Thompson in England

I haven't found the audio yet, but the text of this speech is truly great.


Update: Found a link to some of the Video


Update: Some of my favorite excerpts - without comments believe it or not. . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways – in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.

In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Of course political realism is back in the ascendancy since the difficulties in Iraq. It’s true that we have learned that geography, history, and ethnicity are important factors to consider in making decisions regarding today’s enemies.

We’ve also been reminded of the importance of preparation, of alliances, and the continuing support of our people.

But that does not change the fact that we sometimes must address events in far-away places that endanger our people. Or that we believe in universal values that do not allow us to ignore wholesale human suffering.

Realism? Yes. But also idealism, which is what makes us different from our enemies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,


On Principle,
CBass

War on Terrorism II

In my last post on the "War on Terrorism" I float the concept as to the nature of our nation's current "Long War" and what means are appropriately brought to bear on which targets through a simple equation:

1. Terror Tactics = Internal fortitude of heart
2. Terror Groups = Policing Operations
   
3. State Sponsored Terror Groups = Overwhelming military force.

In reviewing this list, there are two questions which may come to your mind which need further explication:

1. Overburdened Military:

Isn't our military stretched too thin to wage a "Long War" against additional state sponsors of terrorism (such as North Korea, Syria and Iran)? Yes. It seems to me that this is the case (now, please keep in mind, that I am not exactly one of our nation's great military minds).

In the first Quadrennial Defense Review of the Bush Administration, Secretary Rumsfeld's team made a dramatic shift in America's military sizing to reduce the number of "capital cities" our forces would be able to "occupy" while increasing the number of fronts on which we could fight. I was a solid supporter of this approach. In light of the last few years of mired conflict in Iraq, the approach still seems attractive, but let's face it - reality has caught up with and overtaken theory.

In times like these, the appropriate response is to change course. It is time for the military to beef up its size in terms of personnel and budget in terms of value driven development of weapons, logistics, intelligence platforms and defensive capabilities. I've been frustrated for a few years now that our government seems slow to embrace this change. (I'll flesh out the reasoning behind these thoughts in a future post).

At the same time, four items must be noted:

1. Our lack of size doesn't change the right course of action. State sponsors of terrorism have demonstrated a determined effort to disrupt the world's apple cart, killing untold innocents, through their dedicated investment of cultural support, legal protection and national resources. The right course of action against these states is military in nature. Our lack of sufficiently building our military doesn't change this equation.

2. If we can't do it now, let's start building for the day when we can. State sponsors of terrorism are not likely to disengage from these actions short of military pressure. Notice, I said, not likely. The blessing of being overstretched in terms of military might is that it forces our nation to truly pursue every other non-military end. If time allows, I FULLY support other approaches (see below). But in the meantime, we need to martial our resources in a way we simply having in the last 20 years to rebuild our military capabilities.

3. The US is not the only Nation which can conduct military operations. We are certainly the largest and most capable of sustained operations, but we are decidedly not the only (or in the some cases even the best equipped) to engage in the appropriate military operations. (Again, in a following post I'll explore this concept in terms of the "Coalition" forces at some point in the future).

4. Not all military operations must involve the "occupation" of "capital cities". Senator Lieberman made this point in terms of Iran in a recent Sunday morning interview. Here's an excerpt:

I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into--over the border into Iran where I--we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Notice his main point. Aggressive military action does not always mandate "occupation" forces. As I state above, such limited actions may be best performed by other nations and may buy us the time to build our military and, most importantly, to pursue diplomacy by "other means".

2. The Prince of Peace:

As a believer in Christ, doesn't it bother you to focus so much on the military? No. (Ok, yes it does, but only within a certain context.)

1. Government and Government Might are Constituted by God: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) affirm God's hand in appointing governments. Not His direct will in how each government acts toward its people and other nations, but the authority and role of government in general. In this affirmation, it is clear that government has the power of the "sword" to enforce peace on a world which is in rebellion against the "rule of love". State sponsored terrorism is a poster child for this rebellion.

