Our Weak Friends

As the United States prepares for another war against Iraq, it's high time to look at the military readiness of our closest allies. The view is not pretty. 

Since the end of World War II, no nation has fallen further than America's neighbor to the north. Canada has a proud military tradition: Its troops stormed Juno Beach at D-Day, and it maintained more than 300 ships in its navy and one of the world's largest armies well into the 1950s. But five decades of government neglect have destroyed a once mighty military. 

Although Canada's per capita GDP sits squarely in the middle of developed countries (about 80 percent of that of the U.S.), Canadian military spending stands at less than $265 per capita--the worst among major NATO members. (NATO countries average $589 per capita in annual military spending, while the U.S. spends a little over $1,000.) Today, the Canadian navy has only 34 ships, and just 12 of them can keep pace with an American battle group. Canada has no strategic airlift capacity, and so must disassemble and reassemble tanks and helicopters when they need to be sent overseas. Canada even relies on American help to move troops around to cope with its own domestic emergencies like floods and ice storms. Our northern neighbor also has no space command, and has declined offers to participate in America's missile defense plans, a cagey, if cheap, move: Almost all Canadian population centers lie within 150 miles of the U.S. border, so American missile defense will protect Canada anyway.

Worse yet, Canada has essentially stopped air and sea patrols around its coastline, the world's longest. Smugglers already run rampant, and terrorists can't be stopped either. "We have sovereignty over the arctic areas only by the grace of other nations," says Rob Anders, a member of Parliament who serves as defense critic of the opposition Canadian Alliance Party. "It's a huge problem."

The situation isn't much better across the Atlantic. European defense spending averages much less than American levels (see chart), and many of Europe's military forces--including important ones like Germany--are growing pitifully weak as a result. Only the U.K. has the ability to transport more than a handful of troops anywhere outside its borders and keep them supplied. Even there, massive problems exist. In the last year alone, the Territorial Army (Britain's equivalent of the National Guard) lost nearly a quarter of its personnel. France, which spends more heavily on defense than any other European ally, has little ability to project force around the world. Its only modern aircraft carrier went into operation just last year, after almost a decade of delays. 

NATO's new members in central and eastern Europe spend reasonably heavily on defense, but mostly on antiquated force structures and Soviet-era equipment. Much of Europe's defense spending goes to keeping large numbers of semi-skilled soldiers under arms, rather than providing modern equipment or high-tech training. Europe has also ceased most advanced defense research. Although the E.U.'s economy is almost as big as America's, E.U. nations received only 11 percent of all high-tech patents in 2000 (about half of them in the U.K.); over 56 percent went to the United States. 

"Collectively, Europe spends a little more than half as much as the U.S. does on defense. If they had even half the capacity, that would be pretty good," states Radek Sikorski, head of AEI's New Atlantic Initiative and a former Polish deputy defense minister. "But instead, Europe has maybe 10 percent of America's capacity." Sikorski argues that Europeans should stick with things they can do well. The U.K. might put its strong naval tradition to work, while Denmark and Poland could focus on peacekeeping operations. 

In the long run, the world's security depends on all Western democracies remaining strong enough militarily to protect themselves and the global rule of law. Right now our allies aren't doing their share. 

Double-Standard Democrats

Democrats resisting President Bush's call to remove Saddam Hussein from power insisted we should not go to war with Iraq unless we had United Nations support. Their underlying principle seems to be that only the U.N. can bestow moral legitimacy on American military action against other nations. 

Only a few years ago, however, amidst the war in Kosovo--which manifestly did not have the blessings of the United Nations--many of those same Democrats were gung-ho, the U.N. be damned. A friend in the White House recently put together this quick inventory:

• Senator Paul Wellstone favored the non-U.N. sanctioned war in Kosovo 

• So did Representative David Bonior, who not only wanted to use air strikes, but also to deploy ground troops

• Senator Joseph Biden demanded an air campaign against Milosevic by a "date certain" 

• Senator Barbara Boxer said, "I support the NATO action and I think we need to stick with it" 

• Senator Tom Daschle told reporters "I think that military action and diplomacy sometimes work hand in glove"

• Senator Carl Levin, who as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee now wants legislation that would prohibit the use of force against Iraq without prior U.N. approval, counseled just three years ago that given Milosevic's "history of broken promises" the world should be "skeptical" of U.N. weapons control agreements, and that it was "essential" military strikes take place if "Milosevic does not live up to his commitments."

At that same time, President Clinton argued that no authorizing U.N. Security Council resolution was necessary for military action. And the Dutch ambassador to the U.N. criticized "one or two [Security Council] members' rigid interpretation" in demanding U.N. approval before any bullets could fly. 

Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic have similarly murderous records of disregarding U.N. resolutions, but Saddam's crimes have been far more numerous and deadly. And with his insatiable appetite for biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his record of being listed as a state sponsor of international terrorism by both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Saddam is a threat to U.S. peace and security in a way that Milosevic never was.

