And now, the war in Uganda?

Our good-hearted but usually doomed attempt to right the world’s wrongs by sending in American troops to battle bad guys continues, as we send in the American military to central Africa:

President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of up to 100 combat-equipped U.S. troops to central Africa to help hunt down the leaders of a rebel force known as the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army during a meeting with a delegation of officials and lawmakers from northern Uganda in 2006.

A senior administration official said 12 troops have been deployed so far under what he called a training mission aimed at helping African forces find and kill Joseph Kony, the fugitive head of the rebels.

The U.S. forces will deploy to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“Although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense,” Mr. Obama said in a letter to Congress released Friday.

The U.S. deployment will include special operations forces, defense officials said. Pentagon officials noted that U.S. forces are routinely deployed to Africa for training missions.

The Lord’s Resistance Army is believed to have killed, kidnapped and mutilated tens of thousands of civilians since the 1990s. Military officials said they believed Mr. Kony, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, and other top LRA leaders are currently hiding the Central African Republic.

via U.S. Deploys Troops in Pursuit of African Rebels – WSJ.com.

Is this liberal foreign policy?  Isn’t this neo-conservative?  Like what President Bush did?  Maybe Republicans should just vote for Obama as the most Bush-like of all alternatives.

Certainly, one can make a case for neo-conservative military interventions to support America’s moral principles.   Do you think this new military engagement is a good idea?  Or are 100 soldiers too few to constitute a military initiative?

Manliness Contest update

We had lots of entries for the weekend contest for the best post on “Manliness”! And lots of different ideas on the subject, which underscores the need for the book and the prize The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood. We now  have to study the entries. Tune in tomorrow!

The Big 6-0

On Saturday I pass from middle-aged to aged.  I will turn 60.   I will go to the movies and order not an “adult” but a “senior” ticket, saving  $2.50.  I will be able to get cheap coffee at McDonald’s.  Please, no commiserations.  Don’t tell me, “you are only as young as you feel.”  I feel about, oh, 60.   And I don’t want to hear Bob Dylan’s blessing, “May you be forever young.”  (Bob, you know I’m a fan, but that sentiment is unworthy of you, especially since you have become way older than I am.)   Being young is not intrinsically better than being old.  Quite the contrary.   I claim Leviticus 19:32:  ”  32 “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.”  Rise up, you young whippersnappers, and honor my face!  Also Proverbs 16:31:  “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.”  I don’t know about the last half of that sentence as it applies to me.  If sanctification is a linear progression, I should be farther along than I am, but I think it really comes from conflict, trial, and the continual pattern of repentance and finding Christ’s forgiveness, and I’ve certainly done that a lot.  So I am embracing my senior citizenship.  Plus, I am now embracing all of those old age poems by Yeats:

An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hand and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress.  (“Sailing to Byzantium”)

Manliness: A Contest

One of my former students, Nathan Martin, had worked with Reagan culture czar Bill Bennett on his sequel to The Book of Virtues, a collection of classic and contemporary readings entitled  The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood.

It explores the traits and virtues of manhood, some arguably lost in our feminized and gender-neutral age, using stories, poems, and reflections from authors ranging from Homer and Shakespeare to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.  (Luther even makes an appearance!)  The book is divided into chapters  dealing with Man at War; Man at Work; Man in Sports, Play, & Leisure; Man in the Polis; Man with Woman and Children; Man in Prayer and Reflection.

The Acknowledgements credit not only Nathan but also a slew of other Patrick Henry College products:  Christopher Beach, Olivia Linde, Brian Dutze, Shane Ayers, and David Carver.  That’s virtually the whole research team, drawing on their background in the Great Books, their perceptive thinking about these issues,  and their writing and editing skills.  So I’m very proud of them.

Nathan is also a fan of this blog (you might also recognize some of those other names as occasional commenters) and of the discussions that we have here.   He sent me two copies of the book, one for me and one to give away on my blog.

So I will celebrate my birthday Hobbit style:  Instead of getting a present, I will give a present.  Well, actually I’m not giving it; Nathan is.  And it won’t really be a gift.  Unlike God, I am making you earn it.   I’d like to start one of our famous discussions.  And the person deemed to have made the best comment will receive the free book.  (I haven’t quite determined how this will be decided yet.  Maybe it will be obvious.  Maybe we’ll vote on it.)  The comments, for the purposes of the contest, will be closed at midnight Eastern time on Sunday.

So here is the topic for discussion:  What is “manliness” in your thinking and in your experience?

I’d like to hear from women (what are the masculine traits that you look for in a man?) and men (when did you have to “act like a man,” and what did that entail?), and from people in various stages of life (boys, youth, husbands, fathers, and old guys like I have now become).

By the way, if you don’t want to hold out for a free book, you can buy one by clicking the links.

 

Glen Campbell keeps on playing

Glen Campbell is not just another pop celebrity, though that’s what he’s best known for.  He happens to be a great, great guitar player.  I’ve heard him play.  Anyway, the news came out awhile ago that he has Alzheimer’s.  What I didn’t know is that he is still giving concerts!

Here is a link to a review of one of those concerts, which sounds quite amazing.  It also includes a priceless quotation:

“I have Alzheimer’s?” he asks Kim, 53, his wife of 29 years… “Well, doggone … what’s that?” Kim gently reminds him that it’s the reason he’s been having trouble remembering things, but Campbell prefers a different explanation…. “God just cleared a lot of things out… It was crowded up there. I’ve been trying to get rid of that crap for years.”

via Althouse: Glen Campbell, despite Alzheimer’s disease, gave a concert last Thursday..

HT:  Bruce Gee

It’s going to be Romney

It looks like the Republican presidential nominee will be Mitt Romney.   Tea party favorite non-candidate Chris Christie has endorsed him, as have former candidate Tim Pawlenty.  Meanwhile, many conservative pundits are writing columns about how terrible it would be for someone to oppose a candidate just because he is a Mormon.  True, not a single primary has been held, but it looks like Romney will be the last man standing.  If that proves true, look for my Obama re-election prediction to come to pass.  That would mean not even Republicans will vote for a conservative candidate.

Columnist Michael Gerson notes the antipathy of many conservatives and Christians to Romney’s Mormonism.  “About 20 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Protestants tell Gallup they would not support a Mormon for president.”  Gerson thinks many of them will come around to supporting him as an alternative to Obama.  But, he points out, the dislike of Mormonism is even greater among liberals and secularists.

In 2008 Mormon leaders raised their heads in support of Proposition 8 — the California initiative against gay marriage. Their commitment to the traditional family runs deep, and no issue is currently more likely to provoke liberal ire. Secular progressives will add this transgression to a history of Mormon offenses against women and minorities and raise, as usual, the specter of theocracy. . . .

Secular tolerance for the emphatic faiths has been thinning for some time. To many liberal thinkers, conservative religion is inherently illiberal. Mormonism only magnifies those concerns. Damon Linker has warned that Mormon leaders, claiming prophetic authority, might dictate to an American president. Jacob Weisberg has insisted, “I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.” Twenty-seven percent of Democrats currently say they would not vote for a Mormon — a higher percentage than among Republicans or Protestants.

via Who’s afraid of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? – The Washington Post.

Do you think Christian conservatives will vote for Romney despite his Mormonism?  Will you?  Would you rather have a Mormon in the White House or Barack Obama?  If you refuse to vote for either, what will you do?  Vote for a third party or just stay home?  Or does the candidate’s religion not really matter in the task of running the government?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X