The Little Red Hen

One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.

"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat ?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.

"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat ?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I." said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh this wheat ?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen.' And she did.
When the wheat was all threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who'll take this wheat to the mill?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said,
"Who will make this flour into bread ?"

"Not I," said the, Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread ?"

"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.

"No, no!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.


This presentation was made possible by fairytales4u.com. Thanks also to NYTimes.com for the story that provided the inspiration for this piece.

Spring Training Stats

The Red Sox have just a few days left in Florida before breaking camp. Some people have been making a strong case for their inclusion on the team. Others less so. Interestingly, those whose roles are yet undefined have had the most atbats. Kevin Millar leads the team with 49.

Making their case
David Ortiz - .705 slugging, 10 doubles, 3 singles
Julio Zuleta - .367 average, .533 slugging, 10 RBI
Kevin Millar - .612 slugging, .306 average
Todd Walker - .370 average, 2 sacrifices

Not quite
Damien Jackson - .235 average, 4 steals
Lou Merloni - .200 average, .467 slugging
Doug Mirabelli - .194 average, 1 double, 1 triple, 1 homer
Adrian Brown - .205 average, 3 steals, 2 caught stealing
Jeremy Giambi - .190 average, 2 HR, 3 RBI
Bill Mueller - .167 average, 7 total bases

And in case you were wondering...
Manny - .553 average, 1.105 slugging, 42 total bases, 13 RBI
Nomar - .366 average, .707 slugging
Shea - .500 average, .795 slugging, 35 total bases

Republicans for Sharpton

DJN's comment on the "Truman" post made me think... since there will be precious little to vote for in the Massachusetts Republican presidential primary, and since they don't check party affiliation when you vote, the (small) Massachusetts GOP should come out united in our support of the Reverend Al.

Not that we're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the Democratic primary, we just think that Sharpton is really, really funny. If we can't have our guy in the White House for the next four years, at least we can have someone who will make us laugh!

Guest Column: DJN

Instant Replay has invited readers to submit guest columns. Frequent commenter DJN has obliged, and IR is pleased to post this in its full and unadulterated glory. This was written in response to the post "50 Million Frenchman Can't Be Wrong"

The US entering a "period of isolation"? "Rumsfeld Doctrine"? Eagerness to show off our new weapons? Ah, Salim, what happened to your conservative leanings? We must do something about your Peace Corps indoctrination :)

Before we bemoan our fallen state in international popularity, one might ask first why France, Germany and Russia have gone against the US in its war to topple Saddam.

France sold Iraq its first two reactors around 1980; shortly before completing the transaction, they required the Iraqis scientists to give an explanation for how they planned to use their new reactors. When the Iraqis failed to provide a convincing answer, the French merely doubled the price tag. And when Israeli agents sabotaged of the reactors, at a time when Iraq was weeks away from creating its first nuclear bomb, the Franch condemned the action and quickly set about repairing Saddam's nuclear program.

Germany was similarly responsible for a number of arms shipments to Iraq in the 80s, and is also the primary country responsible for providing Iraq with its chemical and bio weapons facilities. (An American company nearly participated, but smelled a rat and backed away from the sale.)

And, if you check the news from last week, Russian companies have recently been implicated in ongoing arms shipments to the Iraqi government, including anti-tank missiles, night vision goggles and high-tech radar jamming equipment. President Bush has recently charged Putin to stop these shipments... Russia is certainly as interested in Iraq's business (and afraid of losing illicit business) as American companies are interested in Iraq's oil.

So it is questionable whether the dissent voiced by these nations can be taken as legitimate, or whether they actually have ulterior motives. As I think David has mentioned before, this war may mark a shift in international sway away from Europe and the obselete Security Council. Certainly from France (which is no longer the country of importance that it was at the end of WW2). Regardless of what those against war have said, Bush has arguably done his homework on this war. The language in 1441 is clear enough in authorizing action against Iraq, and we have rallied to the cause a coalition of at least 43 other countries. And where WMDs, tyrants and terrorism share a common link in one country, any argument against pre-emption is a weak one after 2001.

China's decision not to support the US may stem more from their desire for autonomy than from anything else; they don't stand to lose much from the regime change. And China is going to be an important country to court in the 21st century, more important than Germany and perhaps even more so than Russia.

If I interpret you correctly though, you're certainly right about this - that how America is perceived from this will have a lot more to do with what happens after the war than during it. And keeping a low profile afterwards woudn't be a bad idea. I thought it was interesting that the army decided not to fly American flags on their tanks going in this time. That sort of attitude will be a good start.

