The Rivett Report 12.11.06

Posted by Joe Rivett on 12.11.2006

Why I think Rudy must win and will win, plus an African country you may have forgot about...

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to another edition of the Rivett Report where you will read what I feel are the most interesting news stories over the weekend.

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Somalia?

Here are some snippets from a report by Retired CIA officer Garret Jones…

I was there in 1993, running covert operations in Mogadishu for the CIA when the U.N. effort was wrecked. President George H.W. Bush had sent the Marines into Somalia to feed the starving children, and President Clinton was attempting to install a Jeffersonian democracy in a medieval culture. The Clinton theory was that the U.N. would use its peacemaking powers to force the Somali factions into a political accord, and then peace would break out.

Unfortunately, nobody told the Somalis. They viewed the U.N. and the U.S. as foreign invaders bent on Christianizing their Muslim culture while destroying the power of the clans and warlords. This dispute spawned a series of attacks that cumulated in the Battle of Mogadishu between the U.S. Task Force Ranger and Somali clan fighters, as portrayed in the film "Black Hawk Down." After losing 17 elite troops to an African mob in a single night, Clinton lost all stomach for further "nation building" involving U.S. casualties, and the U.N. effort collapsed. After that, the world largely went back to ignoring the Somalis.

Now the Somalis are poised to insist that the international community tune back in while they commit an auto-da-fe on CNN. Somali Islamists, modeling themselves on the Taliban, have taken control of most of the country, driving the warlords out of the cities and into the bush. The internationally recognized Somali interim government (an effort by neighboring countries to get the clans and factions to agree to some sort of consensus government with which the world can interact) is surrounded in the provincial city of Baidoa, about 160 miles northwest of the capital. When the roads are dry enough to allow military operations, the Islamists will swiftly overwhelm the interim government unless outside help arrives at the last minute.

Already, a team of Al Qaeda-style suicide bombers have blasted Baidoa. The Islamists make no bones about their plans to install a fundamentalist government and to begin "rescuing" their brethren in neighboring countries (read all of East Africa) from the oppressive rule of the Christian Crusaders. Somalia's neighbors are bracing for a regional war, and the U.S. State Department says 10 countries are taking sides in some fashion. Ethiopia, which has a restive Muslim south and a history of being a target for Somali brigandage whenever the Somalis pause in their intra-clan feuding, is sending troops to back up the interim government and oppose the Islamists.

It simply is not prudent to ignore what is going on in Somalia, but everyone agrees the last thing the U.S. wants now is to embark on another adventure in East Africa. The only practical option is to interest the Islamists in talking. Right now, they do not need to talk; they are getting everything they want on the battlefield. If they suffer a military setback, talk may look more appealing.

To improve the odds of such an Islamist setback, the U.S. should provide training and equipment to Somalia's neighbors. Frankly, the track record is poor; in the past, most military aid has been used to suppress domestic critics rather than fight foreign enemies. And it's certainly true that the one thing Africa does not need is more guns. But it looks like it's getting them anyway, according to a November U.N. report on weapons smuggling.

Reading Mr. Jones' thoughts about the Somalia situation are troubling. Clearly, Islamic Fundamentalists, (the enemy) are gaining control of the stateless country in an area where we don't give a damn about. This is another example of how Iraq has made policing other countries more difficult. This is also why the next president needs to be really competent in foreign policy unlike many past presidents.

Who Cares Rudy Isn't a Social Conservative

Richard Brookhiser of the National Review had this to say about Rudy's social conservative views…

Giuliani is down-the-line pro-abortion, including even partial-birth abortions. "I don't see my position on that changing," he said in 1999. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said in 2004. "I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time."

On the eve of this year's elections, Giuliani hailed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as model judges, "principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench." He called their appointments "signs of promises kept."

Then, too, social conservatives already know where Giuliani is coming from, and many of them seem to support him nonetheless. The idea that Giuliani's strong poll numbers will blow away once people learn his whole record is probably a fantasy. He's been on the national stage for 13 years, and what people don't know, they can infer from his incorrigible New York-ness.

Even though Giuliani is pro abortion and pro gay, I believe social conservatives will support him so long as he nominates conservative judges. You can be for abortion but want conservative/non-activist judges. In fact many conservatives are that way. For instance, the very red state of South Dakota voted to allow women the right to have an abortion but also probably supported Bush's judicial nominations that may make that right no longer exist.

You see, conservatives know that the country is in trouble and they will come to the conclusion that only Rudy can save it. Brookhiser writes:

Rudy Giuliani saved a city with a larger population than Arizona, Massachusetts or Virginia - the states of John McCain, Mitt Romney and George Allen. He helped city and country take a harder blow than Pearl Harbor. These are two serious public achievements, which are two more than anyone else in the 2008 race, Republican or Democrat, can show.

Believe it or not, Conservatives argue a lot and diverge on views. However, there are two things Conservatives universally agree on: the importance of the government keeping us safe and low taxes. Rudy has those two qualities and that is why he will be president in 2008.

The Best Damn 411 Column This Week

Since everyone else pimps, I try to refrain but I think people should read Josh's column criticizing Dennis Prager. It was excellent because he avoided personal attacks and attacked the substance of Prager's argument that a man who is Muslim should swear on a Christian Bible?

Yet Another New Feature

Instead of pimping columns on 411, instead I will be commenting on other people's column topics.

First, on Crow's spending more than we make:

I spend more than I make. There is nothing wrong with this. I take out student loans so that I can pay for a college that I cannot afford on my own. My hope is that this decision will make me more money than if I didn't do this. I recently bought a house. Again, I can't afford one normally so I took out a loan. My goal is that I can save more money by selling my house in five years than if I just paid rent. Don't worry Crow, saving is for sissies. You'll thank me for this advice when you die at forty.

Next, is Dan Martin's column on the free-market:

There is one thing that scares me about Dan's column and it is: "I am a believer that the free market is wonderful at producing things, but not always good at distributing what it produces. I would submit the 2.4 billion of earth's population that live on less than $2 a day as my evidence."

I'm sorry, but I fear the day when the rest of the world lives like "us". Does the world have enough resources to sustain us ending global poverty? We have already witnessed China's energy use causing a major drop in oil supplies. What if everyone made 30,000 a year on the planet? I think all hell would break loose.

But, I thought the end of Dan's column was right on.

"Finally, I think savings bonds could have been issued to fund Home Land Security or rebuilding the Gulf Coast. As Easley pointed out, the profit motive is a key component for many when it comes to addressing social ills. If the bonds had a modest rate of return that was slightly higher than inflation, I think many U.S. citizens would have bought them in order to help defend the nation after 9/11 or to rebuild hurricane ravaged areas. Heck, I think the U.S. government could issue bonds for moving beyond oil dependence. I am open to heterodox approaches to the issues of our day."

Although I am not big on ending global poverty, I wish I could do more to help my country without spending a lot of time. I just wish Bush would ask us to do something. Is sticking a magnet that says you support the troops really going to solve our problems? Why not have bonds for moving beyond oil dependence?

That is all for this week. Look for the Individualist to argue for reparations even he opposes affirmative action and racial tinkering.

Bye!