2. Turning the Other Cheek: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) have a lot to say about the virtue of embracing personal humiliation instead of fighting for self-rights. I wholeheartedly affirm this as being central to the way of Christ. At the same time, none of these teachings are provided in a context of forcing others to do the same. They are to arise from individual's heart response to God's forgiveness AND God's vindication of the wrongly attacked. Government is not in the position to mandate this sort of extremely personal moral response in the face of terrorism. To do so would mirror the fascism of radical Islam. The role of government, as constituted by God, is to beat back such threats such that individuals have the freedom to make self-sacrificing choices of love, service, humility, intercession, forgiveness, etc.

3. The Ultimate Victory Comes from Changed Hearts, Not Charred Homes: There is no lasting honor or peace from military action. It has a moral role, but that role is extremely limited. If deployed (hopefully as a last resort) it must be deployed wholeheartedly. Once completed, another wave of soldiers are needed. This second wave must bind the broken hearted, rebuild the desolate inheritances, set the oppressed free, etc. Only when sufficient quantities of folks lay down their lives in service to the citizens of a combatant state will a lasting peace be established. Yes, it would certainly be better to see this happed PRIOR to bombing. But the whole purpose of this concept is to answer the question of what to do when it hasn't happened and innocent lives are being placed in jeopardy as a result.

This 1-2 punch of force and service has demonstrated its effectiveness time and time again. When was the last time our fellow citizens faced threats from England, Spain, Germany, Italy or Japan? All of these nations were our enemies in battle at one time.

Yes, I favor peace through redeemed lives filled with existential hope, but I will support the use of national force as needed to provide those hearts ample opportunity to hear the words of those who cry in the wilderness.

On Principle,

CBass

Update on Savanna

Hi everyone, this is Amy writing. Christian waxes more eloquently but I wanted to personally thank all of our friends and family for their prayers, thoughts, emails and words of encouragement. It has been incredible knowing that we have so much support. As a mother, it's never easy to see your kids go through things, but I must say that because of the support of my incredible husband and my family, I'm actually doing well. I also feel so blessed to have been directed to these particular specialists. The way they have treated Savanna and related with us has been a true blessing.

The last time Christian updated his blog we had visited the hospital to have a repeat x-ray and a sweat test for Cystic Fibrosis.

I'm pleased to announce that the sweat test came back negative. Thank the Lord she does not have CF.

We were quite confident that she didn't but the doctors wanted to rule it out as some of her symptoms did fall under this disease. The x-ray, which last time had shown excess stool in her system, is still showing moderate stool. This was a little baffling to me knowing how much laundry and how many diapers we have changed over the last couple weeks. Because of the excess stool as well as gas in the belly, they would like to run an upper-GI x-ray on Monday. This will require her drinking barium so that they can get a detailed picture of her intestine. The Dr's best speculation is that there may be a narrowing somewhere in the intestine which may be causing the problems.

Christian and I are encouraged that they are getting to the bottom of it and grateful that the doctors are staying on top of it. We would appreciate your prayers for Monday. My prayer is that this test will solve the mysteries and that the Lord will either heal or lead the doctors directly to the problem so that it can be solved and we can move on. Although the test is considered noninvasive I would specifically ask for prayers that I wouldn't be too anxious and that Savanna would be at peace. The radiology staff has been very wonderful with Savanna but it's still so hard to see a little fear in her eyes as she's not quite sure what's going on. Having Christian there is always so reassuring for both Savanna and I and we're grateful that his work schedule has made it possible for him to be at all of the hospital visits.

We'll keep you posted as soon as we have more information. We love you and cannot thank you enough for all of your support. I am so confident that the Lord's hand is on this situation and even though I have moments of anxiousness, I'm actually at peace and know that Savanna is in the Lord's hands. She's the most happy, bubbly little person and the frequent hospital visits have done nothing to alter her happy little self and we pray that it remains so.

