The Bosque Boys

Anybody but me ever wonder how much the nature of the Islamic world is shaped by the fact that for most of the cultures in it, the ideal marriage partner is a first cousin? Think about it. For century after century they have been marrying first cousins.

Our friend Toqueville has made his prediction already on the ruling, and on its political fallout here. The Newark-Star Ledger here provides a bit of background plus a link to the NJ Supreme Court website where the decision will be posted.

Update: the link provided by the Star-Ledger does not seem to work. Here is the website. As of 3:37pm Eastern Time I have not found a ruling.

Wizbang today has this post on changing Iraq strategy. I think it well worth reading. A portion below, read the whole thing.

As I understand it, there are three levels of planning in the military: objectives, strategies, and tactics. Objectives describe what we wish to do. Strategies describe how we will do that. And tactics are what we will do.

In Iraq, as I think it goes, the objective was to remove the Baathist government from power, help the Iraqi people establish a new, freer government, and work to make sure that new government was not the threat to its neighbors and vital US interests that Saddam had been.

The strategy was to invade Iraq, defeat and disband the military, and then establish a new civil and military structure that could maintain its own security without threatening others'.

The tactics involve careful use of airpower and ground power against select locales, groups, and individuals; establishment of civilian institutions and governing bodies; national elections; and rebuilding of key elements of Iraq's infrastructure.

There is an old saying that no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, and it is true. It is true in a way that almost never translates into non-military matters, because only in actual warfare is there a real enemy determined to foil your plans, to the point of being more than willing to destroy, kill, or die in the attempt.

Guest Blog Flash

This just in from Bosque Boys friend, "Tocqueville."

New Jersey marriage decision tomorrow:
So says the state supreme court's media notices page. Expect a decision at 3 p.m. Eastern.

Prediction: New Jersey's Supreme Court will "discover" that the state's constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage.

The deicision will send shockwaves across the country and influence the outcome of various elections in favor of the Republicans.

Tocqueville

Two well-reasoned articles released tonight:

Dick Morris & Eileen McGann from the New York Post see the election shifting back to a "toss-up" with the GOP gaining Big Mo:

"The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate."

Read article in full here.

And Cait Murphy (Fortune assistant managing editor via CNNMoney.com) explains "Why the Republicans need to lose" this election:

"Power may be corrupting, but it is also addictive. That's why no party likes to lose an election. But the truth is that sometimes a loss is just what is needed to regain a sense of purpose and energy. And that's why the Republicans need to lose in November."

Read article in full here:

Note: Dick Morris is the worst historian I know. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him in terms of his recollections or analysis in re the Clintons. But he is one of the sharpest political minds in the country. If he says the GOP is on the upswing, he is very likely right. And it makes sense. What goes down often comes up. The Dems probably peeked too early.

On the other hand, the Murphy article makes the point that I have been hammering for weeks (months) that the Republicans need to lose for a number of reasons--most importantly, for the health of the Republican Party.

I concur with both of these analysis pieces.

One more thing: damn the torpedoes (and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary); I am sticking with my picks on Talent and DeWine. Mainly, because we will need those guys in the years to come. I predict an attack of good sense will overwhelm the voters of Ohio and Missouri just in the nick of time.

The Kansas City Star reported today that McCaskill (D) has a slim 46 to 43 % lead over Talent (R). These numbers represent a slight shift in favor of McCaskill. The Star reporters explain the movement thus:

Many see the war becoming the fulcrum upon which elections across the country could turn. Missouri voters now cite Iraq as the campaign’s No. 1 issue, with 22 percent saying it will be the most important factor in determining their vote. . . . . .
Likely voters may be reacting more to increasingly bad news from Iraq than they are to Talent’s sharp attacks on McCaskill’s family finances and handling of her job as Jackson County prosecutor and state auditor. If she has had success in making the campaign a referendum on the White House, she’s been helped by recent developments in Iraq, such as commanders in Baghdad saying attempts to quell violence there have failed. U.S. casualties increased, with October the deadliest month in two years. Read the article.

Two thoughts: 1. the enemy in Iraq knows the power, and weakness, of the American media--its power to transmit images and its weakness for blood; expect things in Iraq to be bad through election day as the enemy tries to Tet the election. (for those of you too young to remember, the Tet offensive in Vietnam was reported as a major defeat for the US and helped sour public opinion on that war, in reality it was a major defeat for communist forces); 2. I fear a close election in Missouri--St. Louis, a bastion of Democrat strength, has a long and shameful history of voting "irregularities". I do fear a stolen election if the voting is close.

