By Dawn's Early Light

Change is in the Air

Dear Dawn's Early Light Readers,

Bill Roggio, a good friend to this blog by encouraging me and sending me good tips to write on (see example here) has been asked by Joe Katzman at Winds of Change to write regularly for his site.  Bill has built an impressive site in his own right over at The Fourth Rail.  Not wanting to let it go, he asked if I would join him and Marvin Hutchens of Little Red Blog along with current contributor Justin Blackburn to keep up a stimulating discussion on the War on Terror and future threats to liberty.

I was humbled by Mr. Roggio's kind invitation and after some careful thought decided it is a great opportunity to share and discuss my views on a wider stage. (His regular readership is 10 times DEL's currently, and his almost half-a-million visitors dwarfs my 29,000).

However, as Bill Roggio loves the Fourth Rail, I love Dawn's Early Light.  Additionally, while some of my posts would be relevant for the Fourth Rail, others may not be.  It is my plan to cross-post all items written at Fourth Rail to Dawn's Early Light and to have additional commentary at DEL on subjects such as religion, film, digital photography and other topics of personal interest.

If you have this site bookmarked, please consider adding the Fourth Rail as well because I know you will enjoy Justin, Marvin and Bill Roggio's commentary. 

Thank you to all of my loyal Dawn's Early Light readers.  I look forward to our continued discussions here and at the Fourth Rail.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

Dawn's Early Light

Anne Applebaum Defends Newsweek, Attacks Pentagon

As readers of Dawn's Early Light know, I am quite a fan of Ms. Applebaum (See here).  However, I disagree with her column "Blaming the Messenger" found in today's Washington Post (HT: Instapundit).

Her main argument is:

"But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and everywhere else. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed."

I would counter that any argument made in the government-controlled, ill-educated Middle East that is anti-American or anti-Israel in nature would probably be believed, regardless of its plausibility.  Take, for example, the 2002 Al-Riyadh article that accused Jews of using the blood of Christians and Muslims in foods to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim (see here for the MEMRI and World Net Daily review and additional commentary here).  This claim is still accepted as fact to many Muslims in the Middle East.  Or how about the popular Middle East Arab newspaper claim that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center?  (For a great list timeline of this conspiracy theory, click here). 

Believing crazy conspiracy theories against the US or Israel is not confined merely to the Muslim world.  Our French allies bought a good number of copies of Thierry Meyssan's book that argued no Boeing 787 hit the Pentagon and that it was all a US conspiracy on 9/11.

Many of the Chinese believe the US purposely targeted their embassy during the Balkan conflict.

Anne Applebaum concludes:

"Opponents of these methods, among them some of the military's own interrogation experts, have argued, on the contrary, that 'special methods' are not only ineffective but counterproductive: They might actually inspire Muslim terrorists instead of helping to defeat them. They might also make it easier, say, for fanatics in Jalalabad to use two lines of a magazine article to incite riots.

Blaming the messenger, even for a bungled message, doesn't get the administration off the hook. Yes, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, people need to be very careful, not only about what they say but about what they do. And, yes, people whose military and diplomatic priorities include the defeat of Islamic fanaticism and the spread of democratic values in the Muslim world need to be very, very careful, not only about what they say but about what they do to the Muslims they hold in captivity."

Ms. Applebaum is bright and well educated and has done more research than many great historians on prison atrocities, especially the Gulags in Russia. (Her book Gulag is a must read).  However, I find it incredible to believe that if the US showed just a bit more compassion and sensitivity in dealing with people who have no qualms about killing even their own Muslim men, women and children (see al-Zarqawi's recent justification of Muslim murder) that passions would not be inflamed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, regardless of a story's plausibility. 

Unlike, Ms. Applebaum, I do blame the messenger.  I think her defense of Newsweek is not a defense at all, but rather reads as an attack against Sec. Defense Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration, and Pentagon to obfuscate the real culprit that caused almost a score of deaths, the MSM.  Knowing her regular writing, this seems hard to believe.  It may be her focus and knowledge of state prison abuses that is driving her attack and helps her look past the 17 dead as a result of careless journalism.  But in the end, in this obviously sensitive area, the culprit is the reckless, thoughtless story, that Newsweek later confessed was untrue.

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers.  If you have found this post of interest, please take a look at Dawn's Early Light's posts on China and India.  DEL believes the US is creating an impressive alliance structure in Asia to contain China and promote India.  Enjoy.

