Dave Thompson is a Twin Cities-based lawyer and radio show host on KSTP AM1500*. Those of you who have listened to his show know he's a smart and articulate observer of politics and culture. I'm happy to report that he's been gracious enough to agree to occasionally post his commentary on Fraters Libertas. So please join me in welcoming Dave aboard.

His article today "The Legacy of a Tyrant" is a cogent historical comparison of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to ambitious totalitarian regimes of the past and the results of US action and inaction:

The Legacy of a Tyrant by Dave Thompson

I have to this point resisted the temptation to compare the Iraq showdown with other moments in history that served as a test of the free world's will and ability to stand up to a monstrous regime. It just does not seem as though Saddam Hussein has had, or ever will have, the effect on this world of Pol Pot or Fidel Castro, let alone Hitler, Lenin or Stalin. After all, Pol Pot killed up to 2 million innocent People. Castro has maintained his iron-fisted rule over Cuba for more than forty years and is the sole Communist influence in the West. Hitler and Stalin killed millions and seriously challenged democracy on the entire European continent. Surely Saddam Hussein does not measure up.

However, it is arguable that the legacy of a tyrant should not be judged by the size of the land mass he rules, his success in spreading his form of government, or perhaps even the number of dead and tortured left in his brutal wake. Rather, the tyrant's legacy should be measured by the way in which the rest of the world stands up and reacts to the challenge. So, from this we can draw two conclusions: first, we cannot draw any conclusions about a tyrant's legacy until he is out of power; and second, the tyrant does not determine his own legacy.

I am reading the recent work by Mona Charen entitled Useful Idiots, How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First. In the first few chapters of the book, Ms. Charen chronicles the atrocities brought about by various Communist tyrants. She then provides ample evidence, including quotes, to demonstrate the degree to which the American left (and the European left for that matter) cannot find it within themselves to condemn any tyrant who does his dirty work in the name of socialism or Communism. Fortunately there seems to have been, at each critical point in history, men that have overcome opinion polls, political demonstrations and ridicule from the left. They have done the right thing, and we have them to thank for the fact that freedom is valued around the globe, rather than taking its place as an Orwellian memory erased from the history books. However, there are a few horrible chapters in history that are the result of the world?s failure to stop the torture and death brought to a nation or a group of people by a tyrant. Let's take a look at the contrast.

Joseph Stalin rose to power in the U.S.S.R. in 1929. For 24 years, he enforced the "Stalinist system" which resulted the in the torture and death of millions. It became clear to all rational observers that Communism does not coexist with freedom and human dignity. Nevertheless, many held out hope for a different U.S.S.R. when Nikita Khrushchev took the reigns. Although Khrushchev did not repeat the unimaginable atrocities committed by Stalin, he persecuted the religious and made it clear that the mission of Communism was to spread its influence throughout the world. Numerous Communist leaders, each just a bit more or less dictatorial than the other, followed Khrushchev. By the 1980?s, America had become accustomed to Communist leadership in Soviet Russia. Many on the political left were convinced that any evils brought to the world by Communism were at least equaled by the evils of capitalism and Western imperialism. Fortunately, at least one man in a position to do something about Soviet Russia disagreed.

President Ronald Reagan didn't accept the alleged "reforms" brought about under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev. Thanks to his understanding of the nature of the regime and the will to take it on, the "wall" came down and the seven-decade dominance of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia and East Germany came to an end. We have since learned of the horrors that took place in the U.S.S.R. Now everyone wants to carry the mantra of cold warrior. The world passed the test put to it by Soviet Russia, albeit a bit late. The Soviet tyrants have no legacy. Everything they worked for has been taken apart literally, and symbolically with every brick that came out of the Berlin Wall.

