Should the Clock Be Moved Forward?

In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists introduced the Doomsday Clock. Alumni of World War II’s Manhattan Project, they used a clock’s imagery to indicate how close the world was to a global thermonuclear war—and the end of civilization as we know it. The clock debuted at seven minutes to midnight.

The minute hand had has moved backwards and forward 13 times since then. The last time was in 2002 when it was moved forward to seven minutes to midnight; it’s starting point at the beginning of the Cold War. Among the many reasons for the move, the Bulletin cited: “. . . too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; . . . [and] terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons. . .”

The clock was designed to bring focus on a global war, not a regional use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is time to refocus the clock.

The failure of Israel to disarm Hezbollah this summer and the almost certainly doomed-to-failure international peacekeeping force (reluctantly led by 200 French engineers) has left the Middle East less stable than an any time since the creation of Israel—ironically, in 1947 when the Doomsday Clock was introduced. It has diverted world attention from Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to use them. It has emboldened the enemies of democracy in the region and shown the terrorists that no matter how they act (as long as Israel is the target), they will be met with sympathetic world opinion.

Worst of all, it has given ammunition to the increasing chorus of voices in the West who believe that Islamic extremists who vow to destroy all who do not convert to their views don’t really mean what they say. Or, if they do, they can be persuaded to change their mind if we are just nice enough.

In this environment, the stage has been set for a series of seemingly unrelated steps to be taken that, when taken together, amount to abandonment of Israel and withdraw of support for democracy in the region.

Tony Blankley, Editor of the editorial page for the Washington Times, outlined how one such a scenario might play out in his column yesterday. I recommend it strongly.

He concluded by saying that the result could be oil at $250 a barrel. I think it could even be worse. It could be a nuclear exchange in the Middle East as Iran—or its agents—use the threat of newly acquired weaponry to gain its objective of destroying Israel and, fighting for its life, Israel retaliates. In that scenario, it won’t matter who used the weapons first. It will only matter that they were used.

Only peace in the region can avoid that. Yet all the attempts to obtain peace through land concessions, economic aid, and accommodations to extremist demands have failed. Each concession seems to wheaten the appetite for more demands.

So, I leave you with a question. What is the true source of instability and violence in the region, the fact that Israel is armed, or that the terrorists are?

Four Years of Failure

"After four years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, the time has come to demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities."

Sound familiar? Which political leader or major newspaper do you think made the above statement?

Actually, it comes from the Democratic Party's platform in the presidential nominating convention that began in Chicago on August 29, 1864. Yes, 1864. Four years into the administration of Abraham Lincoln; just three days before the fall of Atlanta and less than eight months before the surrender of Robert E. Lee.

Dissent and name calling are nothing new in American politics. Since the Revolution, more than two centuries ago, every war the U.S. has been involved in has had a sizable and vocal element of the American population who felt strongly that the war was not justified, being managed ineptly, and just plain wrong. Protest was not invented in the Vietnam era.

Each protester who believes that the President is an immoral idiot for leading us into war is free to say so; secure in the knowledge that the freedom to do so is protected in this nation--as it is in few countries of the world.

That freedom was won and maintained by Presidents who rose above the popular passions of the moment to do what they believed was right for the country--in spite of domestic criticism. Not all were wise, and all made mistakes. But they acted on behalf of the country. No man who has had to order another to go into harm's way, can take such responsibility lightly. And, every war time president that we have had has felt that burden.

The strength and sincerity of the opposition now being displayed toward American policy in the war against terror is not new. This would not be America if we did not have it. In the same vein, the fact that it is strong does not mean that it is right.

But, thank God that we have it. For it keeps us as a country honest and it forces those who are in power to explain their actions and goals to the America people. And, when they do, we are unstoppable. As Abraham Lincoln said during his first debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858:

"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

E Pluribus Unum?

E Pluribus Unum was the first national motto of the United States. In Latin, it means "From Many, One." It may be found on the Great Seal of the U.S. and it originally referred to the integration of 13 separate colonies into one united nation.

It has taken on an additional meaning over the years to reflect a single society that has emerged from the contributions of immigrants from around the world. There are few national cultures that have not contributed to the American culture, and made it richer and stronger by doing so.

But, this concept is under attack today. In Great Britain it appears that virturally all of the conspirators in last week's foiled plot to murder thousands of innocent airline passengers were native British Muslims. Yet, when polled, 81 percent of those native-born Britons declare that they consider themselves to be Muslims first rather than Britons.

In the U.S., similar sentiments can be found in immigrant enclaves of Muslims, Hispanics, and many other ethnic and religious groups. Remaining isolated, they contribute little to the American culture and society. Remaining isolated, they learn little of the tolerance that is necessary in a free, democratic society. Yet, in the name of compassion and diversity, governments at all levels throughout the U.S. are going to great lengths to ensure that the people in these enclaves never have to assimilate into America, learn the country's language, or participate in it.

Our country has achieved its preeminence in the world from the contributions made to it by immigrants. Those who join our society, add to it. They don't become enemies of it.

