I don't know whether you have been reading the various press accounts of the election campaign in Iran. I know that the candidates' list is fixed, but I can also see democratic spirit when it is bang in front of me. There appears to be a genuine fight for votes; and the images from the Mousavi rallies look more like Obama rallies than assemblies in a totalitarian state. Notice how young these people look, and how unafraid. Does anyone doubt that if this kid of peaceful campaigning were happening in Iraq, it would be regarded as a sign of a nascent democracy? And, for what it's worth, Ahmadinejad increasingly looks desperate - the bribing of Red Iran doesn't seem as powerful right now as the rallying of Blue Iran. Check out the photos of a May Mousavi rally headlined by Khatami on this Iranian photo-blog, TehranLive.org.

From the New York Times

Mr. Moussavi, a former prime minister, was born in Khameneh, a small town near this northwestern city in East Azerbaijan Province. He was speaking here on Tuesday as part of a two-day tour to win the votes of Turkish speakers, nearly one-third of Iran’s eligible voters.

In his speech, Mr. Moussavi denounced the pressure put on student activists through expulsions and jail terms during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s term and called the president’s policies “old and backward.”

He said the major goal of the 1979 revolution was freedom.

“We wanted to become free and be progressive in the world, not faced with backward ideas and notions today,” he said.

The rally was an unusual event in this northwestern city, where political and social restrictions are enforced more fiercely than in the capital, Tehran.

Young men and women sang together, and even moved their bodies rhythmically to the music. The young men rushed from their side of the segregated auditorium to the women’s side, to take cellphone pictures of girls dancing. The women had green headbands or ribbons in their hair, and had pushed back the black hoods they are required to wear as far back as they could go.

Many in the audience said they were frustrated by four years of economic mismanagement and social and political suppression under Mr. Ahmadinejad. They said they hoped that Mr. Moussavi would reverse those policies.

Nassim, 19, a radiology student, who withheld her family name for fear of retribution, said she had to resign as a member of her university’s Islamic Association, the only pro-reform political association for student activists, because of pressure from university hard-liners.

“I could not even do social or cultural work,” she said. “They accused us of doing political work no matter what we did.”

And beyond simple rallies, this week witnessed a fiery debate between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in which Moussavi called out the current administration for its anti-semitic remarks and failed foreign polices:

He also took issue with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s constant questioning of the Holocaust, saying that it harmed the country’s standing with the rest of the world and undermined its dignity. “For the past four years you kept saying that the United States is collapsing,” Mr. Moussavi said. “You have said Israel is collapsing. France is collapsing.”

He added, “Your foreign policies have been based on such illusional perceptions.”

So what happens if Moussavi wins?

I think its unlikely that Iran would be quick to capitulate on its nuclear program. They live in a bad neighborhood filled with unstable nuclear powers and aggressive, nuclear armed petro-ocracies.

I like to point out that I wouldn't live in my neighborhood if I didn't own a gun, so I shouldn't expect Iran to accept existence in a dangerous area without a nuclear deterrent.

So where does this leave Iran and U.S.? And by extension Iran and the U.S.-Israeli-Sunni Arab partnership?

It's hard to say. For his part, Obama has hinted that the U.S. may be willing to drop preconditions on talks with Iran.

I've often heard that in 1969, when the Soviets were considering attacking China, a Soviet emissary was sent to speak with someone in the White House about what America's reaction would be if the Sovs bombed China's nuclear facilities. Nixon's response was swift and unambiguous: the U.S. would not accept a Soviet attack on China. It seems to me that the Iran-Israel-U.S. situation right now is similar.

Assuming three things are true:

• a). The Israelis are serious about attacking Iran's nuclear program and the Iranians know that they are serious.
• b).The Iranians know that the consequences of Israel's attack would be both devastating and difficult completely predict.
• c). That Iran wants maintain at minimum a strategic nuclear ambiguity for deterrence.

Then the only sensible move for the Iranians to make would be for Moussavi to immediately reach out for formal talks with the Obama administration as soon as possible, assuming he wins.* Obama then has the ability to do to Israel what Nixon did with Iran - declare that an attack on Iran would be absolutely unacceptable. This would serve to weaken Netanyahou's government and probably push back the planned Israeli strike indefinitely.