Full of gratitude,
Amy

Prayer Request & Update

Friends and Family,

Wasn't that the name of the old "MCI" calling plan? Does anyone remember MCI anymore?? Well, that's just a memory lane down which we don't need to go.

This update is primarily a request for prayer, but, heck, I'll never pass an opportunity to brag on my family either.

Prayer Request:

Our middle daughter, Savanna, (now 21 months) is just on of the cutest little people you'll ever meet. The issue is that she's just that, one of the littlest people for her age you'll ever meet. In fact, on the percentage weight charts she registers an official NULL for her age. Until a few months ago, she was holding a steady parallel progression to the chart, though way below the bottom ranking. Our Dr's felt this at least indicated she was growing in healthy, proportional manner, even if inexplicably small. Around teething time, her weight dropped. The drop wasn't significant, about 1 - 2 pounds, but when you are 18 months and 16 lbs (average kids are 20 lbs at 12 months), the Dr's wanted some specialists to get involved.

After numerous trips to Children's Hospital and even more numerous lab tests the growth specialists (Dr's specializing in pediatric growth for over 20 years) were completely stumped - until the x-ray. She eats larger portions than does her 3.5 yr old sister, is constantly happy and complains of no stomach aches. So we and the specialists were very surprised to learn that our little Savanna has quite a large back up in her bowel track. We've had her on a mild, and very common, child laxative for 6 months or more. But due to her complete lack of the normal symptoms, no one suspected anything. The current theory is that the back-up is causing stool to harden - which is prohibiting her body from absorbing nutrients - which is stunting her physical growth.

So, big deal right? Why the prayer request? Well, now that we've engaged in an intensive spike in laxative and laundry, the attention turns to find out the reason for the back-up. These reasons run the gambit from serious to benign and are too numerous to get into at this time. For example, in addition to some x-ray work today Savanna will also underwent a non-invasive Cystic Fibrosis test.

So, we ask for your prayers along the following lines:

1. We are deeply convinced that Savanna, as with all children, was purposefully formed and placed on this Earth by a loving God who knows her and loves her better and more perfectly than Amy or I can or do.

2. Her possible health problems, if any indeed turn up, are not the end of the world - or the end of God's goodness. There's just way too much we don't know about this world. But what we do know is that our passage on this Earth is very short in the grand scheme of Eternity. We also know that our perspective of pain, of health and of joy - indeed, even our deepest perceptions of Heaven or judgment - are drastically short-sided from the perspective of this God who formed and loves Savanna.

3. Our faith (and our personal experience) informs us that God is very much at work in this world and in our lives. Pain, suffering, disappointment and physical limitations simply don't change this core fact - they just highlight there's a lot we don’t know or understand (see #2) above. At the same time, we know that God has invited us to participate with Him in the process of our coming to understand His will and, perhaps, to see His hand move in physical healing. Perhaps He won't. But perhaps He will. (2 Samuel 12:15-23)

I've experienced extremely sad circumstances when God didn't respond according to our requests and I've witnessed honest, medically proven miracles of healing. Both in response to the same prayers. Both were eventually recognized to be victories. In both cases, God was sought after, the veneer of our daily lives was ripped away and we all faced truer questions of life, meaning and eternity - and we were all better for it.

Thanks for allowing me this surface, theological ramble. :)

In short, Amy and I would be very thankful if you could take just a few minutes to join us in prayer for Savanna's health.

Family Update:

In other news:

1. Alexa (3.5) is in swimming lessons. True to her last name, the girl is a little fish. Her teachers at the community center are amazed at her lack of fear of the water - not always a good thing I'm quick to remind everyone. She loves her newest word - this thing we call "Summertime".
2. Savanna (21 months) the above prayer request not withstanding, is developing very quickly in verbal skills and comprehension. She is stringing together short sentences and plays the part of the absolute ham in the family.
3. Alayna (a whopping 2.5 months) is growing great (25th percentile for weight - right where we like'em), sleeps through the night and goes on and on about those quadratic equations.
4. Amy (she can share if she likes) has just done a wonderful job with this little clan and is quite busy holding our orbits together.