So what is the explanation for the Democrats' double-standard? Could it be that a Republican President counts as a bigger enemy than foreign tyrants?

Thank You, Bill Clinton

"North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. We have to be very firm about it," President Clinton declared on "Meet the Press" on November 7, 1993. Now we learn the North Koreans went ahead anyway. Is anyone really surprised that particular Commander in Chief didn't dissuade them?

Charles Krauthammer sure isn't. Back in 1993 he bemoaned, in his syndicated column, that Clinton's entire foreign policy was built on the principle of "talk loudly and carry a big carrot." This soon "degenerated into nothing but carrots: offers of diplomatic recognition, trade, aid, and most important of all, cancellation of U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises." In exchange, the North Koreans offered Clinton "inspections of the Yongbyon nuclear complex by the International Atomic Energy Agency." 

But "inspections of self-declared sites are a joke," Krauthammer warned. "We know from our experience with Iraq that a country bent on developing the bomb can comply fully with regular IAEA inspections and build a massive nuclear program undetected." The place to sign a goodies-for-a-baddie deal like the one Clinton offered North Korea, Krauthammer suggested in early 1994, "is on the deck of the battleship Missouri" because "it is unconditional surrender."

Clinton's State Department characterized the 1993 collapse to the Koreans as "very good news." Clinton himself bragged of his efforts "to reach out and reason with North Korea." But "reaching out to the unreachable and reasoning with the unreasonable," Krauthammer warned at the time, "is futile." 

We now know who was right. Unfortunately it's too late, and Americans must face another grave threat to their lives. Thanks to the weakness of Bill Clinton.

This Is a Problem?

Erika Harold is a 2001 Phi Beta Kappa college graduate of mixed black and American Indian ancestry who can sing arias in six languages. She is headed for Harvard Law School. But first she will spend a year travelling the country making public appearances as Miss America 2003. 

Pageant winners must promote a favorite cause during their annual reign, and Ms. Harold had a ready-made issue, one she has already spoken about to more than 14,000 students during her time as Miss Illinois. Her cause, born of deep personal experience in schools where her life was threatened because of her refusal to succumb to sexual advances, is teen sexual abstinence. "Thousands of young people," she states, "need assurance that waiting until marriage for sex is the right thing to do." Harold promotes the value and wholesomeness of teen chastity under the title "Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself."

Only one problem: The Miss America organizers didn't want to hear it. At one of her first functions, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., pageant officials told her she could not talk about abstinence. "Quite frankly...there are pressures from some sides to not promote abstinence," was her answer to reporters asking what had happened to the message she was so closely associated with as Miss Illinois. 

In the face of a backlash from the public, including 38 Congressmen who rallied to her defense, the restrictions on Ms. Harold's message were lifted in mid October by Miss America chief executive George Bauer and other officials. "I will not be bullied. I've gone through enough adversity in my life to stand up for what I believe in," stated Ms. Harold.

Those Dangerous Religious Folk

People who give to religious causes also give generously to secular causes. In fact, they are apt to give substantially more to non-religious groups than those who only give to secular organizations, accord-ing to a new national study of giving and volunteering ("Faith and Philanthropy," www.independentsector.org).

Households that gave to congregations and secular groups donated more than three times as much ($2,247) as households that contributed solely to non-religious organizations ($623). The religious households' donations to secular causes was approximately 20 percent more than that of their non-religious counterparts. Overall, households that donated to religious groups accounted for 88 percent of all charitable contributions.

"It's a rather dramatic proof that people who give to religion are vital in supporting the other sectors of the independent sector," said Chris Toppe, research analyst with the Independent Sector. Indeed, religious givers out-gave other givers in all categories, from education and the arts to the environment.

Religious givers don't stop at the offering plates. People of faith are much more likely to volunteer their time than those who don't attend religious services. Fifty-four percent of those who regularly attend services volunteered--while only 32 percent of non-churchgoers gave of their time. Furthermore, frequent churchgoers--29 percent of all Americans--accounted for nearly 70 percent of the hours volunteered each month.

—summarized in the San Jose Mercury News

Held Hostage

Miguel Estrada came to the United States when he was 17 years old, speaking only rudimentary English. Within five years he graduated magna cum laude from Columbia College in New York. Then he earned a law degree, again with high honors, from Harvard. He's worked at the Justice Department in both Democratic and Republican administrations, is a member of one of the most prominent law firms in the country and has won two thirds of the cases he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Estrada proved he could succeed on his own, without racial or ethnic double standards or the patronage of leftist advocacy groups. That makes him automatically suspect. In the words of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Estrada "has lived a very different life from that of most Latinos--a life isolated from their experience and concerns." 

