When a nation goes to war, it is wise to have more than one plan in hand, since events and situations change rapidly and unpredictably.  But you must always recognize that tactical and strategic flexibility must always serve unwavering policy objectives--namely, victory in the key essentials that are necessary to your survival, even if you have to go without total victory in everything you'd like to achieve.  Our war against the Islamo-Nazis is no different in this respect.

    For  thousands of years  men were ruled by dictators  who governed by virtue of their control of  the armed forces;  they were called 'kings', and those who  they ruled over were called  'subjects'.    As kings, they  arrogated to themselves the power to make the laws by which everyone  else had to live, on pain of  imprisonment, torture, confiscation and death.  This rule by  the whim of the king was called 'absolutism', and was considered part of the  'divine right of kings', theirs not by virtue of election, but through  selection by the will of God.
     Mere humans had no say in the making of law; it was the will of the 'sovereign', and people were not sovereign, only 'subjects' of the sovereign; to even suggest otherwise was  a crime--lese majeste, or even treason.
     Then a funny thing happened:   it was called the  'Enlightenment', and during this period, a lot of people began to think differently.   They began to think that government is not supposed to be a mere gang of thugs serving the chief thug (king, dictator, emperor, general secretary, whatever) as a tax-and-intelligence gathering agency, 'spies' and 'collectors'  for the boss--or bosses--but, rather, ought to be a servant of the people; ought to actually protect the public health and safety.   In keeping with this radical idea was the notion that the sovereign really ought to be the people themselves, rather than some chief thug, however much he might claim empowerment by God, or even, as they often did, claim to be a god himself. 

     Of course, if the people were the sovereign, then they had the right--and ought to have the exclusive power--to exercise that chief function of the sovereign, the making of government decisions and the making of the law.  This, of course, had been exercised in republics of the past, such as the Athenian Assembly, by the direct vote of the demos, the people in the assembly at the time of the vote; such 'demos kratia', or 'people power' (literally) wasn't always the best way to get things done of course, as lots of people tend to do lots of talking, which takes lots of time, and often doesn't even produce a decisive choice in the end. 

     And of course, sometimes even a bad decision is better than no decision (especially in wartime).  Also, the knowledge of experts was always diluted by the ignorance of those with less, well, knowledge, producing a lot of stupid decisions, when decisions were reached.   Thus, for example, the Greeks resisted for far too long the advice of Demosthenes to unite in defense of their liberty against the coming onslaught of their  enemy, Phillip of Macedon, who therefore was able to defeat them and put an end to  democracy in Greece;  as it turned out, they did not get it back for about 2300 years.  There's a lesson there.

     Our Founding Fathers, thoroughly familiar with all this and a great deal besides, therefore decided to establish our fourth political regime in America (the first three were the colonial charter governments, followed by the Continental Congress, followed by the Articles of Confederation) as yet another, but highly refined, representative democracy, with a legislature to make law elected by the people, and an executive to enforce that  law, and act as chief foreign policy-maker and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, also elected by the people--originally indirectly, through the Electoral College and House of Representatives.  More recently, as a matter of political reality dictated by our belief in popular sovereignty, the election of the President has come to be seen as illegitimate unless he also carries the plurality of the popular vote.  More about this another time.

     There remained the important matter of courts to apply the law (always general and imprecise) to specific cases.  For this august function, the Founders hit upon the idea of a hierarchical system of courts whose members would attain an appropriate degree of independence from passing political passions and pressures by virtue of life tenure after appointment--always, note, assuming good behavior and sane, ethical conduct--and who would not be elected by the people, but rather appointed by the executive and legislature acting in concert.  Hence our Supreme Court, and all the lesser federal courts.

     This system has served us well for  over two hundred years (a long run of success, as historians and political 'scientists' measure these things), but that doesn't mean it's working perfectly now, let alone likely to do so indefintiely.  Like any human construct, this one too requires occasional attention to ensure its continued proper functioning.  Lately a disease of the system has arisen which is perfectly foreseeable and understandable, and also, thank God, perfectly curable.  Let us call this malaise 'Judicial Megalomania.'

     Now, our Founders forsaw this possibility, indeed, even saw it as likely; hence, they constructed a system of checks and balances under which the encroachment of our rights by any one branch of government would be stopped by the immediate counteraction of the other two, guarding not so much our rights, as their own prerogatives.  Nothing smarter than enlisting human lust for power to keep the power-mad in check.   This system, however, has broken down as a result of the ideological fanaticism of the leftists in America in the last 40 or 50 years, combined with the craven cowardice of the politicians generally, leading those on the right, who are the most outraged at the usurpation of legislative power by the courts, to run and hide, rather than stand up manfully and call unethical conduct unethical conduct.  So, when our judges have rendered decisons that clearly go beyond their proper power to apply the law, and instead actually write law from the bench, no one in Congress or the Department of Justice calls for their impeachment; instead, leftists in government, academia, and the news media wax lyrical about the wonder of a 'living constitution' that can 'grow organically' from generation to generation, and even from year to year, without the straitjacket of precedent and established law restraining it. 