Interesting Perspectives on the Newsweek Tragedy

There is commentary aplenty on the Newsweek mess of the false story of Koran flushing at Gitmo.  Dawn's Early Light has nothing substantive to add to this debate other than a further sense that the Main Stream Media is continuing to lose its gatekeeper position as it continually blows major stories with a telling bias.

However, I have seen and been sent several pieces with different perspectives worth reviewing that I would like to share with my readers:

• Dennis Prager writing over at Real Clear Politics:

"It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently "understood" when done by Muslims.

That, not phony reports about an American desecrating Koranic pages, should really upset Muslims. It won't. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won't upset the American news media.
The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows."

• Bill Roggio over at the Fourth Rail:

"One of the greatest hurdles we face in fighting a nihilistic enemy bent on the destruction of our civilization is not their military prowess, but the inherent biases that exist within our own media elites. The desire to promote their agendas at the expense of the truth or our safety provides a measure of comfort to our enemy, who hopes to divide us from within.

Evan Thomas (a man in the know who stated during the 2004 Presidential election; “The media, I think, wants Kerry to win”) reports “More allegations, credible or not, are sure to come” with respect to the treatment of detainees in Gitmo. Our politically biased, fact and logic challenged media no doubt will report these allegations, the effects on the War on Terror be damned. They have a message to deliver, and it is a message al Qaeda wishes to be disseminated. That the media do not recognize this or worse, do not care, speaks volumes about their competence to accurately report the news."

• Marvin Hutchens over at Little Red Blog:

"It is not that I don’t believe Newsweek made an error, I believe the reporting was erroneous, the question for me is whether or not Newsweek knew, in advance of its publication, that the story lacked credibility, would cause an outrage, and would further damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. It is hard for me to accept that Newsweek’s staff of supposedly worldly journalist and editors weren’t aware of the potential for a story of this nature to become a spark in the tinder box that is the Muslim world. I believe they either knew, and were okay with it, or worse, knew and wanted it."

• Thomas Collins over at Quillnews:

"We are dealing with a professional mindset that is simply not part of the regular world being defended by the bravery and blood of volunteers.  These people are simply in denial about the peril our freedoms are in and otherwise willfully arrogant about the lack of maturity and responsibility demonstrated every day in the MSM.  The insularity and elitism that has cost these media market share, consumer confidence, advertising revenues, circulation, viewers, readers – the very approval that all civilized instructions require let alone commercial enterprises – has also insulated these otherwise good people from the common sense that even a gas station earning minimum wage knows.  It's hard to beat the simple statement made by SecDef Rumsfeld on Capital Hill Monday:  'People lost their lives. People are dead. People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do.'"   

Men and women of the United States were put in harm's way by Newsweek's faulty reporting.  That some in the MSM want to turn this story around and blame the Bush Administration policies further decreases the public's remaining respect for the legacy media.  America's reputation has suffered again and people have lost their lives. 

I think all of the above bloggers have merit in their comments.  Until we see the double standard that militant Islam is afforded confronted in the MSM, as Dennis Prager points out, we can have little progress over bridging issues that divide us in America.  The War on Terror is too important to our way of life, but the WoT is often treated by the MSM as just another story, devoid of moral clarity.

We are an increasingly polarized nation between red and blue.  The MSM represents blue state thinking and biases as talk radio and the right side of the blogosphere represent the red states.  MSM biases are hard to question when the facts are hazy and deadlines near with what appears to be a major scoop.  Ask Dan Rather, ask Howell Raines about the importance of fact checking and reporting the truth, not how you believe the truth probably is based on one's political bent. 

Newsweek has dealt itself, the MSM and our country a decent blow.

Secretary Rice in Iraq

Secretary Rice made a surprise visit to Iraq, stopping first in the north for a meeting with the Kurdish leadership and then traveling on to Baghdad.

Her primary goal, it would appear, is to support the legitimacy of the current elected government while encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to be as inclusive as possible with the Sunnis.  Her visit serves two other purposes as well:  to remove the spotlight from the recent bombings and refocus world attention on building a democratic Iraq, thereby reducing the media influence of the militants, and to buttress work being done on an acceptable constitution.

The recent anti-US protests in the Islamic world, especially over the faulty Newsweek reporting of Gitmo religious abuses (See Bill Roggio's excellent piece today on how this plays right into al-Qaeda field manuals of detention) only makes the Secretary's visit more timely and important.

