All posts by Rand Simberg

General

History Trivia

By my count, we now have four living ex-Presidents–Ford, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton. Before President Reagan’s demise today, we had five, and I believe that’s the most that we’ve ever had. It seems unlikely that we’d have ever had more than that in our nation’s history, given the lengths of terms and the ages at which presidents normally become president, but does anyone know for sure?

Of course, if one wanted to be macabre, one could start a pool on who will be the next to go, and if it will occur before the current president joins their ranks (which of course depends a lot on what happens in November…).

General

Requiescat In Pacem

Ronald Reagan has died, a day before the sixtieth anniversary of the Normandy landing. It looks like Andrew Lloyd’s sources were right a few days ago. Given this weekend’s somber remembrances, it might be appropriate to replay his D-Day speech from twenty years ago (though that would put a lot of pressure on President Bush to deliver a real humdinger tomorrow if it’s not to be overshadowed).

I never voted for him (I voted Libertarian), but he was one of the great presidents of the twentieth century, and I’m glad he won both times (and was at the time, considering the alternatives). The Soviet Union may have collapsed eventually, but there’s zero doubt in my mind that he accelerated the process, and broke us out of the failed policy of containment. He was a man of great vision, and in that, we haven’t had a president since, including the present one, that was his match.

Of course, in my mind he’s been dead for years, and it’s sad that we give so much reverence to the body and too little to the mind. I don’t know if he was suffering toward the end, but this has to be a sorrow tinctured with relief for his long-suffering family.

War Commentary

What Does Victory Look Like?

In comments to the previous post, Duncan Young writes:

The big difference is that in WWII the shape of victory was pretty damn clear – specific land was occupied, papers were publically signed, POW’s turned over etc etc.

I’ve never heard a non-handwaving description of what ‘winning’ looks like in the War on Terror. Which is a bit of a problem with applying the whole ‘war’ paradigm to this case.

That’s one of the problems with calling it a “War on Terror.”

If we call it by its right name, a war on radical Islamic fundamentalism, then the victory conditions become more clear, if not entirely politically correct.

It means a Middle East (and other places) in which governments don’t actively fund (or look the other way at) terrorist activities, in which imams in the mosques don’t preach hate and death to the Jews and other infidels every Friday evening, with either active government support or acquiescence, in which madrassas, if they exist at all, teach a modern and reformed version of Islam. It may also include a prosperous and free Arab world, though unfortunately it need not if those other conditions can occur without it.

That’s what victory looks like. How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate, but many opponents of the war and the administration don’t even seem to see that as a legitimate goal, let alone one to debate the means of getting there. The politically incorrect part is that it means committing “culturicide,” which is something that remains an anathema to the multi-culti cultists, to whom all is relative. And while it doesn’t require genocide, it may indeed require killing many more people than we might desire, because there are some minds that won’t be changed.

Certainly policies followed in the eighties and nineties (to which it sounds like Senator Kerry wants us to return) won’t get us there. Whether or not the current policy will remains to be seen, but it’s got a lot better prospects than prosecutions and diplomacy alone. There will be many more regime changes, by various means, before this war is over.

War Commentary

And Speaking Of WW II

Go read VDH today:

We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.

General

I Hope NORAD’s Been Notified

This is kind of cool. Via Jim Oberg, I’m informed that two Russian strategic bombers are going to fly from Russia over the north pole and land in Oregon.

1350 GMT — Russian strategic bomber to visit U.S. for first time

MOSCOW. June 4 (Interfax-AVN) – The Russian TU-95MS Bear strategic bomber will conduct a flight to the U.S. for the fist time, Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky,head of the Air Force press- service,told Interfax-Military News Agency on Friday. According to him,the strategic bomber’s flight is timed to the 100th birthday of famous Russian test pilot Valery Chkalov to be celebrated on June 15-21.

“The ferry flight will be conducted along Chkalov’s route from Russia to the U.S. via the North Pole,” Drobyshevsky said. He also noted that the TU-95MS would be refueled in the air over the Arctic Ocean outside the Novaya Zemlya archipelago by the IL-78 Midas tanker.

The TU-95MS is to fly from the Russian Air Force base in Engels to Portland, while the IL-78 from Anadyr airbase to Portland. The IL-78 will carry a delegation of Russian Air Force officials and various equipment for the bomber. “It will be the first time Russian aircraft of this type visit the U.S.,” he emphasized.