     How nice for the leftists--who are thus able to pass the hot potato of revolutionary transformation of the law from the legislature, where it belongs (if it belongs anywhere), where the lawmakers can be judged by the people who elect them every two years, and thrown out of office--and out of power--if they pass laws of which the majority strongly disapprove.  This is how representative democracies remain representative, without the legislature becoming a rubber stamp for the rich and powerful, and without the law becoming a tool for the super-rich to extract wealth from those who have it--the tax-paying middle class--and a tool for the wealthy and powerful elites to oppress the people and thus keep themselves, well, elite.

     Make no mistake--the left in America has used the courts to undertake a program of radical, leftist social revolution from above directed against the American people, a program which those people would never--have never--will never--vote to support, if given the opportunity to vote up or down on it.  This does not include those measures of justice, long overdue, wrapped up in the concept of racial equality which often are called 'civil rights legislation' for the simple reason that they are embodied in laws passed by legislators subject to the votes of the people.  Gosh!  Reform by legislation rather than adjudication--what a concept!

     Recently the leftists on the Supreme Court have overturned centuries of legal precedent by restricting the power of  the President to defend the United States by dealing effectively, as Commander-in-Chief, with enemy combatants captured while making war against us by our military or by allied governments.  They have reduced the power of the states to pass laws dealing with heinous criminals convicted and sentenced to punishment long considered neither cruel, unusual, nor inappropriate.  They have overturned centuries of legal precedent protecting our property from seizure by government not for public purposes, but for the profit of friends of politicians.  And only last week, we held our breath as they deliberated on whether or not to allow hundreds of years of practice and tradition to continue by allowing peaceful, honest Americans to retain their right to defend their lives and the lives of their families and neighbors, or to infringe on that right; for when people are forbidden by law from possessing the means of defending their lives,  their right to self-defense is surely taken from them in the most blatant manner.  Fortunately, the leftists on the Court were unable to persuade Justice Kennedy to side with them on this issue, so we Americans are still able to exercise our right, guaranteed by the Second Article of the Bill of Rights, to keep and bear arms.

     Why must we Americans constantly fear the revocation of our constitutional rights by the arbitrary decisions of 5--or even fewer--justices of the federal courts?  Our Founding Fathers were well aquainted with the practices of tyrants equipped with compliant judges, appointed by the 'sovereign' dictator, acting in star chamber, without allowing the defendents any of the protections of due process enshrined in English Common Law, often trying and sentencing them for the most imaginary crimes in the most arbitrary manner.  It was for this reason that so many of our rights were enumerated and declared 'off limits' for statutory oppression in the Bill of Rights.  Why, then, must we await the beginning of each new term of the Supreme Court in October with such dread? 

     The leftist elite that has dominated American politics since the 1932 election, and even since 1995, in spite of the Republican majority elected in 1994, has established a political machine that is deep, broad, and enduring in its hold on the levers of power in the American political system.  These are not limited to the elective offices, or even to government bureaucracies.   We must recognize the power of the Culture of Leftism in American political life in order to understand how and why our judicial institutions have been so wrenched from their constitutional moorings, and have become--quite consciously and intentionally in the minds of the leftists who populate them and use them, as judges, attorneys, political action committees, and all the other denizens of the leftist political culture who conspire--sometimes legally, sometimes illegally--to influence court actions and decisions, from the bringing of cases to the assignment of judges, to the nomination and confirmation of new judges, to the presentation and trying of the cases in court--and not least, in the court of public opinion generated by the 'news media' (so called--they often are better described as the 'Democrat Party Propaganda Organs').

     All these actors, including especially the 'political income groups'--or 'p.i.g.s' for short--have played a role in the massive reorientation of our court system over the last 40 years from adjudication to legislation by fiat from the bench.  No doubt it will take more than 2 or 3 appointments to the Supreme Court to restore the judicial temperment and judicial restraint necessary to an ethical and responsible court in our political system.  That, however, is where we will have to start if we wish to establish justice, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity for another couple of centuries (at least)--for that reason, it is imperative that we elect John McCain, flawed though he is, rather than allow the leftist activists who dominate the Democrat party to solidify their control of the courts and hence of our Constitution for another 40 years. 