Truman

I officially received word today that I did not receive a Truman Scholarship, after a long and arduous application process. I still have the prestige of being a Finalist, but no cash, which was the real prize. I'll be interested to see which of the Massachusettsans I competed against won.

The (dubious) upside: I now have a letter signed by Madeleine Albright.

If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud.

For unadulterated hilarity, at the expense of www.ready.gov, check out the interpretations of a number of terrorism-preparedness renderings. Via Girls Suck.

50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong

My hero in journalism, Thomas Friedman, is reporting from the Western Front. He reports that France, if not Iraq, is shocked and awed. Maybe it's just my love for all things Friedman, but I think his op-ed piece touches a very deep chord in the transatlantic relationship that has made the U.S. and France allies since 1778.

For now, though, Europeans are too stunned by this massive exercise of unilateral U.S. power to think clearly what it's about. I can't quite put my finger on it, but people here seem to feel that a certain contract between America and the world has been broken. Which is why so much is riding, far beyond Iraq, on what the Bush team builds in Iraq.

The idea occurred to me today that this is precisely what Rumsfeld et al intended. It's become clear by now that this geopolitical strategy - preemption, unilateralism - has been a decade in the making, spearheaded by the likes of Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. This war was intended to have global, not just regional effects. And it is. The world is seeing not only the massive power of the U.S. - which spends just 4% of its GDP to have a military budget bigger than the rest of the world put together!

The shock and awe campaign displays two things prominently. The strength of the U.S. army and, more importantly, our willingness to use it. This may play well with Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. But it is definitely shocking and awing France, Russia, Germany and our other erstwhile allies. They now have ample reason to believe that the U.S. doesn't need them, and they know more than ever that they need us. That is rarely a good situation between allies, especially since the military imbalance is not reflected in economic, social or diplomatic arenas. The U.S. may be set up for a period of isolation and frustration like we have not experienced since before the Spanish-American War.

Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear that the Kim Jong Ils of the world have been unduly impressed. Other state sponsors of terrorism, who are less isolated than Iraq was, may have confidence that they will be able to rally a coalition against the U.S. (not militarily, but perhaps economically) that could thwart U.S. intentions, and put their regime in the good graces of the rest of the world by default. If Saddam had been slightly less odious, this would have been a much harder sell for the Rumsfeld crowd.

Instant Replay calls for a vote of no-confidence in the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Chime in.

OPLAN 1003 V

"The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord"
- Proverbs 16:1

The Washington Post had an excellent piece on its cover this morning, revealing new details about the changes in war plans leading up to the invasion.

Over the ensuing 14 months, in a series of what these sources described as seemingly endless, often excruciating two- to three-hour sessions in Rumsfeld's office and in secure video conference calls between the Pentagon and Franks's headquarters in Tampa, the Pentagon planners came up with more than 20 versions of the plan. In all, Bush received a dozen detailed briefings as it evolved.

Not only did the plan change frequently during the long term, but it was ultimately scrapped when intelligence came through that Saddam and his sons would be spending the night in the Dora Farm complex, and when Iraq fired a few missiles into Kuwait. So the U.S. military is thinking on its feet, but not without having taken great precautions.

Right on schedule Wednesday, U.S. Special Operations forces -- accompanied by smaller contingents of British and Australian special forces -- moved into Iraq. Two and a half hours later, Tenet walked into the White House, where he joined the president, Vice President Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Oval Office. He had fresh intelligence about Hussein's whereabouts. The war plan was about to change once again.

It's Working for Vladimir

My thanks to NYTimes.com for reporting on a new proposal aimed at ending the decade-long struggle in Chechnya. Russia has violently asserted her sovereignty in a war that began over three years ago, after failing to reattach the secesh province in a supremely unpopular war from 1994-96.

This proposal takes the form of a referendum on a provincial constitution that guarantees Russia sovereignty and generously defines the extent of Chechen self-rule. It's a well-timed measure, coming when Russia holds almost all the cards, having demonstrated in the Moscow theatre siege that they were willing to play hardball with Chechen secessionists even at the cost of a few Russian lives. Instant Replay throws its weight behind the referendum, and even more so behind reconstruction efforts which may follow, aimed at bringing Chechnya back into the Russian fold.

Something tells me that Ariel Sharon is watching this all closely. If he thinks he could make the same thing work, he would try it, given half a chance. The strategy is for the state to beat the secessionists so hard they beg for mercy, killing indiscriminately, forcing starvation and chaos on an unforeseen scale. Eventually, people can be broken and beaten. It's working for Vladimir, and it can work for you!