Before an audience of American and Iraqis working in Baghdad's green zone, she said:

"People don’t want to be suicide bombers, people don’t want to be suicide hijackers, but somehow the ideologies of hatred in this region have become so great that human beings have been willing to do that to other human beings. The answer to that, as the President has said, is to give people a chance at freedom and liberty. And for many many years, the United States, along with the rest of the free world, believed somehow that people in this region didn’t care about freedom. We cared about stability, and what we got was neither freedom nor stability. We got a malignancy that was growing, that came to haunt us on that fine September day.

Now as we work with the people of Iraq to develop a strong and vibrant and vital democracy here in the heart of the Middle East, we can do so assured that these values are universal. There is no point on the Earth where people do not want to be able to say what they think, where people do not want to be able to worship as they please, where people do not want to educate their children, boys and girls, and where people do not want to be free of the knock of the secret police at night.

Those are universal values, and America has always been at its best when it is securing, and providing for, and bringing those values to the rest of the world. Because you know something, when freedom is on the march, America is more secure, and when freedom is in retreat, America is more vulnerable."

While many in the press may see her words as platitudes and the usual diplomatic verbiage, there is a great deal of wisdom in these words.  She takes Cold War American and Western foreign policy to task for promoting stability over a moral expansion of liberty for all, not just the former Communist regimes.  She rightly claims we received neither stability nor greater security.  America is at its best "when it is securing, and providing for" freedom throughout the world. 

In answering questions from Al Iraqiyah, Dr. Rice restated America's intent to see the job through:

"The President has always said that we do not have an exit strategy; we have a success strategy. And the success strategy is when Iraqi forces are strong enough to defend this young democracy. The Iraqi Government has said -- first the interim government and now this government -- that it needs the help of the international community at this point, it needs international forces to fight off the terrorists and to help defend Iraq.

But we want to stay only as long as we are needed. I can assure you that it is the goal of the United States and of other coalition forces to train Iraqi security forces so that Iraq can take care of its own security."

US credibility is strengthened when America promotes, defends and stands by its principles and founding ideals.  The Bush Administration is putting action behind its diplomacy, and Secretary Rice is doing an excellent job conveying this important vision around the globe.

Why I Blog

Marvin Hutchens in April had an interesting post on "How Blogging Affects Your Life" which was a Homespun Blogger's symposium question.  It got me thinking.

Another blogger I greatly respect got me thinking about blogging and my goals with it.  Knowing that Marvin is a thoughtful friend and clear thinker, I gave him a call to ask him his thoughts on a question I was wrestling with.  His first question was, "Why do you blog?"  This is a great question, one which I wonder how many bloggers have asked of themselves.  There seem to be several reasons why one would choose to blog:

• Fame or notoriety
• Sharing of ideas
• Sense of community or belonging
• Promotion of an ideal or set of values
• Influence decision-makers
• Hoping to make a difference
• Profit (only a handful of bloggers are profitable)
• Writing ability
• Passion
• Hobby

Why I Blog

Since an early age, I have been overly interested in politics and history compared to my peers.  At Occidental College, as a starting-out economics major, I realized that my professor's joke, "if you put all the world's economists end to end, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion," was fairly accurate in my mind.  I didn't have the aptitude for it.  However, my politics classes were extremely engaging, and I thrived on being with individuals who had a passion for discussing how the global order worked, what the Cold War was all about, Realism vs. Idealism vs. Marxism vs. all types of -isms and other seemingly arcane subjects.  Very much at home was how I felt.  I made Politics my major, focusing on International Relations Theory. 

Leaving college and entering the business world, I missed the student interaction of people with different views and passionate arguments.  I can count on one hand how many friends had patience to listen to me theorize on domestic or international relations.  For the past decade, I have been a mass consumer of information on topics of interest:

• Why nations war
• Realism vs. Idealism - International Orders
• American Exceptionalism
• US History
• US Foreign Policy goals
• Military History
• Trade Agreements

This blog is a natural progression of engaging in the larger debate, of being a part of something larger than oneself.  I have met many extremely competent and intellectually challenging people with high personal integrity in the blogosphere.  I am fortunate to have a group of bloggers who are supportive and encouraging.  The interaction with all of them has made me a better blogger (with much room to grow) and spawned friendships around the world.

My first blog entry from November 18, 2004 read:

"'I must study politics and war so that my sons may have liberty - liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history... In order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music and architecture...' paraphrasing John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail.  The full quote can be found here.

The West finds itself at a crossroads.  America finds herself at a crossroads.  Decisions made now will affect generations to come.  I pray we choose wisely, with conviction as a country, and lead those who will come along with strength, endurance and integrity. 