Oh really? Let's see, he came here as an immigrant, like about one out of every two adult Hispanics. He worked hard, as do most Hispanics, who have among the highest labor force participation rates of any group. And he succeeded, brilliantly. I have a feeling that it's this part of Estrada's life story that these groups have a problem with. After all, aren't Hispanics supposed to be laggards according to liberal victimology, needing a never-ending series of government programs in order to eke out a meager existence? This liberal racism, wrapped in phony compassion, is the most pernicious kind. 

Estrada proves the lie to much of the Left's stereotypes of Hispanics, and they can't stand it. Worse, they worry that if Estrada makes it onto the D.C. Circuit, he will likely become the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court. This is a plum slot the Democrats hoped to reserve for one of their own, which explains the abominable actions of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). 

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy has refused for the past year and a half to give Estrada so much as a simple hearing. He has engaged in unprecedented efforts to dig up dirt on Estrada--unsuccessfully. Even the liberal American Bar Association gave Estrada the highest judicial fitness rating by unanimous vote. His critics have only one thing against Estrada--that he is a conservative. And every liberal partisan believes that Hispanic and black conservatives must be squelched. 

Leahy's obstruction has placed the nominee in a kind of professional limbo, limited his fellow senators' right to advise and consent on judicial nominees, denied the President his Constitutionally mandated authority to appoint judges, and deprived the nation of a first-rate jurist. Miguel Estrada has been held hostage by liberal interest groups for too long. 

—Linda Chavez is a syndicated columnist.

Political Pork

A naval officer who is a TAE subscriber e-mailed us recently to express his surprise, upon opening his Florida Absentee Ballot this year, at finding the following on the ballot:

Constitutional Amendment #10
Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy

Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens; to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate, or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely.

A Constitutional amendment? Do Floridians have too much time on their hands?

And how many confused Palm Beach residents do you suppose will vote for this, then complain they thought they were voting for the freedom of activists to wiggle freely while gestating their pet causes?

Rationalizing Bias

The stunning research presented in our September issue, documenting a gross imbalance between conservative and liberal faculty members on college campuses, stirred up enormous interest, inspiring numerous TV news shows, an ABC segment by George Will, Wall Street Journal coverage, and a U.S. News column by John Leo.

Many professors, however, either shrugged their shoulders in the face of this hard evidence, or resorted to smug attempts to explain away campus discrimination against non-leftists. The following reaction from Duke University professor Lawrence Evans ran in the Raleigh News & Observer on September 23:

So John Leo and the (oh so diverse!) The American Enterprise magazine think there is insufficient diversity of political affiliation among university faculty. Their numbers show that Republicans are a small minority of the professoriate. True, and rightly so. 

In seeking faculty, universities look for people who can analyze and discuss matters of some complexity, who are unafraid to challenge the wisdom of simple solutions, and who have a sense of social responsibility toward those who cannot buy influence. Such people tend to be put off by a political party dominated by those who believe dogmatically in the infallibility of the marketplace as a solution to all economic problems, or else in the infallibility of scripture as a guide to morality.

In short, universities want people of some depth, subtlety, and intelligence. People like that usually vote for the Democrats. So what?

Quite a display of academic depth, subtlety, and intelligence, no?

Meanwhile, most colleges continue to promote only the most superficial sorts of "diversity" on their campuses--primarily oriented toward skin color, rather than ideas and principles. Brown, one of the Ivy League universities, recently announced it was "seeking to create a senior-level position to promote diversity on campus and help the school identify and hire more minority faculty." According to news reports, "The administration is still figuring out a specific job description, but the idea is finding a vocal proponent who can enunciate the concept and spread it to students, faculty and other branches." In other words, a racial agitator. No mention of interest in breaking up the one-party thinking that has made most campuses such oppressively mono-minded fortresses of left-wing ideology.

Fight Campus Discrimination

Meanwhile, two national groups are making concrete efforts to improve political balance on campuses. One is FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has resisted the imposition of academic speech codes and campaigned for greater tolerance of non-left viewpoints at colleges.

A second is the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which has recently published a useful pamphlet, "You Can't Get A Good Education...If They're Only Telling You Half the Story." In addition to providing an overview of political imbalances at universities, it contributes one very specific bit of fresh evidence documenting academic discrimination--a survey of commencement speakers at seven representative schools: Harvard, UC-Berkeley, U. Penn, Wellesley, UNC, Drew, and the University of Michigan. 

Among 70 different individuals invited to deliver commencement addresses at those institutions over a decade, fully 58 were clearly identifiable leftists (like Hillary Clinton, Marian Wright Edelman, Donna Shalala, Mario Cuomo, Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Gore). A grand total of three were Republicans or conservatives (Christine Todd Whitman, Alan Greenspan, and John McCain).

In concert with several other organizations, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture promises to gear up a "Campaign for Fairness and Inclusion in Higher Education" this fall.