We love you all and miss you most of the time. Many, many thanks for your prayers and support.

Much love and gratitude,

The Basses (Alayna, Savanna, Alexa, Amy & Christian)

Surprise Winner in New Hampshire?

New Poll from NBC (and here - 6/8/07) on the NH primary shows good news for Huckabee, Romney and McCain and some bad signs for Giuliani.


A few thoughts:


1. 5.3% error margin???? Jeepers! We just can't live by or make too much of these polls' discrete findings. There will be innumerable swings and contradictions between any specific poll. The absurdity of making too much of these polls is the 5.3% error margin. According to this:

• Romney and McCain at a "tie" (a "victory" for McCain to be tied in Romney's backyard - AFTER the immigration revolt???).

• Giuliani as being tied with Huckabee (would this make the "news of the week" that Huckabee is "tied" in New Hampshire with the national front runner?)

2. The only item of value to be gained by this incessant polling is a rough feeling for each candidate's relative placement vis-a-vis the others and an idea for the size of their backing. From this very surface analysis we can determine a few winners and losers for this round:

• Huckabee - Surprise of surprises, Huckabee is the top winner from these findings. He has no money, little press and no organization to speak of and yet he's actually within some sort of striking distance of the 2nd placers.

• Romney - With ALL his money, major press coverage and intense organization focus in NH, he has to win, but the good news is that he is winning there - by any measure. Good for him.

• McCain - Another gaping surprise. Despite disappointing money, a hemorrhaging organization and negative press, he's about equal with Giuliani - the national leader.

• Giuliani - NH is in his home region. He's the national front runner. He has solid resources and 5 years on organizing. Yet, he's about even with the base's nemesis (John McCain) and is well behind Romney.

Without living and dieing by these exact & shifting poll data, its easy to see why primary prognostications can't be made the easy way by looking only at broad national polls. Each state is a new race and each candidate has a to live or die by the realities of that market place.


On Principle,
CBass

War on Terrorism

Now that we are deeply mired in the campaign season for Presidential Primaries, our current engagement in and conduct of the "War on Terror" is oft questioned by pundits and waxed a little less than eloquently by brave campaigners.

It amazes me that 6 years into our realization that this battle was launched upon us, we still don't, as a collective people, have a better grasp as to the nature of our warfare. With all the pomp, circumstance and inflated self-importance which is so integral to blogging, I will here attempt to set the record straight.

Misnomer #1: War on Terror

We are not waging a war on "terror". Terror is an internal, emotional reaction to a frightening or dramatic event. Sir Winston Churchill could be said to have waged a war on terror, in this sense, during battle of London in WWII. Through his example, decisiveness and stirring rhetoric, he sought to confront the reactive terror which gripped the hearts of his citizens. While this sort of reinforcement of the American psyche would be an advised addition to the Administration's battle plan, an addition badly lacking of late, it simply is not core to the "long war".

Misnomer #2: War Against Terrorists

CAUTION: Liberal content warning!!!!

Battling Terrorists, as an end goal, is not, primarily, a job for our military in its full weight and stunning lethality. Terrorists, folks who try to invoke terror in innocents for self-selected purposes, are thugs and criminals. Confronting them is largely, in most (no, not all) cases, a job for law enforcement. What? Isn't this sacrilegious for a deeply committed conservative? No, as a conservative, I deploy the full force, fury and frustrating bureaucracy of my government on an extremely limited basis. And I have some examples to back up this point:

1. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Both were terrorists, both were confronted by law enforcement.
2. The mob / mafia. Organized terrorist families, clans, cells ranging from Prohibition Bootleggers to today's highly structured, multi-state Latino gangs. All of whom have been effectively confronted by law enforcement.
3. Iraqi Police. Its seems as though many of us have taken for granted that when America talks of training up Iraqi "security forces" some of the major focus of this work is on raising competent, non-compromised Iraqi police - often to a greater degree than the Iraqi armed forces.