I hope that this blog serves as a vehicle to refine my thinking and to contribute to the discussion about our nation's future.  The generations before us have built a great democracy.  It must be defended and preserved, such that freedom can be expanded to those who live without freedom, and to our generations to come."

The John Adams quote rings very true to me a little over six months on.  I care deeply about America, its view of itself and place in the world.  I pray for the future course of history and hope that my unborn daughter grows up in a world with all of the opportunities and possibilities that I have been blessed to enjoy. 

This blog will not change the world, but it does have the ability to contribute positively to an important debate not only here in America, but around the world about freedom, democracy and values.  Liberty is dear, and I am thankful for the freedom, paid for at great cost, that I can be a part of this international debate over the future of individual freedoms.

Your comments are very much appreciated and, as always, welcomed.

Predator UAV Kills Terrorist

Score another one for the CIA and Predator UAV for killing an Al-Qaeda bomb maker in Pakistan.  ABC News has this exclusive:

"A senior al Qaeda operative was killed by a missile fired from a CIA Predator aircraft on the Pakistani side of the remote area near the Afghan border earlier this week, U.S. intelligence officials told ABC News.

Haitham al-Yemeni, a native of Yemen known for his bomb-making skills, had been tracked for some time in the hope that he would help lead the United States to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, intelligence officials said. But with the recent capture in northwest Pakistan of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, thought to be al Qaeda's No. 3 man, officials worried al-Yemeni would soon go into hiding, and decided to take action."

Sounds like a good call.  Capture the No. 3 man and then kill the bomb maker.  Gary Schroen, former senior CIA agent and Author of "First In" said Sunday on Meet the Press he was hopeful that bin Laden would be found within 3 to 4 months:

"MR. SCHROEN:  I think with the capture of Al-Libbi recently--gives some hope that the Pakistanis will cooperate if we put enough pressure on them, and maybe we end up doing it unilaterally but I think we're going to get him within the next three to four months.

MR. RUSSERT:  Three to four months.

MR. SCHROEN:  Well, that's my hope."

I pray he is right.  However, this is good news on the Global War on Terror.  Hopefully the Pakistanis will continue to prove helpful.

Patriot Missiles for India?

It looks like the US offered India Patriot missiles (probably the PAC-3).  While there has been reporting of offers back in 2004, this Times of India story (HT xThreats.com) indicates that the US Defense Department made a presentation in February of this year.

The Russians are pitching their S-300V system, with visits dating back to 2003, along with the Israeli Arrow II (joint developed with the US).

India choosing to acquire the Patriot would give them more flexibility in joining the US National Missile Defense (NMD) program, according to INDOlink:

"The Patriot is an air-defence system which can defeat both attack aircraft and tactical ballistic missiles. Sources said that the sale of the Patriot might be linked to India getting on board the national missile defence (NMD) as it can also be integrated into the broader NMD framework. "

The Chinese are not pleased about the offer and have publically said so, according to the Economic Times (India):

"In an indirect reference to the possible sale of Patriot Missile defence systems to India by the US, China today hoped that the activities of “relevant countries” will be conducive for the maintenance of peace and stability in South Asia.

“We have taken note of reports that a certain country plans to sell anti-missile weapon systems to India,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan said, without naming the United States.

“We hope that the activities of relevant countries will be conducive for the maintenance of peace and stability in south Asia,” he told reporters."

China's reaction is understandable, given DEL's assertion that the US is hoping to draw India into a strategic alliance to counterbalance against China [See DEL here, here and here].

However, one tidbit of very interesting information also found in the above Times of India article is about US naval cooperation with India:

"On Navy-to-Navy cooperation between India and US, [Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee] said no specific offer for close ties between the two navies but they have been deepening their professional interaction through joint exercises, high level visits and possible procurement options."

The amount and diversity of US offers to India is unrivaled by the French, Russians or Chinese on a multitude of fronts.  If the Indians believe America is serious about promoting their security and economic interests, India has a great opportunity in partnering with the US.

Democrats and Religion

Dan over at tdaxp has an interesting post about a billboard that reads, "Jesus Cares for the Poor, so do We", pictured to the right.  He writes:

"A good start by South Dakota liberals, if a hopeless one. The biggest 'liberal' church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is regularly ignored by its members and in terminal decline. The state Presbyterian Church (USA) [DEL: I believe he means PCUSA] worshipers are in loud revolt against the national leftists.  The fastest growing churches are known for their conservatism -- the Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox, and 'Baptists.'

But at least they have some 4GPS2 force.  After all, half of the battle is just showing up. (The other half is winning.)"