Salted Nuts

I agree with the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz on the nature of the reporting of Operation Iraq Freedom. Kurtz quotes a Harvard communications prof:

"I find it like salted nuts -- very tasty and almost empty of high-quality nourishment," said Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein press center. "We're seeing dramatic pictures of racing across the desert, but I don't think that tells me anything that is really important about what's going on. From the Pentagon's point of view, "it's been one magnificent recruitment video."

Nonetheless, I'm glad we have this type of coverage. Better for us to see the war somewhat as the soldiers do than only as the generals or - worse yet - the politicians do. It's a very educational experience for a generation unfamiliar with war. And yes, it's a great photo-op for the modern army.

Special Sing-a-Long with Saddam

And the song of the day is I've Seen Better Days by Citizen King.

One foot in the hole One foot gettin' deeper crank it to eleven Blow another speaker And I ain't got, I ain't got much to lose Cuz I've seen better days Been the star of many plays I've seen better days And the bottom drops out I've seen better days Been the star of many plays I've seen better days And the bottom drops out

Tune in every day for the Special Sing-a-long with Saddam!

Public Enemy Number One

Neither Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward, nor Dana Priest are public enemy number one. However, their concerted effort in tomorrow morning's Washington Post was published a few minutes ago online. The article is short and blunt for a concerted effort, but its claims are important. Basically, it says that U.S. intelligence has reason to believe that Saddam was in the bunker when it was hit.

"The preponderance of the evidence is he was there when the building blew up," said one senior U.S. official with access to sensitive intelligence. The official added that Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday, may also have been at the compound. "He didn't get out" beforehand, another senior official said of the Iraqi president. A third administration official said "there is evidence that he [Hussein] was at least injured" because of indications that medical attention was urgently summoned on his behalf.

Whether dead or alive, the Iraqi President has been extremely inactive during this first day of open war, as Anglosphere troops invade en masse. This bodes well, suggesting that he is either indeed dead or has lost his ability to communicate with many of the elements formerly under his command.

Instant Replay wishes Godspeed to Anglosphere forces inside Iraq. This war has but one logical conclusion, and I pray that it will be reached with the fewest possible casualties. It was gratifying to learn on ABC News 5 that a column of U.S. Marines declined to fire on a truckfull of Iraqi soldiers that appeared to pose no threat. Self-control is a virtue that will be of great value in Iraq's future. The difference in the attitudes of U.S. troops between this operation and Vietnam, where they were (at least portrayed as) nihilist and uninspired, says a lot about the professionalism of the modern American military.

Subtext: The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

As the U.S. seeks to keep Arab public opinion from turning violent, we've promised to see a Palestinian state into existence as part of our Grand Scheme for the Middle East or whatever they call it.

Our promises of fairness and peaceful intentions are belied by our actions. The BBC reports that the U.S. is offering $1,000,000,000 in military aid and $9,000,000,000 in loan guarantees to Israel as part of an economic package. In the last 30 months, Israel's economy (along with much of its moral and social fabric) has disintegrated in the face of the Palestinian uprising. In fact, the recession is very much a victory for Palestinians, who are forcing Israelis to suffer (as well as forcing their own people to suffer).

Ending the recession is a worthy cause, and Israel is an important U.S. ally thereby deserving of aid. However, this recession will not be ended by normal Keynesian means. At least some semblance of long-term structural security must be returned to the country before Israeli investors will have the confidence to put money back into their own economy.

This economic problem demands a political solution. The U.S. stands in a unique position to force a peace on two reluctant parties, but the American administration is basically unwilling to spend a dime of political capital to accomplish this, and the administration's pro-Palestinian rhetoric is not convincing anyone.

Invading Iraq

Instant Replay will not pretend to be your up-to-the-minute source for news on the developing invasion. I have been listening to WBZ Radio (a CBS affiliate) for the past five hours. A lot has happened today: the beginning of cruise missile strikes in Baghdad and Marine, 3rd Infantry, and British invasions of Iraq. Stay tuned!

T-4

God preserve us.

T-20

Has passed... war will soon be upon Iraq like the surf upon a spilt Italian ice...

Quelle une dommage, la France

David used the adjective "inane" to describe the French in a comment. Fareed Zakaria used the term "sclerotic" to describe Europe in general. Given the season the world is in, I think the time is right to stretch our vocabularies. I submit a few samples: adjectives that can preceed the words "French" or "France". Please add your own submissions, with definitions, as comments.