The Sunni regimes won't be happy about the opening of the relations between Iran and America, but it won't matter. Better relations between the U.S. and Iran, similar to relations between China and the U.S., make everything else a feit accompli.


*All bets are off if Ahmadinejad wins, he benefits from conflict with the west.

Obama's Middle East Endgame: Part I - Israel, Iran and Nukes

Tom Barnett, the eternal optimist, is less than sanguine about the possibility of avoiding an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program. In a blistering piece in Esquire, Tom looks at three possible scenarios for the near term relationship between Israel, American, the Sunni Arab countries and Tehran. Here is his "ugly" scenario:

Israel decides to act on its own by launching massive (even if they're dubbed "surgical") air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities sometime before the end of the year. Israel and its (re-)new(ed) prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are clearly not feeling the usual love from the Obama White House, as evidenced by how all the media coverage of their first summit centered on "who had the upper hand?" (Obama on freezing settlements, or Netanyahu on striking Iran?)

In his speech today, Obama slung some loaded words toward Tehran: "My country is ready to move forward," and "we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve," and "we have reached a decisive point."

If that means America isn't going to wait and see about anything when it comes to this increasingly tense triangle of love and hate, we may be reaching that big decision. And pursuing the Saudi-first scenario, however reticent Abdullah now may be to stepping outside the line of the Arab League (they want Israel to make the next concession on settlements), may just be Obama's best chance to beat both Tel Aviv and Tehran to their prospective punches. I mean, whatever Abdullah demands in return, the price will likely be worth it.

Here's why: If Netanyahu were to pull the trigger, Tehran would retaliate with both barrels — as in Hamas and Hezbollah. That would kill any two-state solution right there for Obama's entire first term, something Netanyahu would likely welcome as a two-birds-with-one-stone bonus. Stipulating that any direct kinetic response out of Iran against Israel would be a serious wild card, the more prosaic fall-out (pun intended) would be this: Iran would radically speed up its pursuit of nuclear weaponry, as would both Turkey and Saudi Arabia (who logically are colluding on this goal already). Toss in Egypt and the UAE as likely follow-ups.

In that scary pathway, the Saudis could well choose to reignite a proxy war (Saudi-backed Sunni vs. Iranian-backed Shia) within Iraq as a way of tying down Tehran somewhat (along with a generous buyout of wavering Iranian ally Syria). In this scenario, it really wouldn't matter whether or not Ahmadinejad won re-election next week, because a "righteously" angered Iran would be forced to ratchet up its anti-American efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, shredding Obama wind-down goals in the process and setting him up for a tough re-election battle in 2012 (He didn't end any wars like he promised!).

You know, when you add it all up, The Ugly scenario seems like such a win-win-win for Netanyahu (bomb Iran, screw the two-state solution, pin down the untrustworthy Obama elsewhere) that it gets hard to see what could really happen in the short term to prevent its unfolding — other than moderate Iranians voting early and often!

Ugly is right. The Center for Strategic and Internarional Studies recently released a report on a possible Israeli strike on Iran and their analysis details what a nasty thing such an attack would be. Highlights include:

1. It would be nearly impossible for Israel to reach the nuclear sights with conventional aircraft, so they would most likely use Jericho III ballistic missiles.
2. The fallout would almost certainly kill thousands in the short term, and possibly cause contamination hundreds of miles downwind - including within the Gulf States, that could cause health problems for years to come.
3. Despite all of that, they would probably only set the program back a few years.

It seems that Israel wants it both ways. They want the the U.S. to sign off on their strike package while they build their settlements and kick the can down the road on making peace with their Sunni neighbors. On the other hand, the Israelis fail to realize that the Sunni Arab regiems are at least as afraid of Iran as the Israelis are.

Interestingly, Jeffery Goldberg suggests that Obama may be attempting an end run around Netanyahu's government to force a new coalition that would be willing to strike a deal with the U.S. and the Sunni Arab regimes.

The end game in all of this is to put Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel on the same side of a security framework to resist Iran.