I wrote in the comments section of his post:

" I would imagine the billboard above makes most evangelicals laugh or bewildered rather than to think about how Democrats support religious values.

The best line of attack Democrats have regarding identifying with religion is caring for the poor.  However, evangelical, socially conservative Republicans care for the poor as well.  Both groups go about it differently. While Democrats often see Republican efforts to promote individual responsibility as cruel or uncompassionate, Republicans see mass social welfare as creating an entitlement, victim class.

Socially conservative, evangelicals also believe the church should be the center of providing aid to the needy, not government, which they often distrust from doing so properly.

I think it is better to teach a man how to fish than to give him a fish, as the old Chinese proverb says.  Democrats are wasting money with billboards such as those above.

Your comments about the liberal American churches dwindling is very true. Most churches are more conservative than their leadership, because activists tend to be more liberal.  This is very true of church networks. Those content with the status quo do not usually pursue larger church leadership positions.

I have attended 5 Presbyterian churches (PCUSA), all in Southern California, of decent size during my lifetime, and they are all far more conservative than what is reported in the news about the PCUSA leadership decisions.

Until Democrats stop working to remove the word "God" from all areas of life save when one is alone in private, the religious community cannot embrace the Democrat party.  As your Sorosnet post describes, the areas with money and influence in the DNC are not the moderates.  The Democrats will be in the wilderness for some time to come.  I pray they find religion.  But based on what lessons they choose to learn from Republican defeats (usually the wrong ones), I sincerely doubt it.

Thanks for the post.

Bill Rice"

I am curious what other readers and bloggers think about the campaign.  Maybe Citizen Z will weigh in as well, being a Christian Democrat.  Feel free to write in my "Comments" section below or cross post on Dan's site as well.  I will update this link if we have a good thread of thought.

Update: John Gillmartin at Sheep's Crib has some interesting commentary here and also links to the orignal picture (thanks for doing the research).

Update 2: Sandi at Vista on Current Events has this post with a very witty analogy:

"A guy passes by a bake sale and sees a pretty girl, a real hottie. He goes over and feins interest in her pies, cookies and baked wares. The guy strikes up a conversation and talks at length about how much he likes her bake wares. He doesn't buy any of course because he is only interested in what she could do for him, and she understands that his drool is for her and not the wares.

That is just what this Democratic ploy is, and holding hands with Jesus will get Christian votes about as likely as the guy looking at the baked goods will get into the bakers nickers. Both ploys are about as transparent as a bay window."

She found the post from Lorie Byrd on PoliPundit.  Lorie has this take:

"When I read this my first thought was about how the difference between the two approaches is often highlighted during elections when the tax records of the candidates are made public. I recall specifically the 2000 election when the charitable contributions of Bush and Gore were released. I don’t recall the specific numbers, but Bush had given a sizable amount to charity and Gore had given virtually nothing.

It is not fair for Democrats to say that they care more about the poor because they want to let government do the work, rather than individuals, churches and community groups. It is especially unfair to say that Republicans care less for the poor because they believe that churches and community groups can do a better job tending to the needs of the poor than some government bureaucrat."

Lorie also has over 70 comments on her post if you are interested in a larger dialogue than here. (May 14, 2005)

Update 3: Laer at Cheat-Seeking Missiles writes:

"It is interesting to try alternative headlines and see how they work:
Jesus Cares for the Unborn, so do We.

• Jesus Supported in the Death Penalty, so do We.
• Jesus Healed the Sick without Government Money, so do We.
• Jesus Told the Woman at the Well to Stop Sleeping Around, so do We.
• Jesus Believed He was the Living Son of God, Sent to Die and Rise from the Dead to Sit at the Right Hand of God, so do We.

...I don't think the billboards will hurt the Dem base much, though. Religious Dems will relate to the "Help the poor" line as both Christians and Dems. Unbeliving Dems will forgive the party its sins, knowing this billboard is more about politics than beliefs."

(May 15, 2005)

Fighting Marines in Iraq

Bill Roggio over at the 4th Rail and Josh at the Adventures of Chester have a great two-piece account of the Marines' battles against foreign terrorists near the Syrian border in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of 3 Marines and up to a 100 terrorists.

It is the largest fighting since Fallujah and is named Operation Matador. 

Read Bill's piece first here and then Adventures of Chester's here.  It is a great example of collaborative blog work by two very analytical men.

Bush in Georgia

Robert Mayer of Publius Pundit has written a well informed post on President Bush's trip to Georgia that is well worth reading.  It is good to see that Anti-Americanism is not as rampant as often believed in foreign capitals.