Conservative readers, you can come back now.

Before moving on I should note that surgical strikes by small groups of highly trained and well armed Special Forces units may be one very appropriate tactic in battling terrorists, but when conducted on foreign soil absent a larger military campaign, these raids are probably far more effective in the long term when coordinated with that country's law enforcement. Conservatives do like to uphold the integrity of national borders of nation states - our own apparently excluded from this otherwise truism.

Misnomer #3: We Can't Declare War on an Idea or Tactic

Ok, admittedly, it did take the Administration far too long after 9/11 to craft some definition around the sort of terrorism against which we would battle. But please don't miss the point, this has been done and the selected definition correctly aligns with who we are as a people both historically and in the modern world. Our long war is not against the idea of terror or terrorism as a tactic. Our long war is specifically against "state-sponsored, international terrorism".

What does this mean? Let's start with what it doesn't mean. This doesn't mean that we have declared direct war on remnants of the Irish Republican Army, Colombia's FARC, Spain's ETA or Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. They all invoke terror (see Misnomer #1 above), but they are all best confronted by the law enforcement efforts of each country. The US may support these efforts through military aid, US military hardware, etc, but we are correct to NOT confront these terrorists (see Misnomer #2 above) through Shock & Awe.

War on Terrorism: What It Means

Our war is against organized groups (things against which we can really declare war) which utilize the legal safety, cultural support and enormous resources of nation states to mobilize terrorists in waging terror tactics against innocents, often in other nations, to secure the self-selected purposes in which they find value. I find it difficult to believe anyone can't grasp this difference between the tactic of terror, the rather limited resources and reach of "local" groups of terrorists and well structured, well funded, well trained, well armed, well coordinated, internationally structured, far-reaching state-sponsored terrorism.

Since history has a whimsical way of smacking us on the collective rear when we ignore it's lessons, I highly recommend the short article "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" by Christopher Hitchens. Much of what today defines us as "Americans" was born out of our nation's first officially declared war oversees - a war against, gasp!, the idea, nay - the tactic, of piracy.

Gotcha! Not so!

Our Congress declared war and our President Jefferson executed war against state-sponsored piracy. The difference is very, very important. Since the piracy was not some independent group of thugs to be policed, but a coordinated attack of terror upon innocent people (entire cities were raided and possibly 1.5 million Westerners were taken captive as slaves) coordinated from, funded by and under the protection of the nation states of northern Africa. As such, we wage war against the physical arms (slave ships), soldiers (funded pirates) AND the sponsoring homelands of the pirates. By stemming the flow from the state-sponsor, Islamo-piracy eventually receded to irrelevance for centuries - courtesy of a good 'ol butt kicking.

As the T-shirt says: "WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING: Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism"

Hitchen's alludes to much of what is "apple pie" America as having arisen from the fight against state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Our grievances against England as captured in the original draft of the declaration of independence - for his support of the "slave trade" which mirrored the tactics of state-sponsored piracy.

2. The only mention of Armed forces in our Constitution - a Navy for battling the state-sponsors of the Barbary Pirates.

3. The original stanza's of what would later become our national anthem

4. The Marine Corps anthem

5. The liberal tradition of appeasement - John Adam's stance that we should bribe the Muslim states to the sum of 10% of our National Treasury.