Obama's Middle East Endgame: Prolouge -The Cario Speech: Nice Hat - Awaiting the Arival of Cattle

Unlike his misguided appointment of Judge Sotomayor, President Obama's Cairo speech was a good early step towards moving America's policies in a positive direction. Frankly, it's times like this that I'm glad I voted for the guy, there is simply no other American politician who could go to Egypt and approach this topic with such earnestness:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

President Bush often made the statement that America was not at war with Islam per Se, but he was never able to articulate the point so eloquently and holistically, acknowledging a complex history while calling for a brighter future.

Was it long on rhetoric and short on specifics? Yep. Sometimes that's OK, however, because words do matter. So long as this is an early step and not the whole plan its a very good start.

Perhaps his most controversial (at least in the mainstream media) statement was directed at a country that is, at least ostensibly, an ally:

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Pnwed.

There was quit a bit of State Department boilerplate, of course. For example, Obama continued his silliness on nukes, calling for nuclear free world, telling Iran to halt production of nukes, etc. Nonsense really, but it's ok as long he really doesn't take it that sort of thing too seriously.

All and all the speech was a good begining.

Sotomayor Pt.2: Destroying the Bill of Rights One Decision At a Time

In a previous post, I explained that Judge Sotomayor is a statist who does not believe in the existence of individual or natural rights.

Today in the Atlantic we find more evidence that Sotomayor is in favor of, not states' rights, but the States's Rights - meaning the right of government to repress dissent.

For example, Sotomayor opposes people speaking out against corrupt government officials or speaking in favor of opposition candidates. She also favors abusive police tactics, presumably so long as they do not disenfranchise any politically correct interest groups.

A very smart young senator once gave a powerful speech opposing the appointment of a justice who used "formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

The senator's point is good one; we should be weary of those who seem to consitstently back the strong against the weak. For example, we should be weary of a judge who opposes both the 1st and 2nd amendments, sides with corrupt school administrators and favors police officers who beat up on stranded motorists.

It's too bad that that idealistic young senator didn't hold such a high standard when it came time for him to make an appointment to the bench.

Sotomayor: Voted Change, Got More of Same.....

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe that Judge Sotomayor is a racist.

I also do not believe she is an impressive pick by Obama.

Barrack Obama was elected to bring Change. Sotomayor does not represent Change - she represents more of the same statist, center-left identity politics that we've been dealing with in America for the past 60 years.

Like most center-left statists*, Sotomayor does not believe in individual rights. In Sotomayor's America, rights belong to politically constructed groups rather than to individuals. Had Obama wished to bring about Change, he would have nominated a justice who believed that the law should treat each person as an individual, as opposed to viewing each person only as a cog in the wheel of a politically correct interest group. For example, had Obama wished to create Change, he might have done what George W. Bush did - appoint a justice who believes that the Constitution protects the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority and the caprice of oppressive local governments.

Unsurprising, Sotomayor does not care when citizens have their rights violated by the state, so long as it is done in a politically correct manner - which is to say so long as the status quo which has existed since the Johnson administration is preserved.

Also, had Obama wished to bring about Change, he might have considered someone who holds 21st century views on affirmative action. After all, the President has professed a belief in a 21st century view of affirmative action:

In an interview last May on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, he was asked whether his own daughters should someday receive preferences in college admissions. His response was unexpected: "I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged." He added, "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

But rather than go for Change, Obama decided to pick someone who holds a very mid 20th century view of affirmative action. I would imagine that Sotomayor types her opinions on an electric typewriter rather than using MS Office, because all her other beliefs and habits appear to be stuck somewhere around 1965.

The unfortunate reality is that Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate. Crazy justices were just one of the reasons that I qualified my endorsement of Obama for president by recommending people vote for Republicans in the House and Senate. I continue to hope we get a divided government soon. In the meantime, I endorse Charles Krauthammer's suggestion that:

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

* Sotomayor is NOT a liberal. To be liberal is to believe in liberty - Sotomayor does NOT believe in liberty - she believes in the preservation of status quo that has existed since the 1960s.

Third Eye Blind is the worst band in the world....

Seriously, this is trash.

3EB was town recently and I heard Stephen Jenkins being interviewed on the local alternative radio station (in this context I guess alternative means alternative to good) and that guy is as much a jackass as these lyrics make him sound.

A truely horrible band.