The inane French. (empty, insubstantial)
The sclerotic French. (pathologically hardened)
The impuissant French. (weak, powerless) (yes, I know it's of French origin)
The insipid French. (lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge, tasteless)
The obfuscatory French. (obscuring, confusing)
The objurgatory French. (quarrelsome, castigating)
The pertinacious French. (perversely persistent)
The pettish French. (fretful, peevish)
And of course the classic (usually applied to Albion), perfidious France.

A bientot...

Just Say "No" To Verbose Prostest Signs

This image doesn't seem to be working... click it for the full Newsweek article topped by the picture. The article is one I've been hearing about all day, published by Newsweek last week, entitled "The Arrogant Empire". It analyzes world public opinion versus world government support. In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning.

Author Fareed Zakaria goes on to look at support for American policy during the Cold War, the shock of seeing America in action post-9/11, the balance of power, FDR & Truman's magnanimity, and Bush's failure to follow their footsteps. Zakaria says it better than I can: [After 9/11] Bush announced an expansive, vague Wilsonian vision—which has merit—but his style and methods overshadowed its potential promise.

Indeed. Bush, like many conservatives, views content as supreme. Bill Clinton didn't give a tinker's cuss about content. Bill Clinton was a very, very popular man. Now, I agree that content is more important than style. Diplomacy, however, is an arena where style is content, since everything is done so subtly. Bush's careless pride in throwing around American power has none great harm to us as a nation.

The Bush administration could reasonably point out that it doesn’t get enough credit for reaching out to the rest of the world. President Bush has, after all, worked with the United Nations on Iraq, increased foreign aid by 50 percent, announced a $15 billion AIDS program and formally endorsed a Palestinian state. Yet none of these actions seems to earn him any good will. The reason for this is plain. In almost every case, the administration comes to multilateralism grudgingly, reluctantly, and with a transparent lack of sincerity. For a year now, President Bush has dismissed the notion that he should make any effort toward a Middle East peace process, even though it would have defused some of the anti-Americanism in the region as he sought to confront Iraq. Suddenly last week, to gain allies on Iraq and at the insistence of Tony Blair, Bush made a belated gesture toward the peace process. Is it surprising that people are not hailing this last-minute conversion?

A Man of Many Friends Comes to Ruin

To understand this entry, please read the comments on the entry from 3/11 labeled "Instant Replay Invades the Iraqi Question."

While I respect (some of) those who support war on Iraq, I only respect those who can give a reasonable political answer for their convictions. In response to David's comments, saying that being against a preemptive invasion of Iraq is "an avoid war at all costs mentality" is building a straw man. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I argue vigorously with pacifists, since sometimes options are really exhausted.

DJN's naivetee is unsettling. He writes, "A new Iraq will be great news for missionaries." That couldn't be farther from the truth. If Iraq conquered the U.S. and changed our regime, would anyone (even Democrats) be more likely to embrace Islam? With the American evangelical community as hawkish as ever, Christians in Iraq face the prospect of persecution from neighbors, and Christianity could be set back by decades in an already anti-Christian country. Christianity was first crushed in that part of the world when the predominantly Christian Roman Empire went to war against the Persian Empire. Persian Christians were persecuted and Christianity was looked at as an enemy religion. If Christians want to spread Christ's love, war should not be their tool of choice.

Ali Baba misunderstands the purpose of the United Nations. His domestic policy background seems to taint his view of diplomatic relations. Other countries are not in danger of dictating American foreign policy. The U.S., on the other hand, habitually dictates foreign policy to many states beholden to us for aid and support. As well we should. The world of international affairs is anything but equal, and the parity of states in the UN General Assembly is an important instrument of free speech, but not of global decision-making.

I have never argued that the U.S. should bow to the UN in all its policies. That said, the UN is an excellent forum for gauging world support. In Gulf War I, we were helped by most of the world, and Secretary of State James Baker did a tremendous job at rallying support. He didn't have to do that so that we could act, he did it so that we could act with the best possible results.

Instant Replay's position is that Iraq deserves to be disarmed, but that it is not America's problem only. If Saddam has WMD's, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and perhaps Europe are the ones who should be scared. As long as the U.S. has the possibility of war hanging over Saddam's head, we're safe. Once we start a war, we've got a target painted on our backs. Instant Replay's position is not about morality, it's about politics, and as I told David recently, Republicans need to give up being "right" for once and act in their own - and the country's - best interest.