How well do you know the beliefs of celebrities? Take this quiz from the Dallas Morning News.

Great essay, as usual, by Victor Davis Hansen here. Hat tip Instapundit.

It is difficult in history to find any civilization that asks as much of others as does the contemporary Middle East—and yet so little of itself. If I were to sum up the collective mentality of the current Arab Middle East—predicated almost entirely on the patriarchal sense of lost “honor” and the rational calculation to murder appeasing liberals and appease murdering authoritarians— it would run something like the following: Read the whole thing.

Last week at our home football game here in Apache, Oklahoma, we had a different sort of halftime performance. A Comanche elder, with some help to steady him, made his way to the announcer's booth at the top of the bleachers. In the middle of the field on the 50 yard-line, an Indian dancer in full feather regalia and face-paint stood. "We now will honor our brave soldiers," was announced. The dancer pushed a stake into the ground to which he was tethered by a 10-12 foot rawhide strip. A CD was played with Native music (in the Northern drum style), a song for the warrior. He then began to dance, round and round the stake, acknowledging "heaven" at the beginning and the end of the dance by his motions. At the conclusion of the dance the announcer asked us to remember and to honor all of our "brave warriors" serving in Iraq and elsewhere.

I asked an older Kiowa man I know about the dance. He said that the stake and tether were the tradition of what whites called the "dog soldier," a tradition originating among the Cheyenne. Those warriors would stake themselves to the ground, tethered by rawhide, and fight from that spot. (I did not ask him, but I assume this tradition must go back to the time before horses reached the Indians, when fighting was done on foot.) They were not allowed to surrender. Nor could they retreat unless another warrior of their tribe pulled up their stake. My informant told me that after a battle between the Kiowa and the Cheyenne, the Cheyenne told the Kiowa that because of the bravery they had shown, the Cheyenne "gave" the Dog Soldier custom to the Kiowa. From then on the Kiowa had a warrior society of "Dog Soldiers", though in Kiowa the name was more like 'staked down' , if I recall correctly. (thoughts below)

» Read More

By now, everybody knows that the President officially abandoned the "stay the course" rhetoric today. Here is relevant statement excerpted from Tony Snow's press conference:

Q. Why?

"MR. SNOW: Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. The President is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure, and therefore, enhance the clarification -- or the greater precision."

More importantly, the policy itself is in flux. James Baker is in the mix, thinking outside the box. Maybe we will bring in Iraq and Syria for multilateral negotiations to end hostilities. Maybe we will overthrow Maliki and install a US-friendly strongman. Yes. Everything old is new again. The neo-cons are out on their collective ear.

Two thoughts pop into my mind: Either 1) the Bush administration finally realized they made a huge strategic mistake, compounded by three-and-one-half years of smaller but equally disastrous tactical mistakes; or 2) the internal polling finally got the better of the political side of the White House and they panicked and went into full retreat. The former is admirable and pathetic at the same time. The latter is mostly pathetic and despicable. Either way, it is poor politics.

How can you tell the American people, two weeks before an election, after almost four years of confident rhetoric, that everything you said was wrong? The other guys were right. Sorry.

Here is the problem with changing your rhetoric at this moment: it confirms what your opponents already believed. It confirms for undecideds that your opponents were right. It demoralizes your supporters.

Of course, the bad news is that the White House is right. Things are dreadfully wrong in Iraq. And I applaud an honest discussion on how to resolve the dilemma in a reasonable way. Can we fix this mess? Probably. But we are going to have to depend on graciousness and charity from the opposition party, which is about to be a much more potent political entity.

It is in the interest of all parties to find a way out of this treacherous foreign policy valley. Much more than domestic political dominance is at stake. Our future is in the balance. As a policy, Iraq can still prove a positive step for the United States, but success will require, as Joe Biden eloquently proclaimed on Fox News Sunday, "a political solution in Iraq and a bipartisan solution here at home."

I pray that Biden lives up to his declaration. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. We are in dire need of statesman willing to give up political advantage, possibly even sacrificing career aspirations, in order to serve American interests.

My hope: we love America more than we love our pride and our parties.