     We must recognize where we are in the political and cultural life cycle of America.  We are waging a great struggle to preserve from dismemberment the magnificent edifice of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, restrained from demagogy by a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, created by our forefathers with such great wisdom only a few hundred years ago--a long time in the life of a man, but not in the life of a nation.  We are in a struggle to preserve that noble invention, the SOVEREIGNTY OF FREE CITIZENS, and prevent America's degeneration back into the dismal realm ruled by the arbitrary whims of KING COURT.

 

    

     Few people would dispute that the Allies won WWII, and that the Axis lost.  Few would dispute that we Americans won our Revolutionary War for Independence from the British Empire.  Few wars, however, result in such total victory for one side or the other.  Victory--imposing our will on our enemies, remember--comes in more than one flavor.

     Victory can be total--or, logically, it can be partial.  It can be partial in any number of ways.  We may only be able to inflict part of our will on our enemy, or all of our will on some enemies, less on others.  We may be able to eject them from all our territory, or only part of it (think of Kashmir, divided between the Indians and the Pakistanis).  We may be able to deter our enemies from launching an armored blitzkrieg intended to kill all of us, but find ourselves unable--for reasons of diplomatic restraint by our allies, or lack of political will in our government due to internal political divisions--to stop these same enemies from launching constant terrorist attacks on our homes and families at a low level of murder--say, a few hundred every year--as is the case with Arab terrorist attacks on Israel. 

     But wait--war gets even worse than this.  Not only do we sometimes have to wage war in such a way as to cause the tragic and unintended, but unavoidable deaths of enemy civilians, but sometimes we even have to make war in such a way that we kill friendly civilians.  During WWII, American and British bombs killed over 60,000 French civilians. 
     Now, some of those French civilians were undoubtedly enthusiastic supporters of Vichy, collaboraters, and traitors to France as well as friends of Hitler and the Nazis; but most of them were as much on our side as my father, an American soldier--and by the way, he too was wounded by a bomb dropped by the US Air Force.  In fact, over half the men in his company were wounded or killed  by the US Air Force,  in a little town in Germany in spring, 1945.  War is hell, and not only because the enemy shoots at you.  C'est la guerre.      

     No army in history has worked so hard as the American army to avoid hurting the people we are trying to save and protect; but war never goes exactly the way it should.  Remember this.

     What, you may ask, gives us the right to kill people in order to impose our will on them?  Indeed, what gives anyone the right to kill anybody, ever?   Well, I insist that defending innocent people, who were minding their own business, not trying to rob, murder or enslave anyone, and who are suddenly and viciously attacked by someone trying to rob, murder or enslave them justifies the defender(s) in using deadly force against the aggressor(s)--and all the killing, wounding,  destruction and high taxes which result, are the fault of the bad guys--the aggressors.

     It is certainly victory in battle.  But victory in battle is neither always sufficient to guarantee victory in war, nor is it always even necessary to achieve victory in war.    After the Communist blitzkrieg that conquered South Vietnam in 1975,  Col. Harry Summers reports having a conversation with a general of the North Vietnamese Army  in which he pointed out to him: "You know you never defeated us in a major engagement."  To which the Communist thought for a moment, and then replied: "That is true.  But it is also irrelevent."

     After the defeat of their Tet Offensive in 1968 by the American and South Vietnamese armed forces, the Communist leaders of  North Vietnam reevaluated their grand strategy and political policy, and decided that henceforth they would not seek victory on the battlefield--not as long as the American armed forces were present--but rather would wage a campaign of psychological--actually political warfare--aiming at victory on the streets, then in the voting booths, and finally in the Congress of the United States.  
     They could not hope to defeat the American/ARVN armed forces, but they could continue to wage war until, by bleeding the Americans, they ultimately convinced the American people that the war was either not winnable, or not worth the cost of winning.  In order to achieve this political victory, they had to rely as much on the assistance of the left wing of the Democrat Party, which had shown itself in the streets of Chicago in 1968 to be as much in favor of Communist victory and American/South Vietnamese defeat as the Communists themselves.  They also received the assistance of the Democrat Party-dominated American news media, which continued to portray the war as lost or unwinnable, even in the face of the continuing defeat of every Communist military campaign for the next 5 years.

     Our first impulse is to assume that when our soldiers can walk across a battlefield stepping from the body of one dead enemy to another, as did Phillip of Macedon at Charonea, that is victory.  It is victory in a battle, true--and as Clausewitz observed, there can be no victory in war without fighting.  Whoever dreams of victory in war solely through manuever without the bloodshed of battle  simply does not understand what war is: it is a clash between men willing to kill in order to impose their will on their enemy; necessarily willing to risk being killed.