Isn't this really the neglected issue when we debate immigration policies and priorities in the war on terror? It seems to me that they are linked. The more that those who voluntarily come to this country are required to become part of it, the more support immigrants will have and the more the swamps which serve as a breeding ground for terrorists will be drained.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Surveillance!

That is a somewhat inelegant way of summarizing the attitude of many who have attacked the President's policies over the last year. I won't get into the absurdities or the details of the many claims that have been made to discredit the U.S. effort in this area. (Though, if President Bush had knowingly set out to break the law and flaunt the Constitution, as many have claimed, he's the only master criminal in history to do so by setting up an elaborate review process of his actions and informing the leadership of both parties in Congress of what he was doing. How sneaky can one get?)

What I will do, however, is give thanks that the British didn't buy into the nonsense that if we ignore the terrorist threat it will go away. Yesterday, they arrested some two dozen home grown Islamic terrorists that were just days away from blowing up numerous trans-Atlantic flights and killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people. The British attribute their success to active surveillance of the terrorists.

To the British: thank you for listening to the terrorists and not to their apologists. Please keep it up.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Yesterday's defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate Primary will be seen as evidence that opposition to the war in Iraq will be a winning strategy in American politics. In some areas it may.

But, if so, are these politicians really serving America or themselves?

The last century saw the rise of two evil ideologies that proclaimed superiority as the final and highest manifestation of the human condition. Anything that interfered with their inevitable conquest of the world was to be crushed without mercy. Anything that furthered their goals was, by definition, good--no matter how brutal and vicious it might be.

Nazi Germany and the various communist regimes, led by the Soviet Union, used their ideologies to justify the wanton killing of more than 100 million innocent people in the last century.

Their ranks have been joined by a third ideology, masking itself as a religion, that contains the same belief structure and rationalizations that foresee ultimate world domination. It is radical Islam. Like its predecessors, these true believers do not feel the slightest remorse or empathy as they murder any who would stand in their way.

They have picked the US as their primary target and shown a willingness and capability to bring killing of innocents to our shores. They are not interested in compromise. For, compromise would require them to abandon their belief structure. They will be stopped only with defeat.

Heaven only knows that we have made many mistakes in our efforts to combat terror in the Middle East. But, mistakes made in the fight do no invalidate the nature of the threat.

True political leaders appeal to the best of our natures and trust us with information on the world as it is. Those who are only in the game for what they can get personally pander to our fears.

So, as you listen to the politicians as we approach the fall elections, ask yourself this, are you hearing the words of a leader, or a panderer?

Connect the Dots on Oil

Yesterday, August 7, BP announced that a quarter-inch leak in its Alaska pipeline led to the discovery of a significant corrosion problem. The 22 mile pipeline will be closed while a 16 mile segment will be replaced. This reduces the domestic oil supply by about eight percent for several months.

The usual suspects among the media, liberal politicians, and environmental groups have once again begun to criticize the evil oil corporations—their stock answer to any energy problem. I don’t know who is really at fault in this particular leak. But, it does give us a chance to “connect the dots”.

Who is really responsible for the high price of energy in the U.S. today? Here are some of the dots:

• ANWAR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is a 19 million acre area north of the Artic Circle. By itself, it is larger than ten states yet only 220 people live on it. Some 17.5 million acres (92.11%) have been permanently protected against development of any kind. Experts estimate that enough oil is beneath the costal plain (a 1.5 million acre area) to supply US needs for several years. Yet, environmental forces have been successful in preventing any development of this area.
  
  
• The US government owns some 460 million acres of proven oil rich reserves that lie just offshore of the US. Yet, all oil exploration has been banned in those areas because of environmental concerns. Other countries, such as Cuba, have no such qualms and are beginning to exploit the areas adjacent to the US-owned areas. And they are doing so with much less environmentally friendly technology than American firms would use.
  
  
• No new oil refining capacity has been built in the US over the last three decades because of environmental opposition.
  
  
• No new nuclear power plant has been built in the US over the past four decades, again because of environmental opposition. Yet, countries such as France and Sweden get the majority of their electrical power from nuclear sources. Meanwhile, we burn fossil fuels and create additional air pollution in the name of environmental purity.
  
  
• There are many other self-imposed restrictions that could be cited; too numerous for this venue.

The result is a domestic energy industry that is producing beyond full capacity. It has no reserves or flexibility. The slightest problem, even a quarter inch leak, can cause a major disruption to domestic supplies—and the resulting price of oil products.

Connect the dots and the pattern that emerges is clear. America has let a legitimate concern for the environment lock itself into a cage with no escape. The competing needs of both the environment and energy are never discussed together in the public debate. Those who have devoted themselves to protecting the environment do so without concern for the implications of their policies on the nation. And they have dominated the public debate. The result is that America has doomed itself to dependency upon the highly unstable mid-eastern nations and exposed itself to price shocks when our overstressed domestic faces any problem at all.

I am not against the environment. Anyone who has ever seen the ravages of the third world knows the need for protection. But, it is not the only consideration. People live on this planet, just as the plants and animals do. Protecting the welfare of people is also important.

We will never solve America’s energy problems until we take a second look at the self-imposed restrictions that we live under in the name of environmentalism. We must strike a better balance with protecting nature and protecting people.