Pop(ulist) Music

The Washington Post has a front-page story about a hit song sweeping the Arab world. Done by second-rate Arab pop musician Shaaban Abdel-Rahim, it's captured the mood. You can hear a clip of the song, plus commentary, or read the Post's story.

Instant Replay Invades the Iraqi Question

IR has come under tremendous pressure from U.N. inspectors to take a position on the United States' buildup in the Persian Gulf and the possibility of going to war against Saddam Hussein's corrupt regime in Baghdad.

Having taken a month and a half off from blogging has given me the clarity to address this firmly. I will attempt a linear argument, but I'm a bit pressed for time, so don't hold it against me that I can't make a comprehensive 12,000 page declaration.

Instant Replay believes that Saddam's regime is as corrupt, ungodly, and "evil" as government can be. The Iraqi people I know have no love of Saddam, and most Arabs think he's a little nuts. Saddam Hussein has earned his ouster, and he deserves anything anyone can throw at him. It's not a question of whether Saddam deserves to be keelhauled; it's a question of whether the United States - or anyone - should do it.

There are three arguments for disarming Iraq by force. One is humanitarian: war now will save lives in the long run. One is political: Iraq may be linked to al-Qaeda and is undoubtedly linked to Palestinian insurgents, on whom the U.S. and Israel are waging a war. The last is legal: Saddam has disregarded a long series of UN resolutions and has developed WMDs.

So Saddam deserves to be ousted, and there exist a few good reasons to oust him. IR believes that if the UN Security Council can agree to a course of action, that course should be followed. That may involve another six months of inspections, during the heat of the Iraqi summer. It also may involve another six years of circus, like the last six years. Either way, Saddam has put himself on the international agenda, and the world community has a responsibility to deal with him.

IR believes that the United States has tenuous legal grounds at best for entering the war. The U.S. does have moral footing of some sort, though. However, most importantly, the U.S. should not preempt the UN for political reasons.

The disastrous consequences of unilateral action will include a sharp split from our important allies - Europe, Russia, China, others - in the war on terror, increased terror against the U.S., and a loss of flexibility in dealing with the very real threat of North Korea.

By disregarding not only the UNSC but - more importantly - our allies, we are sacrificing post 9/11 favor for worldwide resentment. It's not that the Russians will become suicide bombers, it's that they won't tell us before some Uzbek does. In the post-Cold War world, we need allies more than we need victories. I don't know that Bush's people - all of whom are Cold Warriors who cut their teeth on Nixon and Reagan battles - understand that. Bush needs to listen to his Daddy, who was the #2 architect of the New World Order (Gorby was #1, imho), and ignore Samuel Huntington, author of "Clash of Civilizations."

The gains from conquering Iraq would be modest and mainly deterrent. However, I believe that the costs could be much higher. The U.S. will give ammunition to every Islamist pedagogue, their versions of Samuel Huntington, and the "Clash of Civilizations" will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of Bush's strongest hawks point to Israel as a country who really knows how to deal with terror: by cracking down hard. Has anyone noticed that Israel is the most fear-ridden, terror-stricken country in the developed world?? Following longstanding Israeli tactics of preemption and punitive aggression will only lead to an Israelization of America.

This argument brings us back to the starting point: the war on terror. While IR won't commit to this position, it would like to raise the question of the wisdom of waging such a war. Since one successful terrorist can win the entire "war" by slipping through and blowing something really important up, isn't this a war we can't win? Seizing assets and arresting militants by cooperating with other countries is great. But intervening militarily and punishing those who host terrorists - the same way we punished villages hiding Viet Cong guerrillas - may be "right", but it doesn't augur success.

Coming soon to a city near you...

Bantu refugees from Somalia! The Bantu are probably Africa's largest single racial grouping, accounting for much of eastern and southern Africa. In Somalia, the Bantus were imported as slaves two hundred years ago from down the coast, and have been a minority underclass ever since. A few thousand of them are being taught how to live in a modern world, preparing to be granted refugee status in the U.S.A. Some will come to Boston. Courtesy NYTimes.com

The boys are back in town!

I just came in on the 66 train from Washington, DC. Up till NYC my car was heavily stocked with Hampton University spring breakers - loud, loud, loud. I fell asleep somewhere in New Jersey, and dozed most of the rest of the way. I'm not very rested. But I'm in Boston, and that's as good as being rested. I have a practice Truman Scholarship interview in 2 hours, and the real McCoy in 2 days. Pray for me!