October 28, 2004

BUT NO ONE ON THE FACULTY OPPOSED SADDAM...:

Trailer trash: fightin' mad, want Dubya: One particularly overlooked group will keep the White House Republican next week (Peter Hartcher, 10/29/04, Sydney Morning Herald)

The first point to make is that while John Kerry has sought to fight much of the election campaign on the economy, it is not the dominant issue. There is something else preoccupying the American mind: "Nobody asked Abraham Lincoln what the unemployment rate was in 1864, as the Union forces marched to victory in the Civil War," quips Walter Russell Mead, one of America's foremost analysts of foreign policy.

The dominant theme of this presidential election, the first since September 11, 2001, is national security. The No. 1 issue of importance to voters is the Iraq war, according to Gallup, and the No. 2 issue is the threat of terrorism. So the two top issues in the minds of the American voter are both national security matters, and here we begin to unravel the mystery of Bush's political resilience.

When the US is at war, there is a powerful group of Americans, overlooked in American politics most of the time, whose feelings are stirred, whose resolve is stiffened, and whose intensity forces itself to the centre of national political life.

It's a group that constitutes the hardy core of the American folk, and it was introduced by the novelist and ex-Marine James Webb in these terms: "This people gave our country great things, including its most definitive culture. It is imbued with a unique and unforgiving code of personal honour less ritualised but every bit as powerful as the samurai code."

"This people", wrote Webb to his fellow Americans, "are all around you, even though you probably don't know it". They are the Scots-Irish. They arrived in America in the 18th century in small boats to find existing English settlements, and so pushed on inland to occupy the harsh mountain wilderness along the Appalachians. They fought the Indians, then they fought the British. From the beginning, they formed the core of the American fighting forces.

In his new book, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, Webb explains that the heavily Scots-Irish people of West Virginia, who make up only 0.6 per cent of the national population, ranked first, second or third in military casualty rates in every US war of the 20th century.

They reshaped American politics by taking hegemony from the aristocratic English-Americans and starting the populist movement.

And, surveying an ancestral Virginia graveyard, Webb, a former senior official in the Reagan Pentagon, writes that they are his people: "The slurs stick to me, standing on these graves. Rednecks. Trailer-park trash. Racists. Cannon fodder. My ancestors. My people. Me."

The first president to emerge from the backwoods ferment of America's Scots-Irish was Andrew Jackson, 1829-37, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans and the man who brutally purged the native tribes of America from their east coast homes and forced them westward.

His contemporaries described him as fighting mad. His people, he said, were the "farmers, mechanics and labourers". And it's in his honour that Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations has named the strong populist strand in American attitudes to war Jacksonianism.


Our Jacksonianism is why the Left dropped Abu Ghraib as an issue and why they're making a mistake in thinking that publicizing the WMD at al-Qaqa will help the isolationists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 28, 2004 11:05 AM
Comments

Technically, not WMD.

But the terms used in the press for the explosives are very reminiscent of the types of very high energy explosives used to initiate the detonation of a nuclear weapon.

While having lots of bang, the bang:buck ratio isn't nearly as high as more convetional explosives.

If my memory serves, the question is: What possible use would these explosives have to the Iraqis?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 11:44 AM

What possible use would these explosives have to the Iraqis?

Don't overlook the possibility that a megalomaniac like Saddam collected weapon systems the way some people collect bowling balls, Happy Meal toys or Beanie Babies.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 28, 2004 12:49 PM

Guess I'm missing something. What is it exactly that makes a half-million tons of conventional explosive not WMD? By the back of my envelope that's about 30 Hiroshima-sized nukes.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 28, 2004 12:54 PM

"Technically, not WMD."

This morning the Democrat in the household said these exact words to me, re: missing explosives, "380 tons of high explosives? It sounds like WMDs to me."

Boomerang!

Posted by: H.D. Miller at October 28, 2004 1:46 PM

Jeff is exactly right - these explosives are more powerful than TNT, but not greatly so (150% - 200% compared to TNT). Their main utility for nuclear weapons is that they are insensitive, and can be machined and formed in relative safety. They also won't detonate every time some airman stubs his toe on the aircraft loading platform.

Note the casual reader of the NY Times is invited to make the inference that having some realtion to nuclear weapons, RDX is a very high explosive and somehow tres deadly.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 28, 2004 2:10 PM

The other advantage of these expolsives is they are called out in the standard designs, stolen by Stalin, passed to Mao then Kim and surrendered to us by Kadaffi. By purchasing the standard plans a WMD novice can avoid real needing real experts. If you stick to the specifications, which are detailed down to locktite grades for various screws,any nation can build one.

Posted by: Ripper at October 28, 2004 8:29 PM
« SMART FOUNDERS: | Main | WWJFKVF? »