Ok, But What Exactly Does It Mean:

Our Constitutional structure arose out of, in part, a struggle similar to ours today. It was designed to support the following principles when battling state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Unite domestically to raise a fearsome military to end the ability of enemy states to sponsor terrorism.
2. Encourage development of friendly governments (since terrorism is also feed through the defacto "state" of culture - ie the KKK in the post-Reconstruction South).
3. Support the local law enforcement efforts of these newly constituted governments to confront the now de-funded and orphaned terrorists.
4. Return home to enjoy the 2 centuries of peace which can only be won through such displays of strength - at least in this fallen world.

One last question.

If you buy into any of the arguments above, what would be the appropriate response to Iran, Syria and the defacto autonomous regions of Pakistan? The answer is obvious, but it would require the same efforts as were required of our Nation's founders - raise an armed force, sufficiently capable of executing the task at hand with sufficient lethality and provide a demonstration of nation will through Congressional declaration.

Then, let's remember, this is a "long war".

Of course, we may learn a lesson from other wars as well:

1. Sometimes we need to commit the same level of resources to rebuilding what we utterly destroy.
2. Sometimes we need to flood defeated foes with the best Ambassadors we have to offer, hundreds of individuals carrying and demonstrating the Love of God for the populace shaken free of terrorist sponsors.

Proud American,
Christian

Google's All That

Well, maybe not.

At a sizable risk of getting injured in a stand against prevailing currents of pop-culture, I have discovered a flaw in the much vaunted Google Earth service. In fact, I find this discovery to be somewhat reminiscent of the lone scale missing from Tolkien's mythical dragon, Smog, in The Hobbit. Yes, with only one scale missing, the powerful dragon was brought low throw a single arrow. And yes, what I'm about to share is one missing scale in Google's all-pervasive power - it's all-seeing eye.

First, to set the stage. Perhaps you've heard of Google's new "Street Level View". In concept, the idea is quite cool. Google has sent specially equipped trucks to drive through the streets of a few pilot cities, collecting 360 degree images as they drove. Google then, somehow seamlessly, blended these "street level" images with it's Google Earth satellite images. Through Google Maps, you can type in an address on one of the streets so filmed for the pilot launch, zoom out to see the entire city or region or zoom in on a particular address and then open a window to show the "street level view".

One webizen was able to see his cat perched in the window of his 2nd floor apartment. Other's are quite dismayed by the "ickiness" of "spying" on unsuspecting folks just living their normal lives. But everyone admits that having instant, integrated access to this odd assortment of average folks, living average lives is truly spectacular. Imagine the muscle-flexing bragging rights this level of pervasive coverage of the world, "at your finger tips", Google has earned? If they can do this, what else are they working on?

Want to invest?

Now, for that dragon killing flaw in Google's armor. For Google, it's dominance is just that, its dominance. Through Google Search, it seemed to have virtually captured every piece of online data, categorized it and made it amazingly available when relevant to your needs or whims. Through Google Earth and Google Maps, the media giant seemed to have acquired mind-numbing quantities of data on the entire world and, again, made them available for productive use - and relevant advertising. Now, through Street Level View, Google seems to be flexing its muscle to show that it can capture and maintain images of every major address in every city and integrate it with Search and Maps such that any location on Earth can be searched, seen and integrated with limitless depths of relevant information (oh yeah, and advertising). Total dominance. And dominance means coolness, "buzz", street creds (oh yeah, and advertising $'s). Without total dominance and presumed relevance, Google Street Level View is just an odd peep show.

With this in mind, I "Googled" my house. Disclaimer: I live in a fairly new neighborhood in a fairly new house. By "fairly new" I mean 2 years and 1 year old, respectively. Remember when I included that Google must "capture and maintain" images. It seems this is a harder task than even Google would have us believe. I live in Smog's missing scale, the chink in Google's armor. If their technology is just a reactive response to natural disaster or war, who cares. Time, CNN and Fox News give us that. With commentary to boot! If it is to be "in Google we trust", then we want total coverage of the subject with updated relevance. Not native pasture land where developers and we greedy consumers have long ago (2 years is a long time on line) scraped the land, laid concrete and generally made things better.

On Principle,
Christian