The story of Pol Pot doesn't have such a happy ending. I can still remember as a young boy watching the last helicopters coming out of Viet Nam. America had been demoralized, if not defeated, by North Viet Nam. Casualties, war protests in America, and European criticism had combined to steal America?s resolve. The job of quashing the Communist influence in Southeast Asia had not been finished. In 1975, Pol Pot came to power in Cambodia, a Southeast Asian nation with a population of approximately 10 million. By 1978, Pol Pot and his Communist Khmer Rouge had killed somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million people. The world, including America, allowed this to go on for nearly four years. The United States could have squashed Pol Pot and his thugs like a grape, but we gave in to the political left and looked the other way in the face of unspeakable acts against the people of that region.

With Soviet Russia we had the will, but no way until the 1980s. With Cambodia we had no will. Peace eventually came to Cambodia and much of the region due to the inability of the combatants to absorb any more punishment. What is Pol Pot's legacy? He pretty much accomplished what he set out to do. There is arguably a modicum of democracy in the region, but it is highly unstable and the ruling government is not exactly a proponent of Western style democracy or freedom. Pol Pot continued his influence in the region until his death in 1998.

The U.S., as leader of the free world, is now faced with Saddam Hussein. He is not a Communist, but operates just like one. He rules by fear, doesn't allow dissent, kills his own people, and wants to spread influence throughout the region. All of the arguments for taking him out and for appeasing him are identical to the arguments that were made for and against every major tyrant of the 20th Century. If allowed to remain in power, Saddam will continue the repression of his people and threaten other nations within and beyond the Middle East. He will prove that tyrants can survive, and that the free world will not put an end to a hostile regime. On the other hand, if the United States eliminates his ability to threaten the world and repress his people, the momentum toward democratization of the world will continue. To this point, Saddam has been allowed to control his own destiny. But someday his reign will come to an end, either by force or by force of nature. He will either be remembered as the barbarian that was the last great tyrant of Iraq, or as the man who stood up to the world and won. Which will be his legacy? Only we can determine that.

* The Dave Thomspon Show can be heard on KSTP-AM (1500) every Saturday and Sunday from noon to 3PM.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Chad--Link

Do the French Have a Word for Insouciance?

Have you ever had the experience of reading a Laura Billings column, coming across a sentence fragment which wasn?t even relevant to the column?s main thrust, yet was so maddening, misleading, and purposely vague that you dedicated the rest of your life to to disproving it and thus exposing her journalistic failures? Slowly picking away at the threads of her complex web of deceit until it all unravels! Exposing a stinking clump of lies, so foul, so heinous, that not even the editors of the Pioneer Press could stand to breathe the fetid air belching out from her cubicle any longer!!! (Preceding sentences to be read using a Newman-esque tone of indignant outrage).

You haven?t? Well then I haven?t either. But ... I have been investigating the accuracy of a sentence fragment she included in a column last week. To quote:

in the year since we "liberated" that country (Afghanistan), child malnutrition has nearly doubled.

Last week I posted a rebuttal to her implication that the US did more harm than good in the overthrow of the Taliban regime. But I also wanted to run down the statistic itself. First, to see if it was accurately cited by Billings and second, to verify the organization originating the statistic was credible and that their methodology was valid.

I?m going to do you a favor by making a long and dreadfully dull story slightly less so by not going into the details. Or do you like painstaking descriptions of unproductive Google search string variations on ?malnutrition? and ?Afghanistan?? If you do, let me know as I?ve got the long winded account residing on my hard drive, awaiting future media historians, my personal biographers, or perhaps future members of my psychiatric team.

In summation, the research study producing this statistic does not exist anywhere on the Internet, at least in English. (If your Google skills are superior to mine and you can find it, let me know). The study was referenced in a picture caption in a New York Times Week in Review (link no longer available) which Ms. Billings cited to me in an e-mail as a source for the information. And it was referenced on a blog called Bloggy (which I found on my own, and which includes a remarkably similar commentary on the data as Billings provided, right down to the use of scare quotes around the word ?liberate?). But that?s it.

I?m not sure why the alleged sponsoring organization, Action Contre de la Faim, wouldn?t have a press release available (in English) on their Web site. Or why they don?t distribute the study anywhere on the Internet. Perhaps their French sensibilities dictate they use carrier pigeon or singing telegram or a Pony Express-like intercontinental cancan line to communicate the results to the media. Since I?m not on their distribution route, I only have a few flimsy shreds of information to judge the accuracy of the statistic. But judge I must and thus far I conclude the following:

1) According to the New York Times citation, the statistic references malnutrition in Kabul only, not all of Afghanistan as Billings stated.

2) The reported increase was from 6% to 11%. While this is indeed ?almost doubling?, the overall scope is still relatively small. Stating ?almost double? without context misleads the reader into making catastrophically high projections. Even if the data is correct, it?s an icrease of 5 percentage points.

3) According to the Bloggy reference (which sounds way too chipper for this subject matter), the main cause of this alleged increase in malnutrition was an influx of refugees. Approximately 1 million Afghanis, returning to their country from abroad. Meaning that the removal of the Taliban regime and the creation of an American sponsored government has convinced these individuals the conditions in their country may be tolerable again (which I think is incontrovertible evidence of ?liberation?).

4) The sponsoring organization for the stat was French. A nation whose primary ethnic characteristic is lying to further their own interests.

But if their Frenchness alone isn?t enough to ruin their credibility in your judgment, check out this article from World Corporal Punishment Research (whose swim suit issue comes out next week, by the way). This is from April of 1997, which was prime time for the pre-?liberation? Taliban way of doing things:

Afghan charity workers receive lashing, set free

KABUL (Reuters) -- Five local employees of a Paris-based aid organization have been released by the purist Taleban after receiving lashings yesterday for being in the same compound as unveiled Afghan women.

"The five men were released today after receiving a symbolic lashing on their backs and legs", Jean-Fabrice Pietri, the director of Action Contre la Faim's (Action Against Hunger) Afghan program, said yesterday.

The five Afghans, with two Frenchmen, were arrested on Feb. 21 after a lunch given by the charity's female expatriates for their Afghan female employees. The seven men were tried and found guilty on March 21 of crimes associated with being in the same compound as unveiled Afghan women.

The two Frenchmen, Jose Daniel Llorente and Frederic Michel, were sentenced to a month in prison -- which they were deemed to have already served -- and to deportation. The five local staff were sentenced to one and a half months in prison and between 9 and 29 lashes.

Since the Taleban took Kabul last September, they have decreed that women should wear an all-enveloping, shroud-like veil when in the public and in the presence of men who are not family members. Pietri said that although he believed the men were innocent, he thought the way that the judge had administered the punishment showed leniency.

"On principle, we are not satisfied because we believe that these men are innocent, but the way they applied the punishment was not so bad," he said. "The cook's 29 lashes were over in 29 seconds, and the men were allowed to keep their clothes on. They were all wearing three pullovers. The whipping happened outside in the court compound, with probably 30 people looking on. The whip was a flexible piece of thick leather about 60 centimetres long and 6 centimetres wide," he said.

Classic French appeasement-speak. Their employees are imprisoned for a month and lashed repeatedly with a leather strap, all for the crime of being in the presence of unveiled women at a ?thank you? luncheon, and the director of Action Contre la Faim calls the punishment merely symbolic , lenient, and ?not so bad?. Then years later they allow the US to be portrayed as the villain in this drama.

And how about Laura Billings? The brutal, fascist, anti-woman Taliban government is removed, the Afghanis flood back into their country, causing what could be a temporary increase in malnutrition, and she uses this as an opportunity to condemn the US, the true liberators of Afghanistan, instead of those who created the refugee crisis in the first place.

Until now I didn?t realize Billings was a French word. I think it means sophistry. (Or does sophistry mean sophistry in French? I wouldn?t know, given the option to take French in high school, I took woodshop instead.)


Posted by Saint Paul--Link