American Historical Association passes anti-war resolution by wide margin.

Note: I did plan to post about our new sidebar link to MilBlogs, which I am attempting to join. MilBlogs is a ring of bloggers written by men and women in uniform, like our own Buck Sargeant, as well as spouses, other family members and the like. It aims to report on the happenings of our military and other issues from the voices who know. The reason I did not is because I wanted this news to be viewed first, but did not want to also sacrifice the news about MilBlogs either. I invite you to check out the site after reading this update to the earlier post on the anti-war resolution approved in the AHA business meeting, which was debated by the general membership.

As reported about a month ago, the American Historical Association (AHA) was debating an anti-war resolution that was to be put to a vote of the membership. Well, that vote has occurred and it is a troubling outcome. The resolution was approved by a roughly 75-25% divide, however, only 15% of the members voted, which leads me to wonder about the outcome had all members voted. Here again is the text of the resolution in question:

Resolution on United States Government Practices
Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession

Whereas, The American Historical Association’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct emphasizes the importance of open inquiry to the pursuit of historical knowledge;

Whereas, the American Historical Association adopted a resolution in January 2004 re-affirming the principles of free speech, open debate of foreign policy, and open access to government records in furthering the work of the historical profession;

Whereas during the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terror, the current Administration has violated the above-mentioned standards and principles through the following practices:

* excluding well-recognized foreign scholars; condemning as "revisionism" the search for truth about pre-war intelligence;
* re-classifying previously unclassified government documents;
* suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;
* using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

Whereas a free society and the unfettered intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of historical research, writing, and teaching are imperiled by the practices described above; and

Whereas, the foregoing practices are inextricably linked to the war in which the United States is presently engaged in Iraq; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Historical Association urges its members through publication of this resolution in Perspectives and other appropriate outlets:

1. To take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values necessary to the practice of our profession; and

2. To do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.

Now, there are several things that trouble me about this resolution. First, it is blatantly liberal in tone. This is illustrated by phrases like "the so-called war on terror" as well as the following points:
* suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;
* using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

The AHA is supposed to be non-partisan, but this resolution clearly violates that tenet. Imagine the ire of the left had the AHA drafted a resolution in support of the administration and the war. While I certainly respect other historians' rights to disagree with me and my views, I do not approve of my money going to an organization that is being dominated by fringe anti-war, extreme left-wing elements such as the AHA. This is not to say that all AHA members are left-wing or anti-war, as they are not, but the fact the resolution passed with less than 20% of the membership voting and with such a wide margin of victory leads me to believe that the anti-war element of the membership, particularly members who are associated with the group Historians Against the War (HAW) "stuffed" the ballot box. I mean that in the most figurative sense, as I think that most members simply deleted the email, while more HAW members were paying attention and voted on it to ensure its passage. One can only imagine that if the names of the members who voted on the resolution were known and background on them were examined that many who voted Yes are HAW members. In short, I am very disappointed by this development and have attempted to remove every linkage to the AHA as a recommended site from my sites, as I can not recommend people waste their money in joining this now left-wing dominated organization.

You can read more on this story at the following sites:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/13/iraq
http://blog.historians.org/news/166/iraq-war-resolution-is-ratified-by-aha-members

Globaloney and its Malcontents

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

That was President Reagan speaking before the National Association of Evangelicals midway through his first term, delivering what would come to be known as the Evil Empire speech. It was a telling window into the soul of his winning strategy for defeating the commie red giant by treating it like an exhausted white dwarf. That is, forcing it to collapse under its own immense gravity and inner contradictions through confrontation via oblique ideological warfare rather than chancing mutual annihilation through conventional military action.

Today the Soviet menace is kaput and the communist advance rolled back, and we didn't have to hug our children with nuclear arms after all. I feel it’s safe to say it worked.

Soon after, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down with the Warsaw Pact in fact crumbling to the ground, ding dong the witch is dead, long live the wicked witch. It was the End of History as we knew it (and we felt fine). Global cooling was out, global warming back in.

But the Iron Curtain lifted only to reveal an Islamic Veil that had quietly been descending behind it, which for another decade the West proceeded to ignore like it does all impending matters that don't involve the next election. Why bother tracking the market when you’re already living comfortably off your peace dividends? Black Tuesday? Never heard of it.

Exactly how does globalization promote stability again? For one, it doesn’t. True, you can purchase virtually any model of cellular phone your technological heart desires from any street vendor in Baghdad. But one moment you’re walking away with your state of the Korean art LG mp3/camera-phone and five minutes later an Improvised Explosive Daewoo is raining supersonic shards of rear axle down on you for having the temerity to engage in global commerce while wearing a reversed stars & stripes velcro-ed to your right shoulder.

So clearly "It's a Small (minded) World After All" cuts both ways. It means that wherever in the world you travel you’re no longer able to lament: "Y'know, I wish we could just get a dang cheeseburger here." But it also means that an entire culture 7,000 miles away can hate your guts before you even set foot on the tarmac.

So if your conception of "stability" refers to the fin shape on the long range booster rockets that North Korea is likely shipping to Tehran via FedEx next week, then sure, I suppose it does promote it. But ultimately, globalization is to stability what McDonalds is to world hunger. It means your looming humanitarian crisis could soon be obesity rather than famine and still it’ll be "everyone’s problem." (Though I do find it the mother of all ironies that the mid-eighties liberal bleeding heart hunger telethons helped lead to a revitalized generation of Ethiopians more willing and able to confront militant Islam without wetting their pajama pants than we currently seem to be).

We are the world...
We are the children...
We are the ones who'll spoil al-Qaeda's day, free of handwringing...

Condoleezza Rice prefaced her remarks to the American University in Cairo a few years back that our nation was "founded by individuals who knew that all human beings—and the governments they create—are inherently imperfect."

For sixty years [we] pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East—and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

A group of prominent intellectuals and dissidents then erupted in wild applause as the Secretary of State triumphantly left the podium, at which point they were promptly led away by agents from the Mubarakat, aka the Egyptian Ministry of Love. Condi Rice is, after all, the protégé of Brent Scowcroft, the Dapper Dean of the college of Realist Arts University State, so when she mentions things like "the democratic aspirations of all people" the implied parenthetical is of course "all people (under Middle Eastern governments not already on our payroll)." Cold warriors never die, they just fade away. (With exceptions that prove the rule made for former SecDefs who fight losing uphill battles against bastions of entrenched thinking they once championed and in fact helped seat.)

But I know what you're thinking: Assuming the nation-state is still the effective unit of action in world affairs, where are we today in the life cycle of international political systems? Well, I'll tell you.

The Russians lost the Big Chill and they haven’t forgiven us since. And neither have most of the Middle East client-state beneficiaries of their military-industrial largesse. The Realist World of Ford, Kissinger, Carter, and even Bush père was predicated on the Soviet counterweight in Middle Eastern affairs keeping every sheik in his right place; make sure you tell-em, status quo antebellum. He may be a son of a despot, but he’s our son of a despot. But a single clear September morning changed all the rules in one fell swoop after nineteen not-so-frequent fliers rotated our nation’s foreign policy completely off its axis of see-no-evil.

If winning the Cold War by forfeit proved anything it's that it sure can be lonely at the top. If the United States is still the "indispensable nation" in world affairs it’s only due to the fact that we’re one of the few remaining Western holdouts to the Eutopian ideal of One World Government whose overriding mission often seems predicated on the coming day new Secretary General Tojo Annan can scold us for not getting with le programme sooner. Panacea-told-you-so…

But is it American primacy that’s the endangered specimen, or is it the United Nations General Assembly that is the Last of the Potemkins? The international community’s vacillation over Iranian nuclear ambitions would seem to suggest the latter.

Iran’s mullahs have plenty of petro-fueled moolah, but what they’re really seeking is the security and venture capital of the radioactive variety. Russia’s ex-coms enjoy dangling their isotopes-on-a-rope over Iran's grubby paws, even if in hindsight the enrichment they'd rather have back is all the rubles spent on them over that blasted septuagenarian cowboy. But the con artists formerly known as Persia have assessed correctly that the barriers to entry in the superpower status club are lessened mightily once you’ve passed your first underground test. Supply, meet demand. A pleasure doing business with you Comrade Ahmadinejadovich. Please give our regards to the 12th Imam, da?

The fifty-year Cold War paradigm simplified American foreign policy into one basic premise: with our guns pointed east and theirs pointed west, mutual security rested on keeping our fingers off the triggers and thumb safeties engaged. Stubborn September 10 mindsets notwithstanding, events of the past five years have proven that the U.S. is hardly a "Reluctant Sheriff," unless by sheriff you mean Gary Cooper in High Noon. If anything we’re a Dirty Harry--one who tries to work within the system as best he can, but at the end of the day doesn’t shy away from doing what has to be done, the system be damned. But to many of our so-called allies not only are we not the antihero, we're the antichrist.

Still the $64,000,000,000,000 Question remains. In the decade since the bi-polar ice caps thawed, has the world scene become more or less dangerous? The answer, of course, varies with the individual. Which scenario do you find less appealing: the peril of Mutually Assured Destruction or the threat of Globally Acquiesced Submission? If the Cold War wasn’t the long war, then how long is the Long War really going to take?

A truly inconvenient fact is that there are currently over one billion and counting, and I don’t mean all the Happy Mao's in China. If even 1% of this billion plus have become radicalized--a process that began long before the War on Terror was even a southeasterly blip on the FAA's radar--that still equals out to as many as ten million angry young Muslims for whom the religion of peace means never having to say mecca culpa.

By this point our options have become quite limited. We can continue to push back, to stay on offense, to keep spreading the seeds of political and economic liberty to oppressively damp corners of the world that otherwise will remain Petri dishes of cultural backwardness--violence and hatred their chief export--or we can disengage, pull the wool back over our eyes, and start memorizing our suras now. But either way, things are going to get worse before they get better.

Me? I miss the Bad Old Days already.

Apparently NOT Off to Omaha.

Well, I have had an interesting last day and a half. I left Grand Forks, ND around 9:00 A.M. eager to make my mark at the Missouri Valley History Conference. Well, I knew the weather was tricky as a winter storm was forecast, but when I checked the Weather Channel before leaving, things looked good for me to make there. Then, South Dakota hit. From Grand Forks to north of Watertown, SD I-29 was relatively clean and visibility was good. Once into Watertown, things went downhill.

I stopped for a bite to eat and gas there just to be safe. Snow was gently blowing across the highway, but not enough to cause trouble. Once on the road south again, conditions worsened until outside of Brookings, which is about 45 miles south of Watertown, when snow began blowing across the road and falling heavily to create near whiteout conditions. I stopped in Brookings and one young lady's car was off the road trying to exit and spun in the opposite direction. That told me that it was too dangerous to continue. I checked into the Days Inn and contacted the conference chair explaining the situation, but still hopeful that in the morning I could make it. Once in the hotel, I looked at the radar and found that had I pushed on to Sioux Falls, I could have made it, as it was not snowing south of there. This made me a little angry at myself and the weather.

Well, I kept an eye on the forecast as if it were forecasting the end of the world and found out by evening that there was no way I would make it to Omaha, as blizzard conditions were to develop in the area I was at this afternoon and to the south. I called the conference chair and explained the situation and he arranged for someone to read my paper, which is going on now. I decided to get the hell out of Dodge and try to get back to Grand Forks to avoid the blizzard. Nothing beats driving over 130 miles on snow covered, and I mean COVERED interstate highway for death defying. Once into North Dakota, things improved, especially near Fargo. I must applaud the fine highway workers of ND, who treated the interstate so well around Fargo and north that most of it was just wet. South Dakota has much to be desired, as the highway was covered with snow that forced me to drive 40 mph when the normal speed limit is 75 (40 is the minimum allowable).

Needless to say, I am upset with the weather preventing me from attending the conference, but glad to be okay and home safe. I want to extend a hearty thank you to the staff of the Missouri Valley History Conference for allowing my paper to still be presented. I wish I could be there, but winter had other plans. I will post the paper sometime this weekend. On a side note, do NOT ever reserve a room through Days Inn at the cheap "buy now" rate as you can't cancel it for anything, believe me I tried. Well, that is all for now, stay safe and warm if you are